HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.0012.2009.ASLU130 S. GALENA ST 0012.2009.ASLU
CODE AMEND. 2735 12 4 46 801 Jy
C
0
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen Community Development Department
CASE NUMBER 0012.2009.ASLU
PARCEL ID NUMBERS 273512446801
PROJECTS ADDRESS 130 S GALENA (801 CASTLE CRK)
PLANNER SARA ADAMS
CASE DESCRIPTION CODE AMENDMENT
REPRESENTATIVE CITY OF ASPEN
DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3/27/2009
CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 12/04/13
paxz"-L �vo --*
6 —Sol
2737 -o7 - 3-'3 l - 851
45 A,;,,)Ir k* co12• Zoo'i •Asw
File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports
Format Tab Help
r AAIJ 0 j
��.ZA
-
Pr
Main Valuation I Custom Fields Actions Fees
Parcels 'Fee Summary 5ub Permits
I Attachments Routing Status Routing 1 ►
----
—
Permit Type aslu _Aspen Land Use
Permit # 0012.2009.ASLU
—I
Address j130 5 GALENA ST
Z AptjSuite
City ASPEN
State CO
Zip F1611 Z
Permit Information
Master Permit Z'
Routing Queue aslu07
Applied 0212412009 J
Project
Z Status (pending
Approved F - J
Description
CODE AMENDMENT - DE H2e``f't'6COUNCIL REVIEW
Issued F--J
r �Y0
Final
Submitted CITY OF ASPEN
Clock Running Days
0 Expires 02/1912010 1
Owner
Last Name CITY OF ASPEN ZI First Name [CITY HALL 130 5 GALENA ST
i ASPEN CO 81611
Phone I
Owner Is Applicant?
Applicant
Last Name CITY OF ASPEN ZI First Name ICITY HALL 13 55 GALENA 5T
Phone �— Cust # 128513 ZI ASPEN CO 81611
Lender J
Last Name First Name
`I Phone
AsperiGold(b) Edit Record: 1 of 1
V.C�C, v�5aty ecl _ (N }�,,�se Coc4� �rnnP-,nd e
ORDINANCE No. 3
(Series of 2012)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE 2011/2012 ASPEN
AREA COMMUNITY PLAN (AACP) AS A GUIDING DOCUMENT, REPLACING THE
2000 AACP AND DECLARING IT NO LONGER IN EFFECT, AND ADOPTING CODE
AMENDMNETS RELATED TO THE REVIEW CRITERIA REQUIRING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE AACP AND ADDING NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH REQUIREMENTS
TO THE LAND USE CODE:
26.304 — COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES; 26310.040 AND
26.310.050 — AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE
DISTRICT MAP; 26.314.040 — VARIANCES; 26.425.040 — CONDITIONAL USES;
26.435.030 — DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA),
8040 GREENLINE REVIEW; 26.435.040 — DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA), STREAM MARGIN REVIEW; 26.440.050 — SPECIALLY
PLANNED AREA (SPA); 26.445. — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD);
26.470.030 — GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS); 26.470.050 —
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS); 26.480.050 — SUBDIVISION;
26.515.040 — OFF-STREET PARKING; 26.412 — COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW;
26.415 — HISTORIC PRESERVATION
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council, pursuant to Section 26.208.010(I)
of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, has the authority to adopt community plans for the City of
Aspen that are guiding in nature; and
WHEREAS, in 2008 the City of Aspen commissioned a study with Economic Research
Associated (ERA), a consulting firm, who produced a White Paper on the Aspen Economy
(referred to as the "Economic White Paper") outlining a history of the Aspen economy since
1970; and
WHEREAS, in from October 2008 — Feb 2009, the public provided extensive input on
an update to the 2000 AACP through small group meetings, large group meetings, and a survey
(collectively referred to as "round 1 of public input"); and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Pitkin County
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commissions") met in work
sessions from Feb 2009 through September 2010 to draft an update to the 2000 AACP using
round 1 of public input, the Existing Conditions Report, the Economic White Paper, and
comments from the public as well as City and County staff; and
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2010 a draft of the AACP update was released for public
review; and
WHEREAS, from October 2010 — January 2011 a second round of public outreach was
held, which included small group meetings, large group meetings, and a survey (collectively
referred to as "round 2 of public input"); and
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 1 of 21
WHEREAS, the Commissions met in work sessions from January 2011 - March 2011 to
review round 2 of public input; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2011 a second draft AACP update was released for public
review; and
WHEREAS, during duly noticed public hearings, the Commissions held public hearings
to make edit the draft and to solicit public comment and input on the draft of the AACP Update
on April 12, 2011, April 26, 2011, May 10, 2011, May 19, 2011, May 24, 2011, May 26, 2011,
May 31, 2011, June 2, 2011, June 9, 2011, June 10, 2011, June 16, 2011, July 7, 2011, July 12,
2011, July 14, 2011, July 21, 2011, July 26, 2011, July 28, 2011, August 9, 2011, August 11,
2011, August 12, 2011, August 18, 2011, August 25, 2011, September 8, 2011, and September
13, 2011; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2011 a third draft AACP update was released for public
review; and
WHEREAS, during duly noticed public hearings, the Commissions held public hearings
to make edit the draft and to solicit public comment and input on the draft of the AACP Update
on September 22, 2011, September 29, 2011, October H , 2011 and November 8, 2011; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2011 a fourth draft AACP update was released for public
review; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission found that the 2011 AACP
furthers the goals of the Aspen area community and that it is in the best interest of the
community that the plan be adopted, and did pass Resolution 22, Series of 2011 during a duly
noticed public hearing on November 15, 2011, continued from November 8, 2011, adopting the
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan as a guiding document; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
band Use. Code, the Director of the Community Development Department initiated
amendments to the Land Use Code related to compliance with the Aspen Area Community
Plan (AACP) and neighborhood outreach to reflect the fact that the 2011 /2012 AACP update
is being adopted as a guiding document; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or
denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and
considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.304 - Common
Development Review Procedures, 26.310.040 - Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 2 of 21
Zone District Map, 26.314 — Variances, 26.425.040 — Conditional Uses, 26.435.030 — ESA 8040
Greenline Review, 26.435.040 — ESA Stream Margin Review, 26.440.050 — SPA, 26.445 —
PUD, 26.470 — Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), 26.480.050 — Subdivision, and
26.515.040 — Off -Street Parking; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 10, 2012, the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Sections
26.304 — Common Development Review Procedures, 26.310.040 — Amendments to the Land
Use Code and Official Zone District Map, 26.314 — Variances, 26.425,040 — Conditional Uses,
26.435.030 — ESA 8040 Greenline Review, 26.435.040 — ESA Stream Margin Review,
26.440.050 — SPA, 26.445 — PUD, 26.470 — Growth Management Quota System (GMQS),
26.480.050 — Subdivision, and 26.515.040 — Off -Street Parking, as described herein, by a five -
zero (5 - 0) vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the amendments meet or exceed all
applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is
consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council find that the 2011 /2012 AACP furthers the goals of
the Aspen Area community and that it is in the best interest of the community that the plan be
adopted and replace the 2000 AACP as the City of Aspen's Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the 2011/2012 AACP furthers the goals of
the Aspen Area community and that it is in the best interest of the community that the plan be
adopted as a guiding document; and
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: Text
unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text being !-emtwed is red with
str-ikiethr-eugh and looks like this. Text being added to the code is green with underline and looks
like this.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: The Aspen City Council hereby adopts the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan as a
guiding document that functions as the City of Aspen's Community Plan and Master Plan. All
references to "Community Workforce Housing" shall be changed to "affordable housing." The
2000 AACP is no longer in effect as the Community Plan or Master Plan for the City of Aspen.
Section 2: 26.304.020.B — Common Development Review Procedures, Pre -application
conference, Issues of discussion, shall be amended as follows:
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 3 of 21
B. Issues of discussion. Issues that may be discussed at the pre -application conference may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
Proposed development. The applicant should describe the general nature of the proposed
development including, if applicable, proposed land uses and their densities; proposed
placement of buildings, structures and other improvements; character and location of
common open space or treatment of public uses; preservation of natural features;
preservation of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures; protection of environmentally sensitive areas; proposed off-street parking and
internal traffic circulation and total ground coverage of paved areas and structures.
2. Review procedure. The Community Development Department staff member shall
identify procedural review requirements for the proposed development and applicable
review standards and terms of this Title that apply to the review of the proposed
development. This should include identifying those stages of the common review
procedure which apply, which decision -making body or bodies will review the
development application and the approximate length of the development review
procedure.
3. Referral agencies. The Community Development Department staff member shall identify
the City, State and Federal agencies that are required to review the proposed
development, provide the applicant with persons at these agencies to contact about
review procedures and generally describe the information which will be needed to satisfy
the concerns of the relevant City, State and Federal agencies.
4. Application contents. The Community Development Department staff member shall
establish the contents of the development application required to be submitted for the
proposed development. This should include descriptions of the types of reports and
drawings required, the general form which the development application should take and
the information which should be contained within the application.
5_Application copies and fee. The Community Development Department staff member
shall identify the number of copies of the development application that are required to be
submitted for the proposed development, along with the amount of the fee needed to
defray the cost of processing the application and an estimate of the number of hours of
staff review time associated with the fee.
6_Written summary. Following the conclusion of the conference, the applicant shall be
presented with a written summary of the meeting. One (1) copy of this written summary
should be submitted back to the Community Development Department at the time of
submission of the development application.
5-7 Neighborhood Outreach. The Community Development Department staff member shall
identify if neighborhood outreach, as outlined in Sec 26.304.035, is required prior to
submission of the development application.
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 4of21
Section 3: A new section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach, shall be added as follows:
Sec. 26.304.035. Neiehborhood Outreach
A. Purpose. In order to facilitate citizen participation early in the development review' process,
the City requires development applications to conduct neighborhood outreach. The purpose of
the outreach is to inform neighbors and interested members of the public about the protect. The
applicant must show a concerted effort inform neighbors and the public about the application
prior to the first public hearing.
B. Applicability. A neighborhood meeting shall be required on any development proposal that is
subiect to City Council review unless the Community Development Department determines as a
part of the pre -application conference that the development proposal is limited in nature. In
addition, the Community Development Department may make a determination that
neighborhood outreach is required for significant development applications reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission.
C. Appropriate forms of public outreach. The applicant must choose to do one or more of the
following, forms of neighborhood outreach. Community Development Department staff may, as
part of the pre -application conference, suggest certain forms of neighborhood outreach that
would be most appropriate for a development application. In addition. Community Development
Department staff may identify specific aspects of the project or potential impacts of the proiect
that should be addressed as part of the neighborhood outreach.
1. Information meeting. The applicant must hold a neighborhood meetingto to gain input
from neighbors and citizens. The meeting must be open and accessible to the general
public and held in a location in proximity to the proposed development or in apublicly
accessible building such as City Hall or the Public Library. The applicant or applicant's
representative shall attend the neighborhood meeting and be available to answer
questions from the public The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling and
coordinating the neighborhood meeting. Renderings, modeling,, or other visual
representations of the protect within its context is required The applicant must conduct a
minimum level noticing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.F..3.c, to ensure the public is
aware of the meeting. Additional noticing beyond that called for in Section
26.304.060.E.3.c may be provided.
2. On-line meeting. The applicant must conduct an on-line meeting, to gain input from
neighbors and citizens. The meeting must be open to the general public. The applicant
or applicant's representative shall attend the on-line meeting and be available to answer
questions from the public The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling and
coordinating the on-line forum. Renderings, modeling, or other visual representations of
the project within its context is required. The applicant must conduct a minimum level
noticing,, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.c, to ensure the public is aware of the on-
line meeting Additional noticing beyond that called for in Section 26.304.060.E:.3.c may
be provided.
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 5 of 21
1. Enhanced Public Information. The applicant must provide detailed information on the
project in the form of a project website, a detailed public notice mailing, etc. that explains
the proposal outlines the review process provides visual rendering or maps, or any other
information that will describe the project in laMan's terms. The applicant shall be
responsible for coordinating the information The applicant must conduct a minimum
level noticing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.c, to ensure the public is aware of a
website etc. Additional noticing beyond that called for in Section 26.304.060.F,.3.c may
be provided.
4. Individual Outreach. The applicant must conduct individual or small group meetings
with neighbors of the project. The applicant shall be responsible for organizingand
attending the meetings. At the meetings, the applicant should prop ide a summary of the
proposal including basic use -type information building height, and renderings.
5. Any other form of neighborhood outreach that will provide neighbors a genuine
opportunity to understand the development proposal and provide comments to the
application.
F. Summary of Public Outreach. A written summary of the neighborhood outreach, as well as
the method of public notification shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the
official record - either as part of the initial application or as an addendum to the application.
Any documentation that was presented to the public as pan of the outreach should also be
included as part of the official record.
Section 4: 26.310.040 - Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map,
Standards of Review, shall be amended as follows:
Sec. 26.310.040.Standards of review for amendments to the land use code.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title
Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment'with all eienlents of the 'Nspe!i A
Community furthers an adopted policy, community goal, or obiective.
C. Wh -
lII. WhetheF and the eXleflf tO Whieh 1# t
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 6 of 21
.... ... .. .. _. �. _....... ....... o... .. 7 � ... n_. .... ..... .. .... ....._-- ._ .. .. _... .. ..xanrv.�drs,r,�• .,y.�a.. rw.a ........, a.., �.w. ..aw........_
6haffletef in the k4;-y-
1:C. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and
whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Section 5: 26.310.050 — Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map.
Reserved, shall be amended as follows:
Sec. 26.310.050.------- ReseFved Standards of review for amendments to the Official Zone
District Man.
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 in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses considering_ existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
C. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
D. 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.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
F. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City.
G. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
H. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 7 of 21
Section 6: 26.314.040.A — Variances, Standards applicable to variances, shall be amended as
follows:
A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26. the
appropriate decision -making body shall make a finding that the following three (3)
circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
of the parcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone
district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived. the
Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings
in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied
by the Atspen AFea Community the terms of this Title and the Municipal
Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district.
Section 7: 26.425.040 — Conditional Uses, Standards applicable to all conditional uses, shall be
amended as follows:
Sec. 26.42.5.040.Standards applicable to all conditional uses.
When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable.
