Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.ca.0012.2009.ASLU
F4W 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 --*2735-- 1Z -4• -6 -S01 2737 -07- P�erlli i —A—.43 File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help Main Valuation Custom Fields Actions Fees Parcels Fee Summary-1 46 Sub Permits Attachments li Routing Status Routing 1 0 Permit Type iaslu _JAspen Land Use Permit#FoOI2.2009.ASLU Address [130 S GALENA ST Apt/Suite - 1 --- City A-SPEN State IC6 6161-1 , zip F Permit Information Routing Queue1alu07 Applied 212412009 Master PermitF Fo I Projects z Status 1pending Approved F A Description CODE AMENDMENT-DE Hke*&COUNCIL REVIEW Issued F NbV0 Final Submitted CITY OF ASPEN Clock Running' Days F Expires 02'19/2010 Owner Last Name JCITY OF ASPEN 21 First Name CITY HALL 1 130 5 GALENA ST ASPEN CO 81611 Phone Wo Owner Is Applicant? Applicant Last Name ICITY OF ASPEN 21 First Name ICITY HALL 130 5 GALENA ST ASPEN CO 81611 Phone Cust#F28513 Lender Last Name F First Name I Phone AspenGold(b) Edit Record:1 of 1 ArA"0� 1 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ADOPTING THE 2011/2012 ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN(AACP)AS A GUIDING DOCUMENT,REPLACING THE 2000 AACP AND DECLARING IT NO LONGER IN EFFECT,AND ADOPTING CODE AMENDMNETS RELATED TO THE REVIEW CRITERIA REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THE AACP AND ADDING NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH REQUIREMENTS TO THE LAND USE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; 26.310.040 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 11,2011 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 Land 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 43 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, 26.3 10,040 — Amendments to the L.and 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 I.,and tj�se Code are delineated as follows: Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Jtt,,:,.t i'lei"It-1 4s i,t+, Willi -ecn ,�\,ith underline and looks �tlfd it-*tk t�i-ke bein to the code is oi like this. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY C01UNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT: Section 1: The Aspen City Council hereby adopts the 20121 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: 26304.020,13 — Common Development Review Procedures, Pre-application conference. Issues of discussion, shall be amended as follows: City Council Ord 43 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: 1. 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 terns 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. :7 borhood Outreach. The Community Development De artiilent staff:_nictrib er shall identify if ncifhho�outreach, <ts outlined in Sec ?b,'),04,0'))_, is ret hired prior to submission vofthe de elo nt_af?pli tt on. City Council Ord #3 of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 4 of 21 Section 3: A new section 26.304.035 —Neighborhood Outreach, shall be added as follows: Sec. 26.304.035. Neighborhood Outreach A. Purpose. In order to facilitate citizen artici ttior3 early in the deg e(o nac nt yeti iecm process. the City requires develo nient a n.lications to conduct neighborhood outreach The Purpose of the outreach is to inform neii,,hbors and interested members ofthe vublic, about theproiect Cie aonlicant must show a,concerted effort inform n it qrs_and the public. about tlh_�412Plication rior to the first ublic:hearin�.�. B. Applicability. A nei ghborhood meetin<, shall be recuired on anvddeVelcarrr�nt fro osai ghat is st t cyc t trtnz d m5 att r C nm part of t )oral is limited in nature. In addition the Community Development Department ma nsake,a determination that nei=hborhood outreach is re tuired for s4mificant development applications reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Rion Commission. C Appropriate forms of 1rublic outreach. The applicant must choose to do one or more of the lollow ng f'orrr�s ofneighbc7rhood outreach. C"�rrranatrraity Develcr naent t)cfrartment staff'nt?Igti._as part of the pre-application conferenc su y pest c rtairr 'ornis_uf neiOiborhood outwrea.0i th tt could be most a plo 7ri<tte for a development application. In addition. C'or rmunit f3evelo rncnt De artment staff may identify specific as>ects of the proiect oLpot.e.nt <tl ina_pacts of theproiect that should be addressed..as oart_of'the ei�l�l�t�rl�c�c7d outreach. 1. lrtfonr7at on naeetin' e 4tpplic tit roust hold a ne.i htcfrl uc>d_raaectrttg to 9: frcrrn raei Thbors and citizens The meetino must l c_<ap rt and.acc.essible to the general ublic and held in a Location in prqxiniiiN to the ro osod develoIjrnent c)r in _ ubliclti accessible building stitch as jIy Hall or ihe�Publ,c I rbrat� _. i he applicant or�ap jIi, <qnt' representative shall attend the neighborhood meeting, and be avitilable to ans,"�r t stic n4_:t c?r�_thr hli,c_The applicant shall be rc s <>t�sible for scheduiLing_gnd, coordinating the neis hbc>rhood r ceting. Renderin s,rnctdelicl , or other v1sual rc ,rem se,ntations caf'tlte rro'ect � itlur3 its c riatext is re aired,_ Fhe applicant must conductor mininturn level riot icint ursuant to si�tiCjion 26.304.0()0,F3.et<> cnsure the v)ghlir is aware ofthe tweeting ?additional potic;in lse�and that called for in Secttcrr; 26.304.1160 F..3 c rnati be provided, 2. On..-line naectine, l he alaplicant rriust conduct an or1-line mectirrs airy input I'rorn neighbors and citizens The ineetin__g_mltst be.g etap _tn.atfle, t c neral DWblic, The applicant or applicant's renresentatitie shall attend the online meLtinitand he available to answer cuestioits from Lhepublic. - he)Iicant shall be responsible 1*(.)r schedglingy tnd coordinating the on-line forum. Renderings rnodelim,. or other �rsual re r-sentations of the Project within its context rs tecturrcd. lhe applicant mu t c c>nduct a ntinimum level noticing,_p�rtesuur7t...tc?,`scctiori�fi_}t�-1 06Q.I.: .c, to ensure the public is aware o thc._c- line meeting, Additional noticing beyond that called for in Section 26.304.0601.3.c naav bc 'vided, City Council Ord 43 of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 5 of 2 I Enhanced Public 1nit>rmation. The applicant must pros°isle detailed information on the e ct in the forma of a rtroject webstte a detailed publie notice mailing etc. that explains th�Z-gr'otxxal, outlines the review arocess. provides visctal rendering or mans, or any other information that ti�il,1, describe the vrc iect in layman's terries _..I ht_q p�lic<rnt shall l?e. i otl rbl�tier ct�ordinatin x the irzf�armation. `1"he a licatat must conduct a minimum level roticina~, pursuant to> `+ecton 26.31}4.060.1°,.3.c tc> ensure the ublic is aware of a website, etc. Additional notrcing,. �p4.