HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150630
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
SPECIAL MEETING
June 30, 2015
4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES
A. April 21, 2015 Minutes
B. May 26, 2015 Minutes
C. June 16, 2015 Draft Minutes
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 540 E. Main St. Rezoning
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Work Program check-in
VIII. BOARD REPORTS
IX. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 12
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant
7) Public comments
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015
1
Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Kelly McNicholas, Brian McNellis, and Skippy Mesirow.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Chris Bendon, Hillary Seminick, and Becky Levy.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
There were no minutes for review and approval.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Walterscheid has recently switched employment. His former employer, Charles Cunniffe, is involved
with the applicant for the 300 and 312 E Hyman public hearing scheduled. He had minimal involvement
in this project and does not have a financial interest. He has discussed the situation with Ms. Quinn and
he plans to participate in the public hearing unless the applicant or another commissioner has an
objection.
69 Shady Lane – Special Review for Variances from Stream Margin
Review – Continued from 4/7/2015
Ryan asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn stated notice had been provided at the April
7th hearing.
Ms. Seminick, Community Development Planner Technician, opened with a review of the application
which is a special review for a variances for a Stream Margin review. The property is located on the
Roaring Fork River near the confluence with Hunter Creek. The property includes the mainland and an
island in the river. It is unknown when the existing bridge was built and there are no known approvals to
provide access from the mainland to the island. The applicant wishes to replace the bridge from the
mainland to the island. The April 7 th memo from Staff raised several concerns regarding the replacement
so the applicant requested additional time to restudy the project. Although Staff appreciates the
breakaway design offered, the project still does not meet several of the stream margin review criteria.
Staff is still recommending denial at this time.
Ms. Seminick reviewed the criteria for a stream margin review and the defined areas in which it applies
in regards to the river, its tributary streams and flood hazard areas. She displayed a slide of the property
and described the location of the development currently in progress (P&Z resolution number 13, Series
P1
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015
2
2010), the bridge that exists outside the building envelope. She stated the bridge is completely within
the review area. Because the bridge is not in the building envelope, the applicant is requesting a special
review for the stream margin review.
The nearly three acre property is zoned Low-Density Residential (R-30) with a Planned Development
(PD) overlay.
P&Z Resolution number 13, Series 2010 established a building envelope for a single family home
currently under development. A slide was presented where a green line represented the building
envelope and the yellow line represents the 15 ft set back from the top of slope. The red line on the
slide represented the top of slope and the location of the bridge within the top of slope area. The deck
or walking surface of the bridge is within the 100 year floodplain. The bridge is supported by a steel
pillar on a concrete pad with ad-hoc reinforcement of the bank on the island side. The applicant is
proposing a hinged or breakaway design for the replacement bridge on the island side of the bridge.
They would remove the steel pillar but keep the concrete pad to reduce the disturbance of the bank.
Abutments would be placed where the current structure exists. The new bridge would also be
cantilevered to allow the middle of the bridge to be above the floodplain.
In order to replace the bridge, the applicant is requesting four variances from the stream margin review
criteria.
Criteria two requests a fisherman’s easement to be established on the property. An
easement was recommended in the P&Z resolution number 13, Series 2010, but one has
not been established. The applicant does not wish to pursue it.
Criteria three prohibits vegetation removal or slope changes outside a building
envelope.
Criteria eight does not permit development other than City-approved native vegetation
planting below the top of slope or within 15 ft of the top of slope. Parks does support a
re-vegetation plan for below top of slope to restore the island bank.
Criteria nine does not allow for development outside the 15 ft setback from the top of
slope to exceed a height delineated from a line drawn at 45 degrees. This is to reduce
the visual impacts of people using the river.
The project would not impact the base flood elevation based on the model provided. The proposed
solution is not considered to pollute or discharge a significant amount of sediment in the river and the
course of the river would not be altered. Should any permitting be required by the Army Corps of
Engineers, copies of the permits would be provided to the City. If P&Z would approve this application,
Staff recommends requiring all the permits and fees be submitted to the City as a condition of the
approval.
Because four of the review criteria are not met as described earlier, Staff does not support the project
and recommends denial of the request for variances.
Mr. Walterscheid asked the commissioners for any questions for Staff. There were none, so Mr.
Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant.
P2
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015
3
Mr. John Galambos represents the owner, Mustang Holdings II. Mr. Yancy Nichols of Sopris Engineering
was also present to discuss the technical work details of the project.
Mr. Galambos stated it is obvious they cannot meet any of the four criteria discussed earlier. The old
bridge can be repaired as a nonconformity. They wanted to make it better by building a new bridge off
site, repairing the abutments, taking the pier out of the waterway, and putting a camber in over the
waterway. A crane would be used to place the bridge. The new bridge would be safer. In a catastrophic
event, the existing bridge would be gone and become debris down the river. They feel the variances
would allow for a practical solution to make the bridge better. He stated the entire island is in the 100
year event area. From a kayaker’s point of view, it would be better to have the bridge further off the
waterway. The main bulk of the river currently flows under the bridge. The tract going around the island
nearly dries up during the summer, so people using the river typically need to go under the bridge.
Mr. Galambos point out the diagram of the existing bridge on p 5 of the agenda packet which shows the
supporting structures and the water level. The diagram on p 9 of the packet shows the proposed new
bridge which eliminates the post in the water. The post currently is an opportunity for things to pile up
against it.
Mr. Nichols added they are taking measures to minimize the impact to the area by building the bridge
offsite, using a crane for the installation and building the support structures by hand onsite. If allowed to
install a new bridge, the maintenance would be considerably be less than maintaining the existing
bridge. He feels maintenance of new bridge would be 30-40 years and the existing bridge would require
maintenance every 10 years.
Mr. Galambos asked the commission for any questions.
Mr. Goode asked them to confirm the location of the bridge in relation to the Rio Grande trail. Mr.
Galambos confirmed it is bridge you can view on the left side from the trail. Mr. Goode asked about the
blockage upstream shown on the picture on p 7 of the packet. Mr. Galambos stated typically the main
channel is to the right under the bridge. He is not certain of the status of the blockage shown in the
picture and it may need to be dealt with.
Mr. Goode asked if they would repair the existing bridge if the application was denied at which Mr.
Galambos confirmed.
Mr. Galambos stated there are no intentions of any improvements for the island.
Mr. Goode asked Staff how long the structure could be repaired into the future. Ms. Seminick confirmed
nonconformities can be repaired up to 10% of the current replacement cost over a 12 month period. Mr.
Galambos stated you cannot increase a nonconformity, but you can repair it.
Mr. Mesirow asked given the 15 ft setback and the inability to protrude into the sight line, then it would
be impossible to build a bridge to code. Both the applicant’s representative and Staff confirmed there
was no way to build a new bridge to meet the code.
Mr. Bendon stated the most difficult criteria item to meet is number 2 as defined on p 16 of the packet.
P3
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015
4
Mr. McNellis asked if the City has taken a position regarding removing a structure built without approval
in a hazard zone. Ms. Seminick stated the Engineering department did recommend the existing bridge
be removed and the banks be restored to the pre-existing condition. Mr. Galambos stated his client
does not want to entertain removing the existing bridge. Mr. Bendon stated the City retains the right to
cure something felt to be representing a life safety or hazard to other properties regardless of what
decision P&Z makes on the hearing.
Ms. McNicholas asked why the applicant does not want to provide the fisherman’s easement. Mr.
Galambos stated his client is concerned about privacy issues and having people walking in right in front
of their house.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for any public comment. There was none appearing, so Mr. Walterscheid closed
the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for any rebuttal from Staff of which there was none.
Mr. Walterscheid then asked for commissioner’s comments.
Mr. McNellis feels their hands are tied in regards to the criteria. He feels the proposed new building
would be a better situation in regards to safety and maintenance. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Goode have
similar feelings.
Ms. McNicholas stated she has concerns regarding possible loss of use of the land for the property
owners but doesn’t see how she can approve the application. For the health of the river she would
prefer to see it removed. Ms. Tygre agreed with Ms. McNicholas.
Mr. Walterscheid is curious if there was a way to grant the application.
Mr. Bendon replied P&Z should pursue all avenues to approve the project.
Mr. McNellis wondered if P&Z should champion language to modify the code to allow for a project
similar to this which is addressing a hazard. Ms. McNicholas didn’t necessarily agree with Mr. McNellis.
She stated anytime you purchase in a flood area, you take a risk at what you can do with the property at
which Mr. McNellis agreed.
Ms. Tygre motioned to make a recommendation to deny the request for variation for the special review
of the stream margin review for 69 Shady Ln as set forth in resolution 007-2015, which was seconded by
Mr. Goode. Mr. Walterscheid requested a roll call vote. Roll call vote; Ms. McNicholas, yes; Mr. McNellis,
yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Walterscheid, yes. Motion passed with a
total six (6) yes – zero (0) no.
P4
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015
5
300 and 312 E Hyman – Subdivision Recommendation to Merge Lots –
Public Hearing
Mr. Walterscheid explained his change in employment to Mr. Haas and asked him if he wished for Mr.
Walterscheid to recuse himself from the hearing. Mr. Haas did not see any conflict.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn reviewed both affidavits of
notice, one for the newspaper and one for the posting and mailing. She stated notice had been
appropriately provided.
Mr. Walterscheid then opened the public hearing for 300 and 312 E Hyman and turned the floor over to
Staff.
Ms. Becky Levy, Community Development Planner, described the application following the Major
Subdivision review process to merge two adjacent lots\parcels within the Crystal Palace Subdivision.
One lot is approximately 6,000 sf and the other is approximately 3,000 sf. Ms. Levy stated this review
does not consider any future development. It is strictly a lot merger as a major subdivision process as
defined by the code which requires a hearing before P&Z and then a first and second reading before the
City Council.
She added both lots are located within the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. A historic landmark
designation exists on one of the parcels. The proposed merger does meet the criteria for a major
subdivision lot merger as well as the general subdivision review standards. There is no max lot size for
the CC zone district, so a 9,000 sf lot is not an issue. The utilities are sufficient to serve the current uses
of the building. If the uses were to change with a development, the utilities would be re-evaluated at
that time.
The project continues to be in line with the Townsite plat. The proposed fits with a pattern of larger
neighboring parcels that are single parcels on nearby corners. The existing lots and uses of the buildings
are also in accordance with the codes.
For the major subdivision review criteria, the draft complies with the requirements in section
26.480.070 including optimizing the use of land and the preservation of important features and
structures.
Currently the historic designation is only on the 6,000 sf lot. Staff recommends as a condition of the lot
merger to include the designation on the 3,000 sf lot as well so the entire merged property will
designated historic.
Staff finds the application for lot merger meets the criteria.
Mr. Goode asked for examples of lots over 9,000 sf in size. Mr. Bendon stated the prospector lot is larger
and the lot where Cache Cache exists. The Limelight and Wheeler were also noted as examples.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if this application will go before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
prior to Council. Ms. Levy stated the extension of the historic landmark designation would go before
HPC for a recommendation.
P5
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015
6
Mr. McNellis is concerned if there is historical context with the building that does not currently hold the
designation. He would prefer the application goes before HPC prior to P&Z’s recommendation. Mr.
Bendon stated HPC may have similar concerns regarding the lot merger that only P&Z can recommend.
Staff would prefer the designation be on the entire parcel to allow for a cleaner administration for the
zones. Ms. Tygre asked if it would be better to have them not merged in regards to the historic
designation. Mr. Bendon stated it is not required, but Staff is recommending the designation to simplify
future administration.
Ms. Quinn asked for confirmation that Section 3 of the draft resolution is not necessary to the merger
recommendation. Mr. Bendon replied she was correct. Ms. Quinn informed P&Z they may decide to
include or not include Section 3 of the resolution.
Ms. McNicholas asked if Council will hear from both commissions. Ms. Levy stated Council will hear
recommendations from both P&Z and HPC. Ms. McNicholas asked if the applicant could withdraw that
application if the designation was not granted and Ms. Levy confirmed they could do so.
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, is representing Mr. Mark Hunt’s 312 E Hyman LLC. Mr. Haas stated
Mr. Hunt is still evaluating ideas for the property. He stated the building at 312 E Hyman would be
demolished and a new development would be incorporated into the Crystal Palace property. The
properties have been functionally merged for quite some time. When it is decided to do something on
the property, it will be subject to a HPC review which will include the Commercial Core design standards
and HPC design standards which will require the development to be broken into 30 ft segments.
