HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19990608 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, $UNE 8, 1999, 4:30 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
4:45-5:00 A. Text Amendment, Section 26.04.100, Definitions, Floor Area, G. Accessory
Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion, Mitch Haas
s:0o.s:3o B. Lodge Preservation Text Amendment. Chris Bendon
s:3o-6:o0 C. Minor PUD Code Amendment, Chris Bendon
6:00-7:00 D.
Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Final, Chris Bendon
V. ADJOURN
TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE. WE RECOMMEND APPLICANTS ARRIVE AT LEAST
½ HOUR PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED TIME.
CITY AGENDAS
6/8 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 5/18
Lodge Preservation Text Amendment, Public Hearing (con't from 5/18) (CB)
Minor PUD, Code Amendment, Public Hearing (con't from 5/1.8) (CB)
Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Final, Public Hearing (CB)
Text Amendment, Section 26.04:100, Definitions, Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or
Linked Pavilion, Public Hearing (MH)
6/9 HPC
City Notice 5/18
302 E. Hopkins, Conceptual, Public Hearing
121 N. Fifth, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Public Hearing
135 W. Hopkins, Conceptual, Public Hearing (con't from 5/12)
533 E. Hopkins, Minor
330 E. Main, Minor
6/14 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 5/25
'2 Williams Way, Inventory, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (SO)
Street Name Change—"Aene Park" to "Alpine Court" (SO)
Vending Agreement for Farmer's Market, Public Hearing (MH)
Ordinance 30 Revisions, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (JAW)
Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, 1st Reading (CB)
6/15 Growth Management Commission (4:30)
City Notice 5/25
Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Public Hearing (CB)
6/15 City Planning and Zoning (5:30)
City Notice 5/25
Aspen Mountain PUD, Conceptual, Lots 3 and 5, Public Hearing (MH)
Code Amendment: Modification of Conservation (C) Zone District Related to FAR, Public
.Hearing (JAW)
6/16 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
Aspen Area Community Plan, Work Session (SM)
6/21 City Council (5:00)
Special ALleeting
Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD, Subdivision, 1" Reading (CB)
6/22 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
Hopkins and Original, Work Session (MH)
Joint Meeting with County P&Z: Buttermilk Master Plan (5:00)
6/23 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 6/1
330 Lake, Work Session
Su Casa, Minor
DEPP Newspaper Racks
332 W. Main, Minor and Variances, Public Hearing
240 Lake,,Remediation
824 E. Cooper, BOA Recommendation
6/28 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 6/8
Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Fee
Waivers and Appeal of Code Interpretation, 2nd Reading Public Hearing, Prenotice, (CB)
Appeal of HPC Decision-134 W. Hopkins, Public Hearing (SO)
6/29 City Council (3:00)
Joint Meeting with BOCC
Adoption of Aspen Area Community Plan, Public Hearing (SM)
7/6 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 6/16
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment, Public Hearing (CB)
Mattel Europa Conditional Use Review, Public Hearing (CB)
488 Castle Creek Road, Rezoning, Public Hearing (CB) Renotice
LUC Definitions, Public Hearing (ST)
308 N. lSt, Inventory, Public Hearing (con't from 6/1) (AG)
Djuna Conditional Use Review, Public Hearing (CB)
Bavarian Inn, Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (con't from 6/1) (JO)
7/12 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 6/23
Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, 2" Reading Public Hearing (CB)
LUC Definitions, 1" Reading (ST)
7/14 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 6/23
400 W. Smuggler, Minor
333 W. Bleeker, Work Session
121 N. Fifth (con't from 6/9)
302 E. Hopkins (con't from 6/9)
135 W. Hopkins, Public Hearing (con't from 6/23)
520 E. Durant, Minor
7/20 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 6/30
Bavarian Inn, Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (con't from 6/1) (JO)
2
7/26 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 7/7
308 N. 1st, Inventory, 1st Reading, (AG)
121 N. Fifth, Historic Landmark Lot Split, 1st Reading (AG)
LUC Definitions, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (ST) Prenotice
7/28 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 7/7
8/3 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 7/13
8/9 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 7/20
8/11 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 7/20
214 E. Bleeker, Extend
920 W. Hallam, Extend
8/17 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 7/27
8/23 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 8/3
8/25 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 8/3
Election of Officers
cc: P&Z Packet
City Attorney's Office
City Planning Staff
City Clerk's Office
6/3/99
g:/planning/aspen/agendas/comingup.doc/
3
A)
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director,
FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner
RE: Code Amendment --- Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G.
Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion."
DATE: June 8, 1999
SUMMARY: Please review the attached (Exhibit A) copy of the staff memorandum to
City Council regarding the Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.100, Definitions,
"Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion." At their May loth hearing,
City Council passed the two following motions, both by votes of four to zero (4-0):
I move to direct staff to pursue a simple code amendment that would allow an FAR
bonus for detached ADUs above a two -car garage with a maximum building footprint of
between 550 and 625 square feet, with the final number to be determined by the Planning
and Zoning Commission during its review of the proposed amendment.
And,
I move to uphold the Community Development Director's March 24, 1999, Code
Interpretation regarding the definition of `Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or
Linked Pavilion.'
The proposed code amendment. outlined in this memorandum is in response to the City
Council direction explained above. Community Development Department staff
recommends that the. Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a
recommendation to adopt the code amendment to Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor
Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion as proposed herein.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a development
application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and
recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the Planning
Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and then
approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing.
DISCUSSION: Currently, Section 26.04.100, Definitions, of the Municipal Code defines
"Floor Area," as it relates to an "Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion" as follows:
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion. For the purpose of calculating floor
area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, the
following shall apply: The allowable floor area for an attached accessory dwelling unit
shall be excluded up to a maximum of three hundred fifty (350) square feet of allowable
floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit whichever is
less. An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet,
shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of allowable floor area up to seven hundred (700)
square feet of floor area. Any element linking the principal structure to the accessory
unit may be no more than one (1) story tall, six (6) feet wide and ten (10) feet long.
This definition indicates that an ADU separated from a principal structure by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet is
entitled to an FAR bonus. However, it is nearly impossible to provide a functional two -car
garage with a footprint of under 450 square feet. Realizing this, Council has directed staff to
pursue a simple code amendment that would allow for the "automatic" FAR bonus applying
to detached ADUs above a two -car garage with a maximum footprint of between five -
hundred fifty (550) and six hundred twenty-five (625) square feet, with the final number to
be determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission during its review of the proposed
amendment. Since the code requires that floor area and footprints be measured to the outside
of the walls, a maximum footprint of 625 square feet (25' x 25') would accommodate a
reasonable two -car garage while still ensuring that the detached structure is "incidental to,"
"subordinate to," and "subordinate in area, extent, and purpose" to the primary
structure/residence.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Staff proposes amending the above -cited definition to read
as follows, with text to be eliminated and text to be added in bold:
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion. For the purpose of calculating floor
area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, the
following shall apply: The allowable floor area for an attached accessory dwelling unit
shall be excluded up to a maximum of three hundred fifty (350) square feet of allowable
floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit whichever is
less. An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum building footprint of f^.,,. h-u-n-d,.oi F;3, ( in4 six
hundred twenty-five (625) square feet, shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of
allowable floor area up to seven hundred (700) square feet of floor area. Any element
linking the principal structure to the accessory unit may be no more than one (1) story
tall, six (6) feet wide and ten (10) feet long.
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations And
Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A -I) standards for City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed amendments to the
text of the Land Use Code. These standards and staffs evaluation of the potential
amendments relative to them are provided below, with the standard in italics followed by the
staff "response."
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any applicable
portions of the Aspen Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
2
RESPONSE: None of the proposed amendments would be in conflict with any elements of
the AACP, and are very much consistent with the "Intent" and "Philosophy" statements of
the Housing Action Plan (page 30 of the AACP).