-tl)qt_called for t-n_`ect'op 26 04,060 F,.3.c matt 4. Individual Outreach. t ectin"s NyiLl.neigghhbo.rs of theptrct. '_1 he applicant shall be res, aorasihle fear organiain x and attending the meetings At the n eetiiw .,the a))licarzt sht���-ltl-�jrga itie a_sunimarr� o the p nc ig e rtr Ck >. Anv other lbrni ofneit liborhood outreach that will provide neighbors a xenuine < urttu�itv:tt trrtclt a tancl #hc,c e� to gig t ►ire�a1 anci�rojLje comments to the application, P. Summary° of Public Outreach. A written suznnlary of the nei-ohborhood outreach as well as the method of vublic notification. shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted as part ofthe official record —either as part of the initial wi lication-or as_an adds ndUrn,tO the ant?hcation. An th documentation at ryas resented to the- —_public as part of the outreach should also be included as part of the�ot licial record. Section 4: 26.310.040 — Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official 'Gone 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-of-mi rr t ftzre ° r= t}i t t i e> z r t":ct Tea, 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 s-,--,eW,4-tear With a,4 H60 ASPS a -Afeit o- oiit;ttuiiity f':.ifi urth rs an ado nteci policy, conimut_ _c�al, err octtye. -: 1t*tkei -t-t9, pi"£FC'ose 31}t §3i}} §cP,t i."s aki3 2t"9a:?blie 3tzi t:lkrtrF3s�t3$ ft3eec� tis3�t�1t�� c33i�k ti#3t: if v tt € sex 3} v rti[ i% lrzE'Fil use t to \�v46ch is tt)33ti c a,"n tsc?fPen, sii3ul "lei i 't5..;-c-irf t i 'ire_.,4f"-r-e -anh ,.Zr.: ti-lt`-i-eN'x:-'r�=rice'[ ^�ci��Ett-4� �t#f"sa:°,;i�rri}�z'^-`�`.ti�:t�'rt):^+t#lda's ���: }°��tssi��• ;3tit:a, i3tk{}�„°.�. City Council Ord 43 of'2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 6 of 21 Witl:cr=....t$tit?i3tbtt- -t€. its ti}t tta:ilta#S3 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: 26310.050 — Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map. Reserved, shall be amended as follows: See. 26.310.050.---- veti Standards of review for amendments to the Official Zone District,M In revre Aine an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City C'ounc it and the Plannira r and Zoning Cotnrnission shall consider: A. 1A%hethex,. he .prc>po t c1_amendment is in conflict with any aM-licable ponions of this Title. B. Whether the Proposed amctldnaent is cony atible with SUrr.ou.n.d. Ing, zone districts and land Uses. considering existini land use and raei Llahori2lh characteristics. C. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road satetv.. D. Whether and the extent to which the orovosed amendment_would result in dernands,on 71 uhlic facilities and whether and the extent to�which the proposed amendment-would exceed the ca.acitw of such ublic facilities includin but not limited to. tr ns crrtation facilities, se,vaoe facilities, w, a e_r._su 1\. narks. drainatie,schools and m i�4cncti.snt&al_f acilrties, E. Whether and tile extent to anrendrrlent Nvoul�j result._.in i�4niticantl% adverse impacts on the natural ens ironinerrt. F. Whether the prcojxr ed amendment is consistent_<rnd cor rjtrl:rle. ��'ith the commun tl character in the Cite. G._W'he.ther there have been chanoed cans affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding nei 7h� borin d i. h u� ( t theTro osed amendment. 11. Whether tlae ro osed artaendrnent would be ita conflict x ith the public interest and whether it is in harntonN � rtlr tlrc purse acrd intent caf tltil itic. City Council Ord 43 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-malting body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes. Coals, objectives and policies of m ��,,;pe l cot, ;:_-.,,i� -this Title and flit lunicimil 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 terms of this Title and the Municival Cold,,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. 26.425.040.Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning at Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. A. The conditional use is consistent with the ilA-44- if.. t,r` -intent of the lone 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 inix of development in the immediate vicinity of thearcel in terins of densitv,.lit, ht. bulk. architecture. landscapiu,. and open space.,as well as wlt„<tn alicahle aciotetl re_ tilatcmaster CO. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses and enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development, and City Council Ord 43 of 2012 AACP gap Code amendments Page 8 of 21 DU. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts., impacts can 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 F ;. 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 1 ----8040 Greenline review standards, shall be amended as follows: IL The aopt�d, rEulator4hns� �c� s �� -_ofthe ,r,e.n - u� < Open Space and 1 Earl, Board are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Section 9: 26.435.040.0,2 — Stream Margin review standards, shall be amended as follows: 2. The adomed rC'Ltl�Att plt�n4: <.x; t# t ra of the + i-� r �,tt t -s=' +t: arm �. ti�,tx- pe . ra - t)g7s.�t r�cl. .lra�l, fcati,cl_an�i 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 basement;" and Section 10: 26.440 50.A — Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA), 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 ti3 of 2012 AAC P gap Code Amendments Page 9of21 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or ohaae,� -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��ith anN applicable adopted regulatory ma. I in. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. 3. 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. W1i€-thef tf vi if:Whether the 3ro used development enThasizes quality construction and design characteristies, such as exterior materials. weatlj ri r, s�sheddin 7 aiL story Ye. and energv 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 —PLID Applicability, shall be amended as follows: Sec. 26.445.020.Applicability. Before any development shall occur on land designated Planned Unit Development (P TD) on the official zone district map or before development can occur as a PL?D, it shall receive final PU 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 21712 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 10 of'21 A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)D) 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 ado )teo and ariv aonlicable adovted rel_,ulator, goals of the A I,, I -cotntnumtN ............. mas!erlan .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 detennination, 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 -community and any applicable adopted r�ulatory 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 IT Overlay Zone District. Section 12: :26.445.020.A — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, COTIS011dated and minor PUD, General Requirements, shall be amended as follows: A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be with the mix of development in the immediate vicinitN, of the parcel in terms of density jjqight, bulk-, and architecture as well as an\ applicable adopted regulatory plaster 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 1 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: T 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 rhe of -°tfea 4,iaf- all 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 i safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. 4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, stied its exterior materials, Yv,eatherin�. snov� sheddin and st(�L Section 15: 26.445.020.1.4 — PUD, Review standards: conceptual., tinal, consolidated and minor PUD, Access and circulation, shall be amended as 1'()Ilows: 4. The recommendations of specific Kqg3alatory master_plansAs a licallew regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Section 16: 26.470.030.F, GMQS, Aspen metro area development ceilings and annual allotments, shall be amended as follows: City Council Ord #3 ot'2012 AACP :yap Code Amendments NoL,e 12 ot'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 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 continents 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 26.470.030.0, 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 26.304,0601.3.a. The City Council shall consider the following criteria in determining the allotments to be carried forward: 1. 