The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.20260715AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION July 15, 2026 4:30 PM, Council Chambers 3rd Floor, 427 Rio Grande Pl, Aspen I.ROLL CALL II.COMMENTS III.MINUTES III.A Draft Minutes - 11/5/25 IV.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V.PUBLIC HEARINGS VI.OTHER BUSINESS VI.A Resolution XX, Series of 2026 - 2026 Q2 Batch Request for Affordable Housing Fee- in-Lieu Payment VI.B Nonconformities Code Amendment, Work Session #3 VII.BOARD REPORTS VIII.ADJOURN minutes.apz.20251105 draft.pdf Staff Report_2026 Q2 AH Fee in Lieu Request.pdf PZ Resolution #XX Series of 2026_2026 Q2 FIL Amended at PZ.pdf Attachment A_Title 26 Policy 01-2024 - Expedited provision of required affordable housing via fee-in-lieu.pdf Attachment B_FIL Request Letter for 628 McSkimming Road.pdf Attachment C_FIL Request Letter for 823 E Dean Street.pdf Attachment D_FIL Request Letter for 931 W Francis Street.pdf Staff Report_PZ Work Session #3 Nonconformities Code Update FINAL.pdf Attachment A_Chapter 26.312 Nonconformities Redlines FINAL.docx Attachment B_Chapter 26.430 Special Review Redlines FINAL.docx TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 1 1 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met Revised January 9, 2021 2 2 SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025 Commissioners in attendance: Charlie Tarver, Richard Lai, Maryann Pitt, Eric Knight, Tom Gorman, Ken Canfield and Teraissa McGovern. Staff present: Daniel Folke, Planning Director Jeff Barnhill, Senior Planner Kyla Smits, Project Manager Matt Kuhn, Parks Director Jim True, Special Counsel Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk Commissioner Comments: Mr. Tarver asked where he can get the traffic study numbers for decisions that need to be made. Mr. True replied that he can submit a CORA request. Staff Comments: None. Public Comments: None. Minutes: Mr. Canfield moved to approve the minutes for August 6th, 2025, and the motion was seconded by Ms. McGovern. Ms. McGovern asked for a roll call vote. Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, abstain; Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Knight, abstain; Mr. Gorman, abstain; Mr. Canfield, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Ms. Juskys has a conflict and is not in attendance. Submission of Public Notice for Agenda Items: Notice was provided. Public Hearing: 150 N 8th St - Major Subdivision Amendment, Floor Area Variance, Amendment to a City Council Ordinance Applicant requested continuance to December 3rd, 2025 Motion: Mr. Canfield moved to continue to December 3rd, seconded by Mr. Knight. Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Passes 6-0 Public Hearing: Aspen Meadows Affordable Housing Project - Major Planned Development Amendment - Floor Area Variance - Amendment to a Council Ordinance Public Comment: Debbie Falender said she is concerned about who can live in these units. It is easy to get seduced by 3 entities with Aspen in their name. Elona Nemath said having the physicists on campus and not commuting from Snowmass will obviously reduce traffic. It is an important part of the community. 3 SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025 Patti Fox was employed by the Aspen Center for Physics and said these people from all over the world have no other place to meet. Lisa Markalunas said they are under parked and is advocating for retaining the trail easement. Ricky McCue said when they have built and added on to this site previously, no parking was created. Gloria Crystal wants to address the physicists’ comment at the first meeting about having to drive in from Snowmass. This is not affordable housing for the City of Aspen. Grace Kuterez works for the Aspen Institute and was able to move here in 2021 because they had housing. She now lives in free market housing, but the housing she was able to get from the Institute in the beginning helped her create a life here. Moore Huffman works at the Aspen Institute in IT and a challenge for him is that he is a first responder but lives in Old Snowmass. Employees are not able to sustain the housing environment. Daron Zemnick works for the Aspen Meadows. Lack of affordable housing makes it hard to retain employees. Hilary Rustpass is the VP and COO of the Aspen Music Festival. She is speaking as the HR and facilities lead at the AMFS and said affordability is becoming an existential challenge in terms of maintaining a labor force that supports what they do. John Bennett said this is about preserving the heart of the Aspen idea. Speaking for the Aspen Center for Physics, it is not growing through this plan, it is a transportation management plan taking cars off Highway 82 by reducing physicists commuting onto campus and traveling through the West End. Kate Summers is a local attorney with Garfield and Hecht representing the West End Community Association. Restricting public comment is a violation of due process in open meetings law. The Association has strong objections set forth in the October 31st submission. Commission rebuttal: Mr. Tarver asked about the last comment. Mr. True said she misrepresented what he said and what he said was the chairman would accept additional public comment and it would be for those who have not already made comment, however it is up to the determination of the chairman. Staff Presentation: Jeff Barnhill, Senior Planner Mr. Barnhill went over the information from his presentation that is in the agenda. He refreshed them on requests versus staff recommendations. Board Questions: The commissioners asked about the easement, traffic flow, parking, employee generation, employee audits, vesting, and unit sizes. Ms. Garrow asked that P&Z include in their recommendation a condition that Council have three different ordinances for clarity and consistency. 3-minute recess 4 SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025 Mr. Lai did not return from the recess. Board Discussion: Mr. Canfield said this will impact an iconic neighborhood. He intends to vote to approve the application with some conditions. He does not think it makes sense to subject this neighborhood to 10 years of vesting. He thinks the project is consistent to the Aspen area community plan and the academic zone district. His concern about the 4th street corridor is that it has not been looked at and the public comment has raised a lot of concerns. He thinks it needs to be studied to address public concern. Regarding parking, he largely agrees with the applicant that the usual parking requirement does not apply here. Mr. Knight said he is on the same page as Ken, especially with the conditions on vesting. Ms. Pitt said she agrees with Ken regarding traffic. Ms. McGovern stopped Ms. Pitt and said they need to extend the meeting. Motion: Mr. Canfield moved to continue the meeting until 7:30pm, seconded by Mr. Tarver. Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Passes 6-0 Ms. Pitt continued that she would like 3 years’ vested rights and limits on vesting extensions and construction should be limited to a certain amount of time. Mr. Gorman agrees with Ken and agrees that there should be three resolutions. He would like a condition that a traffic study include a detailed look at the impacts to this neighborhood, and the vesting period be addressed as a distinct topic. Ms. McGovern does not like how the project was presented to them. She thinks each project can be better and they should have taken the time to make them better and having them all in one application does not allow that. She said they spent so much time talking about parking that they never got to massing. She does not think they are ready to go forward. She does not think the community should take on the burden of housing physicist’s families. Motion: Mr. Canfield moved to approve resolution 10 with four additional conditions, seconded by Mr. Knight. Mr. Gorman moved to add the condition of three resolutions. No second Roll call vote on Mr. Canfields motion: Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Ms. McGovern, no. Motion Passes 5-1. Adjourn: Mr. Gorman motioned to adjourn; Mr. Canfield seconded. All in favor. Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk 5 STAFF REPORT TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Haley Hart, Long-Range Planner Harry Valentine-Wilson, Planner Technician THROUGH: Dan Folke, Planning Director MEETING DATE: July 15th, 2026 SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation to City Council Provision of Required Affordable Housing via a Fee-in-Lieu Payment INTENDED OUTCOME: The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) is asked to review, consider, and provide a recommendation to City Council related to Affordable Housing Mitigation requirements and the ability for one property currently in the building permit review process to pay Fee- in-Lieu (FIL) to meet mitigation requirements. This recommendation and the eventual review by Council is a response to a current shortage of available Affordable Housing Certificates in the market. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Resolution, providing Planning and Zoning Commission support for the identified projects to pay FIL. Staff intends these three applications to be batched with those approved by P&Z per Resolution #06, Series of 2026, July 1st so that they may go in front of City Council as one request. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City’s Growth Management Quota System regulations require affordable housing mitigation of free-market residential development. Development that generates less than 0.1 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) may mitigate via fee-in-lieu by right. Projects that generate more than 0.1 FTEs may mitigate via Affordable Housing Certificates by right. A full time equivalent (FTE) is defined in Section 26.470.020, Terminology – Growth Management Quota System, as “a unit of measurement standardizing the workloads of employees. In this Chapter, FTEs refer to the number of employees generated or housed by development”. This code was written to support the creation of affordable housing by private developers. The Land Use Code offers a process for paying fee-in-lieu to mitigate over 0.1 FTEs. It requires a request and approval by City Council, following a recommendation from P&Z. Following is the code language that describes this process: 6 Staff Report, P&Z Recommendation Q2 2026 Fee-in-Lieu Requests Page 2 of 4 26.470.110.C. Provision of required affordable housing via a fee-in-lieu payment. The provision of affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) via a fee-in-lieu payment, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: 1) The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed. 2) The applicant has made a reasonable, good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the purchase of affordable housing certificates. 3) The applicant has made a reasonable, good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. 4) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through a fee-in-lieu payment, including all or none. The Affordable Housing Certificates Program has been successful in incentivizing the private sector to produce affordable housing units for over a decade. Since the inception of the program, housing for more than 100 Full Time Equivalents has been produced - without any public dollars being expended. The program is dependent on two things: 1) the willingness of the private sector to complete affordable housing projects, and 2) the demand for A ffordable Housing credits by free-market commercial and residential development to meet their mitigation requirements. The City established Affordable Housing Certificates as the preferred means of providing affordable housing mitigation for single-family and duplex development in order to support the program. There are alternate means of mitigation, such as voluntarily deed restricting the subject unit to Resident Occupied or buying a free- market residential unit in town and deed restricting it. These options have been unpopular and may be cost prohibitive. Mitigation may be paid with cash by right for projects that generate 0.1 FTEs or less. DISCUSSION: Staff confirmed that there is an ongoing shortage of Affordable Housing Certificates. In response to the Certificate shortage, staff established a policy and a process to facilitate 7 Staff Report, P&Z Recommendation Q2 2026 Fee-in-Lieu Requests Page 3 of 4 requests to pay FIL in a “batched” review. This policy was established in 2022, reaffirmed as an administrative policy in 2024, and was written with the expectation that the requests would occur on a quarterly basis. This is the first request of 2026. While the process was initially established for properties that generated mitigation below 1.5 FTEs, it has now been expanded due to the ongoing shortage of credits. The batched policy now applies to projects that need to mitigate up to 2.0 FTEs (see Exhibit A, Title 26 Policy 01-2024). At this meeting, P&Z is asked to consider the request from five properties to pay FIL for the affordable housing mitigation. 1. 628 McSkimming Road requires a total of 0.68 FTEs to be mitigated, the owner has exhausted the avenues to obtain the 0.68 FTEs Affordable Housing Certificates. 2. 823 E Dean Street requires 0.49 FTEs to be mitigated, the owner has exhausted the avenues to obtain the 0.49 FTEs Affordable Housing Certificates. 3. 