A. The conditional use is consistent with the pafposes.
intent of the Zone District in which
it is proposed to be located and complies with all other applicable requirements of this
Title; and
B. The conditional use is 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 latory master plan.
CB. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses or
and enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of
the parcel proposed for development; and
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 8 of 21
DC. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian
and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on
surrounding properties; and
ED. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use
including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire
protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems
and schools; and
FIK. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need
Tor increased employees generated by the conditional use; and
G_The Community Development Director may recommend and the Planning and Zoning
Commission may impose such conditions on a conditional use that are necessary to
maintain the integrity of the City's Zone Districts and to ensure the conditional use
complies with this Chapter and this
Title; is compatible with surrounding land uses; and is served by adequate public facilities.
This includes, but is not limited to, imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space,
landscaping, buffering, lighting, signage, off-street parking and other similar design
features, the construction of public facilities to serve the conditional use and limitations on
the operating characteristics, hours of operation and duration of the conditional use.
Section 8: 26.435.030.C.I I — 8040 Greenline review standards, shall be amended as follows:
11. 1 he adopted regulatory latory plans of the Nspen,kfea Comfntiflii.
Klan Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed
development, to the greatest extent practical.
Section 9: 26.435.040.C.2 — Stream Margin review standards, shall be amended as follows:
2. The adopted regulatory plansFOCOFAMOR"' lit:IRS of the Aspen
pen 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
Section 10: 26,440.050.A — Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area
(SP,\), General, shall be amended as follows:
A. General. In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and
a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider
the following:
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 9 of 21
Whether the proposed development is compatible with OF L-ees—the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space, as well as with any applicable adopted
regulatory master plan.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development.
Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development.
considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls,
avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to
preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open
space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large.
5. Whefhff
Cempfehefisive Whether the proposed development emphasizes quality construction
and design characteristics such as exterior materials, weathering, snow shedding, and
storage, and energy efficiency.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds
to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the
slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate the general reasonableness and
suitability of the proposed development and its conformity to the standards and
procedures of this Chapter and Section; provided, however, that in the review of the
conceptual development plan, consideration will be given only to the general concept for
the development, while during the review of the final development plan, detailed
evaluation of the specific aspects of the development will be accomplished.
Section 11: 26,445.020 — PUD Applicability, shall be amended as follows:
Sec. 26.445.020. Applicability.
Before any development shall occur on land designated Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the
official zone district map or before development can occur as a PUD, it shall receive final PUD
approval pursuant to the terms of this Chapter. However, in no event shall adoption of a final
development plan be required for the construction of a single detached- or duplex -residential
dwelling on a separate lot, in conformance with the General Provisions of this Chapter. Section
26.445.040 below. All land with a PUD designation shall also be designated with an underlying
zone district designation most appropriate for that land.
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 10 of 21
A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the
property owners of any proposed development in the City that is on a parcel of land equal to or
greater than twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for residential, commercial,
tourist or other development purposes.
A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the
property owners of any proposed development in the City that is on a parcel of land less than
twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for multi -family residential, commercial,
tourist or other development purposes if, prior to application, the Community Development
Director determines the development of the property may have the ability to further the adopted
goals of the Plan -community and any applicable adopted regulatory
master plans, and that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use review process
will best serve the interests of the community. By virtue of this determination, the application
shall not be granted any special rights or privileges and shall be required to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable portions of this Chapter.
If the Community Development Director determines the proposed development is not suitable to
be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development, the property owner may appeal the decision to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission, by Resolution and after considering a
recommendation made by the Community Development Director, may determine that the
development of the property may have the ability to further the adopted goals of the A'spen AFra
CoffimLffikk Plan ommunity and any applicable adopted regulatory master plans, and that the
provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use review process will best serve the interests
of the community. By virtue of this determination, the application shall not be granted any
special rights or privileges and shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable
portions of this chapter.
A development application for a Minor Planned Unit Development (Minor PUD) may be applied
for by the property owners of a parcel of land located within the Lodge Preservation Overlay
(LP) Zone District intended for development consistent with the purpose of the LP Overlay Zone
District.
Section 12: 26.445.020.A — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor
PUD, General Requirements, shall be amended as follows:
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be ewith the Aspen Area 4�OHIMHAHIV
Incompatible 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
re ug latory master plan.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the surrounding area.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from
GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 11 of 21
and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan
review.
Section 13: 26.445.020.B.6.a — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and
minor PUD, Establishment of dimensional requirements, shall be amended as follows:
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-to-w4ie4 f►�i +�: s ec .
Section 14: 26.445.020.E — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor
PUD, Architectural character, shall be amended as follows:
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 guality.construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials,
weathering snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency.
Section 15: 26.445.020.I.4 — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor
PUD, Access and circulation, shall be amended as follows:
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.
Section 16: 26.470.030.17, GMQS, Aspen metro area development ceilings and annual
allotments, shall be amended as follows:
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 12 of 21
F. Accounting procedure. The Community Development Director shall maintain an ongoing
account of available, requested and approved growth management allocations and progress
towards each development ceiling. Allotments shall be considered allocated upon issuance of a
development order for the project. Unless specifically not deducted from the annual
development allotment and development ceilings, all units of growth shall be included in the
accounting. Affordable housing units shall be deducted regardless of the unit being provided as
growth mitigation or otherwise. After the conclusion of each growth management session and
year, the Community Development Director shall prepare a summary of growth allocations.
The City Council, at its first regular meeting of the growth management year, shall review,
during a public hearing, the prior year's growth summary, consider a recommendation from the
Community Development Director, consider comments from the general public and shall, via
adoption of a resolution, establish the number of unused and unclaimed allotments to be carried
forward and added to the annual allotment. The City Council may carry forward any portion of
the previous year's unused allotment, including all or none.
The City Council shall 'also consider the remaining development allotments within the
development ceilings, established pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.C, and shall reduce the
available development allotment by any amount that exceeds the development ceiling. The
public hearing shall be noticed by publication, pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a. The
City Council shall consider the following criteria in determining the allotments to be carried
forward:
21. The community's growth rate over the preceding five-year period.
�2. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed
development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure
capacity, construction impacts and community character.
43). The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that
have not yet been built.
Section 17: 26.470.050.B.2, GMQS, General requirements, General requirements, shall be
amended as follows:
2. The proposed development is compatible
with land uses in the surrounding area as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory
master plan.
Section 18: 26.480.050, Subdivision, Review standards, shall be amended as follows:
Sec. 26.480.050.Review standards.
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and
requirements:
A. General requirements
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 13 of 21
The proposed subdivision shall be �es C-0FHrFeheHiiYe NMI
compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms
of density, height bulk architecture landscaping and oven 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.
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.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision
design standards would result in incompatibility with an adopted specific master plan.
Title 28, the municipal code, , the existing,
neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the community.
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.
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:
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, theAspenCanipr-ehensikeWaft. the existing.
neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the community.
The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
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 E=1apte
26."'20ZRep! emewt-hetising-ptor-am 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.
E. School land dedication. Compliance \\ith the School land dedication standards set forth at
Chapter 26.620.
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 14 of 21
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.
Section 19: 26.515.040.B.1, Off -Street Parking Special review standards, shall be amended as
follows:
B. A special review to permit a commercial parking facility may be approved, approved with
conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The location, design and operating characteristics of the facility are th the
Aspen Area Community i compatible with the mix of develoopment in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height bulk architecture, landscaping and oven
space as well as with any applicable adopted rc auk latory master plan.
Section 20: Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which section
describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Historic Preservation Commission decisions,
shall be amended as follows:
26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or disapproving
a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for major development,
demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant
or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with
the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving, approving with
conditions or disapproving a Conceptual Ddevelopment Plan application for a certificate of
appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval of a
designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City Council of its action to allow the
City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth in Subsection
26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a description in written and graphic form of
the project with a cop, oche approving document. The notification shall be placed on the
agenda of a re yulg_ar City Council meeting within 30 days of the approval,.or as soon thereafter as
is practical under the circumstances.
C. Call-up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as described
in Section 26.415.070 within fifteen (15) days of notification, as outlined in 26.415.120(B).
_ a-tr .-_ Consequently, applications for Final
Development Plan Review shall not be accepted by the City and no associated permits can shall
be issued during the thirty -tip day -notice and call-up period. If City Council exercises this call -
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 15 of 21
up provision, no applications_ for Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City
and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in
subsection 26.415.120.D. if the City Council does not call up the action-, the resolution of HPC
shall be the final decision on the matter.
D. City Council action on E+ppca! w- call-up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting=
consider the application a noyo. The City Council
may, at its discretion consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic
Preservation Commission or supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as
necessary The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria
applicable to the reviewing body.
- --leas-e?i- ' . j kir-isdietioH or- abused
disefetio The City Council's shall take sueh-action shall be as its deemsed tietAeSSdF,
limited to:
1. Accepting the decision.
Revef:sifig the ei sTTJi(.
2-._,,%!tefiHg.
2. Remanding the application to the HPC with direction from Council for rehearing and
reconsideration. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 10)
3 Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
E. Additional Actions The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by the HPC shall
be duly noticed pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E Public Notice and shall be limited to the topics
listed in the direction from Council The HPC decision is final and concludes the call up review.
Substantive changes as defined in Section 26 415.070.E. 2 Substantial Amendments, made to
the application during the call up review and outside the topics listed in the remand from Council
shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.415.070.E and shall require a new call up notice to City
Council The call p2 review shall be limited only to the changes approved in the Substantial
Amendment a12Llication.
Section 21: Section 26.412.040.B. — Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which section
describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Commercial Design Review decisions, shall
be amended as follows:
26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City
Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
Citv Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 16 of 21
2. .Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving
with conditions a development application for Cconceptual Ddesign, the City Council shall be
promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the Gall-
up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a description in written and graphic
form of the project with a copy of the approving document. The notification shall be placed on
the ag enda of a regular City Council tneeting within 30 days of the approval, or as soon
thereafter as is practical under the circumstancesAlso see appeal pfoeedufes, Seetion 2beio6-412-090
3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with conditions a
development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council may order call-up of
the action within fifteen 05) days of notification as outlined in 26.412.040(B)(2)0i
. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be
accepted by the City and no associated permits can -shall be issued during the t1 - is -notic
and call-up period. If City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for Final
Design shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the Cite
Council takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call
up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the matter.
4. City Council action on call-up. The City Council shall at apublic meeting, consider the
application de novo.
s . -The City Council may, at its discretion,
consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation Commission or
Planning_ and "Zoning Commission as applicable or supplement the record with additional
evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application
under the same criteria applicable to the reviewing body. ` li affir-m '`" deeision Of the
&ieeeded its
Jur-isdietion OF abused -The City Council's""I take sue-, action shall
be as its_ limited to:
a. Accepting the decision.
a. ReNer-sing the deeisiow.
b.c.Remanding the application to the applicable Commission with direction from City
Council for rehearing; and reconsideration. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, § 1)
c Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call up review.
5. Additional Actions. The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by the
applicable Commission shall be duly noticed pursuant to Section 26 304.060.E Public Notice and
shall be limited to the topics listed in the direction from Council. The decision made by the
applicable Commission is final and concludes the call up review Substantive changes, as
defined in Section 26.412.080 Amendment of Commercial Design Review Approval, made to
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 17 of 21
the application during the call up review and outside the topics listed in the remand from Council
shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.412.080 and may require a new call up notice to City
Council The call up review shall be limited only to the changes approved in the Amendment
application.
Section 22: Section 26.415.070.D.3 — Conceptual Development Plan Review, which section
describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans by the Historic
Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26,304.030.
(2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of
existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics.
(3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form,
including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary
features of all elevations.
(4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction
represented by samples and/or photographs.
(5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the
designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the
following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations.
(6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, .Residential design
standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met.
b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined
to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing
before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant
to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code
sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the
proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve
with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the
application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to
determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines.
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 18 of 21
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve
or deny.
(4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance
with Section 26 41 5.120 - Appeals notice to City Council, and call-up. No
applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no
associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in
said section.
c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows:
(1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval of a
major development project or permission to proceed with the development. Such
authorization shall only constitute authorization to proceed with the preparation of an
application for a final development plan.
(2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to
the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted
in the conceptual plan application including its height, scale, massing and
proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by
the HPC as part of their review of the final development plan unless agreed to by the
applicant. If the applicant chooses to makes substantial amendments to the
conceptual design after it has been approved, a new conceptual development plan
hearing gpproval shall be required, pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3..
(3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development plan
approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be submitted
within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Failure
to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the
approval of the conceptual development plan. The Community Development
Director may grant an extension of this limitation if the delay has been caused by the
aRnlication requiring additional reviews or similar delays that could not have been
reasonably predicted by the applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at
its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the
expiration date for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months
provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior
to the expiration date.
Section 23: Section 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, which section describes
the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the Historic Preservation
Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a final development plan shall include:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 19 of 21
r,wah,wYAGls4.'4ln+ctivn,a«v]Y.a1J:n.Y. u..m.fr x.ivur-n.+odr., ,.:. ,. .,_.. .. ,r. •i m...., , ..^ .. -.ry a � r r." - -, ..•
(2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the
development at 1 /4" = 1.0' scale.
(3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the
development, depicted through samples or photographs.
(4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final
development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a
condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan.
b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development projects
are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be
complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a'public hearing before
the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to
Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code
sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the
proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve
with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the
application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to
determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Presen•ation Design
Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve
or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of
appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development
order.
C _
-(4)A Feselmion of !hewith Seetion . .,.ill he issued-44 of the pr-oJeet
(54) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of plans
reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file
with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be
addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans.
Section 24:
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinancc ill
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
City Council Ord #3 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Pace 20 of 21
.'
Section 25:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 13'' day of February, 2012, at a meeting of
the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 23d day of January, 2012.
Attest:
Kathryn S. K h, City Clerk :Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 27th day of February, 2012.
Attest:
Kathryn S. I
h, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Approved as to form:
ity Attorney
i
City Council Ord 43 of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 21 of 21
4NE NFLy' �
E�toori `6
�pFiG
�
�
9 MOO
tY
�.0 N t]NWN p L
RECEPTION#: 565855, 01/05/2010 a'
10:12:34 AM,
1 OF 8, R $41.00 Doc Code RESOD, , ION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
RESOLUTION No. 17
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO
CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.B - APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY
COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D.3 - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.D.4 — FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department
initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council
"call-up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, .