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would effect all zone districts that allow ADUs as
conditional uses. As explained above, in the "Discussion" section of this memorandum, a
maximum footprint of 625 square feet (25' x 25') would accommodate a reasonable two -car
garage while still ensuring that the detached structure is "incidental to," "subordinate to,"
and "subordinate in area, extent, and purpose" to the primary structure/residence. All ADUs
would still be subject to Conditional Use Review, which includes criteria pertaining to
neighborhood compatibility.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have any effect on
traffic generation or road safety. Again, all ADUs would still be subject to Conditional Use
Review, which includes criteria pertaining to traffic generation and road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools,
and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are. not anticipated to have an effect on
infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. Again, all ADUs would still be subject to
Conditional. Use Review, which includes criteria pertaining to the capacities and availability
of public facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have an effect on the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: As explained above, in the "Discussion" section of this memorandum, a
maximum footprint of 625 square feet (25' x 25') would accommodate a reasonable two -car
garage while still ensuring that the detached structure is "incidental to," "subordinate to,"
and "subordinate in area, extent, and purpose" to the primary structure/residence. All ADUs
would still be subject to Conditional Use Review, which includes criteria pertaining to
neighborhood compatibility.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: There has been no significant change in Aspen's general character. The
proposed amendment would not affect a particular "subject parcel" or a particular
"surrounding neighborhood." Again, all ADUs would still be subject to Conditional Use
Review, which includes criteria pertaining to neighborhood compatibility.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is
in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendment would be in harmony with the public
interest in encouraging the provision of affordable housing in the form of livable, above -
grade Accessory Dwelling Units.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
forward to City Council a recommendation to approve the amendments to Section 26.04.100,
Definitions, "Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion," as proposed
herein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend that City Council adopt the
amendments to Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or
Linked Pavilion," as proposed in the Community Development Department memorandum
dated June 8, 1999."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A — Staff Memorandum to City Council dated May 10, 1999, regarding the
Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor
Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion."
c:\home\mitchh\p&zmemos\footpmt. doc
4
r.
P&Z Resolution 99'
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 26.04.1009 DEFINITIONS, "FLOOR AREA, G. ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT OR LINKED PAVILION" OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
Resolution #99 -
. WHEREAS, City Council directed staff to pursue a simple code amendment that
would allow an FAR bonus for detached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) above a two -
car garage with a maximum building footprint of between 550 and 625 square feet, with
the final number to be determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission during its
review of the proposed amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.92, applications to amend the text of Title 26
of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning
and Zoning Commission at a public hearing: Final action shall be by City Council after
reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the recommended
revisions as outlined herein and recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing at a meeting on June 8, 1999, the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended, by a to vote, the City
Council approve the amendments to Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G.
Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion," as proposed by the Community
Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That City Council is advised to adopt amendments to. Section 26.04.100, Definitions,
"Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or. Linked Pavilion," of the Municipal Code,
making said Section read as follows:
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion. For the purpose of calculating floor
area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, the
following shall apply: The allowable floor area for an attached accessory dwelling unit
shall be excluded up to a maximum of three hundred fifty (350) square feet of allowable
floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit whichever is
less. An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum building footprint of six hundred twenty-five
(625) square feet, shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of allowable floor area up to
seven hundred (700) square feet of floor area. Any element linking the principal
structure to the accessory unit may be no more than one (1) story tall, six (6) feet wide
and ten (10) feet long.
APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on June 8, 1999.
P&Z Resolution 99-
Page 2 of 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMNUSSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Bob Blaich, Chair
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohison, Deputy Director
FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner
RE: Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area,
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion."
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUMMARY: Section 26.04.100, Definitions, of the Municipal Code defines "Floor Area,"
as it relates to an "Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion" as follows:
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion. For the purpose of calculating floor
area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, the
following shall apply: The allowable floor area for an attached accessory dwelling
unit shall be excluded up to a maximum of three hundred fifty (350) square feet of
allowable floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit
whichever is less. An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure
by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred
fifty (450) square feet, shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of allowable floor area
up to seven hundred (700) square feet of floor area. Any element linking the
principal structure to the accessory unit may be no more than one (1) story tall, six
(6) feet wide and ten (10) feet long.
This definition indicates that an ADU separated from a principal structure by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet is
entitled to an FAR bonus. Ventures West has submitted a request for interpretation arguing
that the term "footprint" refers to the ADU itself (its floor plan), and not necessarily to where
the structure in which the ADU is incorporated meets the ground (plan view). They explain
that the language of the definition, as they read it, indicates that the footprint of the ADU (not
the encompassing structure) must not exceed 450 square feet to qualify for the FAR bonus.
Ventures West purports that the word "footprint" is commonly used to describe the bottom
perimeter of an architectural unit such as a room, a floor, a pool, etc., on whatever base it .
may rest, not necessarily just the ground. They go on to explain that, "The inclusion of the
underlying structure to 450 square feet just because it is the part of the structure that meets
the ground is certainly not implied in the common use of the word footprint, nor is it a
reasonable assumption that it would be." "As we [Ventures West] read the code, all that is
clear is that the footprint of the ADU is restricted to 450 square feet (net livable) regardless
of whether it is on grade, below grade, or part of a structure above grade." (See Exhibit A.)
