HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.Midland Park Sub.0076.2014.ASLU0076.2014.ASLU 00 MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION
FINAL PUD AMENDMENT
273707412739, 273707412706,273707412708,273707412739
�
l
7Lj7
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen Community Development Department
CASE NUMBER: 0076.2014.ASLU
PARCEL ID NUMBERS: 2737-074-12-706
2737-074-12-707
2737-074-12-708
2737-074-12-709
PROJECT ADDRESS: 00 MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION
PLANNER: JENNIFER PHELAN
CASE DESCRIPTION: FINAL PUD AMENDMENT
REPRESENTATIVE: THOMAS W. GRIFFITHS
MIDLAND PARK CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
DATE OF FINAL ACTION: 09/16/2014
CLOSED BY: ROBERT GREGOR
ON: 06/02/2015
%-73707*12WIk 27323749 ?w, 2?-Tb74j27cy
2`73�o�Ga27 39
ooZ6 -20 4 - AS 1,14
Permits
File Edit Record Navigate Farm Reports Format Tab Help
>X r i
_ • $ ,� J Jo lump
a
L Mair
Custom fields Routing Status Fee summary Actions Routing History
o
Permit type Aspen land Use Permit I 10076,2OXASLU
N
Address 0 MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISIOIJ �
Apt/ Suite
o
Cit}� �I State 1C0 Zip ASPEI81611
0
x
Permit Information
Master perms Routing queue aslu0i Applied 1G 01.2014
LProject
Status 1pending Approved
0
N
Description APPLICATION FOR FINAL PUD AMENDMENT - PETER FORNELL Issued
'PO BOX 10609 ASPEN CO 81612
(PLANNING APP DEPOSIT FEES y4MED - BY CHRIS BENDOIJ Closed'Fnal �
Submitted THOMS GRIFFITHS 926 9420 Clock Running Days 0 Expires 10r02'2013
Owner
Last name 1MIDLAIJD PARK HOA First name
Phone 1(► Address
f 3..
1,.
Applicant
Owner is applicant? ] Contractor is applicant?
Last name GRIFFITHS First name OMAS. fr' a04 MIDLAIJD PARK PL
ASPEN CO 81611
Phone '!(970) 925.9420 1 cult 129908 AddrF
i
Lender i
Last name First name
AspenGold6 (server` angelas'.I of 1
k *
p((,.,n,,;,� fees V�wued
A. Fee Waiver Request Form
City of Aspen oo76 �2011f .Hsu,
TEre Crl^r o�� i�SPFrV
Community Development Department
This form should be completed and submitted to the Community Development Director for review. You will be notified when a decision has been
made to waive or not to waive the fees regarded in this request form.
For what fees are you requesting waiver? 0 BUILDING
�n.
' ' PLANNING
/`
Applicant Name:r4 N F fr ' 1_01 Co # q70 " 11,56--,?,9
Mailing address: lo G-aGX G .,' q
E-mail address: ^i d z (7a f
Project name & address: A7/1)/
P.0-fox xwG
Fee Breakdown:Sl✓FF
>t
Original fee Requested original Fee Requested
Fee Description fee Description Amount Waiver
Amount Waiver
Energy Code Fee REMP Fee
Excavation Foundation Fee Zoning Review Fee
Inspection Fee Planning Application Fee
Permit Fee HPC Application Fee
Plan Check Other;
Reason for Waiver:
c7
I OTAt Or FEE wAivtn nrQvra i a I i— — -
❑ Syeneral Fund Department
Waived or decreased by City Council (specify ordinance or other decision document)
Other —Please explain:llF Tr��r /V AAE� MEAD % 70 ACLoi:) fy"/
✓' Applicant Sign re /iT S (ems
For office use only: �p7r
Type of fees waived: so
/APPROVED C DISAPPROVED
XA14A 1,7
Community Development Director
Total fees waived: $
00ek 7.1
Date
RESOLUTION NO. 14
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT TO THE MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT APPROVES MINOR CHANGES TO THE THIRTY
SEVEN CONDOMINIUM UNITS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT
Parcel Nos. 273707412700 - 273707412706, 273707412708 - 273707412737
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the
Homeowners Association for Midland Park Subdivision, requesting a PUD amendment to allow
for minor modifications to the development; and,
WHEREAS, the property contains thirty-seven multi -family dwelling units located within
the Residential Multi -Family zone district; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting certain interior floor plan changes, minor additions
and exterior architectural changes to the dwelling units to be permitted by simply applying for a
building permit, without the need for individual land use approvals; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and
recommended approval of the changes, with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and "Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
request under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed
and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, referral agency and
has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing on September 16, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare by a vote of six to zero (6-0).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1 • General Approval
The Planning and Zoning Commission approves an Amendment to the PUD memorializing the
plan changes, minor additions and
existing site conditions and permitting certain interior floor
exterior architectural changes to the dwelling units as noted herein.
Section 2• Existing Conditions
fied on Exhibit A of this resolution including interior expansions
Existing improvements, identi
lofts, storage closets, bay windows, storage sheds,
such as enclosed entryways, room expansions,
balconies, decks and porches that are hereby considered permitted improvements. If a building
permit is requested, any improvement constructed without a permit must be included in the
application for the requested permit.
RECEPTION#: 613689, 09/19/2014 at
02:05:40 PM,
1 OF 23, R $121.00 Doc Code
RESOLUTION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
Page I of 4
Section 3• Allowable Improvements
A. Applicability of Residential Design Standards. Chapter 26.410, Residential Design
Standards, is not applicable to any development within the subdivision. Any design
requirements for the subdivision are included within this resolution.
B. Interior chances
1) Carports. A portion of existing carports may be developed as conditioned, habitable
space to the extent that no parking space is lost and the parking space continues to meets
the city's required dimensions for an off-street parking space.
2) Conditioned and Unconditioned Area. A conditioned area is that area within a building
provided with heating and/or cooling systems. Conditioned areas such as habitable rooms
or lofts and unconditioned areas such as storage spaces are permitted within the existing
roofline of each structure. If developed, these spaces shall be building code compliant. No
unit shall exceed the maximum multi -family unit size permitted in the zone district.
Historic Transferable Development Rights Certificates are not permitted to be extinguished
within the subdivision.
C. Exterior changes
1) Garage Doors. Carports may be enclsedn lh garage oors that are All new garagee-stall doors or
doorsshall be
double -stall doors designed to appear likesingle-stall doo
of a consistent design. A doorway for access into the garage may also be provided.
2) Windows skylights and doors.
a) Street facing windows. Windows facing the street (considered the south fagade on
buildings A-E and the north fagade on buildings F-H) shall be consistent with the
existing window pattern on these facades with regard to size, shape and trim material.
No windows shall span through the area where a second floor level would typically
exist, which is between nine and twelve feet above the finished floor.
b) Rear windows and doors. Windows on the rear of a building (considered the north
fayade on buildings A-E and the south fagade on buildings F-H) are permitted to be of
any shape or size, but shall be of a consistent trim material as exists throughout the
development. Doors shall be no taller than eight (8) feet high and shall be of a
consistent trim material as exists throughout the development.
c) Side windows. Windows on the sides of a building are permitted to be of any shape
or size with the exception of the following prohibition: no non -orthogonal windows.
Windows shall be of a consistent trim material as exists throughout the development.
d) Skylights. Skylights are permitted to be installed which meet the allowances and
limitations of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application.
e) Bay windows. Bay windows are permitted.
Page 2 of 4
•
3) Expansion of a unit's footprint. All conditioned or unconditioned additions to a unit
shall be made of matching exterior materials and shall not exceed the depth of the eave
or when under a balcony may be flush with the edge of the balcony, and shall meet the
following requirements:
a) Buildings A — E. Buildings A-E may enclose the following areas:
1) Those areas under an existing deck or eave on the street facing fagade may be
enclosed. The enclosure shall not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the width of
the existing fagade and the front door shall face the street. When an upper story
deck is enclosed a replacement deck shall not be permitted.
2) Rear facades on buildings A-E may be enclosed under the existing eave the full
width of a unit.
b) Buildings F - H. Buildings F-H may enclose the following areas:
1) Rear facades on buildings F - H may be enclosed under the existing eave the full
width of a unit. When an upper story deck is enclosed a replacement deck shall
not be permitted.
2) Areas under an existing stair landing. The area under a stair landing on the street
facing fagade of building H may be enclosed. The previously mentioned
allowance is specific to unit H-1 l.The enclosure shall not exceed the footprint
of the stair landing above.
3) Side eaves on buildings G and H may be enclosed, not to exceed seventy-five
percent (75%) of length of the side wall.
D. Patios decks and balconies. Patios, decks and balconies may be covered by existing roof
overhangs and remain exempt from Floor Area calculations. Exterior, existing stairs shall
be exempt from Floor Area calculations. Patios, decks and balconies developed at or
within six inches of finished grade shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations. Any new
or reconstructed patio, deck or balcony that is developed above six inches from finished
grade shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Floor Area of the unit associated with it.
E. New Dormers/roofline. The addition of dormers and changed roof lines as identified below
and shown in Exhibit B are permitted on the south facing facades. Only gable style dormers
are allowed.
Building A: end units A-10 and A-13, upper units A-21 and A-22.
Building B: end units B-10 and B-13, upper units B-21 and B-22.
Building C: All four units.
Building D: All four units.
Building E: All four units.
Page 3 of 4
Building F: All three units.
Building G: end units G-10 and G-13 and upper units G-21 and G-22.
Building H: end units H-10 and 1-1-12 and upper unit 1-1-21.
Section 4:
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, arc hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 5:
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 6:
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
September, 2014.
Approved as to form:
Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Attest:
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
List of Exhibits
Attachment A: Plan memorializing existing conditions
Attachment B: Approved roof design changes
10" day of
Page 4 of 4
F
AMENDED 51TE PLAN
zoo, \
D
• au ana wn wrr .�r wr•aa �n.m c�.i
SITE vLAN
A1.0
BULP*46 A WPOK LEVM
M— -
(�u am"6 A LareK LEAL
BuKOW6.
R2.2
I
t.t G MVVLE LEVEL
Peu!� G �aree t.ev_a
lUN.DNIG t
A2.3
i i �i D MIDDLE L EV -
1� pU{aNb D LLti'Ol IP/Fl
1fW('V��4 MGw[t�K
�w •M NK cc �.u.
�Z
Qw
E
0!m
3UILDING D
A2.4
777
==4
F UPPER
LEVEL
fM(fl �(1U
BUILDING G
A2.1
�,�ew.w+s 6 tome true
1.1 �'Db H UPPER LPJEL
resew er �-
Derr. �r v
!�BW.DM6 H l.Gl"!R LPVH..
Y 1-
d W
0a
ZO y
J
W
0>
W
0
.ens
r.
oio..
wa*nnc�
BUILDING HH�
Gw 'CAVE g* NEW c;x-ww�.
E
0
I
/~^x'�J �
. IW���..
--
'-
-_ _-
-
5
�.
0
=xC3 �{
._,
��: �? tM 17 ti
� c
y.., fr..,==` fir- .�
� /,�. raw'- � --- --�F'� � • .�.r= _----�;r. - � -- --�'
,. ..... „ . ..s...... ....Y .o ,...., ,.., ... 1�
.. axe
---_-�
�'r'�-Q a�cuptic s
� I
(' • _ 1'
�,
_ _ ._���
s _ .
� w ,. ,
'! _`_ _—
... _ -.
r..n����,c �.
MIDI 44.IU F'nLt�,
• 11Ci'A`JI!y�lr 1 1
--- ---.�
I
•
. ZI
c va,
95ZB;7
'F.
... -_ •
r� �
sea
\
�
- _ �'�.�s'!� _._-.yam ••.
... �-
91Q7fil±Qit
9Ki'71 r _
}. .. ...-tar ._
-a- +o...wa:aas...
•
'
1
7
1
- r
..._- ��
.-_... ..
� ..a {{�� If I' ..
• •A. it
' •
4
4l.atwus•t.+.• '
�-y_
� /,''
iV rr.r � • : � .• ' ' '
..r . .
,
.- _
.:_ __-- C --.
.
euLwaa c
'
wOL&NO caws
sueonnyort +
ILA
mr
f'7
'EX6 7
f
- � C
:-- =mot- ------` �
ZIT r ..
. RAIU+JG O
k"OtAND PARK
•
;SK6 F
WA6
-7n
iWi
Ae
WAA&
I
.J; 1, r, t ; . l.f
ltck 6
L--A*11-F
MIOLA"OQWK i
7-M
.;
'raw -
If e
MIGM-14 OJIL
r-Y6 / 0
;W-"C;N,k ^
jo. 1, #q I*
7;U— �0*.G G
--Cx1p A=ag,
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070,
"Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site -specific development plan pursuant to
the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall
also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall
expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building
permit application submittal is accepted and deemed complete by the Chief Building Official,
pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation
is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property
rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management
allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the
Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order.
This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site -specific
development plan as described below.
Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number:
Midland Park Condominium Association, c/o Peter Fornell.
PO Box 10609, Aspen, CO
Lep-al Description and Street Address of Subject Property:
Midland Park Condominium units A I 0-A 13, A21 & A22, B 10-B 13, B21 & B22, C 1-C4, D 1-D4,
E 1-E4, F 1-F3, G 10-G 13, G21 & G22, H 10-H 12 and H21 and commonly known as 110-113, 121-
122, 210-213, 221-222, 301-304, 401-404, 501-504, 601-603, 710-7-13, 721-722, 810-812 and
821 Midland Park Place.
Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan:
A Planned Development Amendment allowing the addition of living and storage space to 37
individual units and changes to the exterior architecture of the units within the subdivision via
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Ordinance No. 14, Series 2014.