Mr. Haas stated the City does not typically designate buildings, they designate properties as historic.
HPC is concerned with the historic piece and the relationship of the newer construction to the historic
piece. Mr. Haas feels it is practical to designate the entire parcel as historic.
Mr. Haas believes the application satisfies the criteria.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for questions for the applicant.
Mr. McNellis asked Mr. Haas why they would want the designation which may restrict future
development. Mr. Haas does not feel the designation would restrict and would help clarify what can and
what cannot be done. Mr. McNellis asked what the process would be moving forward. Mr. Bendon
stated there would be a check-in with HPC prior to going to Council.
Ms. McNicholas asked Ms. Quinn if it is customary for P&Z to make recommendations for designations.
Ms. Quinn deferred to Mr. Bendon or other members of the commission. Ms. Tygre could not recall any
similar situations. Mr. Haas is not aware of this done before but has seen cases where P&Z and HPC
reviews overlap. Ms. Quinn spoke with Ms. Amy Simon and she wanted P&Z to be aware of the request
for the designation was part of this and she is agreeable with it.
Ms. Tygre asked Mr. McNellis if he would prefer to defer the decision to HPC and not even mention it in
the P&Z resolution at which he confirmed.
P6
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2015
7
Mr. Haas stated it was his understanding if the lots were merged, then the entire property would be
considered historic. Mr. Bendon stated it may be but Staff does not want to leave it for future
interpretation.
Mr. Walterscheid noted there were no members of the public in attendance to comment.
Mr. McNellis motioned to approve resolution 8-2015 as provided by Staff in the agenda packet with the
removal of section 3. The motion was seconded by Ms. McNicholas.
There was no further discussion and Mr. Walterscheid requested a roll call. Roll call vote; Ms. Tygre, yes;
Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes; and Mr. Walterscheid, yes.
Motion passed with a total six (6) yes –zero (0) no.
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P7
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Page 1
Keith Goode, Vice-Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs, Skippy Mesirow, and Kelly McNicholas.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Sara Nadolny and Justin Barker.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
May 19, 2015 Minutes – Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor,
motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were none expressed.
100 S Spring St, Growth Management and Commercial Design Review
Mr. Goode asked if notice had been appropriately provided. Ms. Quinn stated she has received two
affidavits of public notice, one for the publication and one for the posting and mailing. The affidavits
were provided as Exhibit A.
Mr. Goode opened the public hearing for the 100 S Spring St and turned the floor over to staff.
Mr. Barker, Planner with the Community Development Department, reviewed the application to P&Z.
The application is a Growth Management Review to relocate the existing affordable housing unit on site
and a Commercial Design Review to remodel the existing structure.
The application is submitted by 100 South Spring Street LLC and represented by Davis Horn, LLC.
The property is located at Main and Spring Streets. It is a 3,000 sf lot with mixed use zoning. The current
structures include a 3,131 sf commercial building on the property which varies from one to three stories
and includes a 400 sf affordable housing rental unit.
The property is currently non-conforming in regards to the north and west setbacks as well as the
commercial floor area which was previously granted as a bonus by City Council to allow for the extra
floor area in exchange for the on-site affordable housing unit. It is also nonconforming in regards to
parking which requires three spaces which were never provided. The affordable housing unit was
waived of its parking requirement in the same approval as the bonus floor area.
P8
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Page 2
The proposal is to remodel the commercial space, relocate the affordable housing unit from the south
side of the structure to the north side facing Main St, provide compliant parking for the net leasable
area, improve the public amenity space and install new materials and finishes for the building exterior.
The demolition and relocation of the affordable housing unit requires a Growth Management Review.
The applicant proposes to keep the unit as a rental unit. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
(APCHA) has reviewed the proposal and recommends approval as rental unit with a condition of this
being forced as a for sale unit if it is out of compliance for a year.
The application also requires a Commercial Design Review. The Community Development Department
has authorized the application to go thru a consolidated review to combine the conceptual and final
review since what is typically reviewed at the final review including the exterior materials is included in
this review.
In regards to the Commercial Design Review, the property is located in the central mixed use character
area which is primarily two to three story residential buildings with a few commercial buildings as well.
The main design objectives are identified on p 8 of the packet. The mass generally remains the same.
There is some change in the height in the middle of the building with a portion going higher and portion
going lower. There is also a carved out area in the back of the building for a new second floor terrace.
The proposed materials are zinc and cedar.
Staff is recommending to have the colors of the materials more closely match in color to appear as a one
designed project instead of two separate ones linked together. They also recommend the zinc to be
patinated to reduce reflective glare from the material.
Staff is also recommending removal of the sliding zinc doors that would cover the glass openings on the
first floor on Spring St as they may eliminate the interaction between the public and private realm and
the activation of the building with the street.
The public amenity space is a dramatic improvement as to what is currently available, so Staff is
comfortable with the proposal.
The current nonconformities may be maintained.
The parking proposal is a mixture of two spaces on-site and cash-in-lieu to satisfy the remaining fraction
of a space.
The affordable housing parking space originally waived can be maintained as nonexistent since the
building is not being demolished.
For the utility and recycle/trash area, they are proposing to abandon the existing transformer and utilize
one across the alley. The Utilities Department is comfortable with this proposed change. The
recycle/trash area is smaller than what is required by the Environmental Health Department but they
have tentatively agreed to a special review for a smaller area given the nature of the property and
proposed use.
Overall Staff is recommending approval of both reviews with the conditions listed in the resolutions. Mr.
Barker did note the title of the second resolution on p 15 should reflect the Commercial Design Review
P9
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Page 3
instead of the Growth Management Review. Mr. Barker explained there will be two resolutions because
the Commercial Design Review cannot be consolidated with Growth Management Review in order to
comply with the code.
Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for Staff.
Mr. Mesirow asked if they are eliminating outdoor park spaces. Mr. Barker stated the three to four
current spaces off the alley are not compliant with code in regards to dimensions. One is actually in the
right-of-way which is not permitted. The applicant is trying to bring them into compliance.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the new construction is taller than the current building at any point. Mr. Barker
pointed out a window on the second story will be taller, but it will not increase the height of the
building.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the document received via email earlier in the day would be addressed. Ms.
Quinn stated the applicant representative is planning to address it.
Ms. McNicholas then asked if APCHA had time to review and comment on the document at which Mr.
Barker replied they have not had time yet.
Mr. Mesirow wanted to clarify none of the current building is subject to historical preservation at which
Mr. Barker replied no.
Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Glenn Horn, Davis Horn Inc, represents the applicant and is joined by Mr. David Johnston of David
Johnston Architects who is the local architect of record. The designers, Selldorf Architects, are out of
New York and not present at the meeting.
Mr. Horn stated Marianne Boesky is the owner of the building. She owns a gallery in New York and
would like to open one here in Aspen. She has had a place here for years and is excited about opening a
gallery in Aspen.
Mr. Johnston reviewed the design of the structure which will consist of a gallery / artist space along with
a residential component. He indicated on a slide demonstrating where the residential unit would be
moved. Inside the building, they would be removing the second story. The project will reduce the
current amount of commercial space. The project includes a two car garage on the back and there will
be an extension on the back near the alley to include a deck/patio space. The upper floor will become a
conference room with a bathroom and a small bar. The building has an increase in the upper middle
area and a decrease in the same area for an overall wash on net area.
He recognized the cabin structure near Main St. has historic components and they wanted to go back to
cedar siding on the cabin in a grey tone to match the metal siding on the other portion of the building.
He also felt they may not use zinc, but may use a silver or chrome painted surface that will not be shiny.
They have no issue with the conditions of the approval. New York had proposed the metal doors for a
thermal break at night but they have no issue to remove them.
P10
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Page 4
They looked at keeping a parking space on the corner by the alley but it would be in the right of way, so
it will be a green space instead.
One component they are adding is the public amenity patio space on the side of the building.
Mr. Goode asked the commission for questions of the applicant.
Mr. Gibbs asked about the use of the space on the first floor where the windows are located. Mr.
Johnston stated currently there is a garden level, second floor and a third floor. They will maintain the
third floor, eliminate the second floor and bring the garden level up to street level.
Mr. Horn then covered the issue with the affordable housing unit. Regarding the history of the unit, he
stated in 1979 Neil Ross and Brian Goodheim obtained a land use approval in a special review approving
a bonus on their floor area in exchange for providing affordable housing. The unit was restricted to a
moderate income unit which relates to a category two or three. The applicant is proposing to renovate
the building and relocate the affordable housing unit from the alley side to the Main St side. The
assessor’s record shows the miner’s cabin on Main St was built in 1888 and does not have any historic
elements.
The owner has offered to make the unit a category two instead of a category three. The decreases for
the change are explained on p 72 of the agenda packet.
APCHA was uncomfortable making this a rental unit because it is harder for them to manage a single
unit vs a complex of units. They would prefer single units to be a for sale unit. The Growth Management
Review was triggered only because the applicant wants to move the affordable unit to the other side of
the building which requires an update the deed restriction. The owner wants it to be a rental unit for an
employee of the gallery and has difficulty with it possibly becoming a for sale unit. APCHA wants to
make it a for sale unit if it is out of compliance for a year.
A proposed change was drafted after meeting with APCHA. Currently the proposed changes states if the
unit is out of compliance for 15 days, the owner may request a hearing regarding the noncompliance. If
15 days passes without a hearing or a request for a hearing, the owner will pay a fine of $500 per day
until the unit is rented and compliant with the deed restriction. If it is out of compliance for a period of
six months, APCHA would have the capability to place a qualified person or family in the unit that
complies with the category two guidelines. There would be no for sale under this proposal.
In summary, they would move the unit from one side of the building to the other, renovate the 35 year
old unit and change the deed restriction from a category three to a category two. The applicant feels
this type of the unit diversifies the rental stock. They understand the potential enforcement issue and
hope the proposed agreement would be sufficient for noncompliance.
Mr. Mesirow asked what the initial proposal from APCHA was regarding the compliance. Mr. Horn
stated the initial proposal specified if the unit was out of compliance for a year, then it would become a
for sale unit. Mr. Mesirow didn’t feel it should be difficult to keep the unit rented, so he asked why the
owner is concerned. Mr. Horn stated the owner has philosophical objections of having a for sale under
any circumstances. She stated it would be unacceptable and in lieu of is it is prepared to pay a
substantial fine.
P11
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Page 5
Ms. Tygre asked how she would feel about having APCHA place a renter in the unit. Mr. Horn stated the
owner is comfortable with that approach. Ms. Tygre asked Mr. Horn to confirm the agreement language
in packet does not match what Mr. Horn provided verbally during the meeting at which he confirmed
was accurate. He was providing the latest information from communications with the owner during the
day. Mr. Horn submitted a letter reviewing the owner’s position as Exhibit B. His discussion in the
meeting included updates to the letter provided.
Mr. Goode asked Staff who would be in charge of monitoring the unit for compliance. Mr. Barker stated
it would be APCHA and would be clarified in the deed restriction.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the latest agreement language had been reviewed with APCHA which Mr. Horn
stated they had not spoken with Staff or APCHA yet. He added they had been in discussions with the
County and City attorneys.
Mr. Gibbs asked Mr. Barker for the definition of ‘in compliance’. Ms. Phelan stated APCHA would specify
this in the deed restriction. Ms. Quinn stated the deed restriction would require APCHA to give notice of
any violation to the owner. The owner would then have 15 days to request a hearing. If the owner chose
not to request a hearing or if the hearing was held and it was determined to be not in compliance, then
the fines would begin at that time.
Ms. McNicholas asked Staff if their recommendation would change based on the proposed changes. Mr.
Barker stated it would be based on what is in the memo at this time since there has not been time to
review the proposed changes.
Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. There was no public comment.
Mr. Goode closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner discussion.
Ms. Tygre does not have any problems with the application itself and feels it would be an improvement
except for the deed restriction which she feel the language should be reviewed by APCHA prior to
making a decision.
Ms. Quinn asked if she is recommending a continuance until a new recommendation from APCHA with
proposed language from APCHA. Ms. Tygre concurred. Ms. Phelan added it would be helpful to hear
from the commission regarding the design.
Ms. Tygre stated she would not prefer the zinc doors, but does not care about the materials as long as
they are not reflective.