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of
the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.B - Appeals, notice to City
Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review;
26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of
design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community"; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2009, continued to
June 16, 2009, continued to November 3, 2009 and continued to December 15, 2009 the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments
to the text of Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up;
26.412.0403 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual
Development Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as
described herein, by a 3 - 1 vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # 17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page 1 of 8
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text being removed is
red with str ketl3fough and leeks like this Text being added to the code is red with
underline and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Historic Preservation
Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or
disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for
major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the
City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving,
approving with conditions or disapproving a Conceptual Ddevelopment Plan application
for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or
relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City
Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up
procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document.
C. Call-up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as
described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not
be accepted by the City and no associated permits can shall be issued during the thirty
(30) day call-up period. If City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications
for Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City and no associated
permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection
26 415 120.D. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call-up period,
the resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter.
D. City Council action on appeal e call-up. The City Council shall, at a public
meeting, consider the application en the r-eeefd established before the unrde novo. The
City Council may, at its discretion consider evidence included in the record established
by the Historic Preservation Commission or supplement the record with additional
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page 2 of 8
evidence or testimony as necessary The City Council shall conduct its review of the
application under the same criteria applicable to the reviewing body. shall affin
deeisiep,ef the 14PC -tm' less there is a finding dia4 there was a denial ef due pr-eeess er- the
14PC has emeeeded its jurisdietion or abused its The City Council's she
s action shall be as its a _ 'neeessai=yo oa_ said sittlation, ineluu �g, but not
ux�i
limited to:
1. Accepting the decision.
-32. Remanding the application to the HPC with direction from Council for rehearing
and reconsideration. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 10)
3 Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
E. Additional Actions The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by the HPC
shall be duly noticed pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E Public Notice and shall be limited
to the topics listed in the direction from Council. The HPC decision is final and concludes
the call up review. Substantive changes, as defined in Section 26.415.070.E. 2 Substantial
Amendments made to the application during the call up review and outside the topics
listed in the remand from Council shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.415.070.E
and shall require a new call up notice to City Council. The call up review shall be limited
only to the changes improved in the Substantial Amendment application.
Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. — Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Commercial Design Review
decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City
Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or
approving with conditions a development application for CEonceptual Ddesign, the City
Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity
to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below.
3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with
conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso 417 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page 3 of 8
may order call-up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the
City and no associated permits c-an shall be issued during the thirty -day call-up period. If
City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for Final Design shall be
accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council
takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call
up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the
matter.
4. City Council action on call-up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting,
consider the application de novo. on the feeE)fd—ejtaklished—befere—the Planning and
Zoning u' + Dro^or., ii i
Gemm�ission--vi Hiscer-icTTc�crvatie"Commission, as -app e-T e City
Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established by the
Historic Preservation Commission or Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, or
supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The City
Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to
the reviewing body. shall affifm the deeis on fthe Commission unless there : ^ finding
wed- its -dcretien.The City Council's shall takes action shall be as its deems '
to r-emedy id situation, ineluding but not limited to:
a. Accepting the decision.
a.
D eve fs ng the . eeision
b.e.Remanding the application to the applicable Commission with direction from City
Council for rehearing and reconsideration. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, § 1)
c. Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call up review.
5. Additional Actions. The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by the
applicable Commission shall be duly noticed pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E Public
Notice and shall be limited to the topics listed in the direction from Council. The
decision made by the applicable Commission is final and concludes the call up review.
Substantive changes, as defined in Section 26.412.080 Amendment of Commercial
Design Review Approval, made to the application during the call up review and outside
the topics listed in the remand from Council shall be reviewed pursuant to Section
26.412.080 and may require a new call up notice to City Council. The call up review
shall be limited only to the changes approved in the Amendment application.
Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 — Conceptual Development Plan Review, which
section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans
by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # 17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page 4 of 8
26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and
orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site
characteristics.
(3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their
form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the
primary features of all elevations.
(4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction
represented by samples and/or photographs.
(5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context
surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at
least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or
streetscape elevations.
(6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential
design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is
not being met.
b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and
a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing
shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # 17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page 5 of 8
(4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and
call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the
City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes
action as described in said section.
c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows:
(1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval
of a major development project or permission to proceed with the
development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to
proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan.
(2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in
regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or
addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height,
scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the
proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final
development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses
to makes substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been
approved, a new conceptual development plan hemming-4pproval shall be
required, pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3..
(3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development
plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be
submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual
development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period
shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan.
The Community Development Director may grant an extension of this
limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional
reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the
applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion
and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date
for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided
a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to
the expiration date.
Section 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, which section
describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the
Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a final development plan shall include:
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # 17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page 6 of 8
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part
of the development at 1/4 " = 1.0' scale.
(3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the
development, depicted through samples or photographs.
(4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final
development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a
condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan.
b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be
complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing
before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided
pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a
certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall
issue a development order.
_(4)A r-eseltifien of the 14PC action will be forwarded to the City Couneil i
aeeer-danee with -See-tien 26.415.130 and no pefmit will be issued
eenstrdetien of the pr-ejeet until the thirty (30) day "eall up" period by Cit�,
Cohn,,l has expifed.
(54) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of
plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must
be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues
which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the
plans.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page 7 of 8
FINALLY, adopted and approved this 15'h day of December, 2009.
*Attest:an, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Aames:R. True, Special Counsel
G 7,
�e tz:��<
Stan Gibbs, Vice- Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # 17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page 8of8
'VAS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and %caning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Directo()�
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Design call up code amendment- public hearing
DATE: December 8, 2009
The public hearing was scheduled on April 21, 2009 and continued by the Planning and
Zoning Commission to June 16, 2009. Planning and Zoning recommended that Staff allow
ample time to discuss the proposed code amendment, and in turn continued the hearing to
November 3, 2009. The hearing was again continued to December 15, 2009. Attached are
the staff memo and the resolution from April 21, 2009. Minutes from the HPC meeting are
attached as Exhibit C.
denovomemopzmemo 11_03_09.doc
Page - 1 - of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and/,oning Commission
THRU: Chris Bcndon, Community Development Director
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Design call up code amendment- public hearing
DATE: April 21, 2009
City Council has the authority to call up certain design related approvals granted by the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z)
within thirty (30) days of approval. Council reviews the application on the record and
makes a finding as to whether the review board denied due process, exceeded its jurisdiction
or abused its discretion.
Council directed Staff to propose a code amendment that expands the call up review to
consider an application de novo. De novo is a latin term meaning "from the beginning."
Some communities (e.g. Boulder, Telluride) authorize their City Councils to conduct a
content based review of an application pursuant to call up procedures. Expanding Council's
purview strengthens the checks and balances for new development; however, it creates a
level of uncertainty for the applicant regarding the validity of a development approval
granted by the HPC or the P & Z that may be reversed, amended or sent back to the review
board for further study. The predictability of the land use process may be jeopardized by
adding a content based call up provision and potential extra layer of review.
It is important to recognize the qualifications of the review boards and how different
backgrounds represent different community interests and goals. For example, members of
the HPC, a largely design specific review board, must have specific credentials to volunteer.
Pursuant to Section 26.220.030.H and I, the HPC is comprised of a least three (3)
professionals in preservation related fields and all members shall have a "demonstrated
interest, knowledge, or training in fields closely related to historic preservation." Specific
qualifications to serve on HPC reflect the complexity of historic preservation applications
and the expertise required to interpret design guidelines, designation criteria and historic
preservation incentives.
The Code amendment is drafted such that Council may review the application de novo and
approve the application, remand it back to the reviewing board, alter the conditions of
approval, deny the application, or continue it to gather more information. On April 8, 2009,
the HPC reviewed the proposed amendment and unanimously recommended 6 — 0 that if
City Council adopts a de novo review, then the application be approved, remanded back to
the reviewing board, or continued to gather more information. HPC did not find that
Council should have authority to deny or alter the conditions of approval of an application
reviewed by one of their appointed boards. HPC's resolution is attached as Exhibit B.
The Standards of Review for amendments to the Land Use Code are addressed in Exhibit A.
denovomemopz.doc
Page - 1 - of 2
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 Appeals, Notice to City Council Call- up of HPC Decisions: This
Section proposes to provide call-up notification to City Council after the approval of Conceptual
review because the main issues (i.e. mass, scale, height, context, location) are considered and
approved at this time. The call up period of 30 days is consistent with the existing regulations.
Part D specifies that the Council review will be de novo. Staff proposes that Council consider
the same review process and requirements criteria as the reviewing body when they conduct the
"call up" review.
Section 2: 26.412.040.B Appeals, Notice to City Council Call- up of Commercial Design
Review Decisions: The proposed amendments mirror Section 1, except this section relates to
Commercial Design Review decisions by the P & Z and HPC.
Section 3: 26.415.070.D.3 HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review: This Section of the
Historic Preservation Chapter of the Code outlines proposed requirements for call up after a
Conceptual Design is approved. Staff proposes that the Community Development Director can
extend the 1 year timeframe for submitting a Final Review application to HPC if there is a delay
associated with call up review at Council.
Section 4: 26.415.070.D.4 HPC Final Development Plan Review: Staff proposes to delete part
b.4 that requires call up notification to Council after Final Development approval is granted by
HPC. Staff finds that the call up notification is more appropriate after Conceptual approval
because the primary aspects of the project are decided at that level. It seems unfair for an
applicant to proceed through Final Review at HPC if the primary features of the project may
warrant a de novo review by Council pursuant to the proposed call up provision.
NEXT STEPS: The hearings before City Council are not scheduled yet.
REQUEST OF THE P & Z: Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to make a recommendation
to the City Council regarding the proposed code amendments in the attached draft resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the
AACP, as outlined in Exhibit A, and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of the changes proposed by HPC and attached as Exhibit B.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution # , Series of 2009
Exhibit A — Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review
Exhibit B — HPC Resolution
Exhibit C — HPC minutes from April 8, 2009
denovomemopz.doc
Page -2-of2
RESOLUTION No.
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO
CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.B - APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY
COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D.3 - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.D.4 — FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department
initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council
"call-up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of
the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.0403 - Appeals, notice to City
Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review;
26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of
design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community"; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2009, continued to
June 16, 2009, and continued to November 3, 2009, and finally continued to December
15, 2009, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council
approve amendments to the text of Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council
and call up; 26.412.0403 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 -
Conceptual Development Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan
Review, as described herein, by a vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. finds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 1 of 7
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text being r-effieved is
gfeen with strikethfough and looks like skis. Text being added to the code is red with
underline and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Historic Preservation
Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or
disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for
major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the
City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving,
approving with conditions or disapproving a Conceptual Ddevelopment Plan application
for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or
relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City
Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up
procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document.
C. Call-up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as
described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not
be accepted by the City and no associated permits ean shall be issued during the thirty
(30) day call-up period. If City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications
for Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City and no associated
permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection
26.415.120.D. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call-up period,
the resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter.
D. City Council action on appeal or call-up. The City Council shall, at a public
meeting, consider the application on the r-eeora *.bushed before the 14PC novo. The
City Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established
by the Historic Preservation Commission or supplement the record with additional
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 2 of 7
evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the
application under the same process and requirements applicable to the reviewing body.
shall affimi the deeision of the 11PC unless thefe is a t4nding that theFe was a denial 0
due pr-E)eess or the 14PC has exeeeded its jurisdietion or- abused its diser-etion. The City
Council shall take such action as its deemsed necessary to feFAedy said situati ,
including, but not limited to:
1. Accepting the decision.
4- 2. Reversing or amending the decision.
23. Altering the conditions of approval.
-34. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7
[part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 10)
5. Continuing the meeting, to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. — Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Commercial Design Review
decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City
Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or
approving with conditions a development application for Coonceptual Ddesign, the City
Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity
to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below.
3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with
conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council
may order call-up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the
City and no associated permits can shall be issued during the thirty -day call-up period. If
City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for Final Design shall be
accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued untii the City Council
takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 3 of 7
up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the
matter.
4. City Council action on call-up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting,
consider the application de novo. on the rveerd established before the Planning and
The City
Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established by the
Historic Preservation Commission or Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, or
supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The City
Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same process and
requirements applicable to the reviewing body. shall--affimi the —dec-i of the
Commission unless thefe is a finding that there was a denial of due pFoeess er- the
The City Council shall
take such action as its deemsed necessary to ,-efned y said situation, including but not
limited to:
a. Accepting the decision.
ab_Reversing or amending the decision.
be. Altering the conditions of approval.
ed. Remanding the application to the applicable Commission for rehearing. (Ord. No.
13, 2007, § 1)
e. Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 — Conceptual Development Plan Review, which
section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans
by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and
orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site
characteristics.
(3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their
form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the
primary features of all elevations.
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 4 of 7
(4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction
represented by samples and/or photographs.
(5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context
surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at
least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or
streetscape elevations.
(6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential
design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is
not being met.
b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and
a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing
shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
(4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and
call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the
City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes
action as described in said section.
c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows:
(1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval
of a major development project or permission to proceed with the
development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to
proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan.
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 5 of 7
(2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in
regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or
addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height,
scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the
proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final
development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses
to makes substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been
approved, a new conceptual development plan hearing approval shall be
required, pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3..
(3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development
plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be
submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual
development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period
shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan.
The Community Development Director may grant an extension of this
limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional
reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the
applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion
and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date
for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided
a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to
the expiration date.
Section 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, which section
describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the
Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a final development plan shall include:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part
of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale.
(3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the
development, depicted through samples or photographs.
(4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final
development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a
condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan.
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 6 of 7
b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be
complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing
before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided
pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a
certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall
issue a development order.
(544) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of
plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must
be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues
which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the
plans.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2008.