INTERPRETATION: Staff of the Community Development Department has routinely and
consistently administered the above -cited definition as requiring that detached structures
containing ADUs have a maximum footprint of 450 square feet to be eligible for an FAR
bonus. In doing so, the term "footprint" has been interpreted to mean "the structure as drawn
in plan view, or the conglomeration of all points of intersection between the structure and
finished grade." In other words, the term "footprint" as used in the "Floor Area" definition
has always been interpreted as a reference to the footprint of the structure in which the ADU
is incorporated, and not to the floor plan of the unit itself. (See Exhibit B.)
BACKGROUND: In designing a residence with an allowable FAR of 6,114 square feet, the
applicant assumed an "automatic" FAR bonus of 50% of the ADU's floor area, and used all
of the site's allowable FAR (plus the bonus and exempted areas such as subgrade
spaces/basement and garages). The original proposal would have located the ADU above the
detached two -car garage. When it was realized that the FAR bonus would not be "automatic"
(i.e., without the imposition of "mandatory occupancy" on the deed restriction as a sort of
quid pro quo for a bonus being included with the conditional use approval), the applicant was
left with the following options: 1) redesign the proposal to fit within the allowable FAR for
the site --- this would have required either elimination of approximately 288 square feet of
FAR from the proposed residence of nearly 10,000 gross square feet, or relocation of the
ADU to a subgrade space so that most of its area would be exempt from FAR calculations;
2) redesign the proposed detached structure to have a footprint of 450 square feet or less; 3)
apply for a code amendment to change the 450 square foot footprint provision to allow a
larger footprint; or, 4) seek a code interpretation of the term "footprint," and if necessary,
appeal the interpretation to Council.
The applicant chose to relocate the proposed ADU to a subgrade space in order to avoid
having all of its gross square footage count toward the site's total allowable FAR. Staff still
found the proposal to meet the review criteria for an ADU as a Conditional Use, and
recommended approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission feels
that, although not precluded by the Land Use Code, subgrade ADUs are not consistent with
the direction and recommendations of the AACP . Accordingly, rather than approve the
subgrade ADU, the Commission felt it would be better for the ADU to be located in the
unused, vaulted space above the detached two -car garage. Consequently, the Planning and
Zoning Commission encouraged the applicant to appeal the Community Development
Director's Code Interpretation to Council, thinking that the interpretation somehow precluded
or discouraged location of the ADU above -grade.
DISCUSSION: In interpreting the code language, staff struggled with the following
questions. Why would the maximum "footprint" (floor plan) of the ADU itself be limited to
450 square feet when a 700 square foot unit is permissible? Or, how can a bonus of up to
350 square feet of floor area be possible if the unit's maximum footprint is 450 square feet?
Answer: if the applicant's interpretation is correct, the 350 square foot bonus and/or a 700
square foot unit would only be possible for two-story ADUs. Is the City simply attempting to
encourage two-story ADUs? Staff thinks not. Similarly, is the City discouraging detached
ADUs above two -car garages in order to, instead, encourage the development of these units
only above one -car garages or on grade? Again, staff thinks not.
Based on the ADU-related information found throughout the City Code and on staff
understanding of the ADU program's purpose, staff concludes that the 450 square foot
footprint provision must relate to where the ADU-containing structure meets the ground, and
not to the perimeter of the unit's floor plan. For instance, the criterion for the Planning and
Zoning Commission to grant the FAR bonus/variation for a detached ADU is a finding that
"such variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence ... " Such a
criterion (one related to compatibility in character to the primary residence) would be
arbitrary and capricious in relation to the floor plan of a unit within a larger building. That is,
under the applicant's interpretation, such a criterion would seek to answer the question of, "Is
this room or unit within the detached building compatible with the character of the primary
residence?" Further, the variance criterion would be unrelated to the issue of detached
accessory dwelling units being in harmony with the letter and spirit of the City definition for
2
"Accessory Iuse or accessory structure," which includes such phrases as: "incidental to;'
"subordinate to;" and, "is subordinate in area, extent, and purpose ..."
CONCLUSION: While staff is comfortable basing its conclusion on the foregoing lines of
reason, it may be added that the term "footprint" is commonly used in architectural circles to
refer to a structure as drawn in plan view, or the conglomeration of all points of intersection
between the structure and finished grade. This interpretation has been consistently applied in
the past. In fact, in recent discussions with various architects, none disagreed with this
interpretation and none believed the term applied to individual rooms, floors, etc. All
architects staff has conferred with generally understand the term "footprint" to refer to where
a structure meets the ground.