931 W Francis Street requires a total of 0.85 FTEs to be mitigated, the owner has exhausted the avenues to obtain the 0.8 5 FTEs Affordable Housing Certificates. All of the projects listed above are in building permit review and are at the stage where they are required to provide employee housing mitigation. With the confirmed shortage of Affordable Housing Credits, staff continues to support the batched requests. Denying the request would likely lead to suboptimal outcomes for Community Development customers that have projects with mitigation requirements. It is not reasonable to expect the property owners to pursue the other mitigation options offered by the code for the relatively small employee generation related to their homes. Below are the three projects requesting to pay FIL for Q2 of 2026. The FTE and FIL calculations are estimates that will be confirmed and finalized as the last step of the building permit process. A project cannot pay FIL for more than 2.0 FTEs through this batched review. The Category 2 FIL amount is currently $431,077 per FTE and applies to all of the five requests. This rate was adopted via Ordinance #01, Series of 2025 on February 11th, 2025. • 628 McSkimming Road – Permit 0083-2025-BRES – 0.681 FTEs requested (Total FIL: $293,563.44) • 823/825 E Dean Street – Permit 0060-2025-BCHO – 0.49 FTEs requested (Total FIL: $211,227.73) • 931 W Francis Street – Permit 0054-2025-BRES – 0.85 FTEs requested (Total FIL: $366,415.45) 8 Staff Report, P&Z Recommendation Q2 2026 Fee-in-Lieu Requests Page 4 of 4 CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS: On July 28th, 2026, City Council will consider the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation and decide whether to authorize FIL for the identified project s. If Council approves the requests, the projects will pay the finalized FIL amount as part of the permit issuance process. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Resolution #XX, Series of 2026, providing support for payment of FIL for the subject properties. Proposed Motion: “I move to adopt Resolution #XX, Series of 2026, approving Fee -In-Lieu for affordable housing mitigation, for the subject properties.” ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #XX, Series of 2026 Attachment A – Title 26 Policy 01-2024 Attachment B – FIL Request Letter for 628 McSkimming Road Attachment C – FIL Request Letter for 823 E Dean Street Attachment D – FIL Request Letter for 931 W Francis Street 9 Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #XX, Series of 2026 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION #XX SERIES OF 2026 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL OF THE ABILITY OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO PAY FEE-IN-LIEU FOR REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 26.470.110.C. WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Certificates Program has been established as the preferred mechanism within the Land Use Code to provide required affordable housing mitigation; and, WHEREAS, the Land Use Code provides a process for an applicant to make a request to Aspen City Council to provide affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) via a fee-in-lieu payment in Section 26.470.110.C; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director signed Administrative Policy 01- 2024 into effect on April 30, 2024, allowing for projects that generate up to 2.0 FTEs to be allowed to mitigate via fee-in-lieu through the review procedures pursuant to 26.470.110.C - Provision of required affordable housing via a fee-in-lieu payment; and, WHEREAS, Community Development Staff has analyzed the current market conditions for Affordable Housing Certificates and has determined that there is a shortage, making it practically impossible to acquire Affordable Housing Certificates; and, WHEREAS, Community Development has presented and discussed this issue with the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on July 15, 2026, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the request of five properties to pay fee-in-lieu to meet affordable housing mitigation requirements, and reviewed staff’s memo, and by a XX to XX (X-X) vote approves Resolution #XX, Series of 2026, recommending Council consideration and approval of the requests to pay fee-in-lieu for Q2 of 2026. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Approvals: Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the following projects pay up to 2.0 FTEs via fee-in- lieu to meet affordable housing mitigation requirements: • 628 McSkimming Road – 0.681 Category 2 FTEs at the 2025 rate of $431,077. Permit # 0083-2025-BRES (Total FIL: $293,563.44) • 823 E Dean Street – 0.49 Category 2 FTEs at the 2025 rate of $431,077. Permit # 0060-2025-BCHO (Total FIL: $211,227.73) 10 Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #XX, Series of 2026 Page 2 of 2 • 931 W Francis Street – 0.85 Category 2 FTEs at the 2025 rate of $431,077. Permit # 0054-2025-BRES (Total FIL: $366,415.45) The FTE mitigation calculation and valuations of the fee-in-lieu as presented are estimates only and will be finalized prior to building permit issuance. This resolution does not approve fee-in-lieu mitigation above 2.0 FTE for a single permit. Section 2 Existing Litigation: 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 3 Severability: 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. FINALLY, adopted, passed, and approved this 15th day of July 2026. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: ______________________________ __________________________________ James R. True, Special Council Teraissa McGovern, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Tracy Terry, Deputy Clerk 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM June 5, 2026 Owen Palcsik Planner Technician City of Aspen RE: 628 McSkimming Road Affordable Housing Cash-in-Lieu Payment Request Mr. Palcsik: Please accept this request to meet affordable housing mitigation requirements via a cash- in-lieu payment for a redevelopment of the home at 628 McSkimming Road. The map to the right shows the 628 McSkimming property The property contains an existing home with approval to be redeveloped with a new home. The new home requires the mitigation of approximately 0.681 FTEs of employee housing. This amount exceeds the by-right allowance for a cash-in-lieu payment. The property applied for a building permit (0095-2025-BRES). This permit is currently in review by the Building Department and any comments are being addressed by Zone 4 Architects; however, the permit cannot proceed without providing employee housing mitigation. We appreciate your expeditious review of this request as certain contractual obligations are at risk if this request is delayed. Please keep in mind for the permit that slight discrepancies in measurements may still be realized and/or a change order could be submitted that affects the exact amount of housing mitigation due. We respectfully request that any adjustments to the mitigation required for this project subsequent to the City Council review be handled administratively and additional payments or refunds be accommodated accordingly. The property is legally defined as Lot 5, Block 3 of the Aspen Grove Subdivision. The property is owned by East Aspen Riverhouse LLC; Joseph Krabacher, Authorized Signatory, who has authorized BendonAdams to represent the LLC’s interests before the City of Aspen. 20 628 McSkimming CiL Page 2 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM This request complies with Section 26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment. Detailed responses to this criterion are provided below. 26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment The provision of affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) via a fee-in-lieu payment, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: (1) The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed. Response: The 628 McSkimming property is in the center of a single-family and duplex neighborhood. The development of affordable housing on this property would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and impractical given the physical layout of the site including steep slopes, access, and other site specific constraints. (2) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the purchase of affordable housing certificates. Response: The prospect of pursuing an off-site development of a fraction of a dwelling unit to house 0.681 employees is unrealistic. The land purchase alone would be several million dollars and together with construction costs render this option prohibitive. Properties eligible for “buy-down” to affordable rates are not for sale and the costs of purchasing a 2 or 3 bedroom unit 1 on the open market would be drastically out of proportion to the impact of the home expansion. The Applicant has made a good faith effort in securing affordable housing credits; however, none are available at this time. (3) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Response: The Applicant has made good faith efforts to secure affordable housing credits from known owners. Credit owners are not willing to sell and the market is “dry.” In fact, a recent anticipated purchase of a 0.13 credit fell through when the seller decided against selling the credit. No affordable housing credits are available for purchase at this time. 1 A two bedroom unit mitigates for 2.25 FTEs and a three bedroom unit mitigates for 3.0 FTEs. 21 628 McSkimming CiL Page 3 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM (4) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. Response: The City’s fee-in-lieu rate is based on actual development costs with an annual adjustment to account for changing development costs. The fee-in-lieu system is designed to enable the community to achieve its affordable housing goals and result in the near-term production of affordable housing. The City’s affordable housing development efforts are ongoing with various purchase and new development opportunities. The provision of this cash-in-lieu will result in the near-term production of affordable housing. We respectfully request the City accept and approve this request to meet the affordable housing obligation of the 628 McSkimming property through a cash-in-lieu payment. Approving this request will enable this residential project to move forward. We believe this application contains the necessary information for a complete review and to allow permit number 0095-2025-BRES to move forward and be issued. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward to your review and will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have. Kind Regards, Erin Wackerle BendonAdams LLC Exhibits: 1. Land Use Application 2. Authorization letter 3. Agreement to Pay 4. Statement of Authority 5. Pre-application summary 22 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Location: ________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID #: ______________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone # : _______________________ E-mail: __________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone # : _______________________ E-mail: __________________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE: EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM Exhibit 1 23 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Project: __________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Location: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Lot Size: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Gross Lot Area:________________________________ Net Lot Area:_________________________________________ For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code. Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested (identify the exact variations being requested): 24 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Commercial net leaseable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Lodge Pillows: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Lodge Units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Free-Market residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Affordable residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Proposed % of demolition: ________________ % DIMENSIONS: Write N/A where no requirements exists in the zone district. Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Height Principal Building: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Accessory Building: Existing:_____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ On-Site Parking: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ % Site Coverage: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ % Open Space: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Combined Front/Rear: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Indicate N, S, E, W Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Combined Front/Rear: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Distance between Buildings: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ 25 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET TYPE OF APPLICATION ESA Review (Stream Margin, 8040 Greenline, View Plane, or Hallam Lake Bluff) Non Conformities Pre-Development Topography Temporary Use Accessory Dwelling Unit/Carriage House Dimensional Variance Growth Management Review Outdoor Vending Planned Development Review Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Establishment of Zoning or Rezoning Subdivision Review Condominiumization Approval Documents Special Review Wireless Facilities Residential Design Standard Review Conditional Use Review Historic Designation Certificate of Appropriateness Minor Historic Development Major Historic Development (select one below) Conceptual Development Final Development Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Substantial Historic Preservation Amendment Historic Landmark Lot Split Establishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) Other City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEWS 26 Exhibit 2 27 Exhibit 3 28 29 Exhibit 4 30 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PRE-26-073 DATE: June 5th, 2026 PLANNER: Owen Palcsik, owen.palcsik@aspen.gov REPRESENTATIVE: Erin Wackerle, erin@bendonadams.com PROJECT LOCATION: 628 McSkimming Road PARCEL ID: 2737-172-01-009 REQUEST: Fee-in-Lieu for Affordable Housing Mitigation DESCRIPTION: The property at 628 McSkimming Rd is in the Medium Density Residential (R- 6) Zone District. A development proposal for a new single-family residence is currently in building permit review. The applicant is requesting fee-in-lieu for affordable housing mitigation requirements. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.100(c) Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in- Lieu Payment, mitigation via fee-in-lieu for more than 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission followed by a final decision by the City Council. The following criteria must be met: 1. The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed. 2.The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the purchase of affordable housing certificates. 3.The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. 4.The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through a fee-in-lieu payment, including all or none. Council’s decision shall be conducted as an action item and memorialized via resolution. Pursuant to Administrative Policy 01-2024, this process may apply for applications that generate up to 2.0 FTEs at this time due to the ongoing shortage of credits and increased mitigation amounts within the City of Aspen. Following review and approval from P&Z and Council, any change orders or modifications resulting in a net increase in mitigation requirements above 0.10 FTEs will trigger P&Z and Exhibit 5 31 Council approval again per Chapter 26.470.110.c. The Applicant assumes responsibility for submitting an application that accurately reflects mitigation requirements and should not submit such a request prematurely. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.470.110.c Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment 26.710.050 Moderate Density Residential (R-15) Administrative Policy 01-2024 Attached HELPFUL LINKS: • Land Use Application (PDF) • Land Use Code (PDF) REVIEW BY: • Staff for completeness and recommendation. • Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation. • City Council for decision. PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, the Planning & Zoning Commission for a recommendation followed by a final decision from City Council. PLANNING FEES: $325 Flat Fee. REFERRAL FEES: None TOTAL DEPOSIT: $325 APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements for this review. Please email the entire application as one pdf to comdevhelp@aspen.gov. Include PRE- 26-073 in the subject line. If more than 18 months has lapsed since this letter was issued, please reach out to planneroftheday@gmail.com.  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement. (A link to these documents is provided above.)  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  A written letter addressing the criteria described on the previous page of this document. The letter should include the number of FTEs/mitigation requirements associated with the request. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  Total fee for review of the application. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. 32 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. 33 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970)920-5000 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Certain development activities within the City of Aspen require land use review and approval. This document describes the forms and processes required for a Land Use Application, except for an application requesting a Certiﬁcate of No Negative Eect for a Historic Property. Please use the No Negative Eect Application form available here. The following forms should be ﬁlled out and included as part of a Land Use Application: 1. Land Use Application Form 2. Dimensional Requirements Form 3. Agreement to Pay Application Fees Form 4. HOA Compliance Form 5. Public Notice Adavit (if required, is submied prior to the Public Hearing) 6. Development Application Fee Policy 7. Development Review Procedures 8. Historic Preservation Review Procedures Applications are reviewed based on the criteria in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal code can be accessed here. Additionally, certain applications require compliance with the Commercial Design Guidelines or the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Prior to preparing a land use application, applicants should obtain a Pre-Application Conference Summary from the Community Development Department. To schedule a pre-application conference, contact the Planner of the Day at: plannero$heday@gmail.com or 970.429.2764 A preliminary consultation with the Zoning Ocer, Building Department, Parks Department, and Engineering Department is also strongly advised in order to determine code compliance and to avoid changes to projects a$er the review process. 34 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Location: ________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID #: ______________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone # : _______________________ E-mail: __________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone # : _______________________ E-mail: __________________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE: EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modiﬁcations, etc.) City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970)920-5000 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 35 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970)920-5000 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Project: __________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Location: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Lot Size: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Gross Lot Area:________________________________ Net Lot Area:_________________________________________ For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the deﬁnition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code. Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested (identify the exact variations being requested): 36 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970)920-5000 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Commercial net leaseable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Lodge Pillows: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Lodge Units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Free-Market residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of A%ordable residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Proposed % of demolition: ________________ % DIMENSIONS: Write N/A where no requirements exists in the zone district. Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Height Principal Building: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Accessory Building: Existing:_____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ On-Site Parking: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ % Site Coverage: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ % Open Space: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Combined Front/Rear: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Indicate N, S, E, W Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Combined Front/Rear: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Distance between Buildings: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ 37 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET TYPE OF APPLICATION ESA Review (Stream Margin, 8040 Greenline, View Plane, or Hallam Lake Blu%) Non Conformities Pre-Development Topography Temporary Use Accessory Dwelling Unit/Carriage House Dimensional Variance Growth Management Review Outdoor Vending Planned Development Review Certiﬁcates of A%ordable Housing Credit Establishment of Zoning or Rezoning Subdivision Review Condominiumization Approval Documents Special Review Wireless Facilities Residential Design Standard Review Conditional Use Review Historic Designation Certiﬁcate of Appropriateness Minor Historic Development Major Historic Development (select one below) Conceptual Development Final Development Relocation (temporary, on or o%-site) Demolition (total demolition) Substantial Historic Preservation Amendment Historic Landmark Lot Split Establishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) Other City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970)920-5000 HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEWS 38 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 AGREEMENT TO PAY APPLICATION FEES LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Property Owner Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ Address of Property: _______________________________________________________________________________ Representative Name (If di%erent from Property Owner): _________________________________________________________ Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to: ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Contact Email for Billing: ____________________________________________ Contact Phone for Billing: ____________________________________________ I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No.40, Series of 2018, as may be amended, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possi- ble at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City sta% to complete processing, review and presentation of sucient information to enable legally required ﬁndings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the speciﬁed hours of sta% time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay addi- tional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereina$er stated. 39 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 AGREEMENT TO PAY APPLICATION FEES LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET For ﬂat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these ﬂat fees are non-refundable. Engineering Fee: $ __________ Parks Fee: $ __________ APCHA Fee: $ __________ Other Fee: $ __________ $_________ deposit for __________ hours of Community Development Department sta% time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $_________ deposit for __________ hours of Community Development Department sta% time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: ____________________________________________ Ben Anderson, AICP Community Development Director Property Owner, or Representative Signature: ___________________________________ PRINT Name: ________________________________ Title: ________________________________________ City Use Fees Due: $ _____________________ Received: $ _____________________ Case # _________________________ 40 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICING REQUIREMENTS The forms of public notice are required by the Aspen Land Use Regulations pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E): publication in the newspaper, posting of the property, and surrounding landowners. You can determine whether your application requires notice, and the type of notice it requires, from the matrix found in this application packet. Following is a summary of the public notice requirements, including identiﬁcation of who is responsible for completing thenotice. 1. Publication - Publication of notice in a paper of general circulation on the City of Aspen is to be done at least ﬁ$een (15) days prior to the hearing. The legal notice will be wrien by the Community Development Department and will place the notice in the paper within the appropriate deadline. 2. Posting - Posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the property is to be done ﬁ$een (15) days prior to the hearing. It is the applicant’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the sign from the Community Development Department, to ﬁll it in correctly and bring proof to the hearing that posting took place (use aached adavit). 3. Mailing – Mailing of notice is to be made to all owners of property within 300 feet of the subject development parcel by the applicant ﬁ$een (15) days prior to hearing. It is the applicant’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department, to mail it according to the following standards, and to bring proof to the hearing that the mailing took place (use the aached adavit). Notice to mineral Estate Owner. An applicant for surface Development shall notify a%ected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application for development. The applicant shall certify that the notice has been provided to the mineral estate owners. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those in the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of public hearing. Proof of notice must be provided at the public hearing. 