9ti4t4i)' If. The community's growth rate over the preceding five-year period. 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. i . The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that have not yet been built. Section 17: 26.470.050.8.2, Gi\4QS, General requirements, General requirements, shall be amended as follows: 2. The proposed development isev4ii-4-,,ek+�f Piaq co atible with land uses in the surrounding-area. as vvell__as with an% applicabLe doo)ted regulatory Section 18: 26.480.050, Subdivision, Review standards. shall be amended as follo"vs: 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 443 of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 13 of 21 I. The proposed subdivision shall be A,-,gjei .Aroma cons atihle with the mix of develo mcnt in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in W ruts of density; height, bulk. architecrure.landscapin_g,and octj_space. as v�ell as with any applicable adopted rt,uulatory master plaij. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. I. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with rn adopted_�.pceilu, nl�ist i n. Title 2c. the illuilli lj?cil 4ode. iiie .1 l .Af7�i .c r. ,? i4at; the existing. neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the community. 2. Spatial pattern efficient_ The proposed subdivision shall riot 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: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with an appj'ca�le adopted_regulatory plan l till 2& the nllrriiCi al <7dt 'f�-i A-f -i. r } .h-e Bl itz, the existing. neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. 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 (4qf , ilfOt Rai Section 26470.070 5._I)e_rnolition�or redo vel )pment 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 with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. City Council Ord 43 of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 14 of'-)l 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 (A H-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: 26.515.040.8.1, Off-Street Parking Special review standards, shall be arnended 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 � € itit wit contpati t ,with the mix of deg eloLptnent in the iminediatc vicinity of the parcel in terms ol'density, hei,ht, boil._ architecture. landscaping and c enn s a emits-,yell as,,with anv a ilicable._adtt ted ] ulator master�n. 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. 14. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving. approving with conditions or disapproving a development order and art 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. i'otice to City Council, Following the adoption of a resolution approving,approving with conditions or disapproving a CC_oticeptual IXievelopment Pl tri 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. shall consist,of a description in Nyritten anc!<rra him tc,rtt7.of the proiect with a cgpy pf th4_apprqv i ng .document.._ The--notification shall be placed oil the qg.eLnda of regular City Council meeting v,ithin 30 clays of the approk al. or as soon thereafter as is practical under the clr,;utistances. C' Ccxll-ip. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as described in Section 26.415.070 within #ii'ttecn (1> da s of n0ttllCatt017... _IStxttit,ned in 26415.12t(13)_ Consequently, 412Ltti atlons for Final Dcticlopment f lan "lkc' c_u l all rt �t be accented--h% t_h.e. t'itN and no associated permits c �� shall be issued during the ti t-- i-_` � �-notice and call-up period._..I# c eta, Council exercises this call- City Council Ord 43 of 2012) AACP gap Code Amendments Page 15 of 21 pp vision, no applications for Finil 1)e eltspniciit Platt llc ietit shall be accepted cl by the C tit and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection 26.41 i.120.1). 1fth C iv Cot does its>t call up the action the re soltitlotn of_I II shall be the final decision on the matter,.,, D. City Council action on : '-(4F-cull-tap. The City Council shall, at adnublic nicc:tin�, consider the application novo. The City Council may, at its discretion, consider_evidence included irithe 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 applic able to_thc review ing body.si 1 . 4-41'an tile' l H it ( si Fusel,etioft: The City Council's stet:tak-s^su,,h_action shall be ?i^, ii,, de'e'r vi't`a ai limited to: 1. Accepting the decision. -i----fir 0. Remanding the application to the I IPC with direction from Council for rehearing and reconsideration. (Ord. No, 1-2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 52-200', § 10) 3. Ccsntiittiin _fhc nicetirn y to re u._ alld clonal c\Jencc, analysis. or testimony its _ 1a _ __.w .. ___ .W_.. _ ---___. necessary to conclude the. call ill)re\WVI. 1clGlittc�f7rr1 t�tr Arai l"he relivartn-, and reconsideration of the application b" the HPC.'shall be duly inoticed ur5uant to Section 26.704,0691: Public Notice and shall be limited to the tom listed in the direction from Council. The IIPC:' decision is final and concludes the call up rcvieyy. Substantive changes �t5 doffined in Secticsit 26AI5.070j_,. 2 Substantial Amendments, made to the application during the call ups review and outside the topicmms 1i-sted in the remand from Council shall be reviewed to `section 26,415.0704,` and shall r uir r q a,ticw��tal. 1 up notice to C"itv Council. The call uI?_rey°i }yahall be limited onk, to the ch�fnc _,Lq)provcd qj_the Substantial ,_nIendmentapplication. Section 21: Section 26.412.040.13. -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: 26.412.04OR Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call-lip. 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. City Council Ord 43) of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 16 of 21 2. ,Votice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with conditions a development application for ('Conceptual Ddesign, the City Council shall he promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself ol`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 agenda of a rett}ar C' ty C'ttzncil „rteetinu within 30 days of the approval or as soon thereafter as js_ tical under the circumstances.Ak<_b 26 4� > t 3. ("all-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving;or approving with conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council may order cal}-up of the action within fit eert I3' dais of notification as outlined in 26.41?_() Consequently, VpLtcaxlons for Final T)esign shall n o t.be _rtvancl_no associated permits can,shall be issued during the and call-up period. If City Council exercises this call-ul?..�r«�isictrt. nci applications for Ilirtal Design Shall he accented by the C'tti artd nct associated t�erntrts sltttll_,N SSUed_until the City Council takes action as described in subsection 2G 4.12,04{).13.4. 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. Chi, Council action on call-up. The City Council shall_ at1DuhiiC mectiiig,. consider the application de noyo 24\4i k-}°t � • The City Council ina�. at it discretion. consider evidence included in the record established by the historic Prescr\,ation Commission or Planning; and Zoning Con"Lrni§,sion. as applicable, or supplement the record_ r,kith additional evidence or tcstimony as,necessarv. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application tinder_the same criteria applicable to "the—reviewin—g bod-,, �i+i- 4'tflil E F# 33 T:0ii--tHi -4 ie`t - rtt:i.';4 t fit?tt iiie ... . ss-o (it: -f,�,FtPIL �; of 4 ml-k-kilH c ri C' ti-if 4 ki'. k tr) i cY€ ill i . X19 xt*z:tii# The City C.oUnCll'S iF� ea v� tit action Shall _ __._.._ be cl:s,-_^, -si& 4iflt ~Rii no, limited to: a. Acceptin g the decision, — r+`�2?c� �Er e . b.c.Remanding the application to the plic.ablc:. Commissionith direction _front City Council for rehearing acid i-econsiderati«n. (Ord. No. 13, 2007. §1) c:. -_C�ontinuing the__.meeting tit retlucst .�dwlttic�n�ti c� �ir�e :_... trl_tlNsz ._ or testiin env is 17�cessar to conclude the call up re ieti,,. _Y=_41thlion ll ic�lions. 1'lie rchearin and reconsideration atic>n_+ t..the c licatiort hv titc ap licabl commission :;hall be duly noticed Pursuant to Section 6. 04,060.E Public `notice and shall be Iimited to the to ics Igistel in the direction from Council. '11.1c decision made by the Applical e Commission is .:final and concluc}eS t1le Call up._.,reViC"v Substantive changes, as defined to Section 26.412.080 Amendment of C omnlerci tl ..Design Ilc 6c, ,` Ayoroval. made to City Council Ord 43 of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 17 of 21 the application during the call up ret exN and outside the tom listed tri th rc..maiidm from (.'council shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.412.080 and,may� a nevv, call u . notice to City Council The call up review shall be limited only t:o the c anues �t rc����_is�the Amendment a lication, 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 (I) 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 waiting 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 L''se 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 43 of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 18 of 21 0 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. t4l -,A._resoIution ofthe I-I.T.K.'.. action shall be forwarded to the City Counc'l in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Anneals. notice to Cit\ COLInCil. No applications for Final Deve iomeqt__I)Jan shall be accepted hy the City and no associated pe,rmits shall be issued until the City Council-take-s 4. ton his described in said section. c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follo\vs: (1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval ot' 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 conceptual development plan shall be binding upon fillC 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 prav,4 shall be required.lqgsuant to See o 1 —6.4 _.0. 11.. _0 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. 'llw Coniniunit-, Development Director it _gntni,an extension of this limitation if the dclav has been caused bv the or similar delays that could not have been reasonably_pjedictcd by the a iticaiit.'-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 26.415.070.1).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 26304.03)(). Z1 City Council Ord#3 of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Pa,-Ye 19 of 21 tn (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 1-IPC 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. t44�V+0-,io4ti4-i,4il 42-14��4111( iicliOfi tTii 6C f un� Fv& i (541) 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 rile with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be C, 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 ordinance in 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 130' 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 liall. 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: C Kathryn S. ch,City Clerk Michael C. Ireland,Mayor FINALLY,adopted,passed and approved this 27th day of February,2012. Attest: X, Kathryn S. K, h,City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor t/ Approved as to form: ity Attorney City Council Ord ";3 oi-2012 : ,ACE' gap Code • mendments Page 21 ol'21 f � 7482` 51 P ROOD OF g�BLICAT�ON It% L211 III%, Cpt1l�1TY OF p1-�.tN T ASE ap COLORADO, 1 am a p;blish£r°1 The`Ae PEN ins � to wh or T, that !printed,I swear pri an has a pWANCEiF3, z¢ ,ea 23, 5 � d QR 83,Ssi,es at�i?�neSt;ng Safiva�Y me o solemnl} new'p'ape Cobra o, shed OTdir, OitY Coin Oted•Hill adop a ed.d weekl} of ubli. at me Q,afi as enr►a t7tleatbeT that the same of piticin, Stater has been pod of 2?,,Zfl`z ASPe Agea ooma'am�ome 1, yd in Count' said pevt'spal'�{ pitkin for a 'Per,a of ga'ea a maw`fi 9e,�b,c hsa3d52 �S W the �,aH Lion aun Y SMa o�dina�c nat1,13d South Gamma al Mtice TIM ublishe that t to the first publi part and p lotion therein in said C at5 ,Gy+Y lot he y's,e9 int£rrtipt� Y neh prior So see me ertl,e text,go general tire;and un t fay ` "' b tive"Weeks continuous fifty two coast: advertisement bushed in the 0431 , W �S� a" �'a More than al notice ar lei gent•`ras p; r far the perlod the „Yo��vould` 5 . td d, risen tt,e�Y S��aN the annex` or a sex ws ape was in d legal notice of said daily ne paf said noClc£ hcation puoGshad��a2t�e^Times wear That the a i°sue t,{ every n;T atthe first 4 � °t at the last pub' �s•xo i and ee uc ,e insertions;a d dated 1126su of said nev4spaper dated CT eon e of said ne`v'" ap . the is o{ Feb�ar`. issu id nonce was 6 day i126l�OI2 of sa et my hand th In witness`vbereof.{base here unto eathc fit,publisher henna and{or the�,,unty of „blic in a notar} p hti12 Subscribed and sworn Labe(L,reeday'O� Febru;� \\`55�15,5is,t+lrrrrrr�'/ [alorad°thisb .� �OT2KFiV Gar{ield,State a{ �� .... ;�01ARk public - � °UBUC : p Notary RECEPTION#: 565855, 01/05/2010 at 10:12:34 AM, 1 OF 8, R $41.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION 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; 26.412.040.11 -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; 26.412.0403 - 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, 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; 26.412.040.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 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 1 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 r-emoved is a th str4kethfough a-ad Qoks 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, qpplications 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 apps e,-call-up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting, consider the application on the r-eeef' established before the 44PGde 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 l evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to the reviewing body. ha affki ' he deeision of the 14PC tmiess the-re is a finding tha4 there was a denial of"e pr-eeess or-the 14PC 1, � a 't ,• `'- - - _,___--d its rliser-eti^o�The City Council's sha4l-tom m--cTm.'TACCCCICC�'I'L�TRl lJ al�ily � sueh-action shall be as its a --_ a neeessafy to remedy said s.t"'tiOn e uu,�i„ btA nE) , ul�„ v limited to: 1. Accepting the decision. i v sing the dee sien L11V 2. a of 11 -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 o 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 approved 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#17 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 Cily 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. en the-r-eeer-d established before the Plannin ZepAng commis to P esei�ation Cemmi sien, as—appheable. 