Effective Date of Development Order:
September 25, 2014. (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.)
Expiration Date of Development Order:
September 26, 2017 (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation
may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.)
Issued this 6`h day of September 2014 by the City of Aspen Community Development Director.
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306
ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
Aspen, CO
STATE OF COLORADO }
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, e� -, S (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that
I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section
26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
_`Publication of notice: ' By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper
or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days
after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is
attached hereto.
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper
or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after
an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled ed before me this ,01 day
of C.4v 20ILL, by >z U
PUBLIC NOTICE
Of
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the
approval of asite-specific development plan, and
the issuance of a vested property right pursuant to
the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title
24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertain
ing to the properties legally described as Midland
Park Condominium units A10-A13, A21 8 A22,
B10-813, B21 8 B22, C1-C), Dt-D4, E1-22:
F7-F3, G10-G13, G21 8 G22, 1111-H72 and H21
and ommon2kn020-213as,110-1134,121.-12,21,2212, n 04601.603, 710.7-13, 721-722, 810-812 and 821 Mid
land Park Place. The approval grants a Planned
Development Amendment to the Midland Park
Subdivision allowing for the addition of living and
storage space to 37 individual units and changes to
the exterior architecture of the units within the sub
division. For further information contact Jennifer
Phelan at the City of Aspen Community Develop
ment Dept., 130 y. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado.
(970)429-2759.
City of Aspen
Published in The Aspen Times on September 25,
2014. (10575103)
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICCIAL SEAT,
My commission expires:
� / G.
NotaryPublic
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION r
Reeular Meetine Plannine & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014
U Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with
members Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Brian McNellis and Ryan Walterscheid.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, and Jessica Garrow.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Phelan informed the board of the upcoming election on November 41h and suggested the meeting
that night be cancelled and rescheduled for November 11 in council chambers as a special meeting. The
commissioners agreed to the change in schedule.
Ms. Phelan then asked the commissioners about setting a continuance date for the public hearing for
511 Lazy Chair. Ms. Tygre moved to continue the 511 Lazy Chair review to the November 1111 special
meeting. Mr. Goode seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES - September 9, 2014
Ms. Tygre moved to approve the September 9, 2014 minutes with a spelling correction in the second
paragraph of the Commissioner Comments section. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goode. The
change was noted to be made prior to finalizing the minutes. All in favor, motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
Public Hearing - Midland Park Subdivision - PUD Amendment
Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing for the Midland Park Subdivision — PUD Amendment.
Ms. Quinn submitted the affidavits of public notice as Exhibit F demonstrating notice was property
provided.
Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director with the Community Development Department, presented the
applicant's request to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD), which is a site specific approval. The
Home Owners Association (HOA) has requested to memorialize changes that have occurred over time
and to identify a set of options for future changes allowing the home owner to directly work with the
HOA and apply for a building permit rather than obtaining multiple land use approvals.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014
Midland Park contains eight multi -family buildings (Buildings A-H) for a total of 37 units with three to six
units in each building. The property is roughly 4 acres or about 174,000 sf. It was annexed into the city
in 1979 and is zoned Residential Multi -Family (RMF).
The owners have come in on an individual basis to obtain approval for the changes made over time. In
1988, the Community Development Director at the time suspended further changes and asked for the
changes that had been made and a calculation of the floor area. One of the property owners conducted
an extensive research project to inventory the changes and concluded the site consisted of
approximately 32,400 sf of floor area on the property. Since the conclusion of the project in 1988, there
have been approximately four additional, somewhat small changes. Unit B21 obtained approval for a
loft of about 200 sf. Another approval provided for a pop out of approximately 38 sf. With the additional
changes, the total is now 33,159 sf of floor area on the site.
Since 1988, the zoning has changed a bit. The allowable floor area for the property is .75:1 which would
allow approximately 130,000 sf of development on the site today. So there is quite a gap between what
is constructed and what could potentially be maxed out.
This approval would provide for a menu of changes for the home owners to do so they just need to
apply for a building permit.
In regards to neighborhood context, these properties have deep eave overhangs on street facing and
non -street facing facades. Some units have carports and the two story units facing the street have street
facing balconies. The changes that have been made include enclosures under the eaves for storage, a
pop -out to create an entry way \ mud room. Another change on the rear facade was to enclose the
space under the eave and put a balcony on top. Staff has requested the applicant to provide a list of the
change options so the Community Development Department does not have to evaluate each change.
The applicant provided two different categories of changes consisting of interior and exterior changes.
Interior changes include conditioned or unconditioned space within the roof line. Conditioned space has
the ability for heating and cooling. The eaves and gables have quite a bit of space to provide for storage
or loft areas. The resolution also provides for conditioned or unconditioned changes to carports as long
as the owner keeps the parking space and the space meets the minimum required dimensions.
The list of exterior changes recommended by staff differ slightly from the applicant's list so there will be
a couple of points for P&Z to discuss and decide upon. With the deep eaves, the footprints can be
enclosed not exceeding 18 or 48 inches depending on the depth of the eave. The not -to -exceed
dimensions are provided so the existing cold roof vents will not be covered. Another exterior change
allows for garage doors, which has occurred on some units already. With street facing windows, staff
recommends any new windows be consistent with pattern, material and trim to match existing street
facades. Rear windows added must also be consistent with materials and trim. Side windows are
permitted as well, but must be non -orthogonal. Skylights may be added as long as they meet the
building code. There are a couple of additions of bay windows, but staff is recommending allowing the
two bay windows to be maintained, but no additional bay windows be added. The HOA would like to
allow bay windows on more units. In regards to increasing the footprint, staff is recommending allowing
the full width of a unit to be enclosed on the rear, non -street facing side of the building. The applicant is
asking for the enclosures to be allowed on the front of the buildings as well.
Regular Meeting Plannine & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014
Staff recommends only those units with both ground and second floor be allowed to enclose under the
balcony. This includes two units in Building A and two units in the Building B. The applicant would like to
be able to enclose any street facing unit balcony. Staff is recommending side eave enclosures up to 50%
of the length of the unit and applicant has requested 75%.
Buildings G & H have deep side eaves that are quite deep. All four units with the side eave have
enclosed a portion of the eave to create a mud room. Staff is recommending any additional enclosures
be allowed up to 50% of the length of the side wall. The HOA has requested 75%.
The final change requested involves an architectural change to the roof form. Specifically, there is one
owner interested in installing a gable roof form off the rear side of their property to capture more
sunlight. Staff is acceptable with the changes to the roof line on the back of the buildings, because you
will not see them from the street. But an architect working on this project suggested many of the street
facing buildings could do a similar type of dormer change in buildings A-E to capture sunlight. The
question for tonight is if the owners should or should not be able to make these changes.
Ms. Phelan stated this subdivision was one of the first affordable housing developments in Aspen. It was
designed be a local architectural firm that tried to incorporate passive solar into the property and create
semi-public realms with porch elements facing the street. When looking at architectural characters
under a PUD criteria, she stated the need to determine to what extent changes would detract from the
existing cohesiveness with the building forms.
Staff does recommend some of the changes be allowed to happen. Owners can personalize their space,
their lives may change requiring changes to their property. Staff has provided a list of options usable for
the applicant, but they recommend against some of the changes that might interject forms such as the
projecting bay windows that were not part of the original design concept. The gabled dormers might be
a great addition to the buildings architecturally for visual interest, but staff is concerned if only one or
two owners install the dormers, there may be inconsistencies in the architecture. If any of the dormers
are on non -street facing facades, then the appearance won't change, which is fine. The applicants are
interested in allowing the street facing buildings A-E to have the dormers if they choose.
The key items where there are differences between the applicant and staff include the bay windows, the
number of units allowed to enclose the front facade, the percentage of allowable enclosure and
whether or not to allow the gable roof modifications.
Mr. Erspamer asked if there were any questions for staff.
Mr. Walterscheid stated assuming there is a PUD overlay, there has been a lot of discussion about staff
recommendations which seems to be out of the ordinary including trims. He feels there are certain
things that fall to the HOA and he doesn't understand why HOA guidelines don't dictate a certain
amount of the changes. As long as the amount of sf per unit is divided equally and heights are
maintained, he doesn't understand why staff is getting involved into certain elements. Ms. Phelan stated
it depends on how involved the HOA tends to be. Staff's concern was trying to let the owners make
changes, but keep the architectural character in place. That is why the staff was making certain
recommendations in regards to window types, trim and colors match existing conditions to ensure
cohesiveness.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zonin! Commission September 16, 2014
Mr. Walterscheid stated he understands that perspective, but he is not certain as to why that is not an
HOA issue. It seems to overstep the bounds of staff to dictate these items. Ms. Phelan stated this PUD is
a list of options they (owners) can go and obtain a building permit. PUD's do talk to the architecture
character and staff wants to ensure the continuity.
Mr. Erspamer asked if P&Z was going to approve something the HOA might not approve or is this
already addressed by the HOA. Ms. Phelan stated the City requires owners to submit an HOA
compliance from the HOA prior to obtaining a building permit. The HOA compliance form attests they
are subject to an HOA and they received approval from the HOA, or what they are proposing is not
regulated by the HOA or there is no HOA.
Ms. Tygre noted the improvements being made by the owners may be expensive and she asked if it
would affect the resale price of the units. She understands the owners are there to stay and not making
improvements to move on, but things change. Ms. Phelan stated the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority (APCHA) only allows certain improvements to be recouped and there is a total cap any one
unit can recoup. Ms. Tygre asked if the improvements would allow the unit to be change categories
based on the improvements. Ms. Phelan believed the unit would remain in the same category.
Mr. Erspamer asked if there was anything in the code in regards to bay windows. He wanted to know if
it was mentioned because it was not part of the original plan. He asked why staff does not want the bay
windows allowed in the list of options for changes. Ms. Phelan stated staff does not see the bay
windows as typical of the existing development. There have been two bay windows added, but staff
feels no additional bay windows should be included in the development. She also stated the HOA has
asked for bay windows be allowed in the list of options for change.
Mr. Erspamer asked if the previously completed non -conforming changes will now be considered
conforming in this resolution. Ms. Phelan stated there have been approvals over time and the resolution
will allow the permitted changes that have occurred to remain. If an owner with previous unpermitted
changes then requests additional changes from the City and it is noted the previous change had not
been permitted; the owner would need to obtain a permit for the previous change as well as the new
change to ensure the changes meet life and safety code regulations.
Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Tom Griffiths is representing the applicant. He has lived at Midland Park for 28 years. He then
provided background information regarding the development and current owners. Midland Park was the
second deed restricted affordable housing project. The first was Park Circle which had a sunset to the
deed restrictions which expired. All 12 units went to free market and one unit was bought down for
housing mitigation and is still deed restricted. None of the Midland Park units have the sunset provision.
Some owners (23%) have lived there since the units were built and another 40% have lived there for 20+
years. The 37 units average about 907 sf. The site is about 4.3 acres of which the eight buildings on site
occupy about 19% of the total space. A portion of the remainder is utilized by the public utilizing an
easement to Smuggler Mountain. The property is well maintained and their HOA reserves are an in
excess of the recently recommended guidelines for capital reserves, They have never approached the
City about any issues being underfunded like some other HOAs have in the past. Ted Guy, the original
architect, designed and placed the buildings to take advantage of solar gain in the winter and cooling in
the summer. He has also advised the buildings were engineered structurally to handle the expansions.
Overall, they believe the requested changes will enhance the quality of life for the owners and not
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2014
detract from the character of the community. Therefore, the HOA is requesting the following changes to
the recommendations from staff as identified in a document provided by Mr. Griffiths. This document
titled "Midland Park Plat Amendment — Proposed Changes to the Resolution 9.16.14" was entered as
Exhibit E. He then reviewed the changes from the document which correspond to the resolution
provided in the agenda packet. The requested changes included the following.
• Request to permit bay windows on side and rear of building with neighbor's consent.
• The measurement of allowable expansion of a unit under existing decks and eaves. No vent
portals may be blocked.
• The percentage of allowable expansion of a unit under existing eaves.
• Allow for new dormers / roofline changes to be added to the front or rear of all buildings.
Mr. Peter Fornell also spoke for the applicant. He asked the P&Z to remember that Midland Park is a 40
year old complex and it is deed restricted. The only way the housing inventory stays up to date is when
the owners update them. He reiterated they are not changing the HOA or the buildings and they are not
trying to profit from efforts or move in or out of categories. He stated the existing bay windows are
looked upon fondly by the other owners.
Mr. Griffiths stated he met with Cindy Christensen at APCHA on the previous day. He wanted to address
Ms. Tygre's earlier comments. Midland Park has three different deed restrictions and three different
rates of recapture with caps. They are category four buildings. If an owner exceeds the cap, it is not
subject to recapture when the unit is sold.
Mr. Fornell stated these changes are included to be streamlined with the idea is to have the owner go
directly to the building department instead of having to seek community development approval each
time from the P&Z. This application is to help owners proceed with pre -approved items in the permit
process.
Mr. Erspamer asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Mr. McNellis asked how it would handle if a unit with a deck is located over another unit with a different
owner. He feels these type of changes need to be carefully articulated who has responsibility. Mr.
Griffiths explained the upper decks are all concrete, so he does not see maintenance or noise issues. Mr,
Fornell stated Midland Park has a strong HOA with an architectural review committee to review this
type of change. The HOA also requires the owner to seek approval from neighbors on these type of
changes.