41 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ______________________________________________________________________________________, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ______________________________________________________________________________________, 20_____ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ___________________________________________________________________ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ______ Publication of Notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an ocial paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least ﬁ$een (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is aachedhereto. ______ 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 leers not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least ﬁ$een (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the ________day of_________________________, 20_______, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is aached hereto. ______ Mailing of Notice: By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E) (2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ﬁ$een (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 aached hereto. (continued on next page) 42 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 _____ Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant aests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and aached, 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 present to the public is aached hereto. _____ Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certiﬁed mailing notice, return receipt requested, to a%ected 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 maximum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. _____ Rezoning or Text Amendment. Whenever the ocial 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 sucient 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 ﬁ$een (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature: ________________________________________ The foregoing “Adavit of Notice” was acknowledged before me this _________ day of ______________________________________________________________________, 20______, by _________________________________________________________________________________________________. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: __________________________________ Notary Public: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE 43 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970)920-5000 LAND USE REVIEW POLICY LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A ﬂat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submied. A ﬂat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of sta% time to process. Review fees for other City Departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative – meaning an application with multiple ﬂat fees must be pay the sum of those ﬂat fee. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive sta% time is required. Actual sta% time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City sta% may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amount may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take signiﬁ- cantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-appli- cation conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submied with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant’s request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs aributable to a project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, ﬁnal and recordation of approv- al documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purpose of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be recon- ciled, and past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for ﬁnal review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in e%ect at the time of ﬁnal submission. Upon ﬁnal approval all billing shall be again reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 days or more past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.75% per month. An unpaid invoice of 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, and unpaid invoice of 90 days or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application for the prop- erty. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. 44 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET 3 4 Sta Review of DevelopmentApplication. 5 City Community Development Sta will review the submi#al material and prepare a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. A date for a public hearing on a complete application is scheduled before the 6 Board Review of Application. 8 Receipt of Building Permit. 2 The applicant shall be notiﬁed in writing whether the information is complete or if additional materials are required. 7 Issuance of Development Order. 1 A#end Pre-Application Conference. 45 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET 1. A#end Pre-Application Conference. During this one-on-one meeting, sta% will determine the review process applies to your development proposal and will identify the materials necessary to review your application. 2. Applicant Shall Submit Land Use Application Email the entire application as one pdf to cdehadmins@aspen.gov. Include the pre-app number in the subject line. If more than 18 months has passed since the pre-app was issued, please reach out to plannero$heday@gmail.com for an updated pre-application conference summary. 3. The applicant shall be notiﬁed in writing whether the information is complete of if additional materials are required. Sta% will review the application materials. If additional items are needed, the applicant will receive a leer indicating the application is Incomplete and the needed additional items. Once all required application items are received, sta% will inform the applicant the application is Complete. At this time, the land use review fee is due. 4. City Community Development Sta will review the submi#al material and prepare a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmied to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions for the recommendation. 5. Sta Review of DevelopmentApplication. Notice Once your application is determined to be complete, it will be reviewed by the sta% for compliance with the applicable standards of the Code. During the sta% review stage, the application will be referred to other agencies for comments. The Planner assigned to your case or the agency may contact you if additional information is needed or if problems are identiﬁed. Sta% will dra$ a memo for signature by the Community Development Director that explains whether your application complies with the Code, and will list any conditions that should apply if the application is to be approved. Final approval of any Development Application that amends a recorded document, such as a plat, agreement, or deed restriction, will require the applicant to prepare an amended version of that document for review and approval by sta%. Sta% will provide the applicant with the applicable contents for the revised plat. The City Aorney is normally in charge of the form for recorded agreements and deed restrictions. We suggest that you not go to the trouble or expense of preparing these documents until the sta% has determined that your application is eligible for the requested amendment orexemption. 46 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET 6. A date for a public hearing on a complete application is scheduled before the applicable review body. Notice of the hearing shall be provided as required in the Aspen Municipal Code. A copy of the required Adavit of Public Notice is included in the Application Packet. 7. Board Review of Application. If a public hearing is required for the land use action that you are requesting, the Planning sta% will schedule a hearing date for the application upon determination that the application is complete. The hearing(s) will be scheduled before the appropriate reviewing board(s). The applicant will be required to mail notice (one copy provided by the Community Development Department) to property owners within 30 feet of the subject property and post notice (sign available at the Community Development Department) of the public hearing on the site at least ﬁ$een (15) days prior to the hearing date. (Please see Aachment 6 for instructions.) The Planning sta% will publish notice of the hearing in the paper for land use requests that require publication. The Planning sta% will then formulate a recommendation on the land use request and dra$ a memo to the reviewing board(s). The public hearing(s) will take place before the appropriate review boards. Public hearings include a presentation by the Planning sta%, a presentation by the applicant (optional), consideration of public comment, and the reviewing board’s questions and decision. 8. Issuance of Development Order. If the land use review is approved, then the Planning sta% will issue a Development Order, which allows the applicant to submit a building permit application. 9. Receipt of Building Permit. Once you have received a copy of the signed sta% approval, you may apply for a building permit. During this time, your project will be examined for its compliance with the Uniform Building Code. It also will be checked for compliance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations that were not reviewed in detail during the land use case review. (This might include a check of ﬂoor area ratios, setbacks, parking, open space and the like). Impact fees for water, sewer, parks, and employee housing will be collected as part of the permiing process. Any document required to be recorded, such as a plat, deed restriction, or agreement, will be reviewed and recorded before a building permit application is submied. 47 Please see Section 26.415 of the Aspen Municipal Code for more detailed information. 3 4 A date for a public hearing on a complete application is scheduled before the HPC. 5 City Community Development Sta will review the submi#al material and prepare a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. The HPC will review theapplication. 6 The HPC will approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 8 HPC decisions are ﬁnal unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as provided in the Aspen Municipal Code. 9 For these applications, HPC is a 10 HPC assigns a member of the Commission to be the “project monitor” for each project theyapprove. 11 Before an application for a building permit can be submi#ed, a ﬁnal set of plans reﬂecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on ﬁle with the City. 12 Once a Development Order has been received, a building permit application may besubmi#ed. 2 The applicant shall be notiﬁed in writing whether the information is complete or if additional materials are required. 7 Certain applications are subject to a call-up review with City Council.1 A#end Pre-Application Conference. LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW PROCEDURE 48 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970)920-5000 HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW PROCEDURE LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET 1. A#end Pre-Application Conference. During this one-on-one meeting, sta% will determine the review process applies to your development proposal and will identify the materials necessary to review your application. 2. Applicant Shall Submit Land Use Application Email the entire application as one pdf to cdehadmins@aspen.gov. Include the pre-app number in the subject line. If more than 18 months has passed since the pre-app was issued, please reach out to plannero$heday@gmail.com for an updated pre-application conference summary. 3. The applicant shall be notiﬁed in writing whether the information is complete of if additional materials are required. Sta% will review the application materials. If additional items are needed, the applicant will receive a leer indicating the application is Incomplete and the needed additional items. Once all required application items are received, sta% will inform the applicant the application is Complete. At this time, the land use review fee is due. 4. City Community Development Sta will review the submi#al material and prepare a report that analyzes the project’s conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmied to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions for the recommendation. 5. A date for a public hearing on a complete application is scheduled before the HPC. Notice of the hearing shall be provided as required in the Aspen Municipal Code. A copy of the required Adavit of Public Notice is included in the Application Packet . 6. The HPC will review the application. The report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The order of proceedings at the HPC meeting are as follows: (1) Applicant and public are sworn in, (2) Sta% presentation, (3) Commission member questions, (4) Public comments, (5) Commission member comments, (6) Applicant response/clariﬁcation, (7) Commission motion and vote 49 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970)920-5000 HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW PROCEDURE LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET 7. The HPC will approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. The application is a one-step review, and it is approved, the HPC will issue a Certiﬁcate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director will issue a Development Order. If the application requires submial for a ﬁnal review, this is an additional application and materials must be prepared and submied according to the processes described. A project that receives ﬁnal approval will be issued a Certiﬁcate of Appropriateness and the Community Development Director will issue a Development Order. 8. Certain applications are subject to a call-up review with City Council. For Major Development, Demolition, or Relocation, a resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council to allow them an opportunity to “call up” the decision if they feel there has been an abuse of discretion or denial of due process. No building permit can be issued for construction of the project until the thirty (30) day “call up” period has expired. 