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. shall .,ff;,-m the , eeisio of the G n1ess there is „ finding abused its e efie The City Council'ssma4l takes action shall be as its deems _°a neeessafy to remedy said situation, including bu4 not limited to: a. Accepting the decision. a. Reversing the deeision. II. Altering the eendifiens of appfeval-. 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 U 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 4of8 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, an d call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by 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 13e g—Uproval 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 b t�pplication 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 417 of 2009 De novo Code Amendment Page 6of8 A (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. uccvrda-nee i+vrra-Section 26T15T30 and--r"ro pefir t will be issued fe eenstf�uefien of the pr-ejeet until the thirty (30) day "eall up" per-iod by City (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 15th day of December, 2009. i Stan Gibbs, Vice- Chairman Ckian, City Clerk Approved as to form: ames R. True, Special Counsel Planning&Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009 De novo'Code Amendment Page 8 of 8 MEMORANDUM !A% TO: Aspen Planning and "Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Direct 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 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. 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 1, 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 - oft 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; 26.412.040.8 - 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; 26.412.040.13 - 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 Page 1 of 7 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 r-effloved i-s green With St ethff)tfgh-ara mks 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 l: 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 °,.,,..a established before the P- de 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 affifm the deeiqiAn Af thp MPG unless there is a finding that thefe was a EleRial 0 due pr-ocess or- the WC hascxeeeded its jufisdietion of its diser-etion.The City Council shall take such action as its deemsed necessary to r-effled y said situ ti 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 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 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 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 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. ems-the-reeo tabl-rshed before the planning an-, Zoning Commission ef 14isterie Pr-eser-vation Commission, as 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. the—decieYi�n Qf-n� Commission unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or- the Commij-si-—1 Eeeded its jtifisdietion of abused its-dise-retion. The City Council shall take such action as its deemsed necessary to remedy said s:*,,,,+:,,.,, including but not limited to: a. Accepting the decision. ab. Reversing or amending the decision. bc. 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 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. 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, an d call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by 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 bye 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. _(4)A fes`vrution ozf--the 14PG aetion will be forwarded to the City Council—iii aeeer Seetion 26.415.130 and tie per-mit will be issued—feT c-onstfuetion of the pfojeet intil-the-thirty (30) day " pefiod by City G ;i h axpir-ed. (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. FINALLY, adopted,passed and approved this day of , 2008. LJ Erspamer, Chairman Attest: Jackie, Lothian, City Clerk Approved as to form: James R. True, Special Counsel PZ Resolution 4 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. K 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. T°"* being femeved is red with stfikethrough 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 eeor-a established 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 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 a4ir-m the deeision of the 14PC unless there is a finding tha4 there was a denial a due process or- the--14PC has exceeded its jurisdiction or- abused itci�cs-°c` `iiser-etion. The City Council shall take such action as its deemsed necessary to r medy said situa4i including, but not limited to: 1. Accepting the decision. 1. Rove sing the deeisio -32. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 10) 3. Continuing the meeting�quest additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as necessM 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 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. on the reeard established befoTe the planning and Zoning -of 14istefie-Pr-eser- on-Cemmissio ,as 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 affifm the deeision-owe comm,Commission tinless thefe is a finding that thefe was a denial of due proeess or- the °°4°a its jtwisdietioa or- abused its disefiation. The City Council shall take such action as its deemsed necessary to r , ed), said tuatior, including but not limited to: a. Accepting the decision. a. p eve(sing the a ^„ b.e.Remanding the application to the applicable Commission for rehearing. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1) c. Continuing the meeting to 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. 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 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 hearing—Uproval 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 b t�pplication requiring additional reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by 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. c4`A feseltitien- of the-HPC action will be-fer-wafded to the City Council aeeer- ee with Seetien- 26.415.130 and no permit will--be issued fa construction of the project arm the thii4y (30) day period by City (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 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. Michael Hoffman, Chairman HPC resolution with adopted changes Exhibit B Page 7 of 8 HPC resolution with adopted changes EXHIBIT B Attest: Kathy Strickland City Clerk Approved as to form: James R. True, Special Counsel HPC resolution with adopted changes Exhibit B Page 8 of 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Exhibit C 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 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 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Exhibit c 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&Z. 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 FIPC 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 Exhibit C MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 200 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 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. 9 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 I, 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 26.412.0408 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 HPC 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. 