With regard to the Planning and Zoning Commission's feeling that staff s interpretation
somehow precluded or discouraged location of the ADU above -grade, staff can only respond
by pointing out that relocation of the ADU to a subgrade space was required only because the
applicant was not willing to either eliminate 288 square feet of FAR from the principal
residence, or make the garage smaller. On the other hand, staff agrees with the applicant
insomuch as it is nearly impossible to provide a functional two -car garage with a footprint of
under 450 square feet. Thus, while staff stands by its interpretation, staff also feels it might
be worthwhile to pursue a simple code amendment that would allow for the "automatic" FAR
bonus applying to detached ADUs above a two -car garage with a maximum footprint of five -
hundred fifty (550) square feet if Council should be so inclined. A maximum footprint of
550 square feet (22' x 25') would accommodate a reasonable two -car garage while still
ensuring that the detached structure is "incidental to," "subordinate. to," and "subordinate in
area, extent, and purpose" to the primary structure/residence.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council uphold the Community
Development Director's interpretation of Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G.
Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion" finding that the term "footprint" as used in the
subject definition refers to a structure as drawn in plan view, or the conglomeration of all
points of intersection between the structure and finished grade.
In addition, it is recommended that Council direct staff to pursue a simple code amendment
that would allow an FAR bonus for detached ADUs above a two -car garage with a maximum
footprint of five -hundred fifty (550) square feet.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to uphold the Community Development Director's
March 24, 1999, Code Interpretation regarding the definition of "Floor Area, G. Accessory
Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion," as provided in Section 26.04.100 of the Aspen Municipal
Code."
"I also move to direct staff to pursue a simple code amendment that would allow an FAR
bonus for detached ADUs above a two -car garage with a maximum footprint of five -hundred
fifty (550) square feet."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A --- Request for Interpretation
Exhibit B --- Director's Interpretation
Exhibit C --- Request for Appeal of Interpretation
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Community Development Department
LOCATION:
ACTION: Code Amendment NEV,, 24� . Cr*. 16C0
Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is inrnflict with any
applicable portions of this title.
kD B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the propos d amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent
to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of
such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
C9U44-a�
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Community Development Department
LOCATION:
ACTION: Code Amendment / �pG�
Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent
to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of
such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Community Development Department
LOCATION:
ACTION: Code Amendment / M I r%, o ie- ? v 24, , 4-55. 01 D e+
Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent
to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of
such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
T, W
.TL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Code Amendments — Public earing
Lodge Preservation
DATE: June 8, 1999
Staff requests this item be tabled to July 20, 1999. Attached please find a summary of
the April 19, 1999, joint work session between the City Council and the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Staff is delaying this public hearing to conduct a study of employee generation rates
typically associated with small lodges and to determine base and yearly growth
management allotments for LP Lodges.
1
LODGE PRESERVATION
4.19.99
Following is a summary of the April 19, 1999, joint work session between the City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Affordable Housing:
The Boards directed staff to not amend the affordable housing provisions of the LP Zone
District. The existing code allows affordable housing for employees of the lodge as a
permitted use and for the general public as a conditional use. Also, lodges wanting to
convert to affordable housing would still be required to seek a change -in -use approval.
Growth Management "Credit:"
The two Boards agreed there should be a mitigation "credit" be provided for lodge use
but not be extended to change -in -use applications. In other words, an LP lodge wanting
to redevelop as a lodge would be required to mitigate only the net increase in impacts.
(i.e. a 15 unit lodge replaced with a 20 unit lodge would be required to mitigate for only 5
units . )
This is different from all other applications of Growth Management in town and
represents an incentive for lodge owners wanting to make significant improvements to
their lodge. All other commercial and lodge development is town must mitigate for the
entire development (as if it didn't exist before) in order to replace after demolition.
The two Boards also said, however, that this "credit" should not be applied to change -in -
use applications when demolition is involved. Lodge owners wanting to demolish their
lodge a construct commercial, office, or residential uses will be required to provide
mitigation for that use with no credit given for the previous use.
Minor PUD:
The two Boards decided the Minor PUD provision should proceed. This provision will
allow specific zoning provisions to be established by City Council on LP properties. In
other words, an individual LP lodge owner could argue that a certain setback, parking
scenario, or additional FAR is more desirable than provided in the strict zoning. This is
important considering many of the older lodges were constructed before zoning (and are
non -conforming) and this flexibility is an incentive to maintain and improve an older
lodge.