9. HPC decisions are ﬁnal unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as provided in the Aspen Municipal Code. 10. For these applications, HPC is a recommending body. Council will evaluate the application to determine if the review criteria are met. The Council may approve, disapprove or continue the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 11. HPC assigns a member of the Commission to be the “project monitor” for each project they approve. The monitor (and Sta%) may periodically visit the site as work is under construction. If the applicant requests a change to any aspects of the project change a$er the HPC approval, the applicant, Sta%, and the project monitor will aempt to address them without returning to the full HPC. 11. Before an application for a building permit can be submi#ed, a ﬁnal set of plans reﬂecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on ﬁle with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the ﬁeld or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. 12. Once a Development Order has been received, a building permit application may be submi#ed. At this time the proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the Building Code and zoning regulations. Fees for water, sewer, park dedication fees, and employee housing will be collected if due. Any document, such as a plat, deed restriction, or other agreement which is required to be ﬁled, must be recorded before the building permit will be issued. 50 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION COMPLIANCE FORM CITY OF ASPEN | ASPEN, CO 81611 ___________________________________ _________ ___________________________ OR ADDRESS UNIT #PARCEL ID #                                51 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PRE-26-081 DATE: June 22nd, 2026 PLANNER: Owen Palcsik, owen.palcsik@aspen.gov REPRESENTATIVE: Max Hemmy, max@zgrouparchitects.com PROJECT LOCATION: 823 Dean Street PARCEL ID: 2737-182-58-003 REQUEST: Fee-in-Lieu for Affordable Housing Mitigation DESCRIPTION: The property at 823 Dean Street is in the Residential Multi-Family Zone District. A proposal for the redevelopment of a single-family residence is currently in building permit review. The applicant is requesting fee-in-lieu for affordable housing mitigation requirements of .49 FTEs. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.100(c) Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee -in- Lieu Payment, mitigation via fee-in-lieu for more than 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission followed by a final decision by the City Council. The following criteria must be met: 1. The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed. 2. The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the purchase of affordable housing certificates. 3. The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. 4. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through a fee-in-lieu payment, including all or none. Council’s decision shall be conducted as an action item and memorialized via resolution. Pursuant to Administrative Policy 01-2024, this process may apply for applications that generate up to 2.0 FTEs at this time due to the ongoing shortage of credits and increased mitigation amounts within the City of Aspen. Following review and approval from P&Z and Council, any change orders or modifications resulting in a net increase in mitigation requirements above 0.10 FTEs will trigger P&Z and 52 Council approval again per Chapter 26.470.110.c. The Applicant assumes responsibility for submitting an application that accurately reflects mitigation requirements and should not submit such a request prematurely. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.470.110(c) Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment 26.710.050 Moderate Density Residential (R-15) Administrative Policy 01-2024 Attached HELPFUL LINKS: • Land Use Application (PDF) • Land Use Code (PDF) REVIEW BY: • Staff for completeness and recommendation. • Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation. • City Council for decision. PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, the Planning & Zoning Commission for a recommendation followed by a final decision from City Council. PLANNING FEES: $325 Flat Fee. REFERRAL FEES: None TOTAL DEPOSIT: $325 APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements for this review. Please email the entire application as one pdf to comdevhelp@aspen.gov. Include PRE- 26-081 in the subject line. If more than 18 months has lapsed since this letter was issued, please reach out to planneroftheday@gmail.com.  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement. (A link to these documents is provided above.)  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  A written letter addressing the criteria described on the previous page of this document. The letter should include the number of FTEs/mitigation requirements associated with the request. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  Total fee for review of the application. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. 53 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. 54 Your Journey. Your Story. Your Legacy. Fee-in-Lieu for Affordable Housing Mitigation DATE: 06/24/2026 ATTN : City of Aspen Community Development Department PROJECT: 823-825 E Dean St Dear City Council, Please accept this request to meet affordable housing mitigation requirements via a cash-in-lieu payment for the redevelopment and expansion of the home at 823-825 E. Dean St. The property contains an existing home, with approval to redevelop it into a new home. The development requires the mitigation of 0.49 FTEs of employee housing. This amount exceeds the by-right allowance for a cash-in-lieu payment. 1. The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed. The development of affordable housing on this property would be impractical given the physical layout of the site. The site is 60’ wide by 100’ long, with a buildable area of only 45’ by 80’. Multi-family housing would not be appropriate for the scale of the lot 2. The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the purchase of affordable housing certificates. The prospect of pursuing an off-site development of a fraction of a dwelling unit to house .49 employees is unrealistic, as the land purchase alone would be several million dollars, and together with construction costs render this option prohibitive. The Applicant has made a good faith effort in securing affordable housing credits; however, none are available at this time. 3. The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. 55 2 We had a contact who was willing to sell some FTE credits. However, the City is reevaluating the FIL numbers & the seller is waiting for the City to update the Cash-in-lieu numbers before establishing a price and selling the credits. The City doesn't expect those updates to go to Council until the fall, at the earliest. We have found no other credits for sale. 4. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. The Affordable Housing Mitigation generated by the permit for 823-825 E Dean Street requires 0.49 FTEs of mitigation at a Category 2 rate, which the applicant is requesting to satisfy entirely through cash-in-lieu. The City's fee-in-lieu rate is based on actual development costs with an annual adjustment to account for changing conditions, and is designed to enable the community to achieve its affordable housing goals. The provision of this cash-in-lieu payment will directly support the City's ongoing affordable housing development efforts and result in the near-term production of affordable housing. We respectfully request the City accept and approve this request to meet the affordable housing obligation of the 823-825 E Dean St property through a cash-in-lieu payment. Approving this request will enable this residential project to move forward. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward to your review and will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have. Seth Hmielowski Z Group Architects 56 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM June 30, 2026 Tillie Pines Planner 1 City of Aspen RE: 931 West Francis Affordable Housing Cash-in-Lieu Payment Request Ms. Pines: Please accept this request to meet affordable housing mitigation requirements via a cash- in-lieu payment for a redevelopment of the home at 931 West Francis. The map to the right shows the 931 West Francis property The property contains an existing home with approval to be redeveloped with a new home. The new home requires the mitigation of approximately 0.85 FTEs of employee housing. This amount exceeds the by-right allowance for a cash-in-lieu payment. The property applied for a building permit (0157-2025-BRES). This permit is currently in review by the Building Department and any comments are being addressed by Synergy Builders; however, the permit cannot proceed without providing employee housing mitigation. We appreciate your expeditious review of this request as certain contractual obligations are at risk if this request is delayed. Please keep in mind for the permit that slight discrepancies in measurements may still be realized and/or a change order could be submitted that affects the exact amount of housing mitigation due. We respectfully request that any adjustments to the mitigation required for this project subsequent to the City Council review be handled administratively and additional payments or refunds be accommodated accordingly. The property is legally defined as Lot 1; Dramatic View Boundary / Amended Herndon Subdivision. The property is owned by HRS Estates, LLC; Sole Manager of Dramatic View Holdings LLC; Stefan Coman, Authorized Signatory, who has authorized BendonAdams to represent the LLC’s interests before the City of Aspen. 57 628 McSkimming CiL Page 2 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM This request complies with Section 26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment. Detailed responses to this criterion are provided below. 26.470.110.c – Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment The provision of affordable housing in excess of 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) via a fee-in-lieu payment, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: (1) The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed. Response: The 931 W. Francis property is in the center of a single-family neighborhood. The development of affordable housing on this property would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and impractical given the physical layout of the site including steep slopes, access, and other site-specific constraints. (2) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the purchase of affordable housing certificates. Response: The prospect of pursuing an off-site development of a fraction of a dwelling unit to house 0.85 employees is unrealistic. The land purchase alone would be several million dollars and together with construction costs render this option prohibitive. Properties eligible for “buy-down” to affordable rates are not for sale and the costs of purchasing a 2 or 3 bedroom unit 1 on the open market would be drastically out of proportion to the impact of the home expansion. The Applicant has made a good faith effort in securing affordable housing credits; however, none are available at this time. (3) The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Response: The Applicant has made good faith efforts to secure affordable housing credits from known owners. Credit owners are not willing to sell and the market is “dry.” In fact, a recent anticipated purchase of a 0.13 credit fell through when the seller decided against selling the credit. No affordable housing credits are available for purchase at this time. 1 A two bedroom unit mitigates for 2.25 FTEs and a three bedroom unit mitigates for 3.0 FTEs. 58 628 McSkimming CiL Page 3 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM (4) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. Response: The City’s fee-in-lieu rate is based on actual development costs with an annual adjustment to account for changing development costs. The fee-in-lieu system is designed to enable the community to achieve its affordable housing goals and result in the near-term production of affordable housing. The City’s affordable housing development efforts are ongoing with various purchase and new development opportunities. The provision of this cash-in-lieu will result in the near-term production of affordable housing. We respectfully request the City accept and approve this request to meet the affordable housing obligation of the 931 West Francis property through a cash-in-lieu payment. Approving this request will enable this residential project to move forward. We believe this application contains the necessary information for a complete review and to allow permit number 0157-2025-BRES to move forward and be issued. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward to your review and will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have. Kind Regards, Erin Wackerle BendonAdams LLC Exhibits: 1. Land Use Application 2. Authorization letter 3. Agreement to Pay 4. Statement of Authority 5. Pre-application summary 59 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Location: ________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID #: ______________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone # : _______________________ E-mail: __________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone # : _______________________ E-mail: __________________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE: EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM Exhibit 1 60 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Project: __________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Location: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Lot Size: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Gross Lot Area:________________________________ Net Lot Area:_________________________________________ For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code. Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested (identify the exact variations being requested): 61 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Commercial net leaseable: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Lodge Pillows: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Lodge Units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Free-Market residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Affordable residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Proposed % of demolition: ________________ % DIMENSIONS: Write N/A where no requirements exists in the zone district. Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Height Principal Building: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Accessory Building: Existing:_____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ On-Site Parking: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ % Site Coverage: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ % Open Space: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Combined Front/Rear: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Indicate N, S, E, W Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Side Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Combined Front/Rear: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Distance between Buildings: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ 62 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET TYPE OF APPLICATION ESA Review (Stream Margin, 8040 Greenline, View Plane, or Hallam Lake Bluff) Non Conformities Pre-Development Topography Temporary Use Accessory Dwelling Unit/Carriage House Dimensional Variance Growth Management Review Outdoor Vending Planned Development Review Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Establishment of Zoning or Rezoning Subdivision Review Condominiumization Approval Documents Special Review Wireless Facilities Residential Design Standard Review Conditional Use Review Historic Designation Certificate of Appropriateness Minor Historic Development Major Historic Development (select one below) Conceptual Development Final Development Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Substantial Historic Preservation Amendment Historic Landmark Lot Split Establishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) Other City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEWS 63 Exhibit 2 64 Exhibit 3 65 66 Exhibit 4 67 68 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PRE-26-084 DATE: 6/26/2026 PLANNER: Tillie Pines, tillie.pines@aspen.gov, 970-309-0415 REPRESENTATIVE: Erin Wackerle, erin@bendonadams.com PROJECT LOCATION: 931 West Francis Street PARCEL ID: 2735-123-41-001 REQUEST: Fee-in-Lieu for Affordable Housing Mitigation DESCRIPTION: 931 West Francis Street is a single-family residence in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) Zone District. A demolition permit was issued in 2024 and new two-story single-family residence is currently in building permit review. The applicant is requesting fee-in- lieu for affordable housing mitigation for the new development. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.100(c) Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee -in- Lieu Payment, mitigation via fee-in-lieu for more than 0.10 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission followed by a final decision by the City Council. The following criteria must be met: 1.The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed. 2.The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units, the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status, or through the purchase of affordable housing certificates. 3.The applicant has made a reasonably good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. 4.The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through a fee-in-lieu payment, including all or none. Council’s decision shall be conducted as an action item and memorialized via resolution. Pursuant to Administrative Policy 01-2024, this process may apply for applications that generate up to 2.0 FTEs at this time due to the ongoing shortage of credits and increased mitigation amounts within the City of Aspen. Following review and approval from P&Z and Council, any change orders or modifications resulting in a net increase in mitigation requirements above 0.10 FTEs will trigger P&Z and Exhibit 5 69 Council approval again per Chapter 26.470.110.c. The Applicant assumes responsibility for submitting an application that accurately reflects mitigation requirements and should not submit such a request prematurely. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.470.110.c Provision of Affordable Housing Via Fee-in-Lieu Payment 26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Administrative Policy 01-2024 Attached HELPFUL LINKS: • Land Use Application (PDF) • Land Use Code (PDF) REVIEW BY: • Staff for completeness and recommendation. • Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation. • City Council for decision. PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, the Planning & Zoning Commission for a recommendation followed by a final decision from City Council. PLANNING FEES: $325 Flat Fee. REFERRAL FEES: None TOTAL DEPOSIT: $325 APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements for this review. Please email the entire application as one pdf to comdevhelp@aspen.gov. Include PRE- 26-084 in the subject line. If more than 18 months has lapsed since this letter was issued, please reach out to planneroftheday@gmail.com.  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement. (A link to these documents is provided above.)  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  A written letter addressing the criteria described on the previous page of this document. The letter should include the number of FTEs/mitigation requirements associated with the request. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  Total fee for review of the application. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. 70 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. 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 P&Z Work Session #3, Nonconformities Page 1 of 6 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jeff Barnhill, Principal Planner Haley Hart, Senior Long Range Planner Tillie Pines, Planner I THROUGH: Dan Folke, Planning Director MEETING DATE: July 15th, 2026 SUBJECT: Nonconformities Code Update Work Session #3 INTENDED OUTCOME: Staff seeks the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) input on a continued review of Section 26.312 - Nonconformities, and Section 26.430.040 – Review standards for special review. On May 3rd, 2026, the P&Z assessed and made recommendations on code updates related to nonconforming structures and the review process under certain circumstances. On June 17th, 2026, the P&Z reviewed staff’s redlines and discussed further edits and made requests for three specific topics: review of a recent land use case using exempt garage floor area, the exploration of Community Benefits and how to define that term, and review of other communities’ use of the terms Reasonable Use and Unnecessary Hardship. Staff has furthered discussion on those three topics below and refined the redlined documents for both chapters in response. At this is a Work Session, staff seeks continued policy direction from P&Z. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff has amended the redlined documents for both chapters in response to P&Z’s June Work Session (Attachment A - Nonconformities and Attachment B – Special Review). The amendments made since the second work session have come from both P&Z’s amendments and staff’s recommendations based on further research. Staff would like to clearly state this is not a final draft of the redlines, rather a check-in on intended outcomes of the updated policy. DISCUSSION: 1. Land Use Example During the June Work Session, P&Z requested that staff look into a recent Land Use Case that involved full use of the garage exemption. Staff believes the requested example was 633 West Francis. 633 West Francis was over allowable floor area on site but were within the 15% deck exemption. The scope of the work for 633 West Francis was the addition of subgrade space, 80 P&Z Work Session #3, Nonconformities Page 2 of 6 reconfiguration of deck and covered patio area, and the development of a garage on site. The calculated floor area went down by 2 square feet (Figure 1). Staff recommended denial because the applicant did not meet the hardship nor the unique circumstances criteria under Special Review. Figure 1. Approved Countable Floor Area from P&Z Case The applicant was able to add approximately 1,265 square feet of mitigation floor area because of how subgrade spaces are calculated. The applicants added approximately 782 square feet of mitigation floor area in the lower level, approximately 492 square feet on the main level with the new garage and reduced the upper level by 9 square feet. Figure 2: Garage mitigation floor area added under proposed project – 492 sq. ft. 81 P&Z Work Session #3, Nonconformities Page 3 of 6 Figure 3: Lower level mitigation floor area 782 sq. ft. This project utilized both subgrade space and garage floor area exemptions; however, these both contribute to the overall mitigation floor area on site. Location Existing Mitigation Floor Area Approved Mitigation Floor Area Lower Level 1,722 sq. ft. 2,504 sq. ft. Main Level 1,793 sq. ft. 1,793 sq. ft. Upper Level 1,609 sq. ft. 1,600 sq. ft. Garage 0 sq. ft. 492 sq. ft. Total 5,124 sq. ft. 6,389 sq. ft. Difference +1,265 sq. ft. Table 1: Approved Mitigation Floor Area The conversation at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on this project varied with some commission members wondering if this project even required Special Review and could be a de-minimus exception. The project was eventually approved by a 4-3 vote. If this project was reviewed under the changes to the Nonconformities and Special Review sections of the Land Use Code staff would have difficulty recommending approval for the proposed project. The project would not meet the Intent and Purpose statement as this would be considered an enlargement or expansion. Additionally, staff would continue to recommend denial because staff determined there were no special characteristics that differentiate this property from other properties in the same zone district. Lastly, the applicant would be utilizing mitigation floor area exemptions with no significant benefit proposed on site. Staff would still likely recommend denial on this particular case; however, the additional criteria would allow the applicant some more flexibility in their responses/requests. 82 P&Z Work Session #3, Nonconformities Page 4 of 6 2. Community Benefit To further define the term "Community Benefit" as stated in the proposed code amendment language in Attachment B, land use regulations of other municipalities were reviewed to understand how different places interpret this concept. The majority of communities researched did not provide a specific definition, but several provided guiding language. Pitkin County's nonconformity regulations include requirements for the consistency of a proposed project with adopted plans or master plans in the region. This inspired the use of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) to define Community benefit. The AACP reflects community goals and preferred outcomes that were collected and refined over an extensive community engagement period. Defining Community Benefit using the AACP allows the Community Development Director and P&Z to encourage the implementation of community goals within proposed projects. P&Z may review the different elements of a site with a proposed project when a significant Community Benefit is present to allow a Nonconforming structure to make use of floor area exemptions to further the AACP. The following examples are preferred outcomes from the AACP that may be used to present a significant benefit: • Limit the Consumption of Energy • Extend or improve public bike and pedestrian facilities • On-site Affordable Housing Mitigation and the creation of deed-restricted housing units • Minimize urban sprawl through the Urban Growl Boundary • Protect neighborhood character by minimizing and limiting site coverage, mass and scale • Limit zoning variances Staff has updated the criteria in Section 26.430.b to read as follows: (6) The proposed project does not make use of any mitigation floor area exemptions unless there are other significant benefits proposed on site. Such examples include improving other non-conforming aspects, electrification of the property, improving the life-safety or accessibility conditions, or furthering the community goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The Community Development Director shall make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission based on the cumulative benefits proposed with the proposed project. 3. Reasonable Use and Unnecessary Hardship Terms As directed by the P&Z, staff reviewed other municipal codes to find recommendations for the definitions of the terms Reasonable Use and Unnecessary Hardship. The outcome of this research was that no municipality in staff’s search defines these terms within a Definitions Section, rather, these terms are within the context of review criteria. The review criteria in all instances were for the land use review of a variance. These terms are often tied to the legal concept of a “takings”. In the land use context, a “takings” refers to a government action that goes so far in limiting the use or value of private property that the law requires compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (made applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment). The Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." 