Attest:
Jackie, Lothian, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, Special Counsel
LJ Erspamer, Chairman
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 7 of 7
Exhibit A
See. 26.310.040. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or 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 in conflict with any applicable
portions of this Title.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions
of the Municipal Code. It will provide another layer of checks and balances to the
development review process by authorizing Council to call up and review applications de
novo.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment provides Council with more flexibility
regarding future development applications and their compliance with review criteria and
community goals. However, Staff finds that the proposed amendment is not completely
consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan which states that "we
must allow change without restrictive rules dictating a level of conformity that stifles
community creativity. The excessive body of regulations must not keep expanding and
many should be reconsidered." The AACP suggests that "rather than creating new rules
community members should creatively solve problems." Staff finds that the proposed
amendment may potentially introduce unpredictability for land use applicants, but it may
also provide the community with a more balanced application at the conclusion of the
entire process.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Response: n/a..
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Response: n/a..
E. 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 Response: n/a.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Response: n/a.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City.
Staff Response: n/a.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Response: n/a.
1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
Title.
Staff Response: The purpose of the code amendment is to improve the checks and
balances system for new development by authorizing Council to call up and review a
project de novo. It will increase the probability that an application meets the review
criteria in the Code and complies with the goals of the community. On the other hand,
expanding Council's purview over projects that are approved by the HPC or P & Z may
create unpredictability within the review process, which may be in conflict with the
public interest.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION No. 13
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO
CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.11 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY
COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D.3 - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.D.4 — FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department
initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council
"call-up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of
the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.13 - Appeals, notice to City
Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review;
26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of
design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community"; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2009, the Historic
Preservation Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the
text of Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.13 -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development
Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein, by
a 6 - 0 vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text being ..moved is
red with st-rikethrough and looks like this. —Text being added to the code is red with
underline and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Historic Preservation
Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or
disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for
major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the
City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving,
approving with conditions or disapproving a Conceptual Ddevelopment Plan application
for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or
relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City
Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up
procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document.
C. Call-up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as
described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not
be accepted by the City and no associated permits can -shall be issued during the thirty
(30) day call-up period. If City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications
for Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City and no associated
permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection
26.415.120.D. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call-up period,
the resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter.
D. City Council action on appeal or call-up. The City Council shall, at a public
meeting„ consider the application on the record established be4are the "PC novo. The
City Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established
by the Historic Preservation Commission or supplement the record with additional
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the
implication under the same process and requirements applicable to the reviewing body.
shall affiFm the deeision of the WK tinless there is a finding that there was a denial 6
due-proeess E)r- the14PChas exeeeded-its jurisdietienor- abused its diseret-ion. The City
Council shall take such action as its deemsed necessary to femedy said situati ,
including, but not limited to:
1. Accepting the decision.
1. Reversing the deeisief,.
2. Altering the eanditions of appreva4-.
32. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7
[part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 10)
3. Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. — Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Commercial Design Review
decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City
Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or
approving with conditions a development application for Ceonceptual Ddesign, the City
Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity
to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below.
3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with
conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council
may order call-up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the
City and no associated permits can shall be issued during the thirty -day call-up period. If
City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for Final Design shall be
accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council
takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the
matter.
4. City Council action on call-up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting,
consider the application de novo. an the established before the Dlanning and
Zoning Commission of 14istorie Presefvatian Commission, as applieable. The City
Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established by the
Historic Preservation Commission or Planning; and Zoning Commission, as applicable, or
supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The City
Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same process and
requirements applicable to the reviewing body. sihall�,— *�the-deeisTon 4 the
Commission unless theFe is a finding that there was a denial of due pr-eeess or the
Cenaiiiiivn-circeeded- its jurisdiction -or- abused- its discretion. The City Council shall
take such action as its deemsed necessary to r . ed y said situation, including but not
limited to:
a. Accentinc the decision.
b.e.Remanding the application to the applicable Commission for rehearing. (Ord. No.
13, 2007, § 1)
c. Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review, which
section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans
by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and
orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site
characteristics.
(3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their
form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the
primary features of all elevations.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
(4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction
represented by samples and/or photographs.
(5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context
surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at
least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or
streetscape elevations.
(6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential
design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is
not being met.
b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and
a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing
shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
(4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and
call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the
City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes
action as described in said section.
c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows:
(1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval
of a major development project or permission to proceed with the
development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to
proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
(2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in
regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or
addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height,
scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the
proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final
development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses
to makes substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been
approved, a new conceptual development plan approval shall be
required pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3..
(3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development
plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be
submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual
development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period
shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan.
The Community Development Director may grant an extension of this
limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional
reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the
applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion
and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date
for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided
a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to
the expiration date.
Section 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, which section
describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the
Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a final development plan shall include:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part
of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale.
(3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the
development, depicted through samples or photographs.
(4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final
development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a
condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 6 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be
complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing
before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided
pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a
certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall
issue a development order.
(54D Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of
plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must
be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues
which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the
plans.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 8t' day of April, 2009, at 5:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 8th day of April, 2009.
Michael Hoffman, Chairman
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 7 of 8
Attest:
Kathy Strickland City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, Special Counsel
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 8 of 8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Exhibit c
MINUTES OF APRIL $ 2009
Jay asked if CDOT wanted to make major changes would they come before
the HPC.
Jim True, Special Counsel said theoretically the state highway would be the
applicant and if they came before the HPC requesting median strips for a
safety issue and HPC said no we would have somewhat of a dilemma.
Chances are they would have the power to go ahead and do it when it
involves a safety issue but in general the State would defer to local
governments.
Sara said in general HPC made two changes; to include alleys in the Main
Street Historic District and to add the term temporary structure to Section 3.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing section of the agenda item was closed.
MOTION. Ann made the motion to accept the changes proposed by HPC as
Sara has documented; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried.
De Novo Review by Council on Appeals of HPC Decision.
Sara said this code amendment has to deal with the call up procedures that
we currently have. Right now City Council can call up design decisions by
HPC or P&Z such as major development and commercial design review.
Right now when it is called up it is based on the record. They would be
looking for a finding as to whether the review board denied due process,
exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. Council directed staff to
propose a code amendment that would change the type of review that
council can use when they call up a design project. They want to change it
to be a content based review which we call a De Novo review. De Novo
means basically that you would start from the beginning; such as what is the
height, what type of windows etc. They would not be just looking at
whether or not the correct proceeding was followed in the hearing. Boulder
and Telluride use this system. On one hand it provides another layer of
checks and balances but on the other hand the Community Development
staff feels it creates just another level of uncertainty to applicants such as is
my project going to get called up and will I have to change all the work that
I did with HPC already. We are concerned how that conflicts with the goals
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Exhibit C
MINUTES OF APRIL $ 2009
of the AACP to have a clear review process and the goals of the community.
Major Development and Commercial Design review would be effected.
Michael asked what is the problem that this language is solving.
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director: From time to time
projects get called up to City Council and it is usually because the owner
didn't like the decision of HPC or P&L Their review is strictly limited to
procedural review. An example would be Council looks at the project and
agrees that HPC made the wrong decision but HPC did not exceed its
jurisdiction. Council would have to say that HPC did their job incorrectly
and that is tough for Council to do. The opposite extreme would be the De
Novo review which means anything can go up to city council. Staff feels
there could be a lot more callups. My fear is that council becomes the
pseudo P&Z and HPC in addition to their normal council responsibilities.
We agree at some level but feel there should be discussion about the merits
of the board's decision at some level. This might be a little too strong of a
delegation. We do feel that the delegation ought to be something with an
oversite such that if there is a call up that their review would be a little less.
First they would review the merits of their decision. Instead of taking on the
decision authority they should remand it back to HPC with direction. This
might not be the most palatable thing council wants to hear but this is what
we are proposing to them.
Sarah said she is 100% in favor of Chris's recommendation. It is unfair of
Council to take on a review of a project without the background that we
have. It is also putting them in a precarious situation where it will allow
every vocal person in our community to be the direct line to them and the
pressure to call up every item. It should go back to the commission for
restudy based on certain criteria.
Michael said that is not the language we have now. Chris said we need to
eliminate certain sections in 26.412.040 B. There should be a venue to talk
about the merits of the decision and the remand.
Jay said he is concerned about the integrity of the HPC.
7
C
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 1{xhihrt
MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009
Ann said it doesn't take away our integrity. We are appointed by council
and if they disagree with what we are doing we need to hear back from
them.
Brian said the Wheeler is a great example. If we make a decision that the
community is against the decision then can sit on the elected official's
shoulders.
Sarah explained that most projects do go to city council that are affecting
dimensional requirements and there is a process in place. What Chris
suggested is a good medium respecting city council.
Jay said by meeting them half way is a good recommendation.
MOTION. Ann moved to support the changes suggested by Chris Bendon
with the deletion of b and c; second by Brian. Ann and Brian withdrew their
motion.
Amy said HPC should not underestimate their authority with a review
process of multiple layers.
Nora said with the code revision an applicant will says it doesn't matter what
HPC says we'll just go back to city council.
Jay said the code should say that HPC is final unless there is a procedural
issue.
Michael said as it stands right now the call up review is a review of the
record. If we make a mistake council will correct it. The new pro osal is t
create a ping pong effect.
p o
Amy said possibly the call back should be eliminated to commercial and
public projects rather than single family home projects.
Chris said if a project goes off its rails it will go to city council.
Michael said in reality projects get called up for political reasons such as the
Bidwell project.
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION exhibit c
MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009
Chris said he is trying to avoid that the basis is a political reason to get
called up. I want the basis of the criticism to be a political basis and then
remand it back to the board that has the authority, respect and knowledge of
the history to take a second look at their decision. They need to be really
sure about their decision.
Jay said he will only support the way it is now. You can't keep sending
back things until HPC changes its vote. How many call ups can a project
have.
Nora said why wouldn't something come back to us to fix.
Michael said he can agree with the pink pong effect.
Sarah said this could open a can of worms and it sits in the hands of city
council. Brian said HPC is very thoughtful in the way they make their
decisions.
Chris said you might make a motion to not change the code at all and see
how that goes and then if the code is going to change which of these
suggestions does council prefer.
Jay said he would be open to the idea that a call up is a joint public meeting
with council and the appropriate board. HPC members agreed. Jay said that
way the sensitivity of historic preservation is at the meeting and our voice is
being heard.
Sarah asked if other cities have seen more call ups. Sara said Boulder has
not seen many.
Chris said if it was a joint meeting council would be in the appeal position
and that might not work procedurally.
Amy said you are also making them the decision makers which are what we
were trying to avoid making it remanded back to HPC.
Chris said he likes the remand.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Exhibit c
MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009
Sarah pointed out that council doesn't have to do the remand; they can stick
with an HPC decision.
Ann said her motion was to support what Chris Bendon discussed.
Chris said was written there are 5 options for city council. I am proposing
that we leave 1, remove 2 and 3 and leave 4 and 5.
Sarah said for clarification we are removing 2 and 3 and b and c.
MOTION: Ann made the motion to delete 2 and 3 of 26. 412. 040E and leave
4 and 5. Also delete b,c ofsection 2. Motion second by Sarah.
Sarah said if we say the language is OK the way it is and we like the review
process the way it is, does it matter and are we hurting ourselves.
Chris said this language and the ability to remand it is a more appealing
option and an easier out than what we have now.
Ann said she feels it appropriate that council work with the F PC and our
decisions and support our decisions.
Sarah said her concern is the cyclical burecratic cycle process that gets
expensive and time consuming. Is the change creating a new cycle?
Michael said that is his concern also.
Chris said there is no way to write a code that you get out of those things.
Every now and then there will be a project that gets under the citizens skin.
Sarah asked if there is a way to state that the remand needs to go with clear
direction to the appropriate board.
Chris said he thinks the board will get it one way or another.
Jim said if council remands with a direction then the board would have to
think about it.
9
F\hibit C'
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2009
Amy said we used to have an annual work session with council and maybe
the boards should talk to council and determine everyone's concerns.
Jay said if changes are going to be made I would like to have a say in it and
be a part of the change. I would be in favor of getting rid of b, c.
Roll call vote on the motion: Brian, yes; Nora, yes; Ann, yes; Jay, yes;
Sarah, yes; Michael, yes.
Discussion of Ordinance #48 process
Amy said the parameters that we have now which is a demolition delay
process where at least we have the ability to say here are some important
properties and in the past we had no authority over them and now we can
either say they are important or not important, can we talk and figure out a
solution so we don't lose the historic resource.
Sara said a permit comes in for a property on the list and we review it and
determine if it is going to compromise or have an adverse impact on what
we think are the character defining features. If it does then it will go through
the negotiation process. If it is a re -roof with the same material they can go
forward with the permit. There wouldn't be anything to discuss.
Jim True said theoretically HPC would want the property preserved or not.
The decision of HPC goes to council.
Brian said the question of H PC is should we be looking at the incentives or
look at the resource with blinders on.
Amy said during the ordinance #48 process you have given up control. Ann
said that is why things are getting muddled because we are scared about
what council may give. We don't know how to give council the message
such as the property is important but not important enough to grant all of the
incentives the applicant is asking for.
Jim said you can say that in your motion.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION tixhibit C
MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009
Chris Bendon said you need to give council as much guidance as you can. If
it feels there are too many requests of the applicant then break it up into
smaller pieces and rank them.
Amy said you can give all kind of detail in your motions to council. HPC
needs to be comfortable with your decision. The property is before you
because we may or may not lose the resource.
Jay said it is difficult when the applicant wants a lot.
Chris said if you identify each request and rate it that gives Council a lot to
go on and they know where HPC stands.
Michael said for example the request is for a 500 square foot bonus. The
problem is that we don't know how that bonus is going to be used.
Jim said under ordinance 448 you can rank the importance or analyze it by
detail. I feel council wants you to do more.
Michael said it would be helpful if staff gave us the range of benefits being
considered in a particular application.
Sarah said she doesn't feel comfortable and possibly we don't have all the
information. It is hard to rank a property whether it should be land marked
and we need to keep it as objective as possible. We need to say why it is a
particular rating.
Jay said I like the fact that we have the ability to make a decision.
Sara said for Modern Chalet we don't have a context paper but we have
criteria.
Amy said up until ordinance #48 we had no protection on these properties.
You are seeing the middle scoring properties coming before you not the
# 10's.
Jay said we as a board should determine whether or not the property is worth
talking about in a motion. Then out of the long list we can go through each
item.
A
L\hibit C
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2009
Nora said by the time the applicant gets their 16 things and we have
compromised, where is the integrity of what we started? How do we know
or not know that the 16 things will affect the integrity of the historic
property.