Mr. Gibbs agreed with Ms. Tygre. He feels he does not have justification to override APCHA’s policies
just because someone has philosophical objections. If APCHA could review the new language and feel it
was adequate, he would agree with application.
Ms. McNicholas stated she was prepared to approve the application until she heard the new
information. She feels the building provides more public amenity and is in line with the character area
and feels it will be a benefit to the community. She is not sure how she feels about the zinc doors. She is
sympathetic to the owner, but understands APCHA may have challenges with the enforcement. She
P12
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Page 6
would support a continuance until more details could be made available regarding APCHA’s review of
the latest language.
Mr. Goode loves the design, but is in agreement with the other commissioners. He feels the zinc doors
may help the gallery space inside. He would also like APCHA to review the latest language.
Mr. Gibbs asked if the doors would prevent light pollution. Mr. Johnston stated it was a secondary
consideration. The designers stressed thermal properties first. Mr. Gibbs feels both are good issues and
suggested they be part of the application. Ms. Phelan stated they have to be careful with a building that
looks and acts as a commercial space. She suggested the windows could be glazed for the same
purposes as presented which is typical in commercial buildings.
Mr. Mesirow feels overall the design is really nice. The structure itself and the activation of the
streetscape. Regarding the doors, he does not feel they need to be removed. He concurs with the other
commissioners regarding the housing unit. He can’t imagine a situation where the owner could not rent
the unit for a year. He is happy they are meeting the parking requirements for the project, but is not
sure it is best to encourage applicants to be taking 800 sf of space out of a building for parking.
Ms. Phelan suggested a continuance date of June 16 th to allow APCHA to review and discuss the
proposed language changes. Mr. Horn stated he has a conflict on the 16 th so it may need to be
rescheduled for a later date. Ms. Phelan stated it could be set for that date, but pushed back if
necessary.
Ms. Tygre motioned to continue the hearing for June 16 th , seconded by Ms. McNicholas seconded. All in
favor, motion carried.
Mr. Goode closed the public hearing.
601 Rio Grande Pl, Obermeyer Place Rezoning and PD Amendment
Ms. Quinn stated received 2 affidavits of notice, one by publication and the other by posting and mailing
and it appears notice was appropriately provided. The affidavits were submitted as Exhibit A.
Mr. Goode opened the public hearing for 601 Rio Grande Pl, Obermeyer Place.
Mr. Goode turned the floor over to staff.
Ms. Sara Nadolny, Community Development Planner, reviewed the application requesting a rezoning
and an amendment to the Planned Development (PD). She explained P&Z would be issuing an approval
or denial of the application to City Council who will be the final review authority.
Ms. Nadolny described the property located on north of Main St. and north of the commercial core. It is
zoned as Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) with a PD overlay. There are few spaces which allow for
commercial uses including a fitness center and a couple of office spaces.
Ms. Nadolny stated for a few years now, Staff has been struggling with requests from business owners
who are looking to locate their businesses within SCI zoned properties. The problem is that the SCI zone
is very specific and limiting as to what is allowed to operate in the zone. Often the office and retail
P13
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Page 7
requests are prohibited from the SCI category. In 2013, City Council directed Staff to examine the areas
zoned SCI to see what was and was not working. Staff held three different meetings to obtain input from
the public and the property owners. The results indicated Obermeyer place was very interested in
reexamining their current zoning. The property has a lot of empty spaces and wanted to allow for more
variety of uses.
Obermeyer Place was approved in 2003 with a PD and Special Planned Area (SPA) overlays. Since its
creation, owners have struggled to find tenants who businesses fit within the acceptable list of uses
resulting in many open spaces vacant for long periods of time.
Obermeyer Place at its inception was created as a vibrant area of industrial activity to house the hard-
to-locate services and industrial type businesses which may have been relocated down valley otherwise.
More than a decade has passed now since the initial approval and currently there are fewer service
commercial industrial businesses looking to locate at Obermeyer Place. Also, the types of businesses are
evolving and operate a business that looks more like an office instead of an industrial space.
Staff looked at the available zoning categories and identified Neighborhood Commercial (NC) as a
category that most closely relates to the current and desired uses.
Rezoning to NC will allow for a variety of uses such as retail and office space. It may increase the
likelihood for the property to become more vibrant and active which fits the original vision of
Obermeyer Place.
The second part of the application requests to amend the PD. Staff suggests the PD to allow the existing
SCI to be maintained in order to protect existing businesses from becoming non-conformities.
Staff has reviewed the requests against the review criteria and finds all the criteria to be met. The zoning
is compatible with the surrounding parcels. There are no increases required in utilities, parking or other
public facilities as a result of the application. The rezoning is consistent with and compatible with the
community character, pubic interest and the land use code. Staff recommends P&Z provide a
recommendation of approval for the rezoning of Obermeyer Place from SCI to NC as well as a minor PD
amendment to permit SCI uses to be maintained as part of the PD.
Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for Staff.
Mr. Gibbs asked how many current SCI units of use are active. Ms. Nadolny suggested waiting for the
applicant’s presentation that may answer the question better. She stated there is a table of uses on p
190 of the packet showing current utilization, but not a comprehensive list of available space.
Mr. Gibbs asked if this SCI zone and the area down by the bike shop were the only two SCI zones left.
Ms. Nadolny stated Clark’s Market and the Post Office are also in SCI zones. Ms. Phelan stated Clark’s
Market is half SCI and half NC. She also added it is difficult to track the percentages. Ms. Nadolny stated
the Andrews McFarland building on Mill St is also zoned SCI.
Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Jerome Simecek represented the applicant. Mr. Wally Obermeyer, president of the Condo
Association, was also present.
P14
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Page 8
Mr. Simecek presented a visual of the overall location of the buildings including the multiple levels in the
project. He described the surrounding parks and buildings.
He then showed an outline of the current uses allowed including the SCI and the nonconforming spaces
identified in the original approval. Ms. Nadolny added overall the property is zoned SCI, but an
ordinance allowed for nonconforming spaces on the parcel. Ms. Phelan stated this allowed the pre-
existing business to continue to operate after the redevelopment. Mr. Simecek showed the defined
spaces for each level of the development. He stated the below grade area currently has the largest
amount of vacant units. They are typically smaller units.
He then showed an at-grade map indicating the variations on the SCI approval including the recent
approval to allow the Police Department and medical clinic to operate on-site.
In summary, he pointed to several at-grade long standing vacant locations he feels a change to the
zoning would be a powerful tool to revitalize the spaces and reach the goal for the area to be active
community area. Currently, there is one space vacant at-grade and at least five below grade. Some are
rented at very reduced rates as well because of the limited opportunity for tenants.
Mr. Obermeyer stated the condominium association polled the owners of the SCI units including
approximately 33 condominiumized units. They spoke with all but three unit owners. Everyone was in
favor of the proposed change and would like to increase the foot traffic and vitality of the area.
Mr. Goode asked the commission for questions of the applicant.
Ms. McNicholas asked who approves or denies the tenant’s applications. Ms. Nadolny stated the
Finance Department sends business applications to the Community Development Department for a
zoning review. Ms. McNicholas asked if this application would change what SCI uses are allowed. Ms.
Nadolny stated the first part of the application would change the zoning to NC which is more general
and most all the existing businesses could fit within the NC zoning. The second part of the application is
to update the PD to allow the SCI uses.
Ms. McNicholas asked about potential future applicant that wanted to do an SCI use. Ms. Nadolny
stated it would be allowed as part of the PD approval. She added this would open it up to both types of
uses.
Mr. Mesirow asked about the department’s progress for reevaluating what uses should be considered as
SCI. Ms. Nadolny stated every few years they are asked to revisit and update the list which is difficult for
the department to keep up with. Ms. Phelan stated a review is not scheduled to happen anytime soon.
Mr. Goode asked for an explanation between going full on commercial and NC use. Ms. Nadolny stated
full commercial zoning would create a lot of non-conformities. A list of permitted and conditional uses
are listed on p 167 of the packet. She added with this parcel having a PD, a lot of the uses are defined
by the PD. The majority of requests they receive are for office and arts uses.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the initial approval of the project was contingent on the SCI zoning. Mr.
Obermeyer stated prior to the redevelopment, there an old blue steel building that was the Obermeyer
office and warehouse. When Obermeyer moved out to the airport business center, the building was
rented. The project also involved a parcel owned by Bill Murphy and the intent was to redevelop an
P15
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Page 9
eyesore and ideally house the existing businesses. All the units were condominiumized and the majority
were sold.
The original approval included SCI space and non-conforming space that was grandfathered in the
approval. The intent of having the business owners own their space has worked pretty well. It has been
difficult for people to sell their units because of the SCI limitations on allowable uses. He believes by
changing the zoning to NC and allowing the SCI uses will help people. He feels the application preserves
the original intent but it will also provide some vitality.
Mr. Gibbs asked if there is a master plan for this area. Ms. Phelan stated she was not sure if this area
was discussed or not.
Mr. Gibbs asked if the code allowed for permitted uses that are typically not allowed. Ms. Phelan stated
yes under PD. She added the PD code was updated which repealed the SPA regulations and basically
merged them because they were very similar in allowing for variations in dimensional standards, but
also allowed used changes. PD allows for dimensional and use variations from the underlying zoning.
Ms. Tygre asked if there was a possibility for the owners to combine the SCI small sub-grade spaces to
make them more rentable. Mr. Obermeyer stated size is not the biggest constraint and feels Obermeyer
Place suffers from a lack of customer parking for the businesses as compared to other SCI zoned parcels.
Mr. Goode then opened for public comment.
No one wanted to comment so Mr. Goode closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Goode then asked for any staff rebuttal.
Ms. Nadolny wanted to clarify there are no constraints to someone combining units. Mr. Simecek added
there is no prohibition of such in the association documents.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the tenants have the ability to remodel at which Mr. Simecek stated the
association would grant approvals but could not reasonably prevent it from happening.
Ms. McNicholas stated her big concern is for future SCI uses and could they be approved. Ms. Nadolny
replied they could be approved in the future. She stated the drafted resolution allows for either SCI or
NC uses.
Mr. Gibbs asked for confirmation of zoning requested. Ms. Nadolny stated the zoning being requested is
NC with the PD overlay allowing for SCI uses.
Mr. Gibbs stated he has a fundamental problem having multiple zones on one parcel. He feels the focus
should be on addressing the zoning to address the needs of the uses in the zone. He doesn’t feel
throwing multiple zone districts on a parcel is the answer. He does not have an issue with what the
applicant is requesting. He would prefer the existing SCI uses become non-conforming with no ability to
expand unless the PD is reopened for P&Z review to allow for the use. Ms. McNicholas asked staff if they
agree with view of Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Nadolny stated future PD amendments wouldn’t actually go to P&Z,
they would go to City Council. Mr. Gibbs stated that was fine. She added they looked at how to clean up
this parcel in regards to zoning.
P16
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Page 10
Ms. McNicholas is concerned this change would de-incentivize a potential SCI applicant and feels there
is value in having those uses in that space.
Mr. Mesirow feels the historical context is important and is concerned we may be pushing out future SCI
opportunities. He feels the change may not be consistent with the original intent of the redevelopment
and would prefer it be maintained as SCI and have the SCI code updated. He stated technology and real
estate have changed and is not properly reflected in the current SCI code. Ms. Tygre agreed with Mr.
Mesirow.
Mr. Gibbs wondered if there was a possibility of merging the SCI and NC zones and feels they are similar.
Mr. Mesirow wanted to clarify he is not suggesting to combine the zones and feels there should be an
expansion to the SCI zoning.
Mr. Goode asked Staff when they may have an opportunity to review and update the SCI zoning code.
Ms. Nadolny reiterated what Ms. Phelan stated earlier regarding it not being on their agenda at this
time.
Ms. Tygre wanted to add by making it all NC, she feels it will inflate the rents which was not what was
intended.
Mr. Gibbs felt Ms. Tygre and Mr. Mesirow made good points.
Mr. Goode asked staff to verify whether or not P&Z approves the resolution, that it will go on to City
Council at which Ms. Nadolny confirmed the application would go to City Council.
Mr. Simecek agrees the SCI is dated, but the applicant is stuck with the uses. He stated the applicant is
looking to add vitality which they don’t see with the restrictions under the SCI zoning. Mr. Mesirow
stated he understands the applicant is trying to bring vitality, but feels he needs to look at the long term
community interests which involves looking at the SCI zone.