10 Exhibit 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. ll ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Exhibit 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 #48 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. 12 Exhibit 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 adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Kathlee J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 1 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 1 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; 26.412.040.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, 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 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. T&4 being Femoved is fed with StFikethFOHgh 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section l: 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 ^n'"° °°^-a established°a ''°`r°the`ro'' 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 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 FF' the ,leeisien F the 14PC 1 there finding that there denial e xrcrxo-vwravrrvrcrxo-raaz=cnixv9;rcrivro is u xxixaiixs-cxx6c cxxcxc was ,+ .......». ... d the HPG 1 a a its di t:, abused ,I:ser-etio The City Qac-fiiwc�;rvrmcz-rrl—naTcicvocac°a ico7uri�axv coxc vc a uov... .w ................... 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 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 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 jk novo. Formatted:Font:Italic --- -- - --------------------------------------------------------- --------- 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 ^ffi""' the deeisien of the Commissien unless there is a finding tha4 there ass an d-teni-al elf due pr-eeess eF th-e The City Council shall take such action as its deemsed necessary to remedy said sittiatien, including but not limited to: a. Accepting the decision. b. Reversing or amending the decision. bc. Altering the conditions of approval. W. Remanding the application to the applicable Commission for rehearing. (Ord.No. 13,2007, §1) e. Continuing the meeting to 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. 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 -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. 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 hear-iiig—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°,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. 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. aeeerdanee=.:ith Sestien 26.415.130 and ne—permit will be issued e0fiStr-H660H E4-11 "I the thiFty (30) day "eall tip" period by City (34) 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 12008. LJ Erspamer,Chairman Attest: Jackie,Lothian,City Clerk Approved as to form: James R.True,Special Counsel 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.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 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. TeK4 being removed is Fed with stAketliFeUgh and leeks like thi 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 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 en the reeefd *.bushed before the H-PC e rdoVO. 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 affir-m the deraision of the HPC unless them is a finding thm there was a deflial of dHO PFOeess OF the HPC has emeeeded its : isdi.fien abused its disc—etie,. The City Council shall take such action as its deemsed necessary tO Femedy said situa4ie. including,but not limited to: 1. Accepting the decision. 2. Reversing the de 23.Altering the eenditions of apprevalz 32.Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1-2002, §7 [part];Ord.No.52-2003, § 10) 33.Continuing the meetinp, 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 ean 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 B novo. Formatted:Font:Italic 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. °' °" 441— the decision of `h-e Gemmissien unless there is a finding that theFe was a denial of due pfeeess or the The City Council shall take such action as its deemsed necessary te Femedy said situatieft, including but not limited to: a. Accepting the decision. b. Reversing 9EAmemh �q&the decision. ebd. Remanding the application to the applicable Commission for rehearing. (Ord.No. 13,2007, §1) ce. Continuing the meeting to 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. 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-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 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. - Formatted:Tab stops: 1.5°,Left+Not at 0.zs° 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. _(4)A r-eselatien of the 14PC aetien will be f a to the City C-vunoltrt aeeefdanee with Seetien 26.415.130 and no PeFfflit will be issued nco^n'-s_tr e fie of-Al e ..t .,ta the thiFt, (30) d ��eall ed by Cit. G etin (34) 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"' 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 HPC resolution with adopted changes EXHIBIT B Attest: Kathy Strickland City Clerk Approved as to form: James R.True,Special Counsel HPC resolution with adopted changes Exhibit B Page 8 of 8 :E, At MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission r THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Directors >J 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 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, 7,�n� � �jC -� (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: t/ Publicatio7z of 770tice: 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. zn Posting of 720tice: By posting of notice,which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials,which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the_day of , 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 26304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty(60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) 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. ignature The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this C day of A:P V I ( , 2008, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUBLIC NOTICE My Commission expires: C ) - �C� fcs,�-C)t RE: CITY INITIq MAEDT MAEDT NOTICE CHAPTERS TO CHAPTERS 26.472 and 26 475 OF THE LAND USE CODE Y GIVEN"Ill be hfeld o11 T,esday Aprail 2 public 9e hearing meeting to begin at 4:3p Notary Public Planning and Zoning p.m.before the Aspen Room,pity Hall, 180Commission,Sister Cities >.A y P(,/e consider a Comm 3.galena St.,qs - • .