Ann said it is also the fear of picking and choosing and you don't know the
combination.
Chris said for example you can say you are unsure about the 500 square feet
unless you show us how you are going to add it because we don't know
where it is going.
MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Nora. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adj ourned at 8:3 5 p.m.
K7athlee J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
13
7xIb%
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and "Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Design call up code amendment- public hearing
DATE: November 3, 2009
The public hearing was scheduled on April 21, 2009 and continued by the Planning and
Zoning Commission to June 16, 2009. Planning and Zoning recommended that Staff allow
ample time to discuss the proposed code amendment, and in turn continued the hearing to
November 3, 2009. Attached are the staff memo and the resolution from April 21, 2009.
denovomemopzmemo 11_03_09.doc
Page - 1 - of I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: , Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Design call up code amendment- public hearing
DATE: April 21, 2009
City Council has the authority to call up certain design related approvals granted by the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z)
within thirty (30) days of approval. Council reviews the application on the record and
makes a finding as to whether the review board denied due process, exceeded its jurisdiction
or abused its discretion.
Council directed Staff to propose a code amendment that expands the call up review to
consider an application de novo. De novo is a latin term meaning "from the beginning."
Some communities (e.g. Boulder, Telluride) authorize their City Councils to conduct a
content based review of an application pursuant to call up procedures. Expanding Council's
purview strengthens the checks and balances for new development; however, it creates a
level of uncertainty for the applicant regarding the validity of a development approval
granted by the HPC or the P & Z that may be reversed, amended or sent back to the review
board for further study. The predictability of the land use process may be jeopardized by
adding a content based call up provision and potential extra layer of review.
It is important to recognize the qualifications of the review boards and how different
backgrounds represent different community interests and goals. Members of the HPC, a
largely design specific review board, must have specific credentials to volunteer. Pursuant
to Section 26.220.030.H and I, the HPC is comprised of a least three (3) professionals in
preservation related fields and all members shall have a "demonstrated interest, knowledge,
or training in fields closely related to historic preservation." Specific qualifications to serve
on HPC reflect the complexity of historic preservation applications and the expertise
required to interpret design guidelines, designation criteria and historic preservation
incentives.
The Code amendment is drafted such that Council may review the application de novo and
approve the application, remand it back to the reviewing board, alter the conditions of
approval, deny the application, or continue it to gather more information. On April 8, 2009,
the HPC reviewed the proposed amendment and unanimously recommended 6 — 0 that if
City Council adopts a de novo review, then the application be approved, remanded back to
the reviewing board, or continued to gather more information. HPC did not find that
Council should have authority to deny or alter the conditions of approval of an application
reviewed by one of their appointed boards. HPC's resolution is attached as Exhibit B.
The Standards of Review for amendments to the Land Use Code are addressed in Exhibit A.
denovomemopz.doc
Page - 1 - of 2
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 Appeals, Notice to City Council Call- up of HPC Decisions: This
Section proposes to provide call-up notification to City Council after the approval of Conceptual
review because the main issues (i.e. mass, scale, height, context, location) are considered and
approved at this time. The call up period of 30 days is consistent with the existing regulations.
Part D specifies that the Council review will be de novo. Staff proposes that Council consider
the same review process and requirements criteria as the reviewing body when they conduct the
"call up" review.
Section 2: 26.412.040. B Appeals, Notice to City Council Call- up of Commercial Design
Review Decisions: The proposed amendments mirror Section 1, except this section relates to
Commercial Design Review decisions by the P & Z and HPC.
Section 3: 26.415.070.D.3 HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review: This Section of the
Historic Preservation Chapter of the Code outlines proposed requirements for call up after a
Conceptual Design is approved. Staff proposes that the Community Development Director can
extend the 1 year timeframe for submitting a Final Review application to HPC if there is a delay
associated with call up review at Council.
Section 4: 26.415.070.D.4 HPC Final Development Plan Review: Staff proposes to delete part
b.4 that requires call up notification to Council after Final Development approval is granted by
HPC. Staff finds that the call up notification is more appropriate after Conceptual approval
because the primary aspects of the project are decided at that level. It seems unfair for an
applicant to proceed through Final Review at HPC if the primary features of the project may
warrant a de novo review by Council pursuant to the proposed call up provision.
NEXT STEPS: The hearings before City Council are not scheduled yet.
REQUEST OF THE P & Z: Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to make a recommendation
to the City Council regarding the proposed code amendments in the attached draft resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the
AACP, as outlined in Exhibit A, and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of the changes proposed by HPC and attached as Exhibit B.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution # , Series of 2009
Exhibit A — Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review
Exhibit B — HPC Resolution
denovomemopz.doc
Page -2-of2
RESOLUTION No.
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO
CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.B - APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY
COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D.3 - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.D.4 — FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department
initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council
"call-up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of
the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.0403 - Appeals, notice to City
Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review;
26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of
design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community"; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2009, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments
to the text of Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up;
26.412.040.13 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual
Development Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as
described herein, by a vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Pagel of 8
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Tex! beifl_e Feffieved is
redw4;hr StFikethFOUgha„d leeks like th Text being added to the code is red with
underline and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Historic Preservation
Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or
disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for
major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the
City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving,
approving with conditions or disapproving a Conceptual Ddevelopment Plan application
for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or
relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City
Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up
procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document.
C. Call-up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as
described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not
be accepted by the City and no associated permits can shall be issued during the thirty
(30) day call-up period. If City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications
for Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City and no associated
permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection
26.415.120.D. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call-up period,
the resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter.
D. City Council action on appeal or call-up. The City Council shall, at a public
meeting, consider the application OR the FeeWd esiablished before the HPCI* novo. The _. Formatted: Font: Italic
City Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established
by the Historic Preservation Commission or supplement the record with additional
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 2 of 8
evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the
application under the same process and requirements applicable to the reviewing body.
shall affiFfn 1. d e f the WK unless ♦heFe finding h ♦L, Fe denial 0
io�$v" - --c��crc�S--ir��i}vii�Si�rtii u�c... Was ............ ...
due PF06eSS OF the HPC has emeeeded its jurisdietion OF abused its diSeFetien. The City
Council shall take such action as its deemsed necessary
including, but not limited to:
1. Accepting the decision.
2. Reversing or amending the decision.
23. Altering the conditions of approval.
34. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7
[part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 10)
5. Continuing the meetingto o request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. — Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Commercial Design Review
decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
I. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City
Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or
approving with conditions a development application for Ceonceptual Ddesign, the City
Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity
to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below.
3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with
conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council
may order call-up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the
City and no associated permits can shall be issued during the thirty -day call-up period. If
City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for Final Design shall be
accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council
takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 3 of 8
up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the
matter.
4. City Council action on call-up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting,
consider the application de novo. Formatted: Font: Italic
applicable. The City
Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established by the
Historic Preservation Commission or Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, or
supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The City
Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same process and
requirements applicable to the reviewing body. shall affirm the deeesion of the
Commassion unless there is a finding that theFe was a denial of due PFBeess OF the
. The City Council shall
take such action as its deemsed necessary to Femed), said situa6en, including but not
limited to:
a. Accepting the decision.
b_Reversing or amending the decision.
be. Altering the conditions of approval.
ed. Remanding the application to the applicable Commission for rehearing. (Ord. No.
13, 2007, § 1)
e. Continuine the meetine to reouest additional evidence. analvsis. or testimonv as
necessary to conclude the call-up review
Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 — Conceptual Development Plan Review, which
section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans
by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and
orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site
characteristics.
(3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their
form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the
primary features of all elevations.
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 4 of 8
(4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction
represented by samples and/or photographs.
(5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context
surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at
least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or
streetscape elevations.
(6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential
design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is
not being met.
b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and
a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing
shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
(4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120-1Appeals, notice to City Council, and Formatted: Font: Not Bold
call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the
City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes
action as described in said section.
c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows:
(1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval
of a major development project or permission to proceed with the
development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to
proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan.
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 5 of 8
(2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in
regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or
addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height,
scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the
proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final
development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses
to makes substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been
approved, a new conceptual development plan heari+i approval shall be
required, pursuant to Section 26.415.070.13.3.-
(3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development
plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be
submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual
development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period
shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan.
The Community Development Director may grant an extension of this
limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional
reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the
applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion
and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date
for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided
a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to
the expiration date.
Section 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, which section
describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the
Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review. Formatted: Tab stops: 1.5°, Lett + Not at
0.25"
a. An application for a final development plan shall include:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part
of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale.
(3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the
development, depicted through samples or photographs.
(4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final
development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a
condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan.
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 6 of 8
b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be
complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing
before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided
pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a
certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall
issue a development order.
aeeerdaHee w4h Section 26.4415 130 and no permit will beissuedi
(-54) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of
plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must
be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues
which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the
plans.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 21' day of April, 2009, at 4:30
p.m. in the Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
]signatures on following page]
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 7 of 8
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2008.
Attest:
Jackie, Lothian, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, Special Counsel
LJ Erspamer, Chairman
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 8 of 8
Exhibit A
Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or 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 in conflict with any applicable portions
of this Title.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions
of the Municipal Code. It will provide another layer of checks and balances to the
development review process by authorizing Council to call up and review applications de
novo.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment provides Council with more flexibility
regarding future development applications and their compliance with review criteria and
community goals. However, Staff finds that the proposed amendment is not completely
consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan which states that "we
must allow change without restrictive rules dictating a level of conformity that stifles
community creativity. The excessive body of regulations must not keep expanding and
many should be reconsidered." The AACP suggests that "rather than creating new rules
community members should creatively solve problems." Staff finds that the proposed
amendment may potentially introduce unpredictability for land use applicants, but it may
also provide the community with a more balanced application at the conclusion of the
entire process.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Response: n/a..
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Response: n/a..
E. 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 Response: n/a.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Response: n/a.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City.
Staff Response: n/a.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Response: n/a.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Response: The purpose of the code amendment is to improve the checks and
balances system for new development by authorizing Council to call up and review a
project de novo. It will increase the probability that an application meets the review
criteria in the Code and complies with the goals of the community. On the other hand,
expanding Council's purview over projects that are approved by the HPC or P & Z may
create unpredictability within the review process, which may be in conflict with the
public interest.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION No. 13
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO
CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.11 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY
COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D.3 - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.D.4 — FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department
initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council
"call-up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of
the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.13 - Appeals, notice to City
Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review;
26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of
design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community"; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2009, the Historic
Preservation Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the
text of Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.B -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development
Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein, by
a 6 - 0 vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Tex! being removed is
red wkh strikethr-ough and leeks "ke this. Text being added to the code is blue with
underline and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Historic Preservation
Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or
disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for
major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the
City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving,
approving with conditions or disapproving a Conceptual Ddevelopment Plan application
for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or
relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City
Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up
procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document.
C. Call-up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as
described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not
be accepted by the City and no associated permits sat shall be issued during the thirty
(30) day call-up period. If City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications
for Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City and no associated
permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection
26.415.120.D. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call-up period,
the resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter.
D. City Council action on appeal or call-up. The City Council shall, at a public
meeting, consider the application a novo. The Formatted: Font: Italic
City Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established
by the Historic Preservation Commission or supplement the record with additional
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the
application under the same process and requirements applicable to the reviewing body.
shall affiFm the deraisien ef the HPC unless there is a finallig thal theFe A , A , 'R,; R denial Af
The City
Council shall take such action as its deemsed necessary tO Femea•• said situation,
including, but not limited to:
1. Accepting the decision.
2. Reversing the deeisie.
32. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7
[part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 10)
33. Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. — Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Commercial Design Review
decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City
Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or
approving with conditions a development application for Ceonceptual Ddesign, the City
Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity
to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below.
3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with
conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council
may order call-up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the
City and no associated permits can shall be issued during the thirty -day call-up period. If
City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for Final Design shall be
accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council
takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the
matter.
4. City Council action on call-up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting
consider the application e novo. Formatted: Font: Italic
applicable.Zening Commission or Histefic PfeseR,ation Commission, as The City
Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established by the
Historic Preservation Commission or Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, or
supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony- as necessary. The City
Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same process and
requirements applicable to the reviewing body.shall affi-m the decision aF *'
!`,..irfl;ss:oH unless there is a find:.,., that ♦heFe was a denial of due PFOCeSS r ♦h-d-
Comm:ssian o eeded iis j1diFisdietion OF .J.111od diserptiRm The City Council shall
take such action as its deemsed necessary , including but not
limited to:
a. Accepting the decision.
b. .
be. AltelFiflig the eoHditions of approval.
ebd. Remanding the application to the applicable Commission for rehearing.
(Ord. No. 13, 2007, § 1)
ce. Continuine the meetine to reouest additional evidence, analvsis. or testimonv as
necessary to conclude the call-up review
Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 — Conceptual Development Plan Review, which
section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans
by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and
orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site
characteristics.
(3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their
form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the
primary features of all elevations.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
(4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction
represented by samples and/or photographs.
(5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context
surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at
least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or
streetscape elevations.
(6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential
design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is
not being met.
b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and
a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing
shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
(4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - +Appeals, notice to City Council, and Formatted: Font: Not Bold
call-uu. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the
City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes
action as described in said section.
c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows:
(I ) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval
of a major development project or permission to proceed with the
development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to
proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
(2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in
regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or
addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height,
scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the
proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final
development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses
to makes substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been
approved, a new conceptual development plan hearing approval shall be
required, pursuant to Section 26.415.070.13.3.:
(3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development
plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be
submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual
development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period
shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan.
The Community Development Director may grant an extension of this
limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional
reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the
applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion
and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date
for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided
a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to
the expiration date.
Section 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, which section
describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the
Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review. t I Formatted: Tab stops: 1.5 Left + Not at
0.25"
a. An application for a final development plan shall include:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part
of the development at 1 /4" = 1.0' scale.
(3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the
development, depicted through samples or photographs.
(4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final
development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a
condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 6 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be
complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing
before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided
pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a
certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall
issue a development order.
a66OFdanee with Section 26.4 15.130 and no PeFfflit Will be issued
Couneil has -(4)A Feselmien of the HPC- aetiOR Will be feF-A'aFded to the City Counei
(44) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of
plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must
be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues
which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the
plans.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 8t' day of April, 2009, at 5:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 8th day of April, 2009.