Mr. Goode wants to agree with the original intent of the project.
Ms. McNicholas excused herself to attend another meeting.
Mr. Gibbs feels from the community’s perspective, the demand in the community is not for SCI uses.
From the applicant’s perspective, they will be more successful if NC uses are permitted. He feels
approving the resolution tonight would be recognizing the reality for the area. He supports the idea of
SCI but is not sure whether it has a place in our community. He supports the change to NC, but would
like to the current SCI units to be grandfathered in and have the use remain an SCI use. Ms. Tygre added
the applicant can then come in for a change in use.
Ms. Phelan said office use and maybe retail restaurant would be allowed under the NC zoning, but
would probably demand higher rents as stated earlier. Mr. Gibbs stated the concern is the loss of SCI
zoned space in the community. Ms. Phelan asked if it would be agreeable to NC with no office or retail
restaurant.
Mr. Simecek stated the property doesn’t lend itself for a retail restaurant due to the limited parking
onsite. Mr. Obermeyer stated there is one unit they had hoped would be a restaurant or coffee shop. He
has spoken to a few chains with no interest. The original intent was to have a bakery, woodworking shop
P17
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Page 11
and offices but they are asking to have flexibility. There are spaces in the garage that could provide for
SCI uses. He feels it will benefit the community if the spaces can be filled and the spaces will dictate the
potential uses.
Mr. Gibbs asked for a list of the categories current SCI uses. He is thinking of potential language to add
to Section 1, Part B of the resolution to keep the current SCI uses.
Mr. Mesirow also wants to think of the modern equivalent of SCI uses that may be considered in the
future. He is concerned if the change to NC is made, then those future SCI uses will never get a foothold.
Ms. Nadolny responded under NC, service commercial uses are allowed, but industrial is not. Many of
the requests may be service commercial, but they look like offices, so they are not allowed.
Ms. Tygre feels the new industrial types of uses would be precluded with the change to NC. Mr. Mesirow
doesn’t feel the proposed solution will allow low margin production businesses to ever compete with
higher margin businesses. Ms. Nadolny responded businesses that used to look industrial often look
more like an office these days. Ms. Tygre feels they are being asked to give up SCI zoning on the parcel
and she is not willing to do it. Mr. Mesirow added overtime the community won’t get SCI space back
because they won’t be able to compete with the NC businesses.
Mr. Goode feels SCI needs a home, but feels we are condemning the applicant by carrying the burden
right now. Without the needed code change on the radar, the owners will sit on empty spaces. If P&Z
states no to the approval, at least Council will know the SCI code needs change. At the same time, he
would love to see a café at Obermeyer Place. He feels the real issue is that SCI does need to change.
Mr. Gibbs asked when the variances had been approved and by what mechanism. Mr. Simecek stated
some of the variances, including the medical office, health club, and a ski service center were approved
at the original PUD. Others such as the Police Department were more recent. Mr. Obermeyer stated
most of the units are owned by the original owners. He is not sure to the degree the assumption of NC
uses rubbing out SCI uses made by P&Z is valid. Based on the location of the spaces, he doesn’t feel it
would be appropriate for office space. He feels it is in the public’s best interest to allow SCI uses, but
allow NC as well.
Mr. Gibbs asked Staff if Clark’s market is zoned by level. Ms. Phelan stated certain percentage must be
zoned NC and Ace Hardware meets the SCI requirements. Mr. Gibbs asked if the basement of the
Obermeyer Place could be SCI and the ground level NC and grandfather in the current uses. Mr.
Obermeyer doesn’t feel this will solve the problem because most of the empty spaces are in the
basement already. Mr. Simecek stated the NC zoning would provide the flexibility to the spaces.
Mr. Gibbs asked if they have had requests for NC uses. Mr. Simecek state there is a list of commonly
denied requests in the meeting packet including medical, chiropractor, interior design and architecture,
and general retail. Ms. Nadolny stated the list of types of uses rejected is one to two years old so there
have been additional requests denied since the list was compiled. Mr. Gibbs stated he is trying to
understand the desire for NC use in the basement. He feels the current zoning is preventing reasonable
uses of the property when there is no demand for SCI uses.
Mr. Mesirow stated it is unfair to state P&Z is keeping the spaces from being utilized because the SCI
code has not been updated. Ms. Tygre feels it is better to change SCI from a point of the community and
the code which should be updated to reflect what we want as a community, rather than upzoning a
property.
P18
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015
Page 12
Ms. Phelan and Ms. Nadolny both stated with SCI uses, it tends to be a stretch. Ms. Phelan stated there
seems to be more requests for office types of uses.
Mr. Goode asked the P&Z commissioners if they would agree to defining the current SCI places as
permanent SCI requiring a PD if they want to change it.
Ms. Nadolny stated her understanding is the intent to keep the underlying SCI, but certain units could be
designated for either SCI or NC uses. Mr. Obermeyer believes the condominumization map designates
the allowable uses including SCI, NC and non-conforming uses.
Ms. Nadolny referred to Section 9 of the approving ordinance which essentially defines a dual zone. This
ordinance was not part of the packet. She paraphrased the section states the space may house
businesses in compliance with either the NC or SCI zoned district regulations as defined in the land use
code.
Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Gibbs to confirm he would prefer to adopt the NC zoning and keep the existing
SCI uses as non-conformities. Mr. Gibbs feels this is a great example of spot zoning which obstructs the
uniformity of a property. His perspective would be to allow the property was adopted as NC with the
current SCI uses allowed to persist. Mr. Mesirow agreed with moving away with multiple zoned spaces
on one property.
Mr. Gibbs moved to amend the proposed resolution, Section 1B to add the word “current” before the
service commercial industrial, non-residential uses statement. The motion was seconded by Ms. Tygre.
Mr. Goode asked if the commissioners wanted to discuss the motion. None wanted to discuss further.
Roll call to vote: Mr. Mesirow, no; Mr. Gibbs, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Goode, yes. The motion does not
pass with a two to two (2-2) vote.
Mr. Mesirow then motioned to draft a resolution to deny the approval and propose to City Council to
review the SCI zoning code. The motion was seconded by Ms. Tygre. Roll call to vote: Mr. Mesirow, yes;
Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Gibbs, no; Mr. Goode, yes. The motion passes with a three to one (3-1) vote.
Ms. Tygre suggested P&Z could be looking at ways to provide input for redefining SCI to be somewhat
more inclusive.
Ms. Nadolny confirmed the draft resolution has been denied as it stands. She asks if P&Z wanted to
include information in the denial to provide to Council. Mr. Mesirow stated the recommendation to
Council may state P&Z understands the desire for vitality on this property, but rezoning to NC is not the
appropriate remedy. The appropriate remedy would be a complete and timely visit of the SCI zone.
Mr. Goode adjourned the meeting at 6:45.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P19
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015
1
Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Keith Goode, and Ryan
Walterscheid.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Justin Barker.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
The draft minutes for May 26 th were discussed. Several corrections and a clarification was requested.
The minutes will be updated and presented at the next meeting.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no conflicts expressed.
100 S Spring St – Growth Management and Commercial Design Review –
Continued from May 26, 2015
Mr. Walterscheid asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn stated notice had been provided
at the May 26 th hearing.
Mr. Barker, Community Development Planner Technician, opened with a review of the application. The
application is proposing a remodel of the structure including exterior materials and a relocation of the
affordable housing unit from the south side to the north side of the building. The application requires a
growth management review and a commercial design review.
At the May 26 th meeting the commission felt mostly comfortable with the design of the building as well
as the relocation of the housing unit, but the applicant had presented last-minute amendments
regarding the deed restriction of the property as to what would happen if the unit was out of
compliance. The commission wanted the Aspen\Pitkin County Affordable Housing Authority (APCHA) to
have time to review the proposed changes prior to moving forward with a motion. Since the meeting,
APCHA has reviewed the proposed amendments and recommended in favor of all the proposed
amendments.
Staff is still recommending for approval with the restrictions as presented in the draft resolution.
P20
IV.C.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015
2
Ms. Quinn wanted to clarify the restriction as specified on p 20 of the packet. She stated the changes
make it consistent with existing APCHA policies other than forcing the sale of the unit.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. There were none.
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. David Johnston of David Johnston Architects represented the applicant. He stated they are
comfortable with the language presented and asked P&Z if they had any further questions.
Mr. Walterscheid was not in attendance at the previous meeting, but had reviewed the materials and
feels he has an understanding of the application.
Mr. McNellis asked Ms. Quinn if there was a way APCHA could verify the unit is in compliance with a
renter. Ms. Quinn stated it is APCHA’s standard procedure for a tenant to qualify for the unit. Right now
the owner gets to pick the tenant, but the tenant would still be qualified through APCHA. If the unit is
vacant for a period of 45 days, then APCHA can place a qualified tenant in the unit. Mr. McNellis is
concerned the unit may go unoccupied. Ms. Quinn replied there is a standard procedure in the deed
restriction which allows APCHA to inspect the unit with proper notice.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the commission had finalized the inclusion of the zinc doors. Mr. Barker replied
the original language presented by Staff still remains in the resolution because the commission had not
provided a direction regarding the zinc doors. Ms. McNicholas stated her position has changed since the
previous meeting. After further thought, she agrees with Staff’s recommendation that the doors not be
allowed on the building. Mr. Johnston stated from the applicant’s perspective, they are not challenging
the removal of the doors. The applicant assumed they would not be included in the design and will not
be challenging Staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Mesirow thought the design including the doors was cohesive, but is okay if they are removed.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for public comment. There was none so he closed that portion of the hearing.
Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion to discuss any possible modifications to the resolution.
Ms. Tygre motioned to approve Resolution 10, Series 2015 first for the growth management review and
then approve Resolution 11, Series 2015 for the commercial design review concerning 100 S. Spring St.
Mr. Goode seconded the motion.
Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes, Mr.
Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the hearing.
P21
IV.C.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015
3
710 & 720 E Durant Ave – Commercial Design Review – Public Hearing
Mr. Walterscheid asked if the public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn asked the applicant for the
affidavits. She did review the affidavit showing the publication occurred and then asked if notice had
been posted on the property at least 15 days prior to the hearing. Mr. Robert Sinclair, RGS Architecture,
representing the applicant stated he has photos of the postings, but not the affidavits with him at the
hearing. Ms. Quinn asked if notice had been mailed in accordance with the requirements of the notice.
Mr. Sinclair stated he did mail the notice. She then asked him to provide the affidavits to staff first thing
the next morning at which stated he would. Ms. Quinn stated based on his representation, the hearing
could proceed since it appears notice was provided, but not documented at the time of the hearing.
Mr. Walterscheid then opened the public hearing turned the floor over to Staff.
Mr. Barker, Community Development Planner Technician, opened with a review of the application. The
property is located on E Durant Ave between Spring St and Original St next to City Market. The lot is
approximately 16,500 sf and is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) with a Planned Development (PD)
Overlay. On site there are two existing three story structures on a raised plaza. These are
nonconforming in height in some areas. The NC zoned district has an allowable height limit of 28 ft
which can be increased up to 32 ft with a commercial design review. The height may be maintained, but
not increased. Any new construction must conform to the limitations of the zoned district.
The applicant’s proposal is to replace the exterior materials on the existing two buildings. There are two
design options described in the agenda packet. Both the options would replace the existing timber
frame with structural steel frame. The existing stone base would be replaced with a combination of split
face and polished concrete masonry units (CMU).
The first option is the applicant’s preferred design option. The first option replaces the wood siding on
the existing structures with a combination of vertical aluminum siding and horizontal composite siding.
It also adds additional height thru the additional parapet faces on the third floor on the sides facing the
alley and Durant Ave. the additional construction extends beyond the 32 ft by about 4 inches. If
approved by P&Z, it would still require a height variance through City Council.
The second option would replace the wood siding with a composite siding. There are no additional
parapet walls included.
The project is subject to the Commercial Character Area design guidelines. This character area consists
mostly of buildings with variation in height. It has somewhat of a fragmented street edge as well.
Staff recognizes the proposed parapets are very critical to the design for option one. However, the
increase in height for the perceived mass and scale with the parapets does not further any of the design
guidelines as well as creates a larger perceived building overall. The parapets create a uniform height
across the front of the buildings which contrasts with what the buildings currently provide. Staff also
sees no site constraints warranting a variance for this project. The proposed materials do not reflect the
materials traditionally seen in this character area which include natural wood, brick and stone. Staff
does feel comfortable with what has been provided so long as the quality of the proposed materials is
adequate and there is a proven durability.