Mr. Erspamer asked if they are a condominium or townhome complex. Mr. Griffiths replied they are a
condominium complex. Mr. Erspamer confirmed the HOA owns from the drywall out with both Mr.
Fornell and Mr. Griffiths. Mr. Erspamer asked how a deck is categorized at which Mr. Griffiths stated it is
a limited common element specific to the unit. The owner who encloses the deck area will subsequently
be able to convey this area to a new owner.
Ms. Tygre asked the applicant to confirm the changes would not change the architectural feel of the
buildings when they enclose a deck. Mr. Griffiths did not believe the changes would impact the
architectural feel. The owners have utilized other methods to maintain potted plants and gardens when
the decks have been enclosed.
Reeular Meetin! Planning & Zonin2 Commission September 16, 2014
Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Phelan what happens when a change is non -conforming and a permit cannot be
issued. Ms. Phelan stated if it was a life safety issue, the owner would have to meet the code.
Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Griffiths what constitutes talking with the neighbors regards planned changes.
He wanted to know if this requirement would be in the resolution or not. Mr. Griffiths stated they need
to obtain written consent from any neighbor who could be impacted by the change. The HOA will
manage who needs to be contacted.
Mr. Erspamer asked what happens if an owner applies for a permit for a new change, and they have a
non -permitted change such as closing off the cold roof vents. It is his understanding some of the cold
roof vents have already been closed. Mr. Griffiths stated there are four units in the G & H buildings
where the vents have been closed off to date. The spaces were changed to mud rooms and are not
heated. Mr. Griffiths stated the HOA is not sure the vents may not be working due to a buildup of new
insulation around the vent. Ms. Phelan stated the changes that have already occurred are not an issue
for the meeting tonight. Mr. Fornell stated the HOA would not allow a new change to move forward if
existing issues existed.
Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Griffiths to confirm what faSade the HOA was asking to be include in the
resolution regarding the changes to the roof line. Mr. Griffiths stated the HOA has requested for the
front street facing or rear of all buildings. Mr. Erspamer asked if the owner could change the roof line on
both the front and back fa4ade of their unit. Mr. Griffiths did not think the owners would want the
change on both sides based on the positioning and space available on the building. Ms. Phelan stated
staff designated buildings F, G & H would be fine because you would not see the roof line change from
the street. It would also not be visible on the north side of buildings A thru E. Realistically, it is the south
facing facades owners would be interested in changing the roof line to take advantage of the solar and
views.
Ms. Tygre asked if an owner would want to change the roof line on both the north and south sides of
their unit. Ms. Phelan thought the resolution should include language to clarify what can be considered
Mr. Griffiths stated the HOA would like the capability for owners to change the south facing side of the
buildings only.
Mr. Erspamer opened for public comment
Ms. Sara Garton, a Midland Park resident, asked the board about the sunset clause on the original
deeds. Mr. Fornell stated as the units are sold, APCHA changes the deed restriction on the unit. The only
owners with that right are the original owners. Ms. Garton stated she would support roof line changes
only on the south side.
Ms. Pamela Cunningham, a Midland Park resident since 1981, would like language governing the
property tightened up but understands this is not under P&Z's purview regarding insurance
responsibilities. She understands the HOA is working on this issue.
Mr, Erspamer closed public comment.
Mr. Erspamer opened for applicant and staff rebuttal/clarification.
Mr. Fornell asked if each time an applicant comes in for a change, will they be responsible for a plat
change. Ms. Phelan stated it is the responsibility of the owner and HOA. Ms. Phelan stated it really
Regular Meeting Planning & Zooine Commission September 16, 2014
comes into play when the owner tries to sell the unit. Mr. Fornell stated it should probably be handled
by the HOA.
Ms. Phelan stated she had already red lined the proposed changes to the resolution as displayed on the
monitor in the room.
Mr. Erspamer closed the applicant and staff rebuttal/clarification.
Mr. Erspamer asked for comments from the commissioners.
Ms. Tygre thought it is a good idea to allow a list of changes to be handled in an overall way so the
individuals do not have to go through individual reviews. She feels the allowable changes will make the
units better for the owners. The changes are still very far below FAR. She feels the dormers should only
be allowed on the south fa4ade of the buildings. The consistency of the architecture should be managed
by the HOA as Mr. Walterscheid pointed out. She would like to hear from the other commissioners
regarding the width of the enclosure. She does not have strong feelings regarding the width of the
enclosure and does not have any issues with bay windows.
Mr. Gibbs mostly agrees with Ms. Tygre. He feels the HOA should manage the changes and the city
doesn't have a great deal of interest in micromanaging the changes. In regards to the details in the
resolution, he is concerned the resolution is memorializing changes the HOA or other owners would not
prefer to continue. He is not sure the details should be included in the resolution. It is mass and scale,
but is concerned about the legal implications with what the HOA wants to do in the future. He asked if
the resolution could be changed so the HOA must weigh in to define what is acceptable. Ms. Quinn
stated this type of check is already in the building permit process which requires the HOA to approve the
change. So the resolution is setting the absolute limits of the specified changes allowed. Mr. Gibbs
would prefer the HOA dealt with the changes.
Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Gibbs if he would prefer the resolution language stated up to 75%. Mr. Gibbs
thought it would be okay.
Mr. McNellis agrees with Ms. Tygre and Mr. Gibbs. In regards to the 75% issue, he feels the total amount
of space to be gained is not that large in total and would be beneficial to the owner. He does not want
to get bogged down into the details of the changes. He believe the HOA should have assume the
responsibility regarding the details of the changes.
Mr. Walterscheid feels the details specified in the resolution should be handled by the HOA and the
changes are so far under the FAR that the verbiage is a bit too much. He feels the venting issue is a
building code issue. He feels the resolution should state the width to be taken to the edge of the roof.
He has no problem with the south facing dormer or the bay windows. He feels the changes should be
reviewed by the HOA and be within the underlying zoning code. He would have like to see each unit
allowed a certain amount of the total as opposed to defining the details. He has issue with what is being
proposed in regards to the details of the changes.
Mr. Goode feels the same as the other commissioners.
Mr. Erspamer feels the same as the other commissioners. He does have some issues with the cold roof.
He was concerned on who is responsible for paying for upgrades to the roof. Mr. Walterscheid stated if
the owner is making the changes, then the owner is responsible for the expense of the roofing and
siding.
Regular Meeting PlanninIz & Zoniniz Commission September 16, 2014
Ms. Phelan stated she had red -lined the resolution changes and could display them for the
commissioners for review. The changes were reviewed and agreed upon by the commissioners including
the following based on allowing the HOA and the permitting process manage the details of a requested
change.
• Unpermitted changes completed in the past must be permitted prior to any new changes
occurring on a unit.
• Bay windows shall be permitted.
• Expansion of the unit shall not exceed the depth of the eave per the HOA approval.
• Enclosures on the street facing facade may be enclosed and shall not exceed 75% when an
upper story deck is enclosed.
• Side eaves on buildings G and H may be enclosed not to exceed 75% of the length of the side
wall.
• Gable styled dormers will be allowed on the south facing facade only for the units to be defined
in the resolution by Ms. Phelan.
Ms. Tygre made a motion to approve Resolution 14, Series of 2014 as amended. Seconded by Mr.
Goode. Roll call vote; Gibbs, yes; Walterscheid, yes; Goode, yes; Tygre, yes; McNellis, yes; Erspamer, yes.
Motion passed.
Public Hearing - Sky Hotel - Planned Development
Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing for the Sky Hotel — Planned Development.
Ms. Quinn has reviewed a number of affidavits of public notice and the commission is aware of the
complications. The notices included mailing of notice, neighborhood outreach and mineral estate owner
notice. She has reviewed all of them and upon completion of her review, it appears notice was properly
provided. She did comment on the legal issue raised by Mr. Jody Edwards in his letter and the reply by
letter by the applicant. The issue raised by Mr. Edwards was if the application should be deemed
complete because there was a reference to a restrictive easement. It is the position of the attorney's
office they do not believe by determination by staff that the application is complete should be revisited
based upon the letter presented. The neighbors are free to disagree with this determination and have
means to deal with this at some other time. It is not up to this commission to make a decision regarding
the legality of this issue at this point. Each have made their points, which are part of the record.
Ms. Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner for the Community Development Department, presented the
applicant's request for the redevelopment at 709 E Durant, also known as the Sky Hotel. This is an
introductory meeting and given the time constraints, staff is providing an abbreviated presentation. She
will go into staff recommendations and staff comments at the P&Z meeting scheduled on October 7`h
There is also a site visit planned at noon on October 71h. In addition, there is a meeting scheduled for
October 21" if this is not resolved in the October 71h meeting.
In terms of the reviews being conducted by the P&Z, there are seven different reviews, ranging from
planned development to subdivision growth management special review. The memo is incorrect, so she
wanted to clarify the review process. The applicant has requested a consolidated review process, which
means any reviews that typically end at the P&Z, will actually be a recommending body to City Council.
A) P7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
RE: Midland Park Subdivision, PUD Amendment
MEETING DATE: September 16, 2014
APPLICANT(S)/OWNER(S): Midland
Park Homeowners Association
REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Griffiths
LOCATION: Midland Park Place
Figure 1: Midland Park Subdivision
CURRENT ZONING & USE: Residential
Multi -Family (RMF) zone district with a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to
memorialize changes that have occurred and
allow for new interior and exterior changes to
the subdivision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff
recommends approval of the requests with
conditions.
Page 1 of 7
:
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
• Amendment of PUD (Subsection 26.445.100.B, Other Amendment) to the Midland Park
Subdivision allowing for interior and exterior changes to the multi -family residential
development. As the requests are consistent with the approved final development plan,
the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Background
Midland Park is an affordable housing development located in the Residential/Multi-Family
(R/MF) zone district containing 37 units. The development was annexed into the City through
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1979 and later granted Residential Multi -Family zoning with a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay through Ordinance No. 47, Series of 1979.
Additional photos of the development are included in Exhibit B.
Development at Midland Park has warranted some discussion in previous years, as a result of
several minor additions. In 1988, the Planning Director placed a temporary hold on all
development. This was to confirm that the 1:1 floor area ratio (FAR), in effect at that time, was
not being exceeded. A study was completed and it was determined that the subdivision was
substantially under the allowable floor area with a total of 32,462 square feet. Subsequently,
development was again allowed to take place within the PUD.
After the 1988 research, four additions were permitted at Midland Park — approximately 200
square feet to unit B-21, 226 square feet to unit F-2, 233 square feet to unit F-3 and 38 square
feet to unit B-1 — creating a new total floor area of approximately 33,159. Since 1988, the FAR
for the R/MF zone was reduced from 1:1 to .75:1 where it remains today. The allowable floor
area for Midland Park, with a 173,736 square foot site, would be 130,302 sq. ft. of Floor Area.
Figure 2: Examples of Midland Park
Page 2 of 7
Proposed Development
The design of Midland Park includes deep eaves and attics, with some carports and second story
decks. Some residents have created lofts within these attic spaces (Figure 3) or created storage or
habitable living space under decks and eaves (Figure 4). The typical unit dimension averages 20
feet wide by 31 in depth or 621 sq. ft., each unit is either one or two stories is size.
Figure 3: Loft example within existing attic space
1
l.(-�a✓ ONV-77E WAU-
ua
OPG4/:l /l.
srogcc"
SATH uV.vG OX&
exiaFiM3 ?am_
�}y
Fcaa¢
f>25rGMi
uurr Q-ll
[Xu.7E.V&C r-CH AAY-
f--- -
i
Page 3 of 7
P10
Figure 4: Conditioned and unconditioned expansions
The applicant requests to memorialize changes that have occurred in the past via this PUD
Amendment and create a `menu of options' allowing for certain improvements to be made by
applying for a building permit rather than receiving individual land use approvals. The staff
supported exterior and interior changes are outlined in the draft resolution and summarized
below:
Interior Changes — Conditioned or unconditioned space
• Modification of carports to allow for conditioned space as long as the existing parking
spaces meet the minimum required dimensions.
• An allowance to create conditioned or unconditioned areas within the existing footprint
of the building. This would allow the creation of storage or habitable space within an
existing attic or a room at the rear of carports.
Exterior Changes
• Garage doors are permitted to be installed, as long as they are or appear to be single stall
doors.
• New windows are permitted to be installed. Street facing windows shall be consistent
with the existing window pattern while non -street facing windows are permitted to be of
any shape and size as long as trim material is consistent with existing conditions.
• Side windows are not permitted to be non -orthogonal.
• Skylights are permitted per the land use code.
• Two bay windows are memorialized in this approval.
• Any rear facade of a unit may be expanded the entire width of the unit but not to exceed
either 48 inches or 18 inches [depending on the depth of the eave] from the existing rear
wall or if under a balcony may be flush with the edge of it.
• Street facing facades may be expanded on units A-11, A-12, B-11 and B-12.The
enclosure shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the existing facade and the
Page 4 of 7
P11
front door shall face the street. Unit H-11 may enclose the area under the stair landing.
Side eaves on buildings G&H may be enclosed for 50 % of the length of the unit.
• Patios within 6 inches of existing grade are exempt from Floor Area calculations.
• Staff recommends that three buildings (F, G, and H) be permitted to amend their rooflines
along the rear fagade.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Figure 5: Buildings within subdivision
PUD Review
The applicant requests to amend the existing development allowances through the PUD process
to memorialize changes that have occurred and a menu of options that can be undertaken by any
property owner. Staff has worked with representatives of the HOA to develop a list of potential
improvements; however, there are a few items where the Applicant and staff did not come to
agreement:
Bay windows. The applicant is requesting that any unit be permitted to add a bay window,
staff has recommended not permitting them other than the two that exist today.