�` initiatetl ordinan unity Development De pen,to �•�� Council" ce related to the provisions torment 6@ aPProvl all- review of Conce City granted by the Historic p�al Review A Commission antl the PI eservation �_/"eURr4 Commission throw h anning and Zoning 26.415"Develo g an amendment to Chapter MLYER Inventor pment Involving the Aspen ° e Structures or Deve�o Historic Landmark Sites and ° Overlay District and Chapter in an H"Historic ATTACHIVII;NTS AS APPLICABLE: —`p� Design Reviewt For further inform tCommercial ^ v Sara Atlnaent at the rther infPennaCo,contact M'W"0 Develo City of As FTHEPUBLICATION epart ment, Community pen,C (970)429.2778,saraa�ci.as Jena As- s7�ErSP-mer Chair GRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN ;"c ►miss r, z i!P,s 0811012010 Aspen Planning antl Zoning Commission c THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED Published in the Aspen Times Weekly 2009. (3228817) '. TT . Y on April 5, il. "ANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BYGR.S. §24-65.5-103.3 VTbco 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: 26412.040.8 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# 009, Series of 2009 Exhibit A—Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review Exhibit B —HPC Resolution denovomemopz.doc Page - 2 - of2 RESOLUTION No. 0 1 (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; 26.412.0403 -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, 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. ,FText 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 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,rshall be issued during the thirty (30)__----f 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 de novo. The City Council may, at its discretion, Deleted:shall affirm the decision of the - - ----- - ----- -------------------------- consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation HPC unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the HPC Commission or supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its necessary_ The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same discretion. process and requirements applicable to the reviewing bod"The Ci ty Council shall take- ;' Deleted:s - ..-- such action as ideem necessary including,but not limited to: Deleted:ed Deleted: to remedy said situation proposed amendment Page 2 of 7 1. Accepting the decision. 2. Reversing or amending the decision. - Deleted:2 �.__Altering the conditions_of approval. 4. Remanding_the application to_the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7 -- Deleted:3 [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 Conceptual Design, the City ...- Deleted:c 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 Shall be issued during the thirty-day call-up -- If Deleted:can - f 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.4e novo. The 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. 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 ik deems,necessary,_including_but-not_ ,.-- Deleted:shall affirm the decision ofthe limited to: Commission unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction or a. Accepting the decision. abused its discretion. Deleted:s b. Reversing or amending the decision. Deleted:ed ,c. Altering_the conditions of approval. Deleted: to remedy said situat;on 41. Remanding the application to the_a Deleted:b icable Commission for rehearing. (Ord.No. 13,2007, §1) Deleted:c e. Continuing the meeting to 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 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-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 Deleted:s approved, a new conceptual development plan approval-shall be required, - Deleted:heanng pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3Y _------------------------------------- - ----------- �eieted:. (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 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: -- 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 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.. Before an_application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of _ Deleted:(4).A resolution ofthe HPC action will be forwarded to the City plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must Council in accordance with section be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues 26.415.130 and no permit will be issued which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the for construction of the project until the thirty(30)day"call up'period by City plans. Council has expired.¶ Deleted:5 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. FINALLY,adopted,passed and approved this day of 12008. LJ Erspamer,Chairman Attest: Jackie, Lothian,City Clerk Approved as to form: James R. True,Special Counsel proposed 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. 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;26.412.040.13 - 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 I 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. Jext 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 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 approvin 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�Shatl 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. 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, 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 as J 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 - Deleted:shall affirm the decision of the such action as i deem necessary, ,but not limited to: HPC Unless there is a finding that there -------- -----------ryt-----------g- ------------------------------------------------------ was a denial of due process or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its 1. Accepting the decision. discretion. Deleted:s �. Remanding_the_application_to the HPC for rehearing.___(Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7 [part];Ord.No. 52-2003, § 10) Deleted:ed Deleted: to remedy said situation 3 Continuing he meeting o request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as `,' Deleted:z..Reversing the decision. - ----------------- ----------------� q----------------------------------------y--------------------- ----- g 1 necessary to conclude the call-up review. Deleted:2 Deleted:3..Altering the conditions of approval.¶ Deleted:3 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 Deleted:s decisions,shall be amended as follows: 26.412.040.8. 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 Cpnceptual_Wsign,_the City—--f Deleted:c 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 Cit�and no associated permits shall be issued during the thirty-day call-up period.___If__ f 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 dde novo.Jhe City__Council__in ay, 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. HPC resolution with adopted changes Exhibit B Page 3 of 7 s HPC resolution with adopted changes EXHIBIT B of the application under the same process and requirements applicable to the reviewing body._The_City_Council shall take such action as_i�deem- necessary, including but not Deleted:shall affin n the decision ofthe limited to: Commission unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction or a. Accepting the decision. abused its discretion. Deleted:s fir_ Remanding the_application to the_applicable Commission for rehearing. (Ord.No. 13,2007, §1) Deleted:ed Deleted: to remedy said situation G. Continuing the meeting to o request additional evidence, analysis, Or testimony as Deleted,b. Reversing or amending the ----- ----- -------------- necessary to conclude the call-up review. decision.¶ Deleted:b Deleted:c..Altering the conditions of approval.¶ Deleted:c Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 — Conceptual Development Plan Review, which Deleted:d section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans Deleted:e 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 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 - peals, notice_to Cit _ 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 amendments to the conceptual design after it has been Deleted:s approved, a new conceptual development plan aproval shall be required, Deleted:hearing - ---------------------- 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 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 an_application_fora building_permit_can_be submitted, a final set of Deleted:(4).w resolution of the HPC plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues 26.415.130 and no permit will be issued which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the for construction ofthe project until the thirty(30)day"call up'period by City plans. Council has expired.