HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplicant response to criteriaExhibit A
108 Midland Avenue
PD Review Criteria
Sec. 26.445.110. Amendments.
Amendments to an approved Project Review or to an approved Detailed Review shall be reviewed
according to the standards and procedures outline below. Amendments to Planned Unit Development and
Specially Planned Area approvals (pre-Ordinance 36, 2013, approvals) shall also proceed according to the
standards and procedures outline below and the Community Development Director shall determine the
type of procedure most-applicable to the requested amendment.
(d) Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval. An amendment found by the Community
Development Director to be generally consistent with the allowances and limitations of a Project
Review approval or which otherwise represents an insubstantial change but which does not
meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved
with conditions or denied by the City Council, pursuant to 26.445.040(b)(2) - Step Two. An
applicant may not apply for Detailed Review if an amendment is pending.
Response – As per the City of Aspen issued pre-application summary, this project qualifies as a minor
amendment to a Project Review. Applicable review criteria are addressed below.
Sec. 26.445.050. Project Review Standards.
The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any
dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. 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. The underlying zone district designation shall
be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the
development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance
granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning
and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall
consider the following:
(a) Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with
applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Response – There are no applicable adopted regulatory plans for 108 Midland Avenue.
(b) Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land
unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property,
including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls,
rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes
in excess of thirty percent (30%), and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that
could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as
suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are
proposed in compliance with Title 29—Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for
mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific
designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed
Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Response – A single family home is currently developed on the property and is proposed to be replaced with
a fully compliant new single family home. The land is suitable for development. Areas in excess of 30%
slope are mitigated according to the Engineering Design Standards as demonstrated in Exhibit G.
Development is primarily focused on areas that are less than 30% slope and are already developed.
Page 10 of 110
Exhibit A
108 Midland Avenue
PD Review Criteria
(c) Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In
meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
(1) The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such as
steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows
development to blend in with or enhance said features.
(2) The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or
features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or
contribute to the identity of the town.
(3) Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and
service vehicle access.
Response – The proposed site plan is similar to the existing site plan. The proposed home is sunken into the
topography to minimize any visual impacts on Midland Avenue and from Snyder Park to the north. A
comprehensive landscape plan is proposed to replant trees that are proposed to be removed in order to
allow a realignment of the driveway to meet current Engineering Design Standards.
(d) Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the
Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional
requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following
criteria:
(1) There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
(2) The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
(3) The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the
neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of
nearby historical or cultural resources.
(4) The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable
number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature
of the proposed uses. 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, and the potential for joint use of
common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement.
(5) The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specific allowances
for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be
subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110—Amendments.
Response – No variances from the underlying R-15 A zone district are requested. The simple form of the
proposed home is contextual to the neighborhood. Existing and proposed dimensions are in Table 1.
Page 11 of 110
Exhibit A
108 Midland Avenue
PD Review Criteria
Table 1: Dimensional Requirements for R15-A and Net Lot Area of 11,264.25 sf
Existing Allowed Proposed
Floor area 4,821.72 sf 4,238.5 sf
*4,488.6 sf with 1 TDR
4,462.97 sf
*includes landing 1 TDR
Maximum height 29’ 1 1/8” 25 feet 24’ 10.5” at highest point
Front setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Rear setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Side setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Distance between buildings n/a 10 feet ~11’ 2”
The proposed project brings height and floor area into compliance with the underlying zone district as
demonstrated in Table 1.
(e) Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and
visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
(1) The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter
26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and
Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation.
(2) The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design
standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are
finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or
conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review.
Response – The property complies with all applicable Residential Design Standards as demonstrated in
Exhibit D. Proposed materials include wood siding, a stone base, and a metal roof. The roof is solar ready
as demonstrated in Exhibit D, and will comply with the newly adopted Residential Demolition and
Redevelopment Standards.
(f) Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and
improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or
proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review
and documented within a Development Agreement.
Response – The proposed home does not impact pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. The improved
driveway will meet URMP requirements which will capture drainage and runoff down the driveway that
impacts the pedestrian experience along Midland Avenue.
(g) Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and
mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable
requirements of Municipal Code Title 29—Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen
Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review
and documented within a Development Agreement.
Response – Exhibit G addresses all Engineering Design Standards applicable at this point in the review
process.
Page 12 of 110
Exhibit A
108 Midland Avenue
PD Review Criteria
(h) Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public
infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole
costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques,
and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within
a Development Agreement.
Response – Intent to serve letters are included in Exhibit G. This project replaces an existing home that is
currently served by public infrastructure.
(i) Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal
vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or
obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned
Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure
adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and
driveways are prohibited.
Response – 108 Midland shares a curb cut and driveway with 104 Midland as required by the Ferguson
Subdivision plat. A realignment of the driveway is requested to meet current Engineering Design Standards
regarding slope and stormwater management, which is proposed to be reflected on an updated plat that
accurately depicts the driveway location.
Page 13 of 110