Page 5 of 7
P12
• Building enclosure. The applicant is requesting that all 24 units in buildings A-E be
permitted to enclose their units along the front facade, rather than only four, ground floor
units with a deck above as recommended by staff. Additionally, the applicant is
requesting that 75% rather than the 50% of the facade be permitted to be enclosed.
• Side eaves on building. Buildings G and H within the subdivision include deep eaves
along the sides of each building, some enclosure has occurred on each side. The applicant
requests that up to 100% of the length of side of the building be permitted to be enclosed
while staff recommends no more than 50%.
• Roofline Changes. One property owner is very much interested in amending the roof
form of their unit to take advantage of additional views and light. As a result, the HOA is
requesting to allow for the addition of dormers and changed roof lines throughout the
development, if an owners wishes to make the change. The design will be the same for
any unit and would be street facing for buildings A-E and rear facing for buildings F-H.
Staff is recommending that only rear changes be permitted for buildings F-H.
The following units are proposed to be allowed to make the change:
Building A: end units A-10 and A-13, upper units A-21 and A-22.
Building B: end units B-10 and B-13, upper units B-21 and B-22.
Building C: All four units.
Building D: All four units.
Building E: All four units.
Building F: All three units.
Building G: end units G-10 and G-13 and upper units G-21 and G-22.
Building H: end units H-10 and H-12 and upper unit H-21.
Midland Park is a 37 unit multi -family housing complex that was built in the late 1970s,
designed by Copland Hagman Yaw Architects. It was the first affordable housing development
in the City and was designed by a noteworthy local firm, whose site planning and architecture
aimed to achieve maximum passive solar heating while still reflecting regional forms and
materials. The design included semi -private outdoor spaces in the form of balconies and porches
that encourage neighborhood interaction.
Page 6 of 7
P13
The PUD Review Criteria (Exhibit A) are the basis for determining if the requested changes
meet the city's standards. Recognizing that people like to personalize their homes, staff supports
certain changes within the development but recommends that, in general, the cohesiveness of the
original design be maintained, particularly on the street facing facades of the units. Staff
supports a number of modifications be permitted as outlined previously, but recommend against
changes that interject forms such as projecting bay windows that were not part of the original
concept. Additionally, staff is concerned with the proposed roof form changes that the HOA
supports on the street facing facades. The concern being that if the proposed improvements are
not completed throughout the development as a whole, the architectural character will not be
consistent and detract from the subdivision's overall character.
REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
Planning staff requested APCHA input on this proposal. APCHA did not have any concerns with
the changes proposed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the requested changes to the project as outlined in the draft resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2014, recommending an amendment to the
Midland Park Subdivision and PUD"
Attachments:
EXHIBIT A —
PUD Amendment Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B —
Additional building photos of subdivision
EXHIBIT C —
Midland Park proposal to memorialize existing conditions
EXHIBIT D —
Midland Park proposal for roof changes
Page 7 of 7
P14
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT TO THE MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT APPROVES MINOR CHANGES TO THE THIRTY
SEVEN CONDOMINIUM UNITS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT
Parcel Nos. 273707412700 - 273707412706, 273707412708 - 273707412737
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the
Homeowners Association for Midland Park Subdivision, requesting a PUD amendment to allow
for minor modifications to the development; and,
WHEREAS, the property contains thirty-seven multi -family dwelling units located within
the Residential Multi -Family zone district; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting certain interior floor plan changes, minor additions
and exterior architectural changes to the dwelling units to be permitted by simply applying for a
building permit, without the need for individual land use approvals; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and
recommended approval of the changes, with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
request under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed
and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, referral agency and
has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing on September 16, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare by a vote of six to zero (6-0).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: General Approval
The Planning and Zoning Commission approves an Amendment to the PUD memorializing the
existing site conditions and permitting certain interior floor plan changes, minor additions and
exterior architectural changes to the dwelling units as noted herein.
Section 2: Existing Conditions
Existing improvements, identified on Exhibit A of this resolution including interior expansions
such as enclosed entryways, room expansions, lofts, storage closets, bay windows, storage sheds,
balconies, decks and porches that are hereby considered permitted improvements. If a building
permit is requested, any improvement constructed without a permit must be included in the
issuance of the requested permit.
Pagel of 4
P15
Section 3: Allowable Improvements
A. Applicability of Residential Design Standards. Chapter 26.410, Residential Design
Standards, is not applicable to any development within the subdivision. Any design
requirements for the subdivision are included within this resolution.
B. Interior changes
1) Carports. A portion of existing carports may be developed as conditioned, habitable
space to the extent that no parking space is lost and the parking space continues to meets
the city's required dimensions for an off-street parking space.
2) Conditioned and Unconditioned Area. A conditioned area is that area within a building
provided with heating and/or cooling systems. Conditioned areas such as habitable rooms
or lofts and unconditioned areas such as storage spaces are permitted within the existing
roofline of each structure. If developed, these spaces shall be building code compliant. No
unit shall exceed the maximum multi -family unit size permitted in the zone district.
Historic Transferable Development Rights Certificates are not permitted to be extinguished
within the subdivision.
C. Exterior changes
1) Garage Doors. Carports may be enclosed with garage doors that are single -stall doors or
double -stall doors designed to appear like single -stall doors. All new garage doors shall be
of a consistent design. A doorway for access into the garage may also be provided.
2) Windows, skylights and doors.
a) Street facing windows. Windows facing the street (considered the south facade on
buildings A-E and the north facade on buildings F-H) shall be consistent with the
existing window pattern on these facades with regard to size, shape and trim material.
No windows shall span through the area where a second floor level would typically
exist, which is between nine and twelve feet above the finished floor.
b) Rear windows and doors. Windows on the rear of a building (considered the north
facade on buildings A-E and the south facade on buildings F-H) are permitted to be of
any shape or size, but shall be of a consistent trim material as exists throughout the
development. Doors shall be no taller than eight (8) feet high and shall be of a
consistent trim material as exists throughout the development.
c) Side windows. Windows on the sides of a building are permitted to be of any shape
or size with the exception of the following prohibition: no non -orthogonal windows.
Windows shall be of a consistent trim material as exists throughout the development.
d) Skylights. Skylights are permitted to be installed which meet the allowances and
limitations of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application.
e) Bay windows. Other than the two bay windows existing on units E-4 and F-3, bay
windows are not permitted.
Page 2 of 4
P16
3) Expansion of a unit's footprint. All conditioned or uncond' ' fied additio> to a unit
shall be made of matching exterior materials and not excee48 inches or 18 inches
[depending on the depth of the eave] from the existing wall, or when under a balcony
may be flush with the edge of the balcony, and shall meet the following requirements:
a) Buildings A — E. Buildings A-E may enclose the following areas:
1) Those areas under an existing deck on the street facing facade may be enclosed.
The previously mentioned allowance is specific to units A-11, A-12, B-11 and
B-12.The enclosure shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the
existing facade and the front door shall face the street.
2) Rear facades on buildings A-E may be enclosed under the existing eave the full
width of a unit.
b) Buildings F - H. Buildings F-H may enclose the following areas:
1) Rear facades on buildings F - H may be enclosed under the existing eave the full
width of a unit. When an upper story deck is enclosed a replacement deck shall
not be permitted.
2) Areas under an existing stair landing. The area under a stair landing on the street
facing facade of building H may be enclosed. The previously mentioned
allowance is specific to unit H-11.The enclosure shall not exceed the footprint
of the stair landing above.
3) Side eaves on buildings G and H may be enclosed, not to exceed 50% of length
of the side wall.
D. Patios, decks and balconies. Patios, decks and balconies may be covered by existing roof
overhangs and remain exempt from Floor Area calculations. Exterior, existing stairs shall
be exempt from Floor Area calculations. Patios, decks and balconies developed at or
within six inches of finished grade shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations. Any new
or reconstructed patio, deck or balcony that is developed above six inches from finished
grade shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Floor Area of the unit associated with it.
E. New Dormers/roofline. The addition of dormers and changed roof lines as shown in
Exhibit B are permitted for the non -street facing otherwise known as the rear of all
buildings.
Section 4•
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, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Page 3 of 4
P17
Section 5•
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 6•
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 161i day of
September, 2014.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney LJ F.rspamer, Chair
Attest:
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
List of Exhibits
Attachment A: Plan memorializing existing conditions
Attachment B: Approved roof design changes
Page 4 of 4
P18
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or
minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the
limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD
review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an
applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity
to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be compatible with the mix of development in
the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk architecture,
as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Finding: The development is a multi family development which is the
dominant form of development in the neighborhood and is not subject to any
regulatory master plan. Staff finds this criterion met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The proposed development is similar with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area which contains a mix of multi family residential
development; therefore, Staff finds the criterion met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The proposed development is constructed. Future development of
the area will not be adversely affected as the request to make changes to the
individual units is minor. Staff finds this criterion met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
Staff Finding: The scope of development proposed for the existing multi family
complex does not require allotments and is exempt. Stafffinds this criterion met.
Page 1.of 9
P19
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all
properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above.
The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in
determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed
dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing
development patterns shall be emphasized.
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land
uses in the surrounding area.
b. Natural or man-made hazards.
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such
as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding: The applicant is seeking approval of minor interior changes and
exterior changes to the complex that will not affect the overall footprint of the
development. Even with minor expansion of the units, the development will be far
below the allowable Floor Area for the lot. Staff finds these criteria met.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of
open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The existing footprint of the project will not change with the
proposed changes and the open space will not change. Staff finds these criteria
met.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on
the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
Page 2 of 9
P20
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding: No changes to the existing off-street parking approvals are proposed
for this review. Staff finds these criteria met.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be reduced if:
a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and
road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding: These review criteria are not applicable as no reduction density is
proposed.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density
of a PUD may be reduced if:
a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water
pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail
in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes
harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding: These review criteria are not applicable as no reduction density is
proposed.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and
with the site's physical constraints.
a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
Page 3 of 9
P21
b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in
Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those
characteristics mitigated.
c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a. Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher
or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on
average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of
the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum
allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan.
b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are
required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
Staff Finding: The applicant is not requesting a change in density. These criteria are
not applicable.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual
interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town
are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding: The proposal essentially allows for some interior programming
changes to the units and small exterior changes. The footprint and general massing of
the buildings remain the same. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
Staff Finding: The proposed changes do not affect the location or general massing of
the structures; therefore not impacting open spaces or vistas. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or
rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of
vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding: The existing structures are oriented towards Midland Park Place. The
street facing porch and balcony elements provide outdoor living space and animation
Page 4 of 9
P22
to the streetscape. Changes to the building generally fall under interior changes and
minor additions to the existing footprint of the buildings and the orientation of the
building does not change. Staff finds the changes recommended for approval by staff
will maintain street facing elements that contribute to the streetscape.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
Staff Finding: There are no changes proposed to the subdivision that will impact
emergency or service vehicle access. Stafffinds this criterion not applicable.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding: No changes in the pedestrian or handicapped access are proposed.
Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Staff Finding: Site drainage is not changed by the request. Any drainage
requirements as part of a building permit application will be met; therefore the
criterion will be met.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Staff Finding: The property is residential in nature, therefore Staff finds this criterion
not applicable.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the
visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed
features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding: Landscaping is not proposed to be changed with the request, this
criterion is not applicable.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness
and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Page 5 of 9
P23
Staff Finding: Landscaping is not proposed to be changed with the request, this
criterion is not applicable.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Finding: The applicant will need to meet Park requirements for protecting
existing landscaping during any the construction that could potentially impact any
landscaping; therefore, this criterion is met.
E. Architectural Character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character
suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing
of nearby historical and cultural resources.
Staff Finding: Midland Park consists of a series of buildings that share certain
architectural characteristics such as simple roof forms with deep eaves on each unit.
The 37 unit multi family housing complex was built in the late 1970s and was
designed by Copland Hagman Yaw Architects. It was the first affordable housing
development in the City and was designed by a noteworthy local firm, whose site
planning and architecture aimed to achieve maximum passive solar heating while
still reflecting regional forms and materials. The design included semi private
outdoor spaces in the form of balconies and porches that encourage neighborhood
interaction.
Staff recommends that, in general, the cohesiveness of the original design be
maintained, particularly on the front facades of the units. Staff supports a number of
modifications be permitted, but recommend against changes that interject forms such
as projecting bay windows that were not part of the original concept. Additionally,
staff is concerned with the proposed roof form changes that the HOA supports on the
street facing facades. The concern being that if the proposed improvements are not
completed throughout the development as a whole, the architectural character will
not be consistent and detract from the subdivision's overall character. Staff finds the
changes recommended for approval by staff will maintain street facing elements that
contribute to the streetscape.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, . natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non -
or less -intensive mechanical systems.
Staff Finding: The criterion is not applicable because there are no proposed changes
to the existing mechanical.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Page 6 of 9
P24
Staff Finding: The changes proposed will not affect snow storage; therefore, the
criterion is not applicable.
F. Lighting.
1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up -lighting of
site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate
attention to the property is prohibited for residential development.
Staff Finding: The scope of potential changes does not include lighting; however any
outdoor lighting is required to meet the city's lighting standards and will be reviewed
for compliance at building permit application. These criteria are met.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be
met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual
benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit
owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or
industrial development.