P22
IV.C.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015
4
Staff is supportive of the second design option with the conditions proposed in the draft resolution.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions for staff.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the project would be subject to a public vote for the variance should it be voted on
by Council. Ms. Phelan stated no, because the application was submitted prior to the referendum.
Ms. Tygre stated she walked around the property and is having difficulty determining how much of the
building will be open and how much will be glassed in based on the pictures provided in the packet. Mr.
Barker stated all the finished windows and doors will remain the same. Mr. Walterscheid thought the
applicant may be able to provide additional insight on her question.
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Rob Sinclair, RGS Architecture, represents the applicant, the Durant Mall Condominium Association.
The proposal as presented does not increase the floor area ratio (FAR), increase or decrease glazing, or
replace windows. Mr. Sinclair provided information which allowed Ms. Tygre to better understand the
pictures provided in the agenda packet.
Mr. Sinclair provided slides to share their ideas regarding the design and why the elements are
important.
He feels they have an opportunity with the current owner to basically save the building. The physical
condition of the current structure is such that it could be torn down as similar buildings in town have
been torn down. The current sentiment is to rehabilitate the structure, maintain all the existing
commercial and retail components and enhance the public plaza. The building was designed 40 years
ago and the new design takes into consideration the current overlays and standards which were not in
place when it was originally designed.
He then reviewed the existing buildings and surrounding properties. The building was designed in 1975
and built in 1975 and 1976. He noted he has been a tenant of the building for almost 10 years. The
detailing at the time and the method of construction were immediately a problem. The external timber
braces created challenges with the snow. Similarly the plaza structure which has a parking structure
beneath it has a system of beams which the timber structure rests upon. There have been leaks in the
garage for some time prior to the recent project to repair. The original plaza surface had no water
proofing. The small pony walls which acted to define the street edge, created a visual and physical
barrier to access the plaza and the retail shops. The rotted stone pony walls have been replaced with a
transparent stainless steel mesh and railing. The superstructure had no flashing or caulking so snow has
rotted the structure away over the past 40 years. The plaza surface and deck was fixed last summer
including a water proof drainage system as phase one. Phase two includes the vertical superstructure
skeleton of the structure.
He then showed a slide and discussed the existing parapets running north and south on the east
building. They are not closed east and west. The applicant is proposing to close in the parapets and
mirror the design on the west building. The west building has a pitched roof which happens to be green
in color and is somewhat contrary to their ideas of preferred esthetic and colors for the project. The
parapet will unify the two structures. He understands based on the design guidelines the structure
P23
IV.C.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015
5
should have variations but he addressed this in the three vignettes of the building. The existing parapet
is 32 ft 4 in. he does not want to go through a process of a variance and they can easily reduce the
height to 32 ft. Adding parapets to the west building would partially hide the pitched roof and would
contemporize the building.
In regards to durability of the materials he guaranteed the ownership group wants a whole lifecycle out
of this upgrade project. Their goal of using the proposed materials would be to break up the scale and
mass of the buildings.
He showed slides of the public plaza which he stated is an important part of the application. They are
ordering new tables for Jour De Fete, planters, and benches for the plaza. Part of the repair project
realigned the stairs up the plaza from the alley to orient it with the entrance of the building.
He showed another slide of an area under the Grog shop. This area is misused with broken bikes and he
wants to define it as an urban edge. The also rebuilt the trash area on the alley. He stated they are in
code with everything on the alley.
He then showed elevations of the buildings. He stated they sent out 300 notices and the only public
comment he has received was from the Butcher Block owners. They asked how they would approach
the project logically. He received no negative public comment.
He then discussed the second design option. He described it as an option provided by Staff only and the
applicant does not endorse it as an option. He showed slides depicting no parapets added. He stated the
building would effectively look like as it does currently. With option 2 they would end up with the same
building with a slightly different skin. He does not feel option 2 enhances the public experience. He
stated he will have a hard time telling his client to move forward with the public amenity enhancements
with option 2.
He then provided slides depicting both the existing building and the building with the option 1 proposed
changes as well as option 2.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the parapets enclose the decks. Mr. Sinclair stated it does not but will extend
the face of the deck by approximately 2.5 ft.
In regards to materials, Mr. Sinclair stated their intent is to have a variegated surface. He has samples,
but did not bring them to the meeting.
Mr. Sinclair concluded that the proposal complies with the spirit of the design standards and the
contemporary design.
Mr. Walterscheid asked the commissioners for any questions for the applicant.
Ms. McNicholas asked if you would be able to see through the parapets on Durant Ave. She asked if the
material would be the same as the siding. Mr. Sinclair stated it is a solid aluminum material. Greys were
selected and should soften over time. When the green roof fades, it will look old.
P24
IV.C.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015
6
Mr. Sinclair wanted to clarify they are showing the superstructure with a bold color, but it is shown in a
bold color just to demonstrate the structure. The color would complement the palette. Mr. Mesirow
asked if they would be white or greyscale. Mr. Sinclair replied greyscale.
Mr. Goode asked from the view from City Market depicted on p 172, would the gables remain. Mr.
Sinclair stated they are not demolishing any of the building. The intent is to mask part of the gabled
roof. He added there are residential units on the top floor and they have no plans to remove or alter the
height of the current building.
Mr. Walterscheid asked when changing the siding if there was an option to change the color of the
roofing. Mr. Sinclair stated the roof is maybe five years old so there are no plans to change it for some
time. They discussed painting it, but it would look worse over time when the paint flaked off.
Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff if they would like to speak to their concerns of the materials.
Ms. Phelan wanted to clarify the building is condominiumized and she does not believe it would
demolished even though it is nonconforming in some aspects. Commercial design allows for 28-32 ft.
the applicant has proposed bringing the overall height of the building down to 32 ft. Staff has concerns
the parapets would add more mass to a somewhat already big building. Staff requested material
samples be provided because they are suggesting composites and because of the high solar in the area,
need to be of high quality that will maintain over time. They are not opposed to composites and the
renderings do not relay much about the materials to be used.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for any public comment.
Mr. Gary Beach is the manager of the Durant Mall Condo Association. He was involved with the earlier
project at this location to replace the decking which turned out to be an incredibly complex project.
They were forced to remove the pony walls due to their condition and replaced them with something
that would visually allow you to look into the building which improved the overall view of the building.
The columns supporting the exoskeleton had 70%-80% rot in them. They looked into replacing the
existing exoskeleton with similar timbers, but realized there was no way to change the design of the
joints so they would not rot in the future. Steel became a logical choice. They do not want to use
material for the siding that would require painting every five to seven years so they decided on a metal
skin which should last 25-40 years. The owners for the first time in 40 years are interested in upgrading
the building to make it more attractive and functional. They have replaced a lot of systems including the
boilers and electrical systems.
Ms. Jacqueline Mastrangelo, is one of the owners of the neighboring Butcher’s Block building. They own
all the gap between the buildings except for four inches and are concerned how they plan to work on
the siding without getting on their property. Mr. Sinclair they plan to work with the owners regarding
the logistics of the project. He stated it is typical to compensate for an encroachment during
construction. He offered his contact information so they could follow up after the meeting. He also
stated they are committed to having Phase two go more smoothly than Phase One. Ms. Mastrangelo is
also concerned their tenants not be adversely affected.
Mr. Tom Secunas of the 450 S Original Condo Association. He stated there are ten owners to the east of
this project. The owners have concerns regarding the height of the building which he feels has been
adequately addressed in the meeting. The other concern is the choice of siding and the glare factor. Mr.
P25
IV.C.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015
7
Sinclair stated the material itself should be completely non-reflective. They looked at several options
before deciding selecting the one they did. Mr. Sinclair showed an elevation slide of the east end of the
building to point out where the siding would be installed.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the sample material presented would be installed on the dark brown portions
of the elevations provided at which Mr. Sinclair confirmed and demonstrated on the perspectives.
Mr. Mesirow asked what color would be for the superstructure in option 2. Mr. Sinclair stated the color
has not been decided.
Mr. Goode asked if the sf of the building would be increased. Ms. Phelan replied only the height would
be affected along with mass.
Mr. Walterscheid opened for commissioner discussion.
Ms. Tygre referred to the seven criteria listed on p 174 of Exhibit A to be considered for the application.
Based on the applicant’s statement the glass will not come out to the front building line helps her. She
still has concern with what seems to be a very monolithic massing on the Durant side. She described
how levels one and two are broken up by design, but feels the design creates a two story horizontal line
along a very large building. She feels adding the parapet walls do not help the mass of the building and
does not feel the design is acceptable in this building. She wished there could be a little more variety
between the ground level and the second level.
Mr. McNellis stated his main heartache was seeing the timber structure going away. He understands
why after the discussion at the meeting. He feels the current design is a true mountain contemporary
design. He understands Staff’s position regarding the parapets adding to the bulk and mass, but he also
understands the desire to add elements to make the building more contemporary. He may be able to
get on board and believes he is generally in support of design option one.
Ms. McNicholas feels there may be something between option one and two. She likes the updates with
the metal siding but feels it is unfortunate it seemed to go away in option two. She would like to retain
some of the angles in roof lines and believes it fits better with the adjacent neighborhood buildings. She
thinks this building has the opportunity to provide a transition from the commercial core to residential
areas the by not including the parapets. She feels the building would look better without parapets which
make it look blockish and adds to massing.
Mr. Goode agrees with Staff regarding the massing from the proposed parapets and is in favor of option
two. He doesn’t feel the applicant is happy with option two and hopes the applicant could expand on
the option two.
Mr. Mesirow concurs with Staff and feels option one increases the mass and scale of the buildings that
he feels do not meet the commercial design review criteria. From general look and feel standpoint, he
would prefer stone and wood instead of metal and mesh near the base of the mountain.
Mr. Mesirow would be much more comfortable maintaining the existing roof forms and massing. He
would also need more detail on what superstructure would look like going forward regarding the color
P26
IV.C.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015
8
and detail design. He feels the proposed design is more urban contemporary instead of mountain
contemporary.
Mr. Walterscheid does not mind the existing parapet walls and understands wanting to have it on all
four sides. He recommends pulling the height down to 32 ft. On the west building he recommended
keeping the pitched roof. He has no problems with the rest of proposed changes and would help
combine the buildings at the base level into one complex. He has no problem with the combination of
siding products as presented.
Mr. Sinclair stated he would like to continue the hearing to provide an opportunity to continue working
with Staff.
Ms. Phelan stated the next available dates are June 30 th (special meeting) and July 7 th . Mr. Sinclair stated
he would prefer July 7 th.
Ms. Tygre moved to continue the public hearing to July 7 th , seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor,
motion carried.
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P27
IV.C.
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner Technician
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director
RE: 540 E. Main St. Rezoning
MEETING DATE: June 30, 2015
APPLICANT :
City of Aspen, Capital Asset Department
REPRESENTATIVE :
Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning
Services, INC.
LOCATION & PARCEL ID ::
540 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611.
2737-073-24-003. The lot is a parcel of land
within the East Aspen Additional Townsite.
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
The zoning for this property is
Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI),
Commercial (C-1) and Commercial Core
(CC). The City of Aspen Parking
Department operates on the lot.
PROPOSED ZONING & USE :
The Applicant proposes to rezone the
property to Public (PUB) Zone District.
There is no proposed use change.
SUMMARY :
The Applicant requests to rezone the property
to the Public (PUB) Zone District.
Redevelopment is not being considered in the
Application; however, as a City asset, the
PUB Zone District is an appropriate one and
clears up the mix of zone districts. The
property is designated historic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
provide a referral to the City Council to
approve the request to rezone the subject
property to the Public (PUB) Zone District.
Figure A. 540 E. Main St./City Parking Dept.
Figure B. 540 E. Main St./City Parking Dept.
facing south towards Aspen Mountain
P28
VI.A.
Page 2 of 5
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES :
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval:
• Rezoning – pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.060, Rezoning – Procedure for
Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with determining if the
application meets the standards for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and
to provide a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.
PROJECT SUMMARY :
540 E. Main St. is located just north of the Commercial Core between Main St. and Rio Grande
Pl. The parcel measures approximately 27,000 square feet/0.6 acres in size and the City Parking
Department is located on the property.