Michael Hoffman, Chairman
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 7 of 8
Attest:
Kathy Strickland City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, Special Counsel
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 8 of 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director (��re
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Design call up code amendment- public hearing
DATE: June 16, 2009
Staff reviewed the long range schedule and the number of pending current planning cases
and recommends that the public hearing for a Code Amendment related to Design Call Up
be continued to November 3, 2009. The public hearing was scheduled on April 21, 2009
and continued by the Planning and Zoning Commission to June 16, 2009. Planning and
Zoning recommended that Staff allow ample time to discuss the proposed code amendment;
which in turn, moves the hearing date to November.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the public hearing for a proposed Code
Amendment related to Design Call Up, specifically Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120;
26.412.040.13; 26.415.070.D.3; and 26.415.070.D.4, to November 3, 2009."
denovomemopzcontinuacememo. doc
Page - 1 -of 1
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of
development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those
on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that
create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas,
and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
j"'(�-
'�ignature'
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this C day
of �,� ( , 200g, by r
—14
N� D $ Ofn00(A-Nnnm c�3� �v3 �< 2 coo
oa�±yo�m_O mDm
�mm Oa maw<ca�n�yN=nm�o sm Om
a m�womcn M11
§ c amBO OX
�m� ,?02ma,m3->>�rtt
D .0 oo-
�zv
o �m ivamoamo3�aQ<m2.w�»ium ^'��
-i � oom .cwan>>tD�f�o<noo�� am
r_03 moo<G)3o
3 m m�o_mm�yo3mx^,_mw3. DZ O1y�
f �tnv°a'3<3��.�v3mom w m
m 3 G0.wJ3N�F�mO moss n?oZ 00
�c yd 3�v_y _"'cnm"
" mi000=tnoo am cm_�mD»3o _M^
> 3 nw 3?32a ow7Jm mam`v �� mZ
D .N3a3� > o<mo3m nD-m ry
u, ym,<c. aoi Oo
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires:
Notary Public �-
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGA9 rr „isg;ac P oirn 0811012010
• LIST OF THE OWNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CORE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
�s� , 200�
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I,n 0A Gc U%�/� (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Comrnunity Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public Bearing
and v,7as continuously visible from the _ day of , 200_, to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted
notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and goW7-71777e77tal agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
\1 I is G
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Design call up code amendment- public hearing
DATE: April 21, 2009
City Council has the authority to call up certain design related approvals granted by the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z)
within thirty (30) days of approval. Council reviews the application on the record and
makes a finding as to whether the review board denied due process, exceeded its jurisdiction
or abused its discretion.
Council directed Staff to propose a code amendment that expands the call up review to
consider an application de novo. De novo is a latin term meaning "from the beginning."
Some communities (e.g. Boulder, Telluride) authorize their City Councils to conduct a
content based review of an application pursuant to call up procedures. Expanding Council's
purview strengthens the checks and balances for new development; however, it creates a
level of uncertainty for the applicant regarding the validity of a development approval
granted by the HPC or the P & Z that may be reversed, amended or sent back to the review
board for further study. The predictability of the land use process may be jeopardized by
adding a content based call up provision and potential extra layer of review.
It is important to recognize the qualifications of the review boards and how different
backgrounds represent different community interests and goals. Members of the HPC, a
largely design specific review board, must have specific credentials to volunteer. Pursuant
to Section 26.220.030.H and I, the HPC is comprised of a least three (3) professionals in
preservation related fields and all members shall have a "demonstrated interest, knowledge,
or training in fields closely related to historic preservation." Specific qualifications to serve
on HPC reflect the complexity of historic preservation applications and the expertise
required to interpret design guidelines, designation criteria and historic preservation
incentives.
The Code amendment is drafted such that Council may review the application de novo and
approve the application, remand it back to the reviewing board, alter the conditions of
approval, deny the application, or continue it to gather more information. On April 8, 2009,
the HPC reviewed the proposed amendment and unanimously recommended 6 — 0 that if
City Council adopts a de novo review, then the application be approved, remanded back to
the reviewing board, or continued to gather more information. HPC did not find that
Council should have authority to deny or alter the conditions of approval of an application
reviewed by one of their appointed boards. HPC's resolution is attached as Exhibit B.
The Standards of Review for amendments to the Land Use Code are addressed in Exhibit A.
denovomemopz.doc
Page - 1 - of 2
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 Appeals, Notice to City Council Call- up of HPC Decisions: This
Section proposes to provide call-up notification to City Council after the approval of Conceptual
review because the main issues (i.e. mass, scale, height, context, location) are considered and
approved at this time. The call up period of 30 days is consistent with the existing regulations.
Part D specifies that the Council review will be de novo. Staff proposes that Council consider
the same review process and requirements criteria as the reviewing body when they conduct the
"call up" review.
Section 2: 26.412.040.B Appeals, Notice to City Council Call- up of Commercial Design
Review Decisions: The proposed amendments mirror Section 1, except this section relates to
Commercial Design Review decisions by the P & Z and HPC.
Section 3: 26.415.070.D.3 HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review: This Section of the
Historic Preservation Chapter of the Code outlines proposed requirements for call up after a
Conceptual Design is approved. Staff proposes that the Community Development Director can
extend the 1 year timeframe for submitting a Final Review application to HPC if there is a delay
associated with call up review at Council.
Section 4: 26.415.070.D.4 HPC Final Development Plan Review: Staff proposes to delete part
b.4 that requires call up notification to Council after Final Development approval is granted by
HPC. Staff finds that the call up notification is more appropriate after Conceptual approval
because the primary aspects of the project are decided at that level. It seems unfair for an
applicant to proceed through Final Review at HPC if the primary features of the project may
warrant a de novo review by Council pursuant to the proposed call up provision.
NEXT STEPS: The hearings before City Council are not scheduled yet.
REQUEST OF THE P & Z: Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to make a recommendation
to the City Council regarding the proposed code amendments in the attached draft resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the
AACP, as outlined in Exhibit A, and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of the changes proposed by HPC and attached as Exhibit B.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution # DO , Series of 2009
Exhibit A — Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review
Exhibit B — HPC Resolution
denovomemopz.doc
Page -2-of2
RESOLUTION No. bOq
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO
CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.13 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY
COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D.3 - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.D.4 — FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department
initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council
"call-up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of
the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.0403 - Appeals, notice to City
Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review;
26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of
design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community"; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2009, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments
to the text of Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up;
26.412.040.B - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual
Development Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as
described herein, by a vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
proposed amendment
Page 1 of 7
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text being added to_the --- Deleted: Text being removed is red
code is blue with underline and looks like this. I with strikethrough and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Historic Preservation
Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or
disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for
major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the
City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving,
approving with conditions or disapproving a Conceptual Development Plan application --.- Deleted: d
for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or
relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City
Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up
procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document.
C. Call-up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as
described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not
be accepted by the City and no associated permits,shall be issued during the thirty (30) _ - Deleted: can
day call-up period. If City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for
Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits
shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection
26.415.120.D. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call-up period,
the resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter. Deleted: on the record established
before the HPC
D. City Council action on appeal or call-up. The City Council shall, at a public Formatted: Font: Italic
meeting, consider the application jA novo. The City Council may. at its discretion, ''
______-___- ------------------ .-_.,'•' Deleted: shall affirm the decision ofihe
consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation HPC unless there is a finding that there
Commission or supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as was a denial of due process or the HPChas exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its
necessary. The Citv Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same discretion.
process and requirements applicable to the reviewing body. The City Council shall take Deleted: s
c---------- --------------------- ------
such action as i�deems. necessaryt including, but not limited to:
-------------
Deleted: to remedy said situation
proposed amendment
Page 2 of 7
1. Accepting the decision.
2. Reversing or amending the decision.
,- Deleted:2
,3. Altering the conditions of approval.
4. Remanding_ the application to the HPC for rehearing_ (Ord_ No. 1-2002, 7 Deleted: s
[part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 10)
5. Continuing the meetingto o request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary.. to conclude the call-up review.
Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. — Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Commercial Design Review
decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City
Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or
approving with conditions a development application for Conceptual Design, the City_ _.- Deleted:
Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity Deleted: d
to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below.
3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with
conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council
may order call-up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the
City and no associated permits rshar llbe_issued_during the thirty -day call-up period. If - Deleted: can
City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for Final Design shall be
accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council
takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call
up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the
matter.
4. City Council action on call-up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting,
consider the application a novo._Ae__CityCouncil may, at its discretion, consider ----- Formatted: Font: Italic
evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation Commission or FDeleted:on the record established
Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, or supplement the record with rehe Planning and Zoning
mision or Historic Preservation
additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review rrnssion,asapplicable.
proposed amendment
Page 3 of 7
of the application under the same process and requirements applicable to the reviewing
body• -The City Council_ shall take such action as iL deem§, necessary, including but not -..-
limited to:
a. Accentine the decision.
b_Reversing or amending the decision
Altering the conditions of approval.
4__ Remanding the application to the �,p lid, cable Commission for rehearing. (Ord. No.
................. .. ------
13, 2007, § 1)
e. Continuing the meetingto o request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 — Conceptual Development Plan Review, which
section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans
by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and
orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site
characteristics.
(3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their
form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the
primary features of all elevations.
(4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction
represented by samples and/or photographs.
(5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context
surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at
least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or
streetscape elevations.
(6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential
design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is
not being met.
proposed amendment
Page 4 of 7
Deleted: shall affirm the decision of the
Commission unless there is a finding that
there was a denial of due process or the
Commission exceeded its jurisdiction or
abused its discretion.
Deleted: s
Deleted: ed
Deleted: to remedy said situation
Deleted: b
Deleted: c
b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and
a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing
shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
(4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and Formatted: Font: Not sold
call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the
City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes
action as described in said section.
c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows:
(1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval
of a major development project or permission to proceed with the
development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to
proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan.
(2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in
regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or
addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height,
scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the
proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final
development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses
to make, substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been
--------------
approved, a new conceptual development plan ,approval shall be required,
--------------
pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3,
(3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development
plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be
submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual
proposed amendment
Page 5 of 7
Deleted: s
Deleted: hearing
Deleted:.
development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period
shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan.
The Community Development Director may grant an extension of this
limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional
reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the
applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion
and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date
for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided
a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to
the expiration date.
Section 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, which section
describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the
Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review.
Formatted: Tabs: 108 pt, Left +
Not at 18 pt
a. An application for a final development plan shall include:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part
of the development at 1 /4" = 1.0' scale.
(3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the
development, depicted through samples or photographs.
(4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final
development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a
condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan.
b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be
complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing
before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided
pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
proposed amendment
Page 6 of 7
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a
certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall
issue a development order..
�J)Before an application fora building_permit can be submitted, a final set of
----- ---- -
plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must
be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues
which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the
plans.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 2 1 ' day of April, 2009, at 4:30
p.m. in the Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2008.
Attest:
Jackie, Lothian, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, Special Counsel
LJ Erspamer, Chairman
proposed amendment
Page 7 of 7
Deleted: (4) . A resolution of the HPC
action will be forwarded to the City
Council in accordance with Section
26.415.130 and no permit will be issued
for construction of the project until the
thirty (30) day "call up" period by City
Council has expired.¶
Deleted: 5
Exhibit A
See. 26.310.040. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or 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 in conflict with any applicable portions
of this Title.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions
of the Municipal Code. It will provide another layer of checks and balances to the
development review process by authorizing Council to call up and review applications de
novo.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment provides Council with more flexibility
regarding future development applications and their compliance with review criteria and
community goals. However, Staff finds that the proposed amendment is not completely
consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan which states that "we
must allow change without restrictive rules dictating a level of conformity that stifles
community creativity. The excessive body of regulations must not keep expanding and
many should be reconsidered." The AACP suggests that "rather than creating new rules
community members should creatively solve problems." Staff finds that the proposed
amendment may potentially introduce unpredictability for land use applicants, but it may
also provide the community with a more balanced application at the conclusion of the
entire process.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Response: n/a..
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Response: n/a..
E. 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 Response: n/a.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Response: n/a.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City.
Staff Response: n/a.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Response: n/a.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Response: The purpose of the code amendment is to improve the checks and
balances system for new development by authorizing Council to call up and review a
project de novo. It will increase the probability that an application meets the review
criteria in the Code and complies with the goals of the community. On the other hand,
expanding Council's purview over projects that are approved by the HPC or P & Z may
create unpredictability within the review process, which may be in conflict with the
public interest.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION No. 13
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO
CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.11 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY
COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D.3 - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.D.4 — FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department
initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council
"call-up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of
the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.13 - Appeals, notice to City
Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review;
26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of
design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community"; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2009, the Historic
Preservation Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the
text of Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.B -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development
Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein, by
a 6 - 0 vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 7
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text being added to the _ - Deleted: Text being removed is red
code is blue with underline and looks like this.
with strikethrough and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Historic Preservation
Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or
disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for
major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the
City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving,
approving with conditions or disapproving a Conceptual Development Plan application_ --.-
for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or
relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City
Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up
procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document.
C. Call-up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as
described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, gpplications for Final Development Plan Review shall not
be accepted by the City and no associated permits,,�hall be_issued during the thir _(30)
day call-up period. If City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for
Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits
shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection
26.415.120.D. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call-up period,
the resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter.
Deleted: d
Deleted: can
D. City Council action on appeal or call-up. The City Council shall, at a public
meeting, consider the application de novo. The City Council m_ ay_, at its discretion Deleted: on the record established
- - - - - - - - - - -- _' before the HPC
consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation
Commission or supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony ss Formatted: Font: Italic
necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 7
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
process and requirements applicable to the reviewing body. The City Council shall take
- - -----------------------
such action as i�deem&necessary: including, but not limited to:
------------------- ------------------------ — ----
1. Accepting the decision.
;.___Remanding_ theapplication to the HPC for rehearing._ (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7
[part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 10)
3 Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. — Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Commercial Design Review
decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City
Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
Deleted: shall affirm the decision of the
HPC unless there is a finding that there
was a denial of due process or the HPC
has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its
discretion.