Staff Finding: The scope of changes proposed in the application does not affect open
spaces, recreation areas, or shared facilities. These criteria are not applicable.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an
Page 7 of 9
P25
unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with
the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding: The proposed PUD amendments would not result in a need for
additional public infrastructure capacity. The criterion is met.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by
the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding: No. adverse impacts on infrastructure are anticipated. Stafffinds this
criterion not applicable.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding: No impacts on the public infrastructure such as oversized utilities or
public facilities are required. Stafffinds this criterion not applicable.
I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way,
or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding: Adequate access is available. Stafffinds this criterion met.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do
not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development,
or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding: Access to the subdivision is not proposed to be modified and is
currently adequate. Stafffinds this criterion not applicable.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
Page 8 of 9
P26
Staff Finding: There are no areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use or
connections to trail systems necessary at this site. This criterion is not applicable.
4. The recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans as applicable,
regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are
proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding: There are not recommendations with regard to trails or transportation
that need to be implemented. This criterion is not applicable.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
Staff Finding: There are no internal streets proposed as part of the PUD Amendment;
therefore this criterion is not applicable.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding: There are no gates or guard posts proposed as part of the proposed
PUD amendments; therefore, the criterion is not applicable
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is
proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan.
Staff Finding: No phasing of the project is proposed. Staff finds the criterion not
applicable.
Page 9 of 9
P27
Midland Park, Building A — 6 units
hy-
OF I
P29
Midland Park, BuildingC -units
7777 <
-- Cam. C3
P30
Midland Park, Building D — 4 units
a
P31
Midland Park, Building E — 4 units
P32
Midland Park, Building F — 3 units
_ E'
_ - ----
P33
Midland Park, Building g — 6 units
Z
----------
617-
N
1=10A
�mu
64 4
Lo
m
CL
AMENDED 51TE PLAN
NORTH
3$ EXIST. ELECT
D CA
1 I�
BLD& r-
(77��
el
B GE
- ----------
LOG
MANBLD6 11
90MANHOLE
WV. an. 79".01,
CONDOWIV.WA
Li
----------
...........
EXIST SEWER 8'
EXIST. I 0,,,rHEAD i SryEiPLAN
EMST 6
SEE A2.6 FOR
ADDITIONS —
SEE WVCE PL-EfOn MT-S (SKEET S-111
SITE PLAN
—Al.O
BUILDING A UPPER LEVEL
� 2 BUILDING A Lol` LEVEL
Om
.go
99
,Lodes! K Guy n$SDCiu[s DC
MrtFCiu 0.E
fT0.V RUMI ENG MFE RING
Ca, bw. ESWs. W a�U�
J
W
BUILDING A
r
co
d
��BUILDING B UPPER LEVEL
�1
BUILDING B LOIIER LEVEL
�Mf�rtERUaE
aVRUv.t fv4mEf ��rW
Ow �Ow. Nua. fp E�ea�
BUILDING B
� � EAJILDM6 G MIDDLE LEVEL
2 &11LDING G LOWER LEVEL
-do7 K Guy Afwci . K
MW�1FG[U0.F
N—
STRUCTUMI [NGwC[R—
Z
Q W
M C
r)
z O
6UILDINC C
N�[ N �2.5
rn
M
d
C
-dr.wyArEo ox
M(wrtERU.E
Ee. �Mn, Yell <D E•En
J
W
o>
�.
aw.
BUILDING D
1.2 BUILDING D LOWFR LEVEL
A2.4
0
a
Wy
�� BUILDING E L01 B LEVEL
.�cw
ao. �a.o�e,w��mEe any
BUILDING E
A2.5
BUILDING F UPPER LEVEL
1 BUILDMG F LOM�. LEVEL
�todae K Guy Auoci - K
MCFUrFRUFF
Fn �He, laul� cOFe e1NG
v�
�Z
Qw
a::E
0a
ZO
J
W
swFn mtE:�
6UILDING F
N
a
�, BUILDING G LOWER LEVEL
fvE . a
REoOpE K Guy AleOClaln PC
fTPUCNMI [n< x[[RIHG
em +eao. aauH. CO e�ea�
sTo.eaa.naT I Kaao+Wane+
a.+w
aRR PEawRf
fwEET TrtIE.p
BUILDING G
~R2.7
C+M
R'
a
`J�r.LDING UPLEVEL
BUIH PER ra
BUILDING H LO14! R LEVEL
1KOdO1! K GUY Analatn DC
XR![TVRE
vA.vYTa eY I �Yvy�Yw��Y
S•�EETT�ItE: enNY
BUILDING H
�R2.8
� 44
NEW
r:i..,th ` j i'VS f*.,."_ )_ } fy ai. r f:� t �!• ,�`
op
r � ,a! � .a�r a�•���}L�N•,.1r11((:�i����N,r�q"y�\-f'',rs ��3 <La h
.:i �{�'k Sfi��%�.+" ly G�z�h '��a'\'+"��'•� �,'�{ ,� s• �{ ;. tit
,t ;x t""`+r'x�'~ y� eft• " y } � ;. �..+1� [ � �. � � -
r • i� R� � r -�T;, WtX x�J v � ���yy-1.r^R+
-'~ � �re, '�{-.';�'Rr 'fir ��d a �, a;i- , • �:�n �}:3 a .#ix.. .�.' 1 `.
.+,o,5i r..?•-ta, �rs*,[s�• � ti �^��i, i y :: r�l' �C .,,`rf5
P
Tf
I
9Vd
i r
qj
(VD
L,.V. d
7k.
sy!
II
i
V d
6 ty d
I;,.
Jly
<1
LSd
u
I;
�j
� h
V 1 O ez J
• i J 5 II ' .5
' � ( III . � •� ' `.
ti 'IFf � y •1 _ �I 1�
ZSd
F
• i
iI
�
•
•
4
d
;
tf
�f
t
41
L
I'
IL
ti
I
£5d
EXHIBIT
Midland Park Plat Amendment - Proposed Changes to the Resolution
9.16.14
1. Page 2, C, 2, e — Bay Windows: Request to permit bay windows.
1. Support reasoning:
a. Section C, 2, b allows rear facing windows and Section C, 2, c allows side facing windows
to be of any shape of size" which would appear to include bay windows.
b. Bay windows have very little impact on FAR and minimal intrusion into common area.
c. Quality of life (QOL) issue. The three dimensional aspect of a bay window enhances the depth
perception of what are otherwise rectilinear spaces.
d. QOL. Bay windows would only be permitted on the side of a unit or non -street facing fa4ade [all
requiring adjacent neighbor consent] and have limited impact, in general to the complex.
2. Page 3. 3 Expansion of a unit's footprint: Request change of "shall not exceed 48 inches or 18
inches" to "43 inches to 48 inches or 15 inches to 18 inches". Add new sentence: "No expansion
shall block the cold roof vent portals. Vent portals may be relocated within, if feasible, to closer to
the edge of the eave."
2. Support reasoning:
a. Since the cold roof vent portals vary in distance from the edge of the eave, the intent of this
change is to permit expansion but not disrupt the functional aspect of the vents.
3. Page 3. 3, a, 1— Expansion of a unit's footprint: Request to change "under an existing deck" to
"under an existing deck or eave" and change"shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) to seventy five
percent (75%). Delete the limitation to only certain A and B units. Add "When the upper story deck
is enclosed, a replacement deck shall not be permitted."
3. Support reasoning:
a. QOL. Since most of the units average 20 feet in width and would facilitate a 3.5 foot to 4 foot
extension either under a balcony or an eave, 75% of those parameters would allow for a maximum
extension of, on average, approximately 52.5 to 60 square feet mostly of living room and dining
room space. The remaining 25% or, in general, 20 square feet would accommodate the existing
entryways. Both of these features would maintain a break in the facade. Units extended under and
eave would still have a set back from the edge of the eave of approximately 18 inches. These
features would continue to provide a break in the fa4ade and reduce any monolithic appearance.
b. Excluding this opportunity for Building A — E effectively penalizes them from the "most bang for
the buck" enhancement available to them.
c. It is the opinion of the owners that this would not be detrimental to the architectural character
of the complex since we, the owners, are and should be the judge of the architectural character.
d. There are other deed restricted affordable housing complexes that have exterior street facing
facades that are more monolithic in structure that have been allowed. Examples are:
e. If all 37 units did this it would add, approximately, an additional 1,942.5 to 2,220 square feet to
our overall FAR which would still be significantly below our maximum allowable.
4. Page 3. 3, b, 3 — Expansion of a unit's footprint: Request to change fifty percent (50%) to seventy
five percent (75%). Add: Add new sentence: No expansion shall block the cold roof vent portals.
Vent portals may be relocated within, if feasible, to closer to the edge of the eave."
4. Support reasoning:
a. QOL. Only 4 units in buildings G&H have the opportunity y to expand under side eaves. The
length of these units is approximately 40 feet and would facilitate a 3.5 foot to 4 foot extension
either under an eave, 75% of those parameters would allow for a maximum extension of, on
average, approximately 105 to 120 square feet. These features would continue to provide a break
in the facade and reduce any monolithic appearance.
b. It is the opinion of the owners of the complex since we, the owners, are and should be the judge
of the architectural character.
d. These will not be street facing improvements.
5. Page 3. E — New Dormers/roofline: Request to change "shown as the rear of all buildings" to the
"front (street facing) or rear of all buildings". Delete: "for the non street facing otherwise known as
the rear of all buildings."
5. Support reasoning:
a. QOL. It would be a significant enhancement to both the light entering a unit and the views
b. Trees effectively hide most of the impact these changes will make to the street facing side of
Buildings A-E.
c. There are other affordable deed restricted projects that have a wide variety of facades ranging
from monolithic to architecturally differentiated facades as well as rooflines that vary from flat to
sloping to dormer or gable styles. Midland Park will continue to maintain it architectural diversity
simply by the original site planning of the 8 buildings as well as the diversified mix of the structures
of the buildings.
d. It is the opinion of we the owners that this would not be detrimental to the architectural
character of the complex since we, the owners, are and should be the judge of the architectural
character.
g EXHIBIT
1
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday,
September 16, 2014, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission, in the sister cities meeting room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena
Street, Aspen, CO, to review the proposal submitted by the Midland Park
Homeowners Association, c/o Peter Fornell, 402 Midland Park Place, Aspen CO
81611, for the properties legally described as Midland Park Condominium units
A10-A13, A21 & A22, 1310-1313, B21 & 1322, Cl-C4, D1-D4, El-E4, F1-F3, G10-G13,
G21 & G22, H10-H12 and H21 and commonly known as 110-113, 121-122, 210-213,
221-222, 301-304, 401-404, 501-504, 601-603, 710-7-13, 721-722, 810-812 and
821 Midland Park Place. Applicant generally seeks to allow the addition of living and
storage space to 37 individual units and changes to the exterior architecture of the
units within the subdivision. Applicant seeks approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission for an Amendment to the site specific approval to allow the above
mentioned changes. For further information, contact Jennifer Phelan at the City of Aspen
Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2759,
Jennifer.Phelan@cityofaspen.com
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
, 20_
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkpin )
I ��\ (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
t Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice as posted�at/least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on thep'Z- day of T , 20�, to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A holograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
�Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department. which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
_Mineral Estate Ohner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice. return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initialpublic
estate owners shall application
thosef ondevelopment.
Purrent
The names and addresses of min
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum. Subdivisions, PDs that create more
than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice
requirement.