Figure C. Project Location & Vicinity. Subject property is indicated by a white boarder and star.
The City Parking Department is considered a public use. Public use is not an allowed use within
the Service/Industrial/Commercial (SCI) Zone District, while the Commercial Core (CC) and
Commercial (C-1) Zone Districts do allow for Public use on the ground floor. The City Parking
Department office is located on the front portion of the property in the former residence within
the CC Zone District.
In accordance with Section 26.710.022.A, Zoning of Lands Containing More Than One Zone
District; when a proposed use is not allowed in all Zone Districts, the use can only be developed
on land in which it is a permitted use. As shown in Figure D , the Parking Department office
building falls within the CC Zone District. The accessory building to the rear, which is located in
P29
VI.A.
Page 3 of 5
the SCI Zone District, is used by the Parking Department for storage of department cars and
appurtenances. The accessory building is considered an accessory use to the Parking Department
office and is permitted as a use in the SCI Zone District. To bring the entire lot into conformance
and to allow for the future expansion of City facilities, the Applicant is initiating an amendment
to zone districts of the subject property from CC, C-1, and SCI to Public (PUB).
Figure D. Subject Property Site Programming
At this time, no development is proposed on the subject property; however, the parcel is being
considered for expansion of future City facilities. The PUB Zone District requires a Planned
Development when development occurs on the property; however, a Planned Development is not
proposed at this time. The dimensional characteristics of the parcel will be determined through
the Planned Development Review process. At this time, the Applicant does not wish to pursue a
Planned Development designation on the Official Zone District Map. Should the property be
redeveloped with new City facilities; the Official Zone District Map shall be amended to reflect a
Planned Development designation upon approval of an Ordinance approving the Planned
Development review, pursuant to Section 26.445.100, Planned Development Designation on
Official Zone District Map
The subject property received historic designation in Ordinance 34, Series of 1992. At that time the
property was addressed as 600 E. Bleeker St. The property received the designation because of three
19th century cabins, known as the Zupancis-McMurtchy cabins, located on the southern portion of
the property; shown in Figure E and Figure F. Should a Planned Development review be pursued
by the Applicant, the Historic Preservation review process may be combined with the review.
P30
VI.A.
Page 4 of 5
Figure E. Historic photo of the site, date unknown Figure F. One of the historic outbuildings today
STAFF COMMENTS :
The subject property currently houses the City's Parking Department and provides some parking
for the City Police Department. As shown on Figure C , the adjacent County property to the west
of the subject property is zoned PUB. The surrounding uses to the west of the property include
the Concept 600 Building, zoned C-1 and Obermeyer Place, Zoned SCI/Planned Development
(PD). Both Concept 600 and Obermeyer Place are mixed use buildings housing a variety of uses
and providing various services. Public zoning of the subject property will allow necessary civic
functions in a central location near other government facilities and is consistent with the current
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
The site is being considered for future expansion of City facilities; however, no development is
proposed as part of this Application. Impacts created by new development to public facilities
such as transportation, utilities and the natural environment shall be evaluated in the Planned
Development application process.
A memo was provided to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on June 10th, 2015 to
inform them of the Application and to solicit comments. The Application received a positive
endorsement from HPC. A small amount of public comment was received and comments
generally regarded concern for how the property may be developed. Public comments may be
found in Exhibit B .
Staff finds all relevant criteria regarding rezoning as found in Exhibit A to be met and
recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission provide a recommendation of approval to
City Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION :
“I move to make a recommendation of approval to City Council for the rezoning of 540 E. Main
St. from Service Commercial Industrial, Commercial Core and Commercial to Public as noted in
Resolution __, Series of 2015.”
P31
VI.A.
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENTS :
EXHIBIT A – Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B – Public Comment
EXHIBIT C – Survey
EXHIBIT D – Application
P32
VI.A.
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. __
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR
REZONING FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 540 E. MAIN ST.,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A; CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-24-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from The
City of Aspen Capital Asset Department (Applicant), represented by Alan Richman, requesting
the Planning and Zoning Commission provide a recommendation of approval to City Council of
a Rezoning of 540 E. Main Street, legally described in Exhibit A of this Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the property at 540 E. Main. Street is currently zoned Service Commercial
Industrial (SCI), Commercial Core (CC), and Commercial (C-1); and,
WHEREAS, the property located at 540 E Main Street is listed on the Aspen Inventory
of Historic Landmarks and Structures; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310.060 of the Land Use Code, Rezoning shall be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, after receiving a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval of the Application; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
zoning proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation for the Community Development Director, the
applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed
public hearing.; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 30 th , 2015, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. ___, Series 2015, by a ____ to ____ (__-__) vote,
recommending the Aspen City Council approve Rezoning of 540 E. Main Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal
meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development
proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and.; 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.
P33
VI.A.
Page 2 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a
recommendation to the Aspen City Council to approve the Rezoning requests, pursuant to the
procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, for 540 E. Main
Street, as listed below.
Section 1: Rezoning
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve Rezoning of
540 E. Main Street to Public (PUB)
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be compiled with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 30 th day of
June, 2015.
______________________________
Ryan Walterscheid, Vice Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_______________________________ _______________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager
P34
VI.A.
Resolution __, Series 2015
Exhibit A
540 E. Main St. Legal Description
Page 3 of 2
PARCEL OF LAND IN THE EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE ACCORDING
TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. 108453, DITCH BOOK
2A AT PAGE 252 OF THE REAL ESTATE RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, BEING A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY
MAYOR'S DEED RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 109112 DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
FOR EAST MAIN STREET BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 20 EAST
ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
THE CONCEPT 600 CONDOMINIUMS AS SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 383 AND
PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 442; THENCE N 75°09'11" W A DISTANCE OF 97.60 FEET
ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR EAST MAIN STREET TO A
POINT WHICH BEARS S75°09'11E A DISTANCE OF 7.5 FEET FROM THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL
TOWNSITE; THENCE N 14°50'49" E A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET ALONG A LINE
7.5 FEET EAST AND PARALLEL TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 10, TO
THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE;
THENCE N 75°09'11" W A DISTANCE OF 7.5 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL
TOWNSITE; THENCE N14°50'57”E A DISTANCE OF 20.39 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 9, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE;
THENCE N 75°09'11" A DISTANCE OF W 10.10 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID LOT 9 TO AN ANGLE POINT OF LOT 1, FIRST AMENDED PITKIN COUNTY
CENTER SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 93, PAGE 57; THENCE
N14°50'49"E A DISTANCE OF 188.06 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT 1, FIRST AMENDED PITKIN COUNTY SUBDIVISION TO AN ANGLE POINT IN
SAID LOT 1, ALSO BEING AN ANGLE POINT IN THE BOUNDARY OF
OBERMEYER PLACE CONDOMINIUMS AS SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 80, PAGE 57;
THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES S
57°25'00" E A DISTANCE OF 24.94 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID
OBERMEYER CONDOMINIUMS BOUNDARY; THENCE S 19°49'00” E A DISTANCE
OF 138.72 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID OBERMEYER CONDOMINIUMS
BOUNDARY; THENCE S 04°08'00” W A DISTANCE OF 67.55 FEET TO AN ANGLE
POINT IN SAID OBERMEYER CONDOMINIUMS BOUNDARY, ALSO BEING THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 20, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL
TOWNSITE, ALSO BEING THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF SAID CONCEPT 600
CONDOMINIUMS ; THENCE S 14°50'49" W A DISTANCE OF 120.39 FEET ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF SAID CONCEPT 600 CONDOMINIUMS TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 0.607 ACRES MORE OR LESS;
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 540 E. MAIN ST.
P35
VI.A.
1
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
26.310.090. Rezoning - Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to change the underlying zoning from Service
Commercial Industrial (SCI), Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) to Public (PUB).
As shown on Figure C in the Staff Memo, the adjacent County property to the west of the
subject property is zoned PUB. As part of a recent application submitted for the Pitkin
County Center property, the boundaries of the Public zone district were adjusted to coincide
with the parcel boundaries for the Courthouse and Jail properties. Zoning the subject
property PUB would be congruent with the zoning of the adjacent County property.
The surrounding uses to the west of the property include the Concept 600 Building, zoned C-1
and Obermeyer Place, Zoned SCI/Planned Development (PD). Both Concept 600 and
Obermeyer Place are mixed use buildings housing a variety of uses and providing various
services.
The subject property currently houses the City's Parking Department and provides some
parking for the City Police Department. Both of these public uses are allowed uses in the PUB
zone district. Public zoning of this property will allow necessary civic functions in a central
location near other government facilities.
The rezoning of the subject property is consistent and compatible with surrounding zone
districts and uses. Staff finds this criterion met.
B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities.
Rezoning the property to Public will allow for community-serving public use of this property.
No development is proposed as a part of this application. Expansion of the facilities may place
demands on some of the above-listed public facilities (such as transportation, water supply
and sewage disposal), such use will also provide an essential public service.
Development in the PUB Zone District requires a Planned Development (PD) review. A PD
Application will provide the opportunity to evaluate impacts and the ability to ensure
development impacts are appropriately mitigated by the Applicant. Staff finds this criterion
met.
C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
P36
VI.A.
2
Staff Response: Staff does not anticipate any significant adverse impacts to the natural
environment as a result of this proposal. The proposed zoning change would zone the
property with a more appropriate zone district for its use. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title.
Staff response: The rezoning of the parcel to the PUB Zone District would be consistent and
compatible with adjacent Civic uses. The rezoning to PUB would allow the parcel to continue
to serve the community and provide a future location for essential public facilities. The
proposed amendment is consistent with and compatible with the community character and in
harmony with the public interest and intent of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
P37
VI.A.
Exhibit B Public Comment 540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Date Name Contact Comment Reply Follow-up
2015 June 16 Susan Welch na
Wanted to know what rezoning to PUB implies. Noted there is
lumber/wood being stored on the back of the property and had
concerns that there may be a fire hazard.
Explained that it cleans up the existing zoning City Parking Department.
Emailed Jeff Pendarvis (2015 June 17) regarding the wood.
Conducted a site vist on
2015 June 18). The wood
stored on the property are
boards from the historic
structure.
2015 June 16
Jerome
Simecek 924.6060
Manager of Obermeyer HOA inquiring about the land use
application Returned call and left message (2015 June 16, June 24)na
2015 June 24
Claire
Wilson 300.2040
concerned as to how the space will be redeveloped. She was also
was concerned that while she would receive a letter as part of the
public notice process, she may miss the correspondence as she
travels often.
Explained that the property is being considered for additional civic space
needs; however, the land use application does not contain any development
proposals. Asked Jeff Pendarvis, Jack Wheeler and Mitzi Rapkin if there are
there any websites/public outreach materials I may direct the public to.
Additionally, I asked if there were any email newsletters regarding the
project.
Forwarded the Civic
Space Relocation project
on the City website.
Currently there is not an
email newsletter but they
can develop one when as
the City is closer to
building the project. I
provided her with Jack
Wheeler's contact
information. Jack will
reach out to her
personally to set up a
meeting.
P
3
8
V
I
.
A
.
5.
2
2
.
1
5
P39
VI.A.
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, INC.
May 1, 2015
P.O. BOX 3613
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
970-920-1125
Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner Technician
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: REZONING APPLICATION FOR 540 EAST MAIN STREET (A/KIA "THE
ZUPANCIS PROPERTY")
Dear Hillary,
This is an application requesting rezoning of the Zupancis property, located at 540 East
Main Street. The property's Parcel ID# is 273707324003.
The subject property is owned by the City of Aspen. Proof of the ownership of the property
is provided in the form of a letter from the City Attorney (see Exhibit #1). The City
(hereinafter, "the applicant") has designated Alan Richman Planning Services and Charles
Cunniffe Architects as its representatives for this application. The letter authorizing
submission of this application is attached hereto as Exhibit #2.
An improvement survey of the property has recently been completed and accompanies
this application. It demonstrates that the subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel of
land that is approximately 27,000 square feet in size. The property is surrounded by
prominent buildings on its east and west sides. The Courthouse Plaza Building and the
Pitkin County Jail are located to the west/northwest of the property. The Concept 600
Building and the Obermeyer Complex are located to the east/northeast of the property,
The property is improved with five (5) small structures. The southern portion of the
property contains an older residential structure that is currently being occupied by the
City's Parking Department. There is also a small garage located behind this structure.