Tax Incentives:
The City Finance Director and the City Attorney have instructed staff and City Council to
not seek a special taxing district for small lodges. This type of provision would be easily
considered biased and discriminatory. Also, City Council expressed no interest in
creating any sort of bed tax for lodge properties.
Inclusion of other Small Lodges:
The Boards agreed that invitations to join the LP Zone District should be extended to
other small lodges that do not already exist in a Lodge District. Lodges that were
mentioned include: Ullr Lodge, Deep Powder, Chalet Lisl, Holland House, Mountain
Chalet, the Tyrolean, and the Snow Eagle.
"Lodge" Definition:
The current definition of a lodge reads as follows:
Lodge means a building within the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district or a building
presently zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) containing three (3) or more individual rooms for
the purpose or providing lodging facilities on a short or long-term basis, for compensation,
with or without meals, and which has common facilities for reservation and cleaning services
and on -site management and reception. A lodge may include kitchens within individual rental
units.
The two Boards considered the long-term lease provision of this definition and concluded
that type of occupancy resembled residential occupancy. The conclusion was to
eliminate "or long-term" from the definition and redefine short term as occupancy periods
of one month or less.
Condominiumization:
City Council expressed some concerns about his type of ownership and the affects it may
have on the short-term lodging base. Staff and the City Attorney suggested making this
type of ownership a conditional use to ensure some review of the affects the type of
ownership may have on the use.
Growth Management Allotment Pool:
Staff suggested and the two Boards agreed that small lodges should have a separate
growth management allotment pool than the general lodging pool available to all lodges
in town. This is similar to the original LP Program which was specifically crafted so that
smaller, less -affluent lodges could seek development approvals without having to
compete against larger, more -affluent corporate projects.
The two Boards agreed the annual allotment pool should be consistent from year to year
and not rely on the previous calculation by the Community Development Director.
Lottery:
The original LP Program granted allotments through a yearly lottery system. In this
lottery, applicants were drawn randomly for allotments prior to development approvals
were accepted or considered. During the three-year period there was never a competitive
lottery.
The two Boards decided to discontinue the lottery process and allow the growth
management exemptions to occur on a first come -first served
Trial Period:
The original Program was initiated for a three year period. The Boards recommended
staff proceed with a code amendment revising the Program as a permanent modification
to the land use code, proceeding indefinitely.
2
Z�YMvq lnfwo�IL�
Alpine Lodge
1240 E Cooper Ave
employee
11
eco
Barvarian Inn
811 W Bleeker
employee
15
eco
Buckhorn Lodge
730 E Cooper Ave
lodge
9
eco
Chalet Lisl
100 E Hyman Ave
owner/op
9
eco
Copper Horse
330 W Main Street
employee
14
eco
Cortina
220 E Main Street
employee
16
eco
Deep Powder Lodge
410 S Aspen St
owner/cp
9
eco
Holland House
720 S Aspen St
owner/op
20
eco
Hotel Aspen
110 W Main St
condo lodge
45
eco
Little Red Ski Haus
118 E Cooper Ave
owner/op -
20
eco
Marccn Creek Lodge
1489 Maroon Creek Rd l
base area level
11
eco
Snow Queer Lodge
124 E Cooper St
owner/cp
7 i
eco
St. Moritz Ledge
334 W Hyman Ave
lodge
29
eco
T-Lazy-Seven Ranch
3129 Maroon Creek Rd
guest ranch
19
eco
Tyrolean Lodge
200 W Nlain St
owner/op
16
eco
Aspen Club Lodge
709 E Durant Ave
lodge
100
exp
Asper, Meadows
845 Meadows Rd
hotel
98
exp
Brand Hotel
205 S Galena
lodge
6
exp
Fireside Lodge 1130
W Copper Ave
townhomes
20
exp
Hearthstone House
134 E Hyman
lodge
17
exp
Hotel Jerome