83 P&Z Work Session #3, Nonconformities Page 5 of 6 Examples of defining the concepts of Reasonable Use and Unnecessary Hardship within this memo include Boulder County, Glenwood Springs, Pitkin County, and the American Planning Association. Boulder County (Reasonable Use) Reasonable Use zoning dictates that local municipal and county codes are legally valid only if they substantially promote public health, safety, and welfare without entirely depriving a landowner of the productive, economic use of their property. Boulder County Review Criteria (in the context of a Variance) • the strict application of this Code would create an exceptional or undue hardship upon the property owner; • the hardship is not self-imposed; • the variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the use of adjacent property as permitted under this Code; • the variance, if granted, will not change the character of the underlying zoning district in which the property is located, and is in keeping with the intent of this Code and the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan; • the variance, if granted, does not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Boulder County and is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use or development; • the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief; • the variance, if granted, will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expenses; and • the variance, if granted, will not create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances Glenwood Springs Review Criteria (in the context of a Variance) Does not defined ‘undue hardship’ but puts criteria around the concept which includes: • The subject property has an exceptional shape, topography, building configuration or other exceptional site condition that is not a general condition throughout the zone district; • The applicant did not create the hardship by his/her own actions; • The variance requested does not harm the public and does not impair the intent or purposes of this Code, goals, and policies, including the specific regulation for which the variance is sought; • The variance request demonstrates exceptional hardship not related to purposes of convenience or financial burden; • The variance request will not violate building or fire code requirements; and • The variance is the minimum variance that will afford relief of the subject standards of the Code. Pitkin County Review Criteria (in context of a Variance) • by reason of unusual narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the enactment of the regulation, or by reason of unusual topographic conditions or other situation or condition of such piece of property, • the strict application of the height or Road and Yard setback regulations of this Land Use Code would result in peculiar practical difficulties to, or undue hardship upon, • the owner of such property, and the granting of relief from the strict application of this Land Use Code will not cause substantial detriment to the public good and will not 84 P&Z Work Session #3, Nonconformities Page 6 of 6 substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan and this Land Use Code. American Planning Association (Hardship) APA Defines Hardships through three criteria: 1. Strictly Tied to the Land: The hardship must arise directly from the unique physical characteristics of the lot itself (e.g., unusual shape, extreme topography), not from the personal or financial circumstances of the owner. 2. No Reasonable Use: The strict literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance must effectively deprive the property owner of all reasonable economic use of the land. 3. Self-Created Hardship Excluded: The hardship cannot be a result of the owner's own actions (e.g., knowingly building over a setback line). Outcome: Staff has drafted a new set of criteria under Section 26.430.b - Replacement of nonconforming structures, that more closely resembles the examples provided by APA and the three municipalities above. Staff recommends the creation of updated review criteria to capture the concepts of Reasonable Use and Unnecessary Hardship without defining them within Section 26.104.100 – Definitions. See Attachment B, Section 26.430.b, Criteria 1 - 6 for staff’s first draft. RECOMMENDATIONS: P&Z’s continued direction along with community input from the planning and architectural community will guide staff in creating updated and/or new review criteria for a comprehensive code amendment. Staff seeks P&Z’s feedback and thoughts on the redlines within Section 26.312 - Nonconformities, and Section 26.430.040 – Review standards for special review. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Chapter 26.312, Nonconformities Redlines Attachment B – Chapter 26.430, Special Review Redlines 85 Chapter 26.312. – NONCONFORMITIES Sec. 26.312.010. - General. (a) Intent and Purpose. Within the Zone Districts established by this Title, there exist uses of land, buildings and structures that were lawfully established before this Title was adopted or amended which would be in violation of the terms and requirements of this Title. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate and limit the continued existence of those uses, buildings and structures that do not conform to the provisions of this Title as amended. It is the intent of this Chapter to permit nonconformities to continue subject to the following provisions, but not to allow nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded. The provisions of this Chapter are designed to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities and to bring about their eventual elimination in order to preserve the integrity of the zone districts and the other provisions of this Title. (b) Applicability. This Chapter applies to all uses, properties or structures which were originally constructed in conformity with zoning and building codes or ordinances in effect at the time of its development, but which no longer conform to the dimensional, use, or other requirements imposed by this Title for the zone district in which it is located. Sec. 26.312.020. - Nonconforming uses. (a) Authority to continue. Nonconforming uses of land or structures may continue in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and this Section. Replacements of nonconforming uses or land or structures shall be subject to (intentionally left blank – to discuss with zoning). (b) Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance may be performed upon nonconforming uses of land and structures, provided that the maintenance performed within any twelve (12) consecutive month period does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the current replacement cost of the structure. (c) Extensions/expansions. Nonconforming uses shall not be extended or expanded. This prohibition shall be construed so as to prevent: (1) Enlargement of nonconforming use by increasing the net leasable area, the net livable area of a dwelling unit, or the area within a structure in which such nonconforming use is located; or (2) Occupancy of additional lands; or, (3) Increasing the size, considering all dimensions, of a structure in which a nonconforming use is located. 86 (d) Relocation. A structure housing a nonconforming use may not be moved to another location on or off the parcel of land on which it is located, unless the use thereafter shall conform to the limitations of the zone district into which it is moved. (e) Change in use. A nonconforming use shall not be changed to any other use unless the new use conforms to the provisions of the zone district in which it is located. (f) Abandonment or discontinuance. The intent of the owner notwithstanding, where a nonconforming use of land or nonconforming use of structure is discontinued or abandoned for twelve (12) consecutive months, then such use may not be reestablished or resumed, and any subsequent use must conform to the provisions of this Title. Any nonconforming use not associated with a structure may not be restored after a discontinuance period of more than thirty (30) days. (g) Demolition or destruction. (1) Ability to restore. Any nonconforming use located in a structure which is purposefully demolished, pursuant to the definition of Demolition, may not be continued or restored. Any nonconforming use located in a structure undergoing construction, which does not constitute a demolition, has an approved development order, and an approved building permit shall not be considered discontinued. (2) Nonwillful destruction. Any nonconforming use which is demolished or destroyed by an act of nature or through any manner not purposefully accomplished by the owner may be restored as of right, regardless of the extent of demolition or destruction, if a building permit for reconstruction is submitted within twenty-four (24) months of the date of demolition or destruction. (Ord. No. 55-2000, § § 2, 3; Ord. No. 12, 2007, § § 15, 16; Ord. No. 7, 2014, § 13; Ord. No. 13- 2022, § 4, 6-28-2022) Sec. 26.312.030. - Non-conforming structures. (a) Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the zone district in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. (b) Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance of a nonconforming structure may be performed without affecting its nonconforming status. Maintenance necessary to preserve the safety and structural integrity of a nonconforming structure may also be performed on a regular schedule within any twelve (12)-month period. Such work may include the repair or replacement of nonbearing walls, fixtures, wiring, and plumbing. Normal maintenance does not include structural replacements, purposeful destruction, 87 or reconstruction undertaken to continue a nonconformity. When an immediate life- safety concern exists, as verified by the Chief Building Official, the Community Development Director may consider the site context and determine that additional work qualifies as normal maintenance notwithstanding the provisions of this section. Extensions. A nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. A nonconforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the nonconformity. (1) Historic structures. The first exception to this requirement shall be for a structure listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Such structures may be extended into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, may be extended into the minimum distance between buildings on a lot and may be enlarged, provided, however, such enlargement does not exceed the allowable floor area of the existing structure by more than five hundred (500) square feet, complies with all other requirements of this Title and receives development review approval as required by Chapter 26.415. (2) Mandatory occupancy accessory dwelling units and carriage houses. The second exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House ("ADU") having a mandatory occupancy requirement. Such a detached ADU may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU and also provided that the ADU does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or carriage house. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title and shall receive development review approval as required herein. a. Procedure. The procedure for increasing the maximum floor area of a property for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU requires the submission of a development application. The development application shall be processed under Chapter 26.430, Special Review. b. Review Standards. An application for increasing the floor area of a property for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU shall meet the standards in Section 26.520.050, Design Standards, unless otherwise approved pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review, as well as the following additional review standards: 1. Newly established floor area may increase the ADU up to a cumulative maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of floor 88 area and is required to be mitigated by either of the following two (2) options. (i) Extinguishment of Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"). A property owner may increase the ADU by extinguishment of a maximum of two (2) certificates with a transfer ratio of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area per each certificate. Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing certificates. (ii) Extinguishment of unused floor area from another property. A property owner may increase the maximum floor area of a property for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU by extinguishment of a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of available un-built floor area from one (1) property to the ADU. 2. The additional floor area is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable or the additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. 3. The additional floor area creates a unit which is more suitable for caretaker families. 4. The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADU. 5. The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. 6. For the transfer of allowable floor area through the use of Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates, the certificates shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.535, Transferable Development Rights. 