Deleted: s
Deleted: ed
Deleted: to remedy said situation
Deleted: 2. Reversing the decision.¶
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 3. Altering the conditions of
approval.¶
Deleted: 3
Deleted: s
2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or
approving with conditions a development application for CC nceptual Design, the City .- Deleted: c
Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity f Deleted: d
to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below.
3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with
conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council
may order call-up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the
City and no associated permits 4h4= llbe _issued during the thirty -day call-up period. If Deleted: can
City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for Final Design shall be
accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council
takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call
up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the
matter.
4. City Council action on call-up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting,
consider the application j& novo: ,The CityCouncil may, at its discretion consider r-ort„atted: Font: Italic
evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation Commission or Deleted: on the record established
Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, or supplement the record with before the Planning and Zoning
Commission or Historic Preservation
additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review Commission, as applicable.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 7
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
of the application under the same process and requirements applicable to the reviewing
boay. -The City_ Council shall take such action as it deem, necessary, including not
--------------------------------------
limited to:
a. Accepting the decision.
Remandingthe a hcation to the a Dlicable Commission for rehearing: _(Ord._No..-
----------
------ Pp- ----- - - ----------------------
13, 2007, § 1);
c Continuing the meetingquest additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 — Conceptual Development Plan Review, which
section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans
by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and
orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site
characteristics.
(3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their
form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the
primary features of all elevations.
(4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction
represented by samples and/or photographs.
(5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context
surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at
least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or
streetscape elevations.
(6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential
design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is
not being met.
b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 7
Deleted: shall affirm the decision of the
Commission unless there is a finding that
there was a denial of due process or the
Commission exceeded its jurisdiction or
abused its discretion.
Deleted: s
Deleted: ed
Deleted: to remedy said situation
Deleted: b.. Reversing or amending the
decision.¶
Deleted: b
Deleted: c.. Altering the conditions of
approval.¶
Deleted: c
Deleted: d
Deleted: e
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and
a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing
shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
(4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and ,---- Formatted: Font: Not Bold
call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the
City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes
action as described in said section.
c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows:
(1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval
of a major development project or permission to proceed with the
development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to
proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan.
(2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in
regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or
addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height,
scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the
proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final
development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses
to make,, substantial meon al amendments to the conceptual design after it has been
--------------
approved, a new conceptual development pIan Q groval shall be required
pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3,.
(3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development
plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be
submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual
development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period
shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 7
Deleted: s
Deleted: hearing
Deleted: .
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
The Community Development Director may grant an extension of this
limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring, additional
reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the
applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion
and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date
for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided
a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to
the expiration date.
Section 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, which section
describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the
Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
. - - - - Formatted: Tabs: 108 pt, Left +
26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review. Not at 18 pt
a. An application for a final development plan shall include:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part
of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale.
(3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the
development, depicted through samples or photographs.
(4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final
development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a
condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan.
b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be
complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing
before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided
pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 6 of 7
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a
certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall
issue a development order.
)Before anapplication fora building permit can be submitted, a final set of
---- --
plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must--'
be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues
which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the
plans.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 8th day of April, 2009, at 5:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 8th day of April, 2009.
Attest:
Kathy Strickland City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, Special Counsel
Michael Hoffman, Chairman
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 7 of 7
Deleted: (4) . A resolution of the HPC
action will be forwarded to the City
Council in accordance with Section
26.415.130 and no permit will be issued
for construction of the project until the
thirty (30) day 'ball up" period by City
Council has expired,¶
Deleted: 5
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CORE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
����� i��. .ire/ • P Q• i, i
04
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
(name, please print)
being or repr senting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
L Publicatio7z of 720tice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty -sic
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200_, to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted
notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners amid go>>ernnzental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued 077 next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of
development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those
on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that
create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas,
and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Signatur
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 23 day
of
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
• My commission expires: o �l
Notary Public
'(PRY pV9
LAURA
MEYER
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OFTHEPUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGA9 W'rAMU T OiWWH
• LIST OF THE OWNER.SAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-I03.3
PUB !C NOTICE
RE: CITY INITIATED AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTERS 26.412 and 26.415
OF THE LAND USE CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Wednesday April 8, 2009, at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m, before the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission, Council
Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to
consider a Community Development Department
initiated ordinance related to the provisions for City
Council "call-up" review of Conceptual Review
approvals granted by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning
Commission through an amendment to Chapter
26.415 "Development Involving the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures or Development in an "H" Historic
Overlay District and Chapter 26.412 "Commercial
Design Review." For further information, contact
Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community
Developpment Department, 130 S. Galena St., As-
pen, CO, (970) 429.2778, spraa®ci.esnen.co.us.
19 Michaef Hoffman, Chatr
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the As en Times Weekly on March
22, 2009 (3160893)
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009
Jay asked if CDOT wanted to make major changes would they come before
the HPC.
Jim True, Special Counsel said theoretically the state highway would be the
applicant and if they came before the HPC requesting median strips for a
safety issue and UPC said no we would have somewhat of a dilemma.
Chances are they would have the power to go ahead and do it when it
involves a safety issue but in general the State would defer to local
governments.
Sara said in general HPC made two changes; to include alleys in the Main
Street Historic District and to add the term temporary structure to Section 3.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing section of the agenda item was closed.
MOTION: Ann made the motion to accept the changes proposed by HPC as
Sara has documented; second by Brian. A11 in favor, motion carried.
De Novo Review by Council on Appeals of HPC Decision.
Sara said this code amendment has to deal with the call up procedures that
we currently have. Right now City Council can call up design decisions by
HPC or P&Z such as major development and commercial design review.
Right now when it is called up it is based on the record. They would be
looking for a finding as to whether the review board denied due process,
exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. Council directed staff to
propose a code amendment that would change the type of review that
council can use when they call up a design project. They want to change it
to be a content based review which we call a De Novo review. De Novo
means basically that you would start from the beginning; such as what is the
height, what type of windows etc. They would not be just looking at
whether or not the correct proceeding was followed in the hearing. Boulder
and Telluride use this system. On one hand it provides another layer of
checks and balances but on the other hand the Community Development
staff feels it creates just another level of uncertainty to applicants such as is
my project going to get called up and will I have to change all the work that
I did with HPC already. We are concerned how that conflicts with the goals
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009
of the AACP to have a clear review process and the goals of the community.
Major Development and Commercial Design review would be effected.
Michael asked what is the problem that this language is solving.
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director: From time to time
projects get called up to City Council and it is usually because the owner
didn't like the decision of HPC or P&L Their review is strictly limited to
procedural review. An example would be Council looks at the project and
agrees that HPC made the wrong decision but HPC did not exceed its
jurisdiction. Council would have to say that HPC did their job incorrectly
and that is tough for Council to do. The opposite extreme would be the De
Novo review which means anything can go up to city council. Staff feels
there could be a lot more callups. My fear is that council becomes the
pseudo P&Z and HPC in addition to their normal council responsibilities.
We agree at some level but feel there should be discussion about the merits
of the board's decision at some level. This might be a little too strong of a
delegation. We do feel that the delegation ought to be something with an
oversite such that if there is a call up that their review would be a little less.
First they would review the merits of their decision. Instead of taking on the
decision authority they should remand it back to HPC with direction. This
might not be the most palatable thing council wants to hear but this is what
we are proposing to them.
Sarah said she is 100% in favor of Chris's recommendation. It is unfair of
Council to take on a review of a project without the background that we
have. It is also putting them in a precarious situation where it will allow
every vocal person in our community to be the direct line to them and the
pressure to call up every item. It should go back to the commission for
restudy based on certain criteria.
Michael said that is not the language we have now. Chris said we need to
eliminate certain sections in 26.412.040 B. There should be a venue to talk
about the merits of the decision and the remand.
Jay said he is concerned about the integrity of the HPC.
7
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL S 2009
Ann said it doesn't take away our integrity. We are appointed by council
and if they disagree with what we are doing we need to hear back from
them.
Brian said the Wheeler is a great example. If we make a decision that the
community is against the decision then can sit on the elected official's
shoulders.
Sarah explained that most projects do go to city council that are affecting
dimensional requirements and there is a process in place. What Chris
suggested is a good medium respecting city council.
Jay said by meeting them half way is a good recommendation.
MOTION: Ann moved to support the changes suggested by Chris Bendon
with the deletion of b and c; second by Brian. Ann and Brian withdrew their
motion.
Amy said HPC should not underestimate their authority with a review
process of multiple layers.
Nora said with the code revision an applicant will says it doesn't matter what
HPC says we'll just go back to city council.
Jay said the code should say that HPC is final unless there is a procedural
issue.
Michael said as it stands right now the call up review is a review of the
record. If we make a mistake council will correct it. The new proposal is to
create a ping pong effect.
Amy said possibly the call back should be eliminated to commercial and
public projects rather than single family home projects.
Chris said if a project goes off its rails it will go to city council.
Michael said in reality projects get called up for political reasons such as the
Bidwell project.
8
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009
Chris said he is trying to avoid that the basis is a political reason to get
called up. I want the basis of the criticism to be a political basis and then
remand it back to the board that has the authority, respect and knowledge of
the history to take a second look at their decision. They need to be really
sure about their decision.
Jay said he will only support the way it is now. You can't keep sending
back things until HPC changes its vote. How many call u s c
have.
p an a proJect
Nora said why wouldn't something come back to us to fix.
Michael said he can agree with the pink pong effect.
Sarah said this could open a can of worms and it sits in the hands of city
council. Brian said HPC is very thoughtful in the way they make their
decisions.
Chris said you might make a motion to not change the code at all and see
how that goes and then if the code is going to change which of these
suggestions does council prefer.
Jay said he would be open to the idea that a call up is a joint public meeting
with council and the appropriate board. HPC members agreed. Jay said that
way the sensitivity of historic preservation is at the meeting and our voice is
being heard.
Sarah asked if other cities have seen more call ups. Sara said Boulder has
not seen many.
Chris said if it was a joint meeting council would be in the appeal position
and that might not work procedurally.
Amy said you are also making them the decision makers which are what we
were trying to avoid making it remanded back to HPC.
Chris said he likes the remand.
E
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8 2009
Sarah pointed out that council doesn't have to do the remand; they can stick
with an HPC decision.
Ann said her motion was to support what Chris Bendon discussed.
Chris said was written there are 5 options for city council. I am proposing
that we leave 1, remove 2 and 3 and leave 4 and 5.
Sarah said for clarification we are removing 2 and 3 and b and c.
MOTION: Ann made the motion to delete 2 and 3 of 26. 412. 040E and leave
4 and 5. Also delete b, c of section 2. Motion second by Sarah.
Sarah said if we say the language is OK the way it is and we like the review
process the way it is, does it matter and are we hurting ourselves.
Chris said this language and the ability to remand it is a more appealing
option and an easier out than what we have now.
Ann said she feels it appropriate that council work with the F PC and our
decisions and support our decisions.
Sarah said her concern is the cyclical burecratic cycle process that gets
expensive and time consuming. Is the change creating a new cycle?
Michael said that is his concern also.
Chris said there is no way to write a code that you get out of those things.
Every now and then there will be a project that gets under the citizens skin.
Sarah asked if there is a way to state that the remand needs to go with clear
direction to the appropriate board.
Chris said he thinks the board will get it one way or another.
Jim said if council remands with a direction then the board would have to
think about it.
ff
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2009
Amy said we used to have an annual work session with council and maybe
the boards should talk to council and determine everyone's concerns.
Jay said if changes are going to be made I would like to have a say in it and
be a part of the change. I would be in favor of getting rid of b, c.
Roll call vote on the motion: Brian, yes; Nora, yes; Ann, yes; Jay, yes;
Sarah, yes; Michael, yes.
Discussion of Ordinance #48 process
Amy said the parameters that we have now which is a demolition delay
process where at least we have the ability to say here are some important
properties and in the past we had no authority over them and now we can
either say they are important or not important, can we talk and figure out a
solution so we don't lose the historic resource.
Sara said a permit comes in for a property on the list and we review it and
determine if it is going to compromise or have an adverse impact on what
we think are the character defining features. If it does then it will go through
the negotiation process. If it is a re -roof with the same material they can go
forward with the permit. There wouldn't be anything to discuss.
Jim True said theoretically HPC would want the property preserved or not.
The decision of HPC goes to council.
Brian said the question of H PC is should we be looking at the incentives or
look at the resource with blinders on.
Amy said during the ordinance #48 process you have given up control. Ann
said that is why things are getting muddled because we are scared about
what council may give. We don't know how to give council the message
such as the property is important but not important enough to grant all of the
incentives the applicant is asking for.
Jim said you can say that in your motion.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8,200
Chris Bendon said you need to give council as much guidance as you can. If
it feels there are too many requests of the applicant then break it up into
smaller pieces and rank them.
Amy said you can give all kind of detail in your motions to council. HPC
needs to be comfortable with your decision. The property is before you
because we may or may not lose the resource.
Jay said it is difficult when the applicant wants a lot.
Chris said if you identify each request and rate it that gives Council a lot to
go on and they know where HPC stands.
Michael said for example the request is for a 500 square foot bonus. The
problem is that we don't know how that bonus is going to be used.
Jim said under ordinance 448 you can rank the importance or analyze it by
detail. I feel council wants you to do more.
Michael said it would be helpful if staff gave us the range of benefits being
considered in a particular application.
Sarah said she doesn't feel comfortable and possibly we don't have all the
information. It is hard to rank a property whether it should be land marked
and we need to keep it as objective as possible. We need to say why it is a
particular rating.
Jay said I like the fact that we have the ability to make a decision.
Sara said for Modern Chalet we don't have a context paper but we have
criteria.
Amy said up until ordinance #48 we had no protection on these properties.
You are seeing the middle scoring properties coming before you not the
# 10's.
Jay said we as a board should determine whether or not the property is worth
talking about in a motion. Then out of the long list we can go through each
item.
X
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2009
Nora said by the time the applicant gets their 16 things and we have
compromised, where is the integrity of what we started? How do we know
or not know that the 16 things will affect the integrity of the historic
property.
Ann said it is also the fear of picking and choosing and you don't know the
combination.
Chris said for example you can say you are unsure about the 500 square feet
unless you show us how you are going to add it because we don't know
where it is going.
MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Nora. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Katthlee J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
13
C
MO b 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Design call up code amendment
DATE: April 8, 2009
City Council has the authority to call up certain design related approvals granted by the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z)
within thirty (30) days of approval. Council reviews the application on the record and
makes a finding as to whether the review board denied due process, exceeded its jurisdiction
or abused its discretion.
Council directed Staff to propose a code amendment that expands the call up review to
consider an application de novo. De novo is a latin term meaning "from the beginning."
Some communities (e.g. Boulder, Telluride) authorize their City Councils to conduct a
content based review of an application pursuant to call up procedures. Expanding Council's
purview strengthens the checks and balances for new development; however, it creates a
level of uncertainty for the applicant regarding the validity of a development approval
granted by the HPC or the P & Z that may be reversed, amended or sent back to the review
board for further study. The predictability of the land use process may be jeopardized by
adding a content based call up provision and potential extra layer of review.
It is important to recognize the qualifications of the review boards and how different
backgrounds represent different community interests and goals. Members of the HPC, a
largely design specific review board, must have specific credentials to volunteer. Pursuant
to Section 26.220.030.H and I, the HPC is comprised of a least three (3) professionals in
preservation related fields and all members shall have a "demonstrated interest, knowledge,
or training in fields closely related to historic preservation." Specific qualifications to serve
on HPC reflect the complexity of historic preservation applications and the expertise
required to interpret design guidelines, designation criteria and historic preservation
incentives.
The Standards of Review for amendments to the Land Usc Code are addressed in l xhibit A.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 Appeals, Notice to City Council Call- up of HPC Decisions: This
Section proposes to provide call-up notification to City Council after the approval of Conceptual
review because the main issues (i.e. mass, scale, height, context, location) are considered and
approved at this time. The call up period of 30 days is consistent with the existing regulations.
Part D specifies that the Council review will be de novo. Staff proposes that Council consider
denovomemoHPC.doc
Page - 1 -of 2
the same review process and requirements criteria as the reviewing body when they conduct the
"call up" review.
Section 2: 26.412.040.B Appeals, Notice to City Council Call- up of Commercial Design
Review Decisions: The proposed amendments mirror Section 1, except this section relates to
Commercial Design Review decisions by the P & Z and HPC.
Section 3: 26.415.070.D.3 HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review: This Section of the
Historic Preservation Chapter of the Code outlines proposed requirements for call up after a
Conceptual Design is approved. Staff proposes that the Community Development Director can
extend the 1 year timeframe for submitting a Final Review application to HPC if there is a delay
associated with call up review at Council.
Section 4: 26415.070.D.4 HPC Final Development Plan Review: Staff proposes to delete part
b.4 that requires call up notification to Council after Final Development approval is granted by
HPC. Staff finds that the call up notification is more appropriate after Conceptual approval
because the primary aspects of the project are decided at that level. It seems unfair for an
applicant to proceed through Final Review at HPC if the primary features of the project may
warrant a de novo review by Council pursuant to the proposed call up provision.
NEXT STEPS: Staff is scheduled to present the proposed code amendments to the Planning and
Zoning Commission on April 21, 2009. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a
recommendation to City Council. First and Second Readings of the proposed code amendments
are scheduled for May 11 th and May 261h respectively.
The Land Use Code does not require a recommendation from the HPC for amendments to the
Code; however, Staff determined that HPC needs to provide feedback because the proposed
amendments change the HPC process.
REQUEST OF THE HPC: HPC is asked to make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission regarding the proposed code amendments in the attached draft resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the
AACP, as outlined in Exhibit A, and recommends denial.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution # , Series of 2009
Exhibit A — Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review
denovomemoHPC.doc
Page -2-of2
RESOLUTION No.
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO
CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.B - APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY
COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D.3 - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.D.4 — FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department
initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council
"call-up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of
the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.13 - Appeals, notice to City
Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review;
26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of
design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community"; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2009, the Historic
Preservation Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the
text of Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.B -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development
Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein, by
a vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text being added to the - Deleted: Text being removed is red
code is blue with underline and looks like this. with strikethrou h and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Historic Preservation
Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or
disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for
major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the
City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving,
approving with conditions or disapproving a Conceptual Development Plan application
for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or
relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City
Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up
procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document.
C. Call-up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as
described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not
be accepted by the City and no associated permits,Shall be issued ditri.ng. the thirty (30) --_
day call-up period. If City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for
Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits
shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection
26.415.120.D. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call-up period,
the resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter.
D. City Council action on appeal or call-up. The City Council shall, at a public
meeting, consider the application A novo_ The City Council may., at its discretion, ----
consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation
Commission or supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as
necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same ;
process and requirements applicable to the reviewing body. Jbe City. Council shall -take-,,,'
such action as itdeemAnecessary. including„ but not limited to:
-- - ----------------
Deleted: d
Deleted: can
Deleted: on the record established
before the HPC
Formatted: Font: Italic
Deleted: shall affirm the decision of the
HPC unless there is a finding that there
was a denial of due process or the HPC
has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its
discretion.
Deleted: s
Deleted: ed
Deleted: to remedy said situation
1. Accepting the decision.
2. Reversing or amending the decision.
_ Altering the conditions of approval_
4. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing_ (Ord_ No. 1-2002, 7__--.
----------------------------------- -
[part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 10)
5. Continuing the meetingto o request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. — Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Commercial Design Review
decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City
Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 3
2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or
approving with conditions a development application for C,once-ptual_&� ign, -- the City -- Deleted:
Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity ; Deleted: d
to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving
document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below.
3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with
conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council
may order call-up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the
City and no associated permits 4h4ll�be _issued du_ ring_ the_thirty-day call-up period. If Deleted: can
City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for Final Design shall be
accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council
takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call
up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the
matter.
4. City Council action on call-up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting,
consider the application a novo._Ae__City Council may, at its discretion, consider Formatted: Font: Italic
evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation Commission or Deleted: on the record established
Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, or supplement the record with before the Planning and Zoning
Commission or Historic Preservation
additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review Commission, as applicable.
of the application under the same process and requirements applicable to the reviewing
body. _The City Council shall take such action as it deem, necessaryr_ including but not
---------------------------------------
limited to:
a. Accenting the decision.
b_Reversing or amending the decision
_ Altering_the conditions of approval.
,4.. Remanding the application to_the applicable Commission for rehearing_ (Ord. No.
------------------------------ ----
13, 2007, § 1)
e. Continuing the meeting t� o request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up review.
Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 — Conceptual Development Plan Review, which
section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans
by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and
orieptation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site
characteristics.
(3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their
form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the
primary features of all elevations.
(4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction
represented by samples and/or photographs.
(5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context
surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at
least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or
streetscape elevations.
(6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential
design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is
not being met.
Deleted: shall affirm the decision of the
Commission unless there is a finding that
there was a denial of due process or the
Commission exceeded its jurisdiction or
abused its discretion.
Deleted: s
Deleted: ed
Deleted: to remedy said situation
Deleted: b
Deleted: c
b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and
a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing
shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
(4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Heals, notice to Ci Council, and Formatted: Font: Not Bold
call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accented by the
City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes
action as described in said section.
c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows:
(1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval
of a major development project or permission to proceed with the
development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to
proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan.
(2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in
regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or
addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height,
scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the
proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final
development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses
to make, substantial amendments to the conceptual design _ after it has been
---------------------------- -------------
approved, a new conceptual development plan 4uroval--- shall be required} _-
pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3,
(3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development
plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be
submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual
Deleted: s
Deleted: hearing
Deleted:.
development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period
shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan.
The Community Development Director may grant an extension of this
limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional
reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the
aap lip cant. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion
and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date
for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided
a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to
the expiration date.
Section 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, which section
describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the
Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a final development plan shall include:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part
of the development at 1 /4" = 1.0' scale.
(3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the
development, depicted through samples or photographs.
(4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final
development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a
condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan.
b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be
complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing
before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided
pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
.----- Formatted: Tabs: 108 pt, Left +
Not at 18 pt
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a
certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall
issue a development order.
,_Before an application for a building _permit_ can be submitted, a final set of
--------------------
plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must `•,
be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues
which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the
plans.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 8`h day of April, 2009, at 5:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
Attest:
Kathy Strickland City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, Special Counsel
day of 12008.
Michael Hoffman, Chairman
Deleted: (4) . A resolution of the HPC
action will be forwarded to the City
Council in accordance with Section
26.415.130 and no permit will be issued
for construction of the project until the
thirty (30) day "call up" period by City
Council has expired.¶
Deleted: 5
Exhibit A
See. 26.310.040. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or 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 in conflict with any applicable portions
of this Title.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions
of the Municipal Code. It will provide another layer of checks and balances to the
development review process by authorizing Council to call up and review applications de
novo.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment provides Council with more flexibility
regarding future development applications and their compliance with review criteria and
community goals. However, Staff finds that the proposed amendment is not completely
consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan which states that "we
must allow change without restrictive rules dictating a level of conformity that stifles
community creativity. The excessive body of regulations must not keep expanding and
many should be reconsidered." The AACP suggests that "rather than creating new rules
community members should creatively solve problems." Staff finds that the proposed
amendment may potentially introduce unpredictability for land use applicants, but it may
also provide the community with a more balanced application at the conclusion of the
entire process.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Response: n/a..
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Response: n/a..
E. 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 Response: n/a.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Response: n/a.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City.
Staff Response: n/a.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Response: n/a.
1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Response: The purpose of the code amendment is to improve the checks and
balances system for new development by authorizing Council to call up and review a
project de novo. It will increase the probability that an application meets the review
criteria in the Code and complies with the goals of the community. On the other hand,
expanding Council's purview over projects that are approved by the HPC or P & Z may
create unpredictability within the review process, which may be in conflict with the
public interest.
5-206.D. Action By Decision -Making Body. After hearing evidence and considering the
comments of all persons interested in a matter, the reviewing body shall render a
decision accompanied by any necessary findings and have them entered in its
minutes. In its findings, the reviewing body should report the facts found and its
conclusions and whether the development application is approved, approved with
conditions, recommended for approval by another body, tabled or continued
pending receipt of additional information, or denied. The reviewing body shall
not be required to take final action on a development application during the same
meeting at which evidence or testimony from interested persons has been taken
and may continue the matter from time to time as it deems necessary.
5-206.E. Action by Planning Director or Chairperson.
5-206.E.1. Any action or approval authorized to be taken by the Planning
Director or Chairperson of the P&Z or H.A.R.C. may be referred
by that person to the P&Z or H.A.R.C., as the case may warrant,
for its review and approval.
5-206.E.2. A reviewing body may refer to its Chairperson and/or the Planning
Director final compliance review of any condition or other concern
which arises during that body's review or approval of an
application.
5-206T. Call -Up.
5-206.F.1. The Town Council, or any two (2) Councilpersons, may call-up a
development application for review by Town Council upon written
notice thereof at any time after the application is certified complete
and until fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision of the
reviewing body.
5-206.F.2. A copy of the written call-up notice shall be mailed by the Town
Clerk to the applicant and the reviewing body. Upon fling of such
notice with the Town Clerk, any decision of the reviewing body
shall be suspended.
5-206.F.3. Upon call-up, the Town Council shall be vested with jurisdiction
over the development application and shall conduct its review of
the application under the same process and requirements
applicable to the reviewing body. Such review shall be conducted
within thirty (30) days from the date of the call-up, or as soon
thereafter as can be reasonably accommodated.
5-206.G. Termination. The Town's policy is to move projects through the review process
in a reasonable and expeditious manner. The time required for
Telluride Land Use Code Land Dcvclopment Process Page 5-17
The catch -lines of the several Sections of this Code, printed in boldface type, are intended as mere
catchwords to indicate the contents of the Section and shall not be deemed or taken to be titles of such
Sections, nor as any part of the Section, nor, unless expressly so provided, shall they be so deemed when
any of such Sections, including the catch -lines, are amended or reenacted. (Code 1971, § 1-5)
Sec. 1.04.060. Amendments or additions to Code.
(a) All ordinances passed subsequent to this Code which amend, repeal or in any way affect this
Code may be numbered in accordance with the numbering system of this Code and printed for inclusion
herein. When subsequent ordinances repeal any chapter, Section or Subsection or any portion thereof,
such repealed portion may be excluded from the Code by omission from reprinted pages. The subsequent
ordinances as numbered and printed or omitted in the case of repeal, shall be prima facie evidence of such
subsequent ordinances until such time as this Code and subsequent ordinances numbered or omitted are
readopted as a new Code by the City Council.
(b) Amendments to any of the provisions of this Code shall be made by amending such provisions
by specific reference to the Section number of this Code in the following language: "That Section
(or Section , Subsection ) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows: "The new provisions shall then be set out in full as
desired."
(c) In the event a new Section not heretofore existing in the Code is to be added, the following
language shall be used: "That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by
adding a Section (or chapter) which said Section (or chapter) reads as follows: "The new Section shall
then be set out in full as desired." (Code 1971, § 1-6)
Charter reference —Form of ordinances, § 4.9.
Sec. 1.04.070. Severability of parts of Code.
It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the sections, paragraphs, sentences,
clauses and phrases of this Code are severable and, if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of
this Code shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences,
paragraphs and sections of this Code, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council
without the incorporation in this Code of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or
section. (Code 1971, § 1-7)
Sec. 1.04.080. General penalty for violations of Code; continuing violations; default.
(a) Whenever in this Code or in any ordinance of the City an act is prohibited, is made or declared
to be unlawful or an offense or a misdemeanor, whenever in such Code or ordinance the doing of an act is
required or the failure to do any act is declared to be unlawful and no specific penalty is provided
therefor, the violation of any such provision of this Code or any such ordinance shall be punished by a
fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment for a period of up to one (1) year
or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Each day of any violation of this Code
or of any ordinance shall constitute a separate offense, unless otherwise provided.
(b) The Municipal Judge is empowered in his discretion to assess court costs in an amount of up
to fifty dollars ($50.00) against any defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere or who enters into a
plea agreement or who, after trial, is found guilty of an ordinance violation.
(c) The Municipal Judge is empowered to order a child under the age of eighteen (18) years of
age confined in a juvenile detention facility operated by the State Department of Human Services or a