The northern portion of the property contains a small cabin and two small outbuildings, all
of which are designated as historic resources.
P40
VI.A.
Ms. Hillary Seminick
May 1, 2015
Page Two
As shown on the attached current zoning exhibit, today the property is subject to three
distinct zone district designations. The southern portion of the property is zoned
Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) while the northern portion of the property is
designated as Service Commercial Industrial (SCI). The boundary between the northerly
and southerly portions of the property generally follows the centerline of the alley that has
been vacated through this property.
For the past several years the property has provided a temporary home for the City's
Parking Department. The back of the property has been used to park some of the City's
police car fleet. These uses are considered to be public uses. A public use is allowed on
the ground floor in the CC and C-1 zones, but is not an allowed use in the SCI zone
district. Therefore, the applicant proposes to rezone the subject property to the Public
(PUB) zone district to ensure that the current public use of the property is conforming.
Furthermore, as you know, the City has been engaged for some time in a planning effort to
evaluate space needs for its municipal administrative functions. The subject property was
purchased by the City for the purpose of accommodating necessary public functions. As
part of the space needs analysis this site has been determined to be the appropriate
location for a new building for the City's Police Department. Therefore, this rezoning
application can be considered to be a first step towards re-development of the property
with a new Police Department Building. Of course, a full PUD development application will
need to be prepared and reviewed in a public hearing process before any determination
can be made as to the appropriateness of this site for that type of project.
I discussed this rezoning proposal with you and you issued a pre-application summary,
attached as Exhibit #3. This document lists the following land use approvals that must be
obtained by the applicant:
Sec. 26.310 Amendments to the Official Zone District Map (Rezoning).
Following below are the applicant's responses to the standards of this section of the Aspen
Land Use Code.
Responses to Standards for Rezoning
Section 26.310.090 of the Code provides the standards of review for an amendment to
the City's Official Zone District Map. These standards and the applicant's responses to
the standards follow below.
A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
P41
VI.A.
Ms. Hillary Seminick
May 1, 2015
Page Three
Response: The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zone districts.
As shown on the Existing Zoning Map, the adjacent County property to the west of the
subject property is zoned Public (PUB). As part of a recent application submitted for the
Pitkin County Center property, the boundaries of the Public zoning were adjusted to
coincide with the parcel boundaries for the Courthouse and Jail properties. Zoning the
subject property as Public would complement the zoning of the adjacent County
property.
Zoning the property as Public would also be consistent with the current use of the
property. The subject property currently houses the City's Parking Department in the
former Zupancis residence. The area behind this structure is used as parking by the
City Police Department. Both of these public uses should be located in the Public zone.
As the Map also shows, surrounding uses to the west of the property represent a dense
urban scale of development, including the Obermeyer PUD and Concept 600 Building.
Public zoning of this property will allow necessary civic functions to be located there, in
an appropriate location right near the center of the urban fabric.
Rezoning of the property to Public (PUB) will also require all development of the property
to proceed through the City's PUD process. This means that the development will be
subject to Project Review by the P&Z and City Council and then Detailed Review by the
P&Z. This extensive type of public review process will provide another means to ensure
that the development will be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses.
B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: The property's current commercial zoning would support a relatively
intense, commercial form of development such as is present on the adjacent
Obermeyer property or the newly developed 625 East Main Street commercial building
across from this site. Rezoning the property to Public will instead allow for a
community-serving public use of this property. While any public use will most likely
place demands on some of the above-listed public facilities (such as transportation,
water supply and sewage disposal), such use will also provide an essential public
service. The PUD application will provide the community with the opportunity to
evaluate the nature of those impacts and the ability to ensure that all such impacts are
appropriately mitigated by the applicant.
P42
VI.A.
Ms. Hillary Seminick
May 1, 2015
Page Four
C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Response: The proposed rezoning will not result in any adverse impacts on the natural
environment. The subject property is a developed site located in the middle of the City's
urban fabric. It is an appropriate place for re-development to occur, in that it is not
limited by any mapped environmental constraints such as floodplains, steep slopes or
geologic hazards and does not impact open space or other natural features. The
natural environment would be well served by the kind of infill development that would be
allowed by the requested rezoning.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title.
Response: The proposed amendment would be consistent and compatible with
Aspen's community character and would serve the public interest. This location, which
is adjacent to the City core, is an appropriate location in which to extend the
community's Civic campus. It is adjacent to the Jail and the Courthouse complex,
including the site where the County intends to relocate the Sheriff. It is also proximate
to City Hall as well as to other sites identified in the space needs study as being where
the City's administrative functions could be housed in the future. It would provide a
central, visible, accessible home for the City's Police Department and is entirely
appropriate for rezoning to Public, if for no other reason than to make its current use by
the Parking Department conforming to underlying zoning.
Conclusion
The above responses and the attached documents provide all of the information requested
by staff to process this application. We look forward to the public review of this application.
If there is any other material I can provide to you or any other questions I can answer
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, INC.
Al,~
Alan Richman, AICP
P43
VI.A.
EXHIBITS
P44
VI.A.
March 20, 2015
VIA EMAIL
Chris Bendon
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Bendon:
EXHIBIT #1
The OilY olDspen
OilY llnorney's omce
I have been asked by Jeff Pendarvis of the City of Aspen Asset Management Department
to provide an opinion regarding the ownership of property known as the Zupancis parcel at 540
E. Main St., upon which the City seeks development approval and/or a building permit for
proposed construction. I have reviewed the documents associated with the acquisition and
ownership of the subject property. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
Colorado.
The Zupancis parcel was acquired by the City in 2002 from general funds pursuant to a
deed from Louis J. Zupancis and Robert L. Zupancis, recorded on October 1, 2002 at Reception
No. 472856. Thus, it is my opinion that this property is owned by the City of Aspen, and that
there are no mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the
parcel or other encumbrances that would prevent the work proposed.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Electronic copy: Original Signed by James R. True
James R. True
City Attorney
P45
VI.A.
EXHIBIT#2
Ms. Hillary Semlnlck, Planning Technician
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR LAND USE APPLICATION FOR 540 EAST
MAIN STREET (ZUPANCIS PROPERTY)
Dear Hillary,
The City of Aspen is the owner of the property located at 540 East Main Street In Aspen,
commonly known as the Zupancis property. We hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning
SeNices, Inc. and Charles Cunniffe Architects, Inc. to submit a land use application to
rezone the property to Public (PUB). Mr. Richman and Mr. Cunniffe are authorized to
submit said application on our behalf and to represent us in meetings with City of Aspen
staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council conceming said appHcatlon.
Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this
application please do so through Alan or Charles, or you may contact me directly.
s~(r~
Steve Barwick, City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
P46
VI.A.
EXHIBIT #3
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Hillary Seminick, 970.429.27 41
PROJECT: 540 East Main Street, AKA Zupancis
REPRESENTATIVE : Alan Richmond
REQUEST: Rezoning
DESCRIPTION:
Proposal :
DATE: April 16, 2015
540 E. Main St., which is also known as the Zupancis Property, currently lies within three zone districts,
Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1) and Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI). Three 19th century cabins ,
known as the Zupancis-McMurtchy cabins , are located on the southern portion of the property. The property is
designated historic . The City Parking Department, a parking garage and surface parking is located on the
property .
Rio Grande Area
I
The City Parking Department is considered a public use. Public use is not an allowed use within the
Service/Industrial/Commercial (SCI) Zone District. Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) allows public
use on the ground floor.
In accordance with Section 26.710.022 .A ; which pertains to lands within more than one zone district, where a
proposed use is not allowed in all Zone Districts, the use can only be developed on land in which it is a
permitted use . The Parking Department falls within both the CC and SCI Zone Districts; therefore, the existing
use of the property is a non-conformity.
To bring the existing use into conformance, the City of Aspen Capital Asset Department is initiating an
amendment to zone districts of the Zupancis property from CC, C-1 , and SCI to Public (PUB).
ASLU
Rezoning
540 E. Main St. (Zupancis)
273707324003
1
P47
VI.A.
Review Process:
Rezoning is required to amend the current zone districts. Application contents shall include all materials
outlined in Section 26.310.080. A rezoning land use review is a two-step review process with public hearings
before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use App:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/O/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%201and%20use%20a
pp%20form.pdf
Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-
Code/
Applicable Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304
26.304.060
26.310.060
26.310.080
26.310.090
26.310.100
26.310.110
26.310.120
26.710.140
26.710.150
26.710.160
26.710.250
Review by:
Public Hearing:
Common Development Review Procedures
Modification of Review Procedures
Rezoning -Procedure for Amendment
Rezoning -Application Contents
Rezoning -Standards of Review
Notation on Official Zone Map
Recordation of Designation (pending approval)
Placement on the City's Official Zone District Map (pending approval)
Commercial Core (CC)
Commercial (C-1)
Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI)
Public (PUB)
Staff for complete application
Staff for recommendation
Referrals: Engineering
Community Development Director for approval
Planning and Zoning,
Neighborhood Outreach: Yes
Planning Fees:
Referral Fees:
Total Deposit:
$7 ,800.00 for 24 hours of staff time.
Engineering (per hour, billed with planning case) -$275
$8075 (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of
$325/hour; additional engineering hours over deposit are billed at a rate of
$275/hour)
To apply. submit the following information (apply to both options unless otherwise noted):
D Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
D Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
2
P48
VI.A.
D Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts
and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the
Development Application.
D Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the
name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
D HOA Compliance form (Attached)
D A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the
proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application
and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. Building elevations, plans and
renderings are required.
D A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation
showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the
State of Colorado.
D Written responses to applicable review criteria.
D An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
D 1 Complete Hard Copy.
If the copy is deemed complete by staff. the following items will then need to be submitted:
D TBD Additional, Complete Hard Copies.
D Total deposit for review of the application.
D A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on
current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may
not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
3
P49
VI.A.
c
Q)
Q.
(/')
<(
...
+-
(/')
c ·-0
~
+-
(/')
0 w
0
"" Ll)
c
Q
Q.
"' <!o
IS l/ltv S
P50
VI.A.
P51
VI.A.
Com Dev Work Program Memo
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: June 30, 2015
RE: Community Development Department work program
SUMMARY : Staff meets with City Council periodically to review the Community Development work
program. In advance of that, staff is meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic
Preservation Commission, and NextGen Commission to get feedback on their priorities. Staff requests
comments from P&Z on the work program items listed below, as well as any other ideas the board
would like to discuss.
CURRENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM ITEMS : Beyond the general planning
services the city provides (processing land use applications, providing walk-in services, etc), community
development staff is working on the following items.
Rethink the Street (Council Goal #1). One of City Council’s Top Ten Goals is to assess the
city’s streets in an effort to prioritize pedestrian access and safety while ensuring they result in a
“walkable city.” This effort has been dubbed “Rethink the Street.” There are a number of
departments working together on this goal, including the Community Development Department.
The inter-departmental team is focusing on potential test projects to demonstrate longer-term
changes that could be implemented to improve walkability and connectivity. Staff: Justin
Barker.
Uphill Economy (Council Goal #4). One of City Council’s Top Ten Goals focuses on creating
a framework for encouraging industry, events, and other economic activities tied to the “Uphill
Economy." The effort would build on the popularity of this outdoor movement by attracting
events and businesses to Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley that can provide economic
development that is not tied to the built environment. In February 2015 the City hosted a
successful uphill event and expo that coincided with the Power of Four race. Staff proposes to
continue to build on this effort by continuing outreach with uphill businesses, with an ultimate
goal of creating incubator space or an “Uphill Innovations Center.” Staff: Chris Bendon.
SCI / North Mill Planning (Council Goal #4). This effort focuses on the properties along
North Mill, as well as a rework of the SCI Zone District. The SCI properties along North Mill
Street are likely redevelopment candidates due to their age and location. The City has previously
explored rezoning options to adjust the types of allowable businesses in SCI, but this effort was
met with significant concern about the effects on existing businesses. The City recently
completed a substantial street and storm water improvement project connected to the work on
John Denver Sanctuary. The North Mill SCI properties received minimal attention this past year
P52
VII.A.