Rezoning or text amendmern. Whenevcr the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) day prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
SignaturE
�h
The for om " idavit of Notice" was ackn ledged before me jh's _ day
of , 2011, by E(-4r
TARA L. NELSON
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 20014030017
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 09/26/2017
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My co ion expires:
V '
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPYOFTHE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES _NOTICED
B Y MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OFMINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
Jam Free, Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160
337 MIDLAND AVE LLC
'O BOX 559
4SPEN. CO 81612
4GLEY JOSEPH A
'O BOX 1149
4SPEN, CO 81612
gNDRULAITIS FIONA MCWILLIAM
09 PA!:K CIRCLE #,>
ASFEN, CO 81611
ASPEN ASSET LLC
2701 MIDLAND AVE #8312
SLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 816014395
AWREY HOWARD LIV TRUST 50%
DCALLAGHAN AWREY LIV TRUST 50%
125 E 7TH #100
PUEBLO, CO 81003
BENTLEY CARL F
427 PARK CIR
ASPEN. CO 81611
BEYER ALAN R
410 N MILL ST #B11
ASPEN, CO 81611
BIRRFELDER BRIGITTE T
PO BOX 3035
ASPEN, CO 81612
BROOKE TRUST
1024 E HOPKINS #17
ASPEN, CO 81611
BROWN DOUGLAS & ABBY FAM TRUST
11990 SAN VICENTE BLVD #200
BRENTWOOD, CA 94513
www.avery.com
1-800-G O-AVERY
,41 PARK LLC
C/O BERLE BLITSTEIN
303 SHORELINE CT
GLENCOE, IL 60022
ALPINE PETROLEUM LLC
435 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
ARAPAHOE LLC
1201 N BIRCH LAKE BLVD
ST PAUL, MN 55110
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY
201 E HYMAN AVE #202
ASPEN, CO 81611
BAKKEN JOHN & LIZA N
PO BOX 12064
ASPEN, CO 81612
BERNARD RANDY
18 PLATEAU RD
ASHEVILLE, NC 28805
BIBBIG DIETER
333 PARK AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
9 AVERY@ 51600
404 PARK AVENUE LLC
132 W MAIN ST #C
ASPEN. CO 81611
AMES MARTHA E
23 SMUGGLER GROVE RD
ASPEN, CO 81611
ARNAL ALVARO JOSE
326 MIDLAND AVE #LJ1
ASPEN, CO 81611
AUVIL PAUL R JR TRUSTEE 50%
AUVIL CAROLE A TRUSTEE 50%
1024 EAST HOPKINS - #14
ASPEN, CO 81611
BALLOU JONATHAN & HELBING ATHENA
403 PARK AVE #6
ASPEN, CO 81611
BESTIC JEFFREY B
301 MIDLAND PARK AVE
PO BOX 2267
ASPEN, CO 81611
BIRACH KAREN
122 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN, CO 81611-2414
BLOMQUIST JENIFER L & PERLEY PAUL S BOLERJACK LISA
PO BOX 12155 PO BOX 811
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
BROOKS KERRI L BROWN DONALD
112 MIDLAND PARK PL 412 KATHRYNS WY
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-2405
BROWN RUTH H BUCKLEY BETTY JEAN TRUST
410 N MILL ST #B11 364 W 3900 N
ASPEN, CO 81611 PROVO, UT 846044983
®09Ls ®AU3At1 Q
AN31AV-O9-008-L 0091s 31VldW31®tianV asB
wo:)-Ajane•MMM 6u11uiad 8aa3 weL
Jam Free. Printing www.avery.com
''Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 1-800-GO-AVERY
BUkGESS HILARY CALAMARI MICHAEL
403 PARK AVE #8 317 RUE SAINT ANN
ASPEN, CO 81611 METAIRIE, LA 700053469
CANTRELL WESLEY R CARDWELL ROBERT A
104 KATHRYNS WY 1672 LOUISE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611-2405 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
CASTLE PEAK .ASPEN LLC CAVE DERYK
600 E MAIN ST #104 1195 E COOPER #B
ASPEN. CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
CHAZEN DAVID FRANKLIN Il CITY OF ASPEN
150 E 58TH ST 27TH FL 130 S GALENA ST
NEW YORK, NY 10155 ASPEN, CO 81611
COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA CONANT RICHARD H
PO BOX 1927 55 SMUGGLER GROVE
CARSON CITY. NV 89702 ASPEN, CO 81611
CUNNINGHAM PAMELA M CURRAN MICHAEL FRANCIS
502 MIDLAND PARK PL 2207 DEL MONTE
ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77019
DAY ISABEL T & ESTER T DEELGUEA ALEJANDRO ORTIZ
120 TURTLE COVE PO BOX 9871
ASPEN, CO 81611-9610 ASPEN, CO 81612
DETWEILER DIRK DEVANNY EARL H III & ELIZABETH H
BUREK J DEBORAH 177 HAMBOLDT ST
PO BOX 812 DENVER, CO 80218
ASPEN, CO 81612
DOYLE JOHN F & LAURIE FRAMPTON DUNIGAN PATRICK A
PO BOX 12236 4245 N CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY STE 460
ASPEN, CO 81612 DALLAS, TX 75205
ELA CHARLES S EPLER ANDI E
1208 E HOPKINS PO BOX 785
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
NAVERY@ 51600
CALK LAURA E
WILLCOX DENNIS
722 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN, CO 81611-2472
CARLSON ERIC & LYNNE
24 HIDDEN BROOK DR
BARRINGTON, IL 60010
CHAUNER RONALD M
CHAUNER JACKIE L SHEFFER
PO BOX 8782
ASPEN, CO 81612
COERDT CLINTON CLAUSS
326 MIDLAND AVE #201
ASPEN, CO 81611
CUNNINGHAM CAITLYN E
425 PARK CIR #A1
ASPEN, CO 81611
DAVIS D STONE
PO BOX 8904
ASPEN, CO 81612
DELYNN JEAN J
C/O STOVROFF & TAYLOR TRAVEL
1127 WEHRLE
BUFFALO, NY 14221
DODINGTON SUSAN M
221 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN, CO 81611
EISENBERG NORTON & JANET
407 PARK AVE #A
ASPEN, CO 81611
EPSTEN BRADFORD M QPR TRUST
1030 W 66TH TERRACE
KANSAS CITY, MO 64113
AH3A`d-09-008-L 009LS 31VldUY31®AjaAV asB
®09LS ®AtMffif Q wo:)v(.iaAU-M M 6ul;ulad 99a3 wer
Jam Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600
ERNST TERSIA V
206 KATHRYNS WY
ASPEN, CO 81611-2405
FIGGE JENNIFER N 58.228%
PO BOX 213
LONG GROVE, IA 52756-0213
FORNELL PETER J
402 ir,IDL,^.ND PART: PL
ASPEN, CO 81611
FUENTES DAVID & KATHARINE D
302 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN, CO 81611
GLICK DANIEL
PO BOX 9910
ASPEN, CO 81612
GOODMAN DREW I
5721 GREEN OAKS DR
GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80121-1336
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AV
FEINSTEIN JEROME D FAMILY TRUST
1211 GULF OF MEXICO DR #901
LONGBOAT KEY, FL 34228
FISHER CONSTANCE A
151 NW 60TH ST
SEATTLE, WA 98107
FRANCISCO LINDA L
9215 E KILLARNEY PL
WICHITA, KS 67206
GARTON SARA B
110 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN, CO 81611
GOLDEN SALLIE
325 PARK AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
GOODROE SHIRLEY A
3503 MARGO RD
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
GRAHAM MARGOT GREENHILL MICHAEL LOUIS TRUSTEE
PO BOX 2254 GREENHILL DEBRA MERLE TRUSTEE
ASPEN, CO 81612 30 RIPARIAN RD
HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035-1909
GRIFFITHS THOMAS W
504 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN, CO 81611
GUGLIELMO KNANSEE L
514 KATHRYNS WY
ASPEN, CO 81611
HAGEN CATHERINE ANNE
210 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN, CO 81611
GRUBBS MATT
333 MIDLAND AVE #3
ASPEN, CO 81611-2412
GULL EVAN H REV TRUST
GULL FLOURNOY G REV TRUST
25 ARDMORE CT
ASPEN, CO 81611
HANSEN BETH
PO BOX 1775
ASPEN, CO 81612
N AVERY@ 51600
FERLISI MARY SANDRA
326 MIDLAND AVE #307
ASPEN, CO 81611
FLUG MARTIN
616 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
FRANZE MARTIN JOSEPH
520 E COOPER AVE S-1 E 210
ASPEN, CO 816113824
GLEASON AMY
EVERETTEJOHN
712 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN, CO 81611
GOLDSTEIN GARY L TRUSTEE 73%
1020 E HOPKINS AVE #7
ASPEN, CO 816114109
GORBITZ HEIDI & PATRIC
PO BOX 647
ASPEN, CO 81612
GREENWOOD KRYSTINA
1050 MATCHLESS DR #2
ASPEN, CO 81611
GSS PARK LLC
PO BOX 3377
BASALT, CO 81621
HACH STEPHEN C
23 SMUGGLER GROVE RD
ASPEN, CO 81611
HAT COLORADO LLC
1209 ORANGE ST
WILMINGTON, DE 19801
009LS ®AU3AVF AH3AV-O9-008-L @09LS 31b'ldW31®tiaAd ash
wo:)•iGane-Nw►nn 6uiluiJd 98a3 wed
Jam Free Printing www.avery.com w
AVERY@ 51600
Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® 1-800-GO-AVERY
HECK JAMES C
PO BOX 8416
ASPEN, CO 81612
HERMELIN ASPEN LLC
32205 BINGHAM RD
FRANKLIN, MI 48025
HIGGINS PAUL
`23 MIDLAND PARK PL #C-3
ASPEN, CO 81611
HOUBEN CYNTHIA MICHELE
PO BOX 9616
ASPEN, CO 81612
HUMPHREY JESS
PO BOX 1775
ASPEN, CO 81612
JOHNSON SHAEL
PO BOX 3549
ASPEN, CO 81612
K A & M PITKIN PARTNERS LLC
5419 WATEKA DR
DALLAS, TX 75209
KARAUS LINDA MARIE & GREGORY
DONALD
510 PARK CIR
ASPEN, CO 81611
KENNEDY WILLIAM W CHILDRENS TRST
90%
218 STEEPLECHASE RD
BARRINGTON HILLS, IL 60010
KOCH KATHRYN S & JOHN F
304 MIDLAND PARK PL C-4
ASPEN, CO 81611
HEMMING GREGG S & KAREN S
311 MIDLAND AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
HEYMAN BRUCE QPR TRUST 50%
PO BOX 5000
MS-10
OGDENSBURG, NY 13669
HITCHCOCK SAMANTHA
PO B: )X 329
ASPEN. CO 81612
HTM PROPERTIES LLC
10200 STONE BRIAR
LAS VEGAS, NV 89144
IBARA RON
PO BOX 776
CAYUCOS, CA 93430
JOHNSTON PEGGY REVOCABLE TRUST
111 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN, CO 81611
KALNITSKY EUGENE TRUST
1701 S FLAGLER DR #1601
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
HENDRICKS LYNDELL B
PO BOX 11152
ASPEN, CO 81612
HEYMAN VICKI QPR TRUST 50%
2035 N MAGNOLIA
CHICAGO. IL 60614
HOLLINGER JONATHAN
403 PARK. AVE #3
ASPEN, CO 81611
HUA VINH
PO BOX 2439
ASPEN, CO 81612
JEFFERSON GREG
711 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN. CO 81611
K & W PROPERTIES I LLC
PO BOX 744
BLACKSBURG, VA 24060
KALTENBOCK ERNST
1612 WOODBINE HEIGHTS BLVD
TORONTO ONTARIO
CANADA M413 3A4,
KEARN ROBERT & ORENE FAMILY TRUST KELLY JESSIE M LP #1
1831 WILLOW RD PO BOX 3006
HILLSBOROUGH. CA 94010 GREENWOOD VILLAGE. CO 80155
KING WALLACE M KNUTSON RODNEY D
PO BOX 590 PO BOX YY
OLATHE, CO 81425 ASPEN, CO 81612
KOLBERG JUDITH A KRIEBEL KATHLEEN
501 MIDLAND PARK PL PO BOX 910
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
@09LS ®A?J3A1f Q
A2113AV-OD-008-L @09LS 31VIdW31®iGaAV asB
w0:)-AJ9Ae-ffvAW r 6ul;ulad aaaj wef
www.avery.com AVERY@ 5160®
im i�ree Printing 1-800-GO-AVERY
se Avery® TEMPLATE 51600D
nROMELOW BASIL M & LAUREANNE L .,—.,NOS TIMOTHY A
DEL SCOTT W TRUST 50% W DELAWARE PL 403 PARK AVE #9
55
SEL SANFORD P TRUST 50% 55 W D O, IL REP ASPEN, CO 81611
D BELLEVIEW
0610
JSAS CITY, MO 64111
;ROIX TIMOTHY LAFOUNTAINE ANTOINETTE LAUGHREN DAVID
410 KATHRYNS WY #D1 PO BOX 1265
MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
BEN, CO 81611
LESTER LINDA T 50°% LESTER THOMAS D 50%
JONATHF„ .� TRUST 1353 BLAIRMOOR CT
FISHER AVE 424 E, COCIRCLE #TH1 ASPEN, C81611 GROSSE POINT WOODS, MI 48236-1022
DOKLINE, MA 02445
✓ENTHAL ROBERT B LEVIN AMY LOUD H MONTGOMERY & PAULA W
811 MIDLAND PARK PL #H11 PO BOX 11660
i KATHRYNS WY ASPEN, CO 81612
PEN, CO 81611-2405 ASPEN, CO 81611
LOVING GRAHAM III LOWE SARA M & CORY J
, BOX 42UTHIS PETER 6549 MARISSA LOOP APT 24 407 PARK AVE #B
;PEN, 42 81612 NAPLES, FL 34108 ASPEN, CO 81611
HON LUU VINH MACCRACKEN SCOTT R & MARISA POST
IU TONG K
5 TE 03 PO BOX 8513 403 MIDLAND PARK PL #D3
5 E MAIN MEN, IN ST SASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611
MAYTIN JAY & LAUREN MCDONALD FRANCIS B
AINIAC PROPERTIES LLC 424 PARK CIR UNIT 3 PO BOX 4671
) STARBIRD RD ASPEN, CO 81612
�ARBOROUGH, ME 04074 ASPEN, CO 816112498
CGAVOCK MARGARET MCINTYRE GEOFF & LEE AMORY MCKNIGHT 403 PARK AVE #NCER
LBERT ELIZABETH A 403 PARK AVE #7
O BOX 533 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
SPEN, CO 81612
ICLAUGHLIN KEVIN
03 PARK AVE #4
.SPEN, CO 81611
ID1 LLC
560 FRYING PAN RD
MSALT, CO 81621
MCPHEE JAMES MICHAEL & ANNE MARIE M BOX 0073 GREGORY J
401 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, 20 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
MEBEL GREGORY E MERZBACH NINA
30 KUPONO ST 1226 MEDICINE BOW RD
PAIA, HI 967799723 ASPEN, CO 816119620
.09Ls (....Mf 1�// 1
00915 31`dldVY31®Nand ash
Jl1113A`d-09-008-1 6ui;wad aaJA user
wortiane•MMM
Jam Freg' Printing www.avery.com Q AVERYO 51600
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 516040 1-800-GO-AVERY
MG DUPLEX LLC MOHWINKEL CLIFF MOONEY TIMOTHY
825 W NORTH ST PO BOX 9457 PO BOX 8931
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
MORK HALBERT L FAMILY TRUST MOYER MARY MUNROE KRISTIN EPLER TRUST 50%
77 ASPEN WAY 424 PARK CIR #6 PO BOX 785
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
NAGLE MELINDA LEE NARAT BENJAPORN NEARY DENNIS R & NANCY CENTLIVRE
PO BOX 91; 1 EAN MOH RD 3282 BOWLINE CT
ASPEN, CO 81612 WANG BURAPA INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236
BANGKIK 7022 THAILAND,
NICHOLS SCOTT A OLDFIELD BARNEY F PAGANO JOSEPH K & JOSEPH A
PO BOX 3035 2701 MIDLAND AVE #8312 PO BOX 7785
ASPEN, CO 81612 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 816014395 ASPEN, CO 81612
PAGEWOOD LLC PARKGULF LLC PATTEN DAVID N
1301 MCKINNEY #3175 616 E HYMAN AVE 810 MIDLAND PARK PL
HOUSTON, TX 77010 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
PHILLIPS ARTHUR R & HELEN B PICKARD NANCY S PIERCE ROBERT KING
PO BOX 8245 1020 E HOPKINS AVE #4 PO BOX 3118
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
PITKIN COUNTY RACQUET CLUB CONDO ASSOC REDMOND JOHN B & LYNN G
530 E MAIN ST #302 1000 MATCHLESS DR 207 KATHRYNS WY #B3
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
RICH VICTORIA
RIVER HOUSE LLC
RIVERVIEW CONDOMINIUM 26 LLC
455 RIDGECORDE