7. For the transfer of allowable floor area from a non-historically designated property to an ADU deed-restricted as a mandatory occupancy unit, the applicant shall record an instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney removing floor area from the sending property to the mandatory occupancy ADU. (3) Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The third exception to this requirement shall be for properties with structures that do not comply with Chapter 26.435 - 89 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). If a nonconforming feature within an ESA meets the applicability of Section 26.312.030(f)(2) - Purposeful destruction, then the project shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.430 - Special Review. A nonconforming structure may not extend the nonconformity into the ESA and may be required to reduce or to eliminate the portion of the structure that is located within the ESA pursuant to Chapter 26.435 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Chapter 26.430 – Special Review. (c) Relocation. A nonconforming structure shall not be moved unless it thereafter conforms to the standards and requirements of the zone district in which it is located. (d) Unsafe structure. Any portion of a nonconforming structure which becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance and which is declared unsafe or unlawful by a duly authorized City official, but which an owner wishes to restore, repair or rebuild shall only be restored, repaired or rebuilt in conformity with the provisions of this Title. (e) Ability to restore. (1) Non-purposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure that is Demolished, or portion thereof which is destroyed by an act of nature or through any manner not purposefully accomplished by the owner, may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is submitted within twenty-four (24) months of the date of Demolition or destruction. (2) Purposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure that is purposefully Demolished or portion thereof which is purposefully destroyed, may be replaced with a different structure only if the replacement structure is in conformance with the current provisions of this Title or unless replacement of the nonconformity is approved pursuant to the provisions below or of Chapter 26.430 - Special Review. a. Building Permit. Any project with a nonconforming structure or portion thereof may proceed straight to building permit when it meets all of the following criteria: i. The project does not trigger Demolition per Section 26.104.100 – Definitions; and ii. The project does not cause Destruction per Section 26.104.100 – Definitions to exterior walls and structures, including fences; and iii. The review of the proposed development does not include a change to, or reevaluation of any nonconforming mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping, or setbacks; and, 90 iv. The project, if currently nonconforming in floor area, does not expand or add mitigation floor area or floor area, excluding exempt deck floor area; and, v. No other Land Use Reviews are required or are being applied for at the time of review. b. Special Review. If the proposed redevelopment does not meet the requirements of Section 26.312.030(f)(2) (a) – Building Permit, it shall be reviewed through the provisions of Chapter 26.430 – Special Review. c. Density Replacement. Any structure with nonconforming density may maintain that specific nonconformity only if a building permit for the replacement structure is submitted within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition or destruction. 1. Density replacement. A duplex or two (2) single-family residences on a substandard parcel in a zone district permitting such use is a nonconforming structure and subject to nonconforming structure replacement provisions. Density on a substandard parcel is permitted to be maintained but the structure must comply with the dimensional requirements of the Code including single-family floor area requirements. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 6 [part]; Ord. No. 9-2002, § 5; Ord. No. 35-2004, § 1; Ord. No. 7-2008; Ord. No. 13-2022, § 4, 6-28-2022) 91 Chapter 26.430. - SPECIAL REVIEW Sec. 26.430.010. - Purpose. The purpose of special review is to ensure site-specific review of certain dimensional requirements, mitigation requirements, encroachments, lighting or subdivision standards, which are specifically authorized to be altered or amended by specific provisions of this Title in order to maintain the integrity of the City's Zone Districts and the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses. Sec. 26.430.020. - Authority. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter, shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions or disapprove a development application for special review, after recommendation by the Community Development Department. Sec. 26.430.030. - Applicability. Special review shall apply to all development in the City designated for special review by the following chapters or sections of this Title: • Dimensional requirements (Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts) • Replacement of nonconforming structures (Chapter 26.312) • Reduction of open space requirements in CC Zone District (Section 26.575.030(b)) • Off-street parking requirements (Section 26.515.040) • Reductions in the dimensions of utility and delivery service area provisions • Subdivision standards (Section 26.480.050) • Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards (Chapter 26.520) • Wireless telecommunications facilities and/or equipment (Section 26.575.130) • Affordable housing unit standards • Variations to the Residential Demolition and Redevelopment Standards (Chapter 26.580) • Outdoor lighting (Chapter 26.512) (a) Outdoor lighting standards. A project may request variations from the requirements of Chapter 26.512 - Outdoor lighting. Whenever a special review is considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission it shall be reviewed in accordance with the following standards: 92 (1) The outdoor lighting plan, luminaire, or installation has: a. a demonstrable community benefit; or, b. is for the purpose of public safety and health; and, (2) The proposed lighting plan, luminaire, or installation meets the intent and general characteristics of the underlying Lighting Zone. (Ord. No. 44-1999, § 3; Ord. No. 47-1999, § 4; Ord. No. 5-2000, § 3; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 11; Ord. No. 14-2011, § 1; No. 13-2013, § 5; Ord. No. 13-2022, § 6, 6-28-2022; Ord. No. 12-2023, § 5, 11-14-2023) Sec. 26.430.040. - Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. (a) Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. (1) The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. (2) The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or ESAs, or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. (b) Replacement of nonconforming structures. Whenever a structure or portion thereof, which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district or ESA requirements in which the property is located is proposed to be replaced after Demolition or destruction pursuant to Section 26.312.030(f)(2), the following criteria shall be met: (1) The proposed project meets the Intent and Purpose statements of Section 26.312 – Nonconformities; and, (2) The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Section 26.430.040(a) above; (3) There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from other properties located in the same zone district and the property owner 93 would otherwise be deprived of reasonable economic use enjoyed by others of the same zone district; and (4) The proposed project reduces the property’s overall nonconformities; (5) The hardship of the nonconformity is not self-created as the result of the applicant’s own or prior owner’s actions; and (6) The proposed project does not make use of any mitigation floor area exemptions unless there are other significant benefits proposed on site. Such examples include improving other non-conforming aspects, electrification of the property, improving the life-safety or accessibility conditions, or furthering the community goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The Community Development Director shall make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission based on the cumulative benefits proposed with the proposed project. (c) Reduction of Pedestrian Amenity. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine whether a reduction of the Pedestrian Amenity requirement is to be granted, it shall be reviewed in accordance with the standards set forth at Section 26.575.030. (d) Off-street parking requirements. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine a change in the off-street parking requirements, it shall be considered in accordance with the standards set forth at Chapter 26.515. (e) Utility and delivery service area provisions. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine a change in any utility and delivery service area requirements, the following criteria shall be met: (1) There is a demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility service area and delivery area proposed will be adequate. (2) Access to the utility and delivery service area is adequate to accommodate all necessary users. (3) The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. (f) Subdivision design standards. Whenever a special review is for development which does not meet the subdivision design standards of Section 26.480.050, the development shall be approved only when the conditions set forth at Section 26.480.050 have been met. (g) Accessory dwelling unit design standards. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine a change in the design standards required for accessory dwelling units, it shall be considered in accordance with the standards set forth at Subsection 26.520.080(d). 94 (h) Wireless telecommunications facilities and/or equipment. Whenever a special review is conducted to appeal the decision of the Community Development Director regarding a proposed wireless telecommunications service facility or equipment or to determine a proposed increase in the allowed height of a wireless telecommunications facility and/or equipment, it shall be considered in accordance with the standards set forth in Paragraph 26.575.130(c)(6), Wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment. (i) Affordable housing unit standards. Whenever a Special Review is conducted to reduce the required percentage that the finished floor level of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, a recommendation from the Housing Board shall be obtained and all of the following criteria shall be met. The criteria below address only the affordable housing units that require a variation from the standard. (1) The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner that is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. (2) The proposed amount that the affordable housing units are below natural or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such as topography. (3) The proposed affordable housing units are designed in such a manner which exceeds the expectations of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, and promotes the unit's general livability by demonstrating compliance with as many of the following conditions as possible: a. Significant storage, such as additional storage outside a unit. b. Above average natural light, such as adding more window area than the Building Code requires. c. Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement. d. Unit amenities, such as access to outdoor space or private patios. (j) Whenever a Special Review is conducted to reduce the required percentage of finished floor level of a lodge unit's net livable area that is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, a recommendation from the Community Development Director shall be obtained and of the following criteria shall be met. The criteria below address only the lodge units that require a variation from the standard. (1) The proposed lodge units are designed in a manner that is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. (2) The proposed amount that the lodge units are below natural or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such as topography. 95 (3) The lodge units are designed to be compatible with and support the successful operation of the property as a lodge and the use of the individual units therein as viable lodge units. (k) Demolition—Residential demolition and redevelopment standards. A project may request variations from the requirements of the Residential Demolition and Redevelopment Standards adopted as part of Chapter 26.580 if the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination the project meets the intent of the requirements through an alternative design. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following review criteria, and a recommendation from the Community Development Department and any referral agencies in determining if a project is eligible for a variation: (1)The project is designed in a manner that meets the intent of the Residential Demolition and Redevelopment Standards. (2)Although specifics design elements are not provided that meet the specific items included in the Residential Demolition and Redevelopment Standards, a design alternative is provided that meets or exceeds the minimum thresholds established in the Residential Demolition and Redevelopment Standards. (Ord. No. 44-1999, § 4; Ord. No. 5-2000, § 4; Ord. No. 1-2002, § 9; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 12; Ord. No. 12, 2007, §§ 20, 21; Ord. No. 14-2011, § 2; Ord. No. 13-2013, § 6; Ord. No. 23-2017; Ord. No. 13-2022, § 6, 6-28-2022) 96