¶ Deleted:5 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. Michael Hoffman,Chairman Attest: Kathy Strickland City Clerk Approved as to form: James R. True,Special Counsel HPC resolution with adopted changes Exhibit B Page 7 of 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: { G fL2- ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC FEARING DATE: 200 9 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: `� 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 770tice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterprc�af 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 j height. Said notice-ATas 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 26304.060(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 governunental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on 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 forego;n� "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 23 day of J'GG(ii/G� , 2009, by-V !n=J eJ a PUBL NOTICE RE: CITYINI A OTIAMENDMENTSTO WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL CH TER,26.412 and 28.415 F THE LAND USE CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday April 8,2009,at a My commission expires: © O ;- l b 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 Notary Public Commission and the Planning and Zoning p Commission through an amendment to Chapter A PY P 26.415"Development Involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and •°O Structures or Development in an"H"Historic Overlay District and Chapter 26.412"Commercial Design Review." For further information,contact ULAURA Sara Adams at the City of Aspen Community Development Department,130 S.Galena St.,As-pen,CO,(970)429.2778,saraa @ci aspen.co.us.at Michael Hoffman.Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission I'ACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: 22, Published(3160893)en Times Weekly on March T ICATION H OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGA9 • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BYC•R.S §24-65.5-103.3 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 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 6 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&Z. 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 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 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 APRILS 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. 9 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 26.412.0408 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 HPC 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. 10 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. I 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 #48 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. 12 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. Kathlee J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 13 MEMORANDUM cbe 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 Use Code are addressed in Exhibit 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: 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: 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`h and May 26`h 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; 26.412.040.13-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; 26.412.040.13 - 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 vote;and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission fmds 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. t------------- ------ --------- 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 A novo. The City Council may, at its discretion, Deleted:shall affirm the decision of the 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 was a denial of due process or the HPC has exceeded itsiurisdiction or abused its necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same discretion. process and requirements applicable to the reviewing body. The Cit Council shall ;' Deleted:s - -- y shall_take-such action as i�deem�,necessary�including,butnot-limited-to: ----- Deleted:ed Deleted: to remedy said situation 1. Accepting the decision. 2. Reversing or amending the decision. Deleted:2 �.__Altering_the conditions of approval---- ------------------- -- - - -_____________- ----------_-- 4. Remanding the_application to the HPC Jor rehearing.___(Or-d. No. 1-2002 7 - Deleted:3 [part];Ord.No. 52-2003, § 10) 5. Continuing the meeting to 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 "catl-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:c 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, Mplications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the Ci1y and no associated permits Shall 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 e novo._,The 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!necessary, including but not - Deleted:shall affirm the decision of the limited to: Commission unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction or a. Accepting the decision. abused its discretion. • b. Reversing or amending the decision. Deleted:s Deleted:ed ,p_ Altering_the conditions of approval: __ -----------------------_____- Deleted: to remedy said situation A___Remanding theapplication to_the applicable_Commission for rehearing.__(Ord._No. Deleted:b 13,2007, §1) --------- Deleted:c e. Continuing the meeting to 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. 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 AP Peal-s,------- - ------ 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 Deleted:s approved, a new conceptual development plan approval shall_be required, Deleted:hearing pursuant to Section 26.415.070.133 -- -------___-- Deleted:. (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 pplication 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 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_for_a building_permit can be submitted, a final set of - - Deleted:(4)_A resolution ofthe HPC pTans reflecting an or all required changes b the HPC or City Council must `, notion will ac ordance with to the city g Y 9 g Y tY Council in accordance with Section be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues 26.415.130 and no permit will be issued which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the for construction ofthe project until the thirty(30)day"call up"period by City plans. Council has expired.¶ Deleted:5 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 day of 12008. Michael Hoffman,Chairman Attest: Kathy Strickland City Clerk Approved as to form: James R. True,Special Counsel 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. 1111U ids 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. 5-206.F. 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 filing 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 Development 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