729 E BLEEKER ST
PMB #387
CREVE COEUR, MO 63141
ASPEN, CO 81611
1630 A 30TH ST
BOULDER, CO 80301
ROCKY MTN PROPERTY LLC
ROWARS CHARLES M TRUST
RUSSELL LYNN C
73 SMUGGLER GROVE RD
4990 SW 52ND ST STE 201
PO BOX 8904
ASPEN, CO 81611
DAVIE, FL 33314
ASPEN, CO 81612
SAMUELSON ALIX SCARLETT ROBIN SCHROEDER PATRICIA A REV TRUST
PO BOX 4324 413 KATHRYNS WY 36261 SPRUCE TR
BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611-2405 PINE RIVER, MN 56474
009LS 31VldIN31®d.iaAV asB
Jla3nV-09-008-L 009LS 0A2J AM ® wo:)6uI�uI�-Ajane-AAMM d aaa 3 we f
Jam Frei'Printing www.avery.com Q AVERY@ 51600
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 1-800-GO-AVERY
SELINKO VERA L SEMPLE SASHA L SIEGEL BARRY & SHARON
2207 DEL MONTE 601 E HYMAN AVE 501 TIARA DR
HOUSTON, TX 77019 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81507
SILVA ERILSON U SIMMONS SUSAN SMISEK LINDA L E
500 PARK CIR 101 KATHRYNS WY 429 PARK CIR C-3
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
SMITH DONALD NELSON SMITH JACK L & DIANE M SNELL NANCY L
501, MIDLAND PARK PL 434 CO—TONWOOD :R PO BOX YY
ASPEN, CO 81611 EVERGREEN, CO 80439 ASPEN, CO 81612
SNYDER CONDO ASSOC
SPONAR ANTON K & JUDY
STATESMAN MINING COMPANY
600 KATHRYNS WAY
222 MIDLAND PARK PL
C/O R L STEENROD & ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611-2486
2009 MARKET ST
DENVER, CO 80205-2022
STEAR RONALD A & MARIA F
STEIN DEBORAH
SWIFT LAWRENCE V
121 MIDLAND PARK PL #A21
710 MIDLAND PARK PL
DALY JACQUELINE A
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 1313
BASALT, CO 81621
TAYLOR JOHN IAN
TERKUN MARK
TLDL ENTERPRISES LLC
331 MIDLAND AVE
PO BOX 329
1486 ALABAMA DR
ASPEN. CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
WINTER PARK, FL 32789
TRACY JACQUELINE ANN TROUSDALE MARGARET OB VAN METER FAMILY LIVING TRUST
431 PARK CIR #C 7 ALEXANDER LN 1352 BAY ST
ASPEN, CO 816112477 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80121 ALAMEDA, CA 94501
VICENZI HEATHER L TRUST WALDRON K BRENT WEBSTER DAVID H
PO BOX 2238 PO BOX 4900 PO BOX 10362
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
WEIGAND NESTOR R JR WEISBARD MARK W WELDEN TODD E & DEBORAH C
150 N MARKET ST 1706 CENTRAL AVE 503 MIDLAND PARK PL #E3
WICHITA, KS 67202 WILMETTE, IL 60091 ASPEN, CO 81611
WELLS SHARON ELIZABETH WERTZ LIMOR WESTERMAN JEFF & TERI
338 MIDLAND AVEW PO BOX 9227 5130 SHOSHONE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ENCINO, CA 91316
AH3AV-09-008-L @09L5 31d1dIN31 ofjaAd asB
009L5 0AIM W D wo3•ti9ne•A&MA& 6ul;ulad 89a3 wef
pm Free printing www.avery.com AVERY@ 51600
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 1-800-GO-AVERY
NHITE WILLIAM P VILSON KIMBERLY 'VINKLER JILL C
126 MIDLAND AVE #204 102 KATHRYNS WAY #A2 212 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
70RRITO LLC
1901 FLOYD ST
3ARASOTA, FL 34239
AH3AV-09-008-L g09Ls 31VIdW31®tiaw ash
009Ls OA U3AW wo:)-Ajane-NV% n 6ui;ulAd aaJd wef
Galena
.
I sister room
¢
- YApplicant,
r
Midland
Park Homeowners
• •
• Peter • ell40241
Midland Park
Place, Aspen CO)..--
p oposes to
amend the Planned
I Development
approvals to allow the
addition of livinq
and storage. space
architectural
- �✓�'�� 1. /!, - on
I • • licant requests r
Planned Development
Amendment
Aspen Planning
Dept. for more info
-rI
_
_
`St7
.. � -!�3' ter• � �`_ �.e 'U • `
�
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
Aspen, CO
SC DULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
20 j4
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, 4*1jr74,04A "� 5G rt % (name, please print)
being or repr senting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Veo'Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on the _ day of , 20to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U,S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach sum»zary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
It
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and. new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text a7nendrnent. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection-1n the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
.�S, ,
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this Zj'day
of 20/4, by A/►
PUBLIC NOTICE I WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
RE: MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
My commission expires:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday, September 16, 2014, at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, in the sister citIQ
-
ies meeting room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street,
Aspen, CO to review the proposal submitted by P�b #"�
the Midland Park Homeowners Association, Go 'Not Public
Peter Fomell, 402 Midland Park Place, Aspen CO
8..... for the properties legally described as Mid-
land Park Condominium units 4. DI-D . A218,
A22, 810-813, B21 8 822, C7-C4, DI-D4, E7•E4,
KAREN REED PATTERSON
and commonly3'known as 110-1113, 112 21.1P2
210-213, 221-222, 301-304. 401-404, 501-504,
NOTARY PUBLIC
601-603, 710-7-13. 721-722, 810-812 and 821
STATE OF COLORADO
Midland Park Place. Applicant generally seeks to
allow the addition of living and storage space to 37 ,TACHIVIENTS AS APPLICABLE:
NOTARY ID #19964002767
,in units and changes to the exterior archi- •
ecture of the units within the subdivision. Appli- !� �7
cant seeks approval from the Planning and Zoning BLICA l l�ON
My cof111TiiSSion E Tres February 15 2016
Commission for an Amendment to the site specific
approval to allow the above mentioned changes. F THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
For further information,
contact Jennifer Phelan at
the City o, Aspen Community Development De-
partment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970)
429.2759, Jenmfer.Phelan®dtyofespen.00m
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly August 28, '
2014.(10496540)
• ,Y r, _L,L TIFICA TION OF MTNERAL ESTAE O WATERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION r�
PROJECT OD76.2014 - f SUI
Name: r,1Q!AtiC1 Pfkf�r a/_&ITII 14,Ti A,3f -�,tiS PARK
Location:
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 7
APPI.If ANT-
e street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Name: /i'11�11Ar)�,�F�I;!< (VUlAtO.I(W A'O(. r4K/�/l &_A ).L
Address:
Phone #: �J! Trr II' FD��NF;L� FS1'�� . 9 ? - y 9?�' v?'� q �l ' ll E (-F rS r/ <: F_ RSc�RF29� l
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: % NOn9 fv� (� l F�= l i H
Address: lYjl �CI��J J f�F•l %C pL.��C /',�p�N O zi/� l
Phone #:
Tvpv.. nF APPLICATION! (nlease check all that apply):
❑
GMQS Exemption
❑
Conceptual PUD
❑
Temporary Use
❑
GMQS Allotment
S
Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
❑
Text/Map Amendment
❑
Special Review
❑
Subdivision
❑
Conceptual SPA
❑
ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream
❑
Subdivision Exemption (includes
❑
Final SPA (& SPA
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
condominiumization)
Amendment)
Mountain View Plane
❑
Commercial Design Review
❑
Lot Split
❑
Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
❑
Residential Design Variance
❑
Lot Line Adjustment
❑
"her:
❑
Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
i11ULT�-hfll;l(,� (j�!LGl/•;� ;UIT!1 .3 !.O12I)i1n1Ni�(i'Yi (�I�IIS�IrF�IGFNC�E�
PROPOSAL; (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.
A AUG �IfF ��lY'�F�Ji�"G� C (rpo INTry'lor%Gi f Pt -AO J m,Iti01�
Have you attached the following? FEES Dui : $
❑ Pre -Application Conference Summary
❑ Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement
❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
❑ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
❑ 3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text
(Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
electronic 3-D model. Your pre -application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
August 18, 2014
Jennifer Phelan, AICP
Deputy Planning Director
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Jennifer:
On behalf of the Midland Park Condominium Association, please accept this letter as my request to
address the following action items:
1. Request for a PUD Amendment to allow for minor modifications to the developments within the
subdivision.
2. Pursue approval of a "Menu Options" to allow for certain interior floor plan changes, minor
additions and architectural changes to be permitted by applying for a building permit without the
need for individual land use approval.
We have, to date, provided you with the following:
1. Midland Park Amended Site Plan: The site plan and the individual floor plan sections are colored
coded and include all the changes, additions, etc. since the original plat was recorded in August,
1978.
2. Proposed Plat Amendment Menu of Options and Attached Exhibits: The menu contains all the
items as well as the additions you recommended. It also contains, as Exhibits, various sketches,
elevations and changes for all the buildings in the subdivision.
3. Plat Amendment Final: This is the abbreviated spreadsheet, as we discussed, reflecting all "under
roof" changes as well as decks and patios.
I would like to express my appreciation for your guidance through this process and your patience in
working through the "Menu of Options".
If there is any additional information or documentation you need, please advise me accordingly.
Si ere
Thomas W. Gri it s, Bo presentative
504 Midland Park PI
Aspen, CO 81611 /
Tel. 925-9420
Email: tgriffi@comcast.net
Cc: Midland Park Condominium Association Board of Directors:
Peter Fornell, President; Dennis Willcox, Vice President; Judy Kolberg, Secretary
Midland Park Plat Amendment - Proposed Changes to the Resolution
9.16.14
1. Page 2, C, 2, e — Bay Windows: Request to permit bay windows.
1. Support reasoning:
a. Section C, 2, b allows rear facing windows and Section C, 2, c allows side facing windows
to be of any shape of size" which would appear to include bay windows.
b. Bay windows have very little impact on FAR and minimal intrusion into common area.
c. Quality of life (QOL) issue. The three dimensional aspect of a bay window enhances the depth
perception of what are otherwise rectilinear spaces.
d. QOL. Bay windows would only be permitted on the side of a unit or non -street facing fa4ade [all
requiring adjacent neighbor consent] and have limited impact, in general to the complex.
2. Page 3. 3 Expansion of a unit's footprint: Request change of "shall not exceed 48 inches or 18
inches" to "43 inches to 48 inches or 15 inches to 18 inches". Add new sentence: "No expansion
shall block the cold roof vent portals. Vent portals may be relocated within, if feasible, to closer to
the edge of the eave."
2. Support reasoning:
a. Since the cold roof vent portals vary in distance from the edge of the eave, the intent of this
change is to permit expansion but not disrupt the functional aspect of the vents.
3. Page 3. 3, a, 1— Expansion of a unit's footprint: Request to change "under an existing deck" to
"under an existing deck or eave" and change"shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) to seventy five
percent (75%). Delete the limitation to only certain A and B units. Add "When the upper story deck
is enclosed, a replacement deck shall not be permitted."
3. Support reasoning:
a. QOL. Since most of the units average 20 feet in width and would facilitate a 3.5 foot to 4 foot
extension either under a balcony or an eave, 75% of those parameters would allow for a maximum
extension of, on average, approximately 52.5 to 60 square feet mostly of living room and dining
room space. The remaining 25% or, in general, 20 square feet would accommodate the existing
entryways. Both of these features would maintain a break in the fa4ade. Units extended under and
eave would still have a set back from the edge of the eave of approximately 18 inches. These
features would continue to provide a break in the fa4ade and reduce any monolithic appearance.
b. Excluding this opportunity for Building A — E effectively penalizes them from the "most bang for
the buck" enhancement available to them.
c. It is the opinion of the owners that this would not be detrimental to the architectural character
of the complex since we, the owners, are and should be the judge of the architectural character.
d. There are other deed restricted affordable housing complexes that have exterior street facing
facades that are more monolithic in structure that have been allowed. Examples are:
e. If all 37 units did this it would add, approximately, an additional 1,942.5 to 2,220 square feet to
our overall FAR which would still be significantly below our maximum allowable.