Com Dev Work Program Memo
Page 2 of 6
as part of the business goal (BYY #4). A deeper effort focused on these properties could
produce an incubator-type property for a wider range of businesses. The effort could be
expanded to include the properties along the river. The river properties could be repurposed and
relate better to the new park. This effort needs more attention if progress is expected. This is
likely an extensive work program item, but could get underway in late 2015 with anticipated
completion in 2016. Staff: Chris Bendon and Sara Nadolny.
Lodging Code Amendments. As part of AACP implementation and previous Council Top Ten
Goals, Council directed staff to study lodging and engage the lodging community in a discussion
related to the future of our lodging product. City Council recently approved the “Small Lodge
Preservation Program” that target’s Aspen’s twelve (12) remaining small lodges and provides
incentives to help them continue operating as lodges. Council has also given staff direction to
work on code amendments that would address other portions of the bed base, including
condominium development and timeshare development. Condos make up over 40% of the city’s
bed base. Staff anticipates presenting Council with draft code amendments related to
condominiums, timeshares, and vacation rentals in the fall or winter 2015. Staff: Jessica Garrow.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Code Amendment. Staff is working on an update to
the ESA chapter of the Land Use Code. This section requires a heightened review for any
project located near our rivers and streams, within an established view plane, located near
Hallam Lake, or located within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation line. This code amendment
requires extensive work with other city departments and the development community, which has
been ongoing for two (2) years. Mapping work and other consultant work may be required to
bring the update to a conclusion. Staff had an initial check-in with the Planning & Zoning
Commission in the fall of 2014, and anticipates another check-in as well as additional public
outreach in late summer to early fall of 2015. Staff anticipates the code amendment will be
ready for public hearings in late 2015. Staff: Jessica Garrow.
Residential Mitigation. The project proposes to update the basis for impact mitigation and the
fee-in-lieu requirements for residential development. The proposal would eliminate the ADU
option consistent with the AACP and previous Council and APCHA direction. The project is
related to fee-in-lieu methodology work being performed by the Housing Authority. Staff has
conducted outreach on this item and has completed a new study quantifying the impacts of
residential growth. City Council recently adopted a policy resolution and code amendments
should be ready for consideration by August. Staff anticipates the work will be completed by the
end of the year. Staff: Chris Bendon.
Residential Design Standards Update. The City has Residential Design Standards in place that
address all single-family, duplex, and multi-family development. These standards have not been
updated since their initial creation roughly fifteen (15) years ago. Staff is currently working with
a Boulder-based consultant as well as a local committee of architects to update the standards.
Staff anticipates completion in the fall of 2015. Staff: Justin Barker.
AspenModern Website. Historic Preservation staff worked on a website dedicated to Aspen’s
Post-WWII era properties. The website was completed in April 2014 and includes information
P53
VII.A.
Com Dev Work Program Memo
Page 3 of 6
on each style of architecture and each architect modern properties ( http://www.aspenmod.com/ )
Staff continues to update the website as new properties are designated. Staff: Amy Simon.
AspenVictorian Website. Historic Preservation staff worked on a website dedicated to Aspen’s
Victorian era properties ( http://aspenvictorian.com/ ). The website went live in September 2014,
and continues to be updated with information. Staff: Amy Simon.
Lift One Stabilization. The City continues to work on addressing repair needs at the historic
Lift 1 site. An initial assessment by an Architectural Conservator and a Structural Engineer was
completed last fall, and staff is awaiting construction documents for immediate repair work that
will be implemented this summer. New interpretive information will be added to the site. Staff:
Amy Simon.
Permit Process Change. The Community Development Department is working on a complete
overhaul of the building permitting process, from initial pre-planning inquiries through the
issuance of a CO. This also involves conversion to a new software system and digital plans
review. This is a significant effort and involves all Community Development staff and multiple
review agencies of the City. Efforts will be ongoing though the end of the year and possibly into
2016. Staff: All of Community Development.
Standardized Building Submission – Model B-Sheets. Based on staff’s experience with the
Model Z-Sheets (Model Zoning Permit Submissions), staff is working on a standard format for
building submittals. (A similar effort is being pursued within Engineering.) This has been
budgeted from department savings. Staff: Stephen Kanipe and Denis Murray.
CC and C-1 Zone District Amendments. Recently a number of owners from the Concept 600
Building approached the Community Development Department about their status as a non-
conforming use. The Concept 600 Building is located in the C-1 Zone District and includes
commercial uses on the ground floor and free-market residential uses on the upper floors. In
2012, City Council amended the CC and C-1 zone districts to prohibit free-market residential
uses. Any existing free-market residential uses became non-conforming. The Concept 600
owners have found it difficult to find financing for normal upkeep or remodeling of the units
because they are technically no longer allowed in the zone district. Because these units, as well
as other existing free-market residential units, are unlikely to go away, staff suggests an
amendment to the zone districts that would legalize existing free-market residential units while
prohibiting them from expanding. New free-market residential units would continue to be
prohibited. Staff has scheduled Council Review for a Policy Resolution in late June and public
hearings in early August to jump-start this effort. Staff: Jessica Garrow.
Housing Credits Update. The City of Aspen implemented the Housing Credits program in
2010 and has seen a number of successful private sector housing developments as a result. To
date, housing for nearly 48 FTEs has been created through the program. While the program has
been a success, there are improvements and clarifications to be made. Staff has met with the
Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Housing Board to get feedback on specific
policy changes. Staff anticipates meeting with City Council in August / September to review
code changes. Staff: Jessica Garrow.
P54
VII.A.
Com Dev Work Program Memo
Page 4 of 6
Vested Rights Update. When a project is approved, state statute requires a vesting period of at
least three-years. During this period the project is “protected” from any changes to the land use
code. Often projects will apply for amendments during their vested period. Staff is working on
a code amendment to codify existing city policy related to how projects that are part of a multi-
step process or that are requesting an amendment during their vested rights period are addressed.
Under this change, minor amendments (for instance, changing of building materials or landscape
features) would continue to be vested under the original land use code, while major amendments
(for instance, changing the project from lodging to affordable housing) would be subject to the
land use code in effect at the time of the amendment application. Staff recently met with the
Planning and Zoning Commission on this code amendment, and they strongly supported the
direction. Staff has scheduled a Policy Resolution on this amendment in July. Staff: Jessica
Garrow.
3D Model of Aspen. The City of Aspen began creation of a 3D massing model using SketchUp
in 2008. Since then the downtown and certain areas along Main Street have been modeled. The
city recently hired a temporary Special Projects Planner to assist with completion of the model.
Staff anticipates an updated model will be complete by the end of the year. Staff: Jessica Garrow
and Sarah Rosenberg.
Miscellaneous Code Amendments. Throughout the year, staff keeps a “redline” version of the
code that identifies areas of the code that are confusing, contradictory, or do not address
emerging issues. These primarily focus on the calculations and measurement section of the code
– that is, how buildings, fences, etc are measured for height, floor area, net leasable/livable, and
setbacks. The most recent update was completed at the end of 2014. Staff has begun compiling
a list of potential changes and anticipates bringing a code amendment forward in early 2016.
Staff: Justin Barker.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF SUGGESTIONS : Community Development staff suggests the
following work program items be discussed as potential additions to the department’s work program.
Update Historic Preservation Guidelines. The city’s Historic Preservation Guidelines have
not been updated since 2000. A general update is recommended to address emerging issues such
as landscaping and to ensure the guidelines result in development that respects Aspen’s historic
buildings and districts. Staff has begun an initial review of the guidelines and would work with
HPC on the update.
City-Owned Property AspenModern Designations. In 2010 City Council approved the
AspenModern program, which allows for voluntary designation of Aspen’s post-war historic
resources. The program requires review by the HPC and City Council, with applicants able to
request various benefits in exchange for designating their property. The City owns a number of
AspenModern eligible properties, but to date has not done extensive planning or investigation to
determine if the properties should go through the designation process. The AspenModern
Ordinance included language stating that the City would initiate AspenModern designation on
the eligible City-owned properties. Staff proposes that the City Asset and Community
P55
VII.A.
Com Dev Work Program Memo
Page 5 of 6
Development Departments work together to investigate and potentially bring forward these
designations.
Update Historic TDR Review Criteria. The Review Criteria for the City’s TDR program are
based on a mathematical formula – if there is additional available floor area on the lot, that floor
area is eligible to be severed as a TDR. The Review Criteria do not address such things as if the
creation of TDRs will benefit the historic property or represent an important preservation effort.
Staff proposes an update to the Review Criteria to include some additional context-specific
criteria. Staff has scheduled Council Review for a Policy Resolution in late July to jump-start
this effort. Staff: Sara Adams.
Off-Street Parking Requirements. Staff proposes a complete rewrite of the city's off-street
parking requirements. These are the parking requirements for development and are not related to
street parking or other parking managed by the City. The City’s parking code requires a
minimum number of parking spaces, meaning a new development is required to provide a base
number of parking, but can optionally provide as much parking as they would like. Staff
questions if unlimited parking associated with a development helps promote Aspen’s goals of
reducing traffic, congestion, greenhouse gases, and improving air quality. In addition, the City’s
minimum standards may be “over parking” some projects, further reducing unneeded traffic.
A comprehensive study are parking needs for different land uses may be beneficial, given the
section has not been updated in approximately 10 years. There are new trends related to land use
review of parking, including establishing a maximum parking requirement rather than a
minimum parking requirement (in an effort to encourage use of alternative transportation
modes). In addition, staff believes this is a worthwhile “next step” related to the year-old
transportation mitigation system. Staff anticipates this effort would take 12 – 18 months and
would require consultant work to complete.
Commercial Elevators. Currently there are no building or land use code requirements related to
elevator access in commercial buildings. Staff proposes an amendment that would require
elevator access to all building floors in a commercial or mixed-use building. This ensures ADA
access to all commercial units in a building, and provides more usable commercial spaces. This
work could be completed with the yearly miscellaneous code amendments, or as a stand-alone
item later this summer.
Lift 1 Neighborhood. The Lift 1 neighborhood is Aspen’s second portal to the mountain, and is
the location of world class skiing events. The neighborhood includes a mix of vacant parcels,
free-market condominium development, parks, and an approved lodge. With the FIS coming in
2017, the recent purchase of the Lift 1 Lodge, and a potential development application for the
uppermost parcel, staff suggests the time is ripe for a community discussion on the goals for this
area. This should occur relatively quickly, as development applications may come in over the
next few months, and as the Aspen Skiing Company determines if and how to update the existing
lift. Potential work could include a community survey, an interactive website, focus group
meetings, interactive boards in the area, and clicker meetings. If Council is interested in moving
forward with this, additional funding and potential outside help would be required.
P56
VII.A.
Com Dev Work Program Memo
Page 6 of 6
Renewable Energy Allowances. The Aspen Area Community Plan focuses on encouraging
renewable energy sources as a way to decrease the city's carbon footprint. The policies and goals
in the AACP are also supported by the City's Canary Initiative. While the city has focused on
ways to increase the amount of renewable energy in its electric portfolio as well as focusing on
ways to generally reduce dependence on non-renewable sources, there has not been a focus on
making individual alternative energy sources easier to construct (i.e individual solar panels on a
home). The Land Use Code allows for alternative energy production equipment, but often
requires a review process with the Planning & Zoning Commission, which can be a deterrent for
homeowners. Staff proposes implementing the AACP Action Items that focus on removing
barriers to individual renewable energy development, such as solar panels in a back yard or on
retaining walls. Staff anticipates this work could be conducted in house and would take
approximately six months to complete, including public outreach.
Local Food Production. The Lifelong Aspenite Chapter of the AACP includes a goal to
"promote and provide access to organic and sustainable and regional food production." Staff
suggests that the Land Use code be examined for potential barriers to local food production. For
instance, certain rooftop or backyard garden structures are not allowed under floor area or height
requirements. Exemptions for the production of local food could be added. Staff anticipates this
work would take 8-10 months, including public outreach and could be completed in house.
Additional funding may be needed if consultant work were required.
Multi-Family Replacement Updates. One of the items identified by City Council during the
lodging discussions is a need to update the city’s Multi-Family Replacement requirements. This
includes an examination of the “look back” for the program – currently any property that has
ever housed a local working resident is subject to the requirements – as well as an examination
of the general requirements. The ability for AH Credits to be used to meet replacement
requirements should also be examined. Staff anticipates this work would take 4-6 months, and
could be completed in house. Additional funding may be needed if consultant work were
required.
P57
VII.A.