4. Page 3. 3, b, 3 — Expansion of a unit's footprint: Request to change fifty percent (50%) to seventy
five percent (75%). Add: Add new sentence: No expansion shall block the cold roof vent portals.
Vent portals may be relocated within, if feasible, to closer to the edge of the eave."
4. Support reasoning:
a. QOL. Only 4 units in buildings G&H have the opportunity y to expand under side eaves. The
length of these units is approximately 40 feet and would facilitate a 3.5 foot to 4 foot extension
either under an eave, 75% of those parameters would allow for a maximum extension of, on
average, approximately 105 to 120 square feet. These features would continue to provide a break
in the fa4ade and reduce any monolithic appearance.
b. It is the opinion of the owners of the complex since we, the owners, are and should be the judge
of the architectural character.
d. These will not be street facing improvements.
5. Page 3. E — New Dormers/roofline: Request to change "shown as the rear of all buildings" to the
"front (street facing) or rear of all buildings". Delete: "for the non street facing otherwise known as
the rear of all buildings."
5. Support reasoning:
a. QOL. It would be a significant enhancement to both the light entering a unit and the views
b. Trees effectively hide most of the impact these changes will make to the street facing side of
Buildings A-E.
c. There are other affordable deed restricted projects that have a wide variety of facades ranging
from monolithic to architecturally differentiated facades as well as rooflines that vary from flat to
sloping to dormer or gable styles. Midland Park will continue to maintain it architectural diversity
simply by the original site planning of the 8 buildings as well as the diversified mix of the structures
of the buildings.
d. It is the opinion of we the owners that this would not be detrimental to the architectural
character of the complex since we, the owners, are and should be the judge of the architectural
character.
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 DATE: 1.16.12
PROJECT: Midland Park Place, PUD Amendment
REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Griffiths, HOA President
DESCRIPTION:
Midland Park is an affordable housing development that contains 37 multi -family units in 8 buildings. The
development was approved in the county and annexed into the city in 1979 (Ord. No. 21). The property is
located in the Residential Multi -Family (RMF) zone district with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay
(Ord. No 47 — series 1979). A PUD is a site specific approval and the original conditions of the development
are considered the approved dimensional standards (such as height, setbacks from property lines, and floor
area) for the development.
Over the years a number of homeowners have made various changes to individual dwelling units by creating
loft space within the existing shell, building small additions to a unit, adding decks, etc. A number of
administrative, Insubstantial PUD Amendments have been granted by the city to memorialize these changes
to the site specific development; however, there has been no accounting of the original square footage of the
project or the changes over time that have occurred.
Recently, a homeowner has proposed to remodel his unit as well as replace the existing hipped shaped roof
with a gable dormer. This change to the roofline is a substantive change in the character of the development
and revives the issue that both the HOA and the city do not know what is currently developed on the property.
Prior to any additional approvals being granted for changes to the development, the Community Development
Department is requesting that the HOA comprehensively document what is present on the site and the scope
of changes the HOA is comfortable with going forward in the future (a menu of permitted improvements such
as dormers, decks, conditioned space with size and design allowances/ guidelines outlined).
Although a survey to show improvements that have occurred is ideal, the HOA may use original construction
plans as a baseline, outlining changes that have occurred to individual units and calculating the square
footage that currently exists on the site. Staff is available to assist the HOA in moving forward to
comprehensively catalogue and outline what improvements have occurred and develop parameters for future
improvements.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.445.100 (B) Planned Unit Development —Other Amendment
Link to the Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-
Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/
Review by: - Staff for complete application
- Planning and Zoning Commission to review requests
Public Hearing: Yes, at P&Z
Planning Fees: $4550.00 Deposit for 1z hours of staff time (additional planning hours over deposit
amount are billed at a rate of $325/hour)
Total Deposit: $4550.00
To apply, submit the following information:
1. Total deposit for review of the application.
2. Completed Land Use Application Form.
3. A signed fee agreement.
4. A Pre -Application Conference Summary.
5. A letter signed by the applicant, with the applicant's name, address and telephone number in a
letter signed by the applicant, which states the name, address and telephone number of the
representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
6. Proof of ownership. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is
proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, 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.
An 8 112" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
8. Existing and proposed site plan.
9. A written and graphic 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. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Please provide
a written response to all applicable criteria.
10. 12 Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
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.
PUD Criteria (Insubstantial and Other Amendment)
26.445.100. Amendment of PUD development order.
A. PUD Insubstantial Amendments. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a
final development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The following shall not be
considered an insubstantial amendment:
1. A change in the use or character of the development.
2. An increase by greater than three percent (3%) in the overall coverage of structures on the land.
Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development or the
demand for public facilities.
4. A reduction by greater than three percent (3%) of the approved open space.
5. A reduction by greater than one percent (1%) of the off-street parking and loading space.
fy v
To: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director — Community Development f
From: Tom Griffiths, President of Midland Park Condominium Assoc. 1
Date: October J 2013
Re: Proposed Plat Amendment - Menu of Options
The following list consists of a "menu" of options that have been approved by the Midland Park
Condominium Association (MPCA) Board of Directors (BOD) both in their capacity as Directors and, by
default, acting as the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) for the MPCA. It is the intent of this memo to
approve certain existing improvements as well as to provide future approval for certain "allowable
improvements" as they may be approved in writing, by the MPCA BOD and the ACC within the parameters of
MPCA governing documents including the Articles of Incorporation, the By-laws, the Condominium
Declaration and the ACC Rules and Regulations.
The following improvements are hereby allowed and approved:
1. All existing improvements including interior expansions [including enclosed entryways and pop out rooms],
lofts, storage closets, bay windows, storage sheds, balconies, decks and porches as shown on the revised
condo map and the eight other updated floor plan details delineating the existing improvements , all of
which are dated 9/11/13.
2. Owners may alter fenestration patterns on existing walls.
3. Bay windows and the resultin po may be installed with a maximum exterior overhang of 18 inches and
a maximum height of the windo nd pod not to exceed 7 feet.
4. All Condominium Units shall be entitled to enclose their proportional share of the space, not to exceed
the eave line as shown on the original condo Plat recorded August 29, 1978 or the revised condo Plat dated
or block existing cold roof vents [unless mitigated by other engineered suitable alternatives], in
front of their ynit. _,
5. Units in thgG and H Ishall be entitled to side additions, not to extend further than the existing eave line as
shown on the original condo Plat recorded on August 29, 1978 or the revised condo Plat dated or
block existing cold roof vents [unless mitigated by other engineered suitable alternatives].
6. All existing units shall be able to encroach within the existing GCE attic/roof space for the purpose of
creating storage space or installing electrical or mechanical equipment.
7. Roof forms and interior ceiling heights may be modified by installation of either minor gable or shed
dormer forms similar in scale to the diagrams shown on the attached Exhibits 1 through 10.
8. Exterior storage structures not to exceed 32 square feet may be allowed.
9. Ramps, sidewalks and stair lifts may be installed for use by owners with disabilities requiring such
assistance.
1 V `I • `x-
Cl
(-7- ao� \J_�� _7
J
EAIX-J/9�06F,
17, LP5TIFU W-5
30 EXIST. ELECT
................
AMENDED 51TE PLAN
I
EXIST MANHOLE --
5
INV. ELEV. 7944.01
EXIST SEWER 8-
OVERHEAD
5EE A2 b FOR
-,kVVITION5
SITE PLAN
.0
,., BUILL7M6 A U� LEVEL
Kodm K Guy Asfo b m DK
SiRV(NML FN41nEFurK.
Ea �d.o. NUM1. V) E�6a�
V
�Z
aw
C) J
go
o>
�W
0
BJU�ILDINC A
1 BUILDMG A LOIER LEVEL
1.1 rLDING B tIPPER LEVEL
aTaVbC 5N
N1H11(M 6Y
n euu�irw a LOY�2 LEVP1.
fYm ; ra
N
wOdtxe N GUY AtsocMtes K
M(NIIERuaE
ao� pep, Nua. CO a ea�
«w,
sw nmtE.�
BUILDING B
A2.2
1.1 &11LSJM6 G MIDDLE L EV/
x�E
IIMITc_,
,
r3,o) - -
Z
LA
'T
(313)
I'
EWIL.DIN6 LO L.ON LEVEL
EE�
rtodore K WyAt W-K
•�cNx/�l Erx MEf.n�c
!oa i0to. Mint CO Open
v�
�Z
dW
oa �
zo
oLu>'
< W
G �
K•w
BUILDING C
�A�2.3
WAR
6UILDING D
��BUILDING D LOWER LEVEL
��2.4
I
ILLL
UNrT E-2
(511) UNIT E-3
(513)
11 '-
��ILDM6 E MIDDLE LEVEL
UNrT!! 4
(515)
—T --Z
UBUI�N6 E LOWER LEVEL
L Z
Q Lu
pa
g go
Lu
p>
- Lu
�p
BUILDING E
J
] 0 77
UNN7F-1
(610)
� U
4
t.t �ILDIN�G F UPPER LEVEL
II
O
UN? Fs v',j
9 r•)y.P d ,yea'
XF-3
1
(61y
-`
tMII F-]
I
x
1 2 BUILDING F L OMZ LFEl l
ieoCae K G y Nfocbtts a
srwcninnt EtKiaEEcitu
ee. Sao. LsaR m aver
s Eermu:�
BUILDING F
�A2.6
M.
7.2 LLOING LL.OYIIR LEVEL
N dp K Guy AttxiMes X
SiR�truMl EK nFFUHG
lw+Me. B+uK m Mein
fNEETTrtFE c
BUILDING G
1.7 BUILDMG H UPP92 LEVEL.
s*west tm
1�BU 15 H WYIIR LFE" 1
AZE
�Z
Qw
a::E
r)a
ZO
Lu
w
r)
BUILDING
At2.8
A <f-, Al3 L9- ➢or tvI E IZ For. J upy � 1;3vZZ
l 0.30. 12 J A60 I fv G
n
m mID - - --
1 SECTION
on no � soon
F1 ri.11 i I ,1 .11 1�111,
S
S
r
mm
Al Beyer Design Inc.
A Remodel
for
BUZZ Patten
Judy Wender
010
Mid— Park IIaCC
Aspen, LdOraGp
�►- 2
Al Beyer Design Inc.
M��•.�wr~iy�ww M
I
FA Remodel
t for
h
V Buzz Patten
- i w.rweNT wro
a-.••• Judy Wender
cio
wI— l.k
h ♦ ,v — I wspen. GobrsOo
-------------
C
t
o., . • Lam_._ � � �:I`-.-_-. T_ -
n
� IKW R_ AN 1-0 Poe,r � � !%PiTM6 CLAN �oaeN ah t,i]Ii ]
R
:fie-r�i4- 3"
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z '� z z z z z z zzzzz a
8
zzzzz°zzzz88z8�zz��zz�n�zz9Jzzzzz��z?`zn?�
izzzz�azzzz" z^^zz^ zz ^zzzzzzzz�O$zzz°ze
�5
z???zzzzz??zzzzzzzzz??zz ?zz^m
G
2 4 z z .. a a a < a a < a < < a a ^ < < a < < < < < < < a < n
3z zzzzz`zz?z?zzzzz?zzzz
v z m z z z zzzzzz z M z?? z z z? z z z R z I �' z z I z z$ z g z? ^p
z a a a a zz. a a< M T a a a a a a z`. a l a zzzz z zzzz.n.'�'-n+'�.n+�.7.� .':3zzzzzzzzz??z.
G
t t< a 4 a a< n t t t r l< l 6<< l n
z? n n n ry n n ry n n n ry M... z
< 6< a a a< a Z 6 a a l< a<<< 4 6 l l r
2 Z Z 2 Z Z Z
U
5
�zzzzzzzzzzzzen,Rz�xRl4zzz�zzzzzzzzzzzzzzza
zzzzzzz'zzzz"zzzzzzzzzzzzr$�"�zzgz°zzm
s
8
rp"3' �'��J"�3' �'rpr'e9F�'oRR?0000gR000 o o.. e.e..... o'9.. .
f
i i d d bd b A 0 0 6 "a eaaW un'ITW del J, V' l�) 6 56 6iii
ee� �eeu.ee a ee
0 0$ z z o z o z z z z o o z z z g'd z S'd z g'd z z z z z z z 8'd z z z
U V V V U 0 U V 8 U V V 8 U 8 V U 8 U V U
�
dtd<veo>a<vs>oddee>and>>>oo: <�aoa>s
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0= 0 0 0 0 z O 0 0 0 0 0 0== 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z 2 2 Z S S Z 2 Z 2 2 2 z 2 2 Z
Ss��5ss5s4�sss$5�5ssssssss$5 55$sssss
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S z e g e F
ob<. bbb ..... .......... ab�b
� 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W W z z z z �z, zW z�,W az, az, zzzz�z,zzzz�zzzzzW�z,W Wz
s �
a u
vYs�.... .. . a> as
0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 x o
z zii z I,zzzzzzz zzz z zz z ,,zz��,, zz <
o o gb s e s s o s 0 5 s0 s ^N�' R s$ o S g0 z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
��ffffE�maffa:ffff4���ffag��f4
:o °arvn�R� 49S���Si BPg� 222H a;H
r
lz W0
` J F t s 44 l4�
lzr0 o p_ �gg
i 0 W E z p 8o $ qqz g z S y r
0