330 E Main Street
hotel
931exp
Hotel Lenado
200 S Aspen St Ilodge
19
exp
Little Nell
675 E Durant Ave
hotel
92
exp
Northstar
914 Waters Ave
employee
23
exp
Red Roof Inn
39551 Highway 82
employee
50
exp
Sardy House 1128
E Ma:n St
lodge
20
exp
St. Reds 1315
E Desn St
hotel
257
1 exp
The Res;cence
305 S Galena
lodge
7
exp
Aspen Country Inn
38996 Highway 82
employee
84
mod
Aspen Manor
411 S Monarch St
abandoned
21
mod
Aspen Mountain Lodge
311 VV (Main St
condo lodge
38
mod
Aspen Square
617 E Cooper
lodge
104
mod
Beaumont Inn
1301 E Cooper Ave
owner/op
30
mod
Bell Mountain Lodge
720 E Cooper Ave
vacant land
22
mod
Boomerang Lodge
500 W Hopkins Ave
owner/op
36
mod
Brass Bed Inn
920 E Durant Ave
townhomes
29
mod
Christiania Lodge
501 W Main St
lodge
22
mod
Christmas Inn
232 W Main St
owner'oo
26
mod
Grand Aspen
515 S Galena
hotel
112
mod
Heatherbed Lodge
1679 Maroon Creek Rd
employee
40
mod
Independence Square
1404 S Galena
condolodge
28
mod
Inn At Aspen
138750 Highway 82
hotel
112
mod
Innsbruck Inn
233 W Main St
owner/ep
31
mod
Inverness Lodge
122 E Durant
owner/op
21
mod
L Auberge d Aspen
1435 W Main St
owner/op
16
mod
Lift One Condos
1131 E Durant
condo Icdge
30
mod
Limelite Lodge
1228E Cooper,
Ilodge
63
mod
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W Main Si
Icondcicdge
50
mod
Mountain Chalet
333 E Durant St
owner/op
51'
mod
1,7N
L—.r Ltl�a
Mountain House Lodge
Prospector
Shadow Mountain Lodge
905 E Hopkins
301 E Hyman
232 W Hyman Ave
owner/op
condo lodge
timeshare
24
1 mod
23
mod
10
mod
Skiers Chalet
Snowflake Inn
Tipple Inn
233 Gilbert
221 E Hyman Ave
516 E Dean St
lodge
lodge
condo
18
mod
38
mod
12
mod
Tipple Lodge
530 S Galena
condo
8
mod
Ullr Lodge
Alpina House
Aspen Siverglo
Avalanche Ranch
520 W Main St
935 E Durant Ave
940 Waters Ave
12863 Highway 133
owner/op
employee
23
mod
40
24
BRB Campground
7202 Highway 133
Carriage House
Crystal Valley Manor
320 W Main St
215 Redstone Blvd
employee
10
Diamond J Ranch
26604 Frying Pan Rd
Fasching Haus East
747 S Galena
Filoha Meadows
14628 Highway 133
Frying Pan Ranch
32042 Frying Pan Rd
Limelite Lodge
Maroon Creek Club
Redstone Castle
228 E Cooper Ave
10 Club Cr
58 Redstone Blvd
lodge
Lodge
Redstone Cliffs Lodge
433 Redstone Blvd
lodge
13
Redstone Inn
82 Redstone Blvd
35
Shelley Burke
2262 Snowmass Creek Rd
Snowmass Cottages
26801 Highway 82
The Pines Lodge
411 S. Aspen St
employee
6
� c)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM:
Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE:
Code Amendments — Public Hearing
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
DATE:
June 8, 1999
SUMMARY:
Staff has held several work sessions concerning revisions to the Lodge Preservation
Program. At the most recent work session, the concept of creating a "Minor PUD"
process originated and was accepted as a concept for staff to pursue.
Please find attached the current PUD provisions (Exhibit A) of the land use code and
a proposed re -write of these requirements (Exhibit B). Evident is the extent to which
these new PUD provisions differ from the existing code. Staff has attempted to retain
many of the regulatory restrictions while creating additional flexibility and more
directed criteria under which to review projects.
Staff realizes these are fairly substantive amendments to an important section of
the land use code but does want to make considerable progress in review of these
with the Commission. Staff recommends the Commission consider public
testimony, provide staff with direction, and continue the public hearing to July.
20, 1999.
MAIN ISSUES:
Following are topics for discussion posed as questions for the Commission to
consider:
Substantive Changes from existing PUD: Should the PUD be amended to allow all
dimensions to be determined through this review?
Criteria: Staff has proposed many different criteria, are these appropriate? Do they
pursue the tangible aspects of development of concern to the community?
Land Uses: Should there be the ability to vary uses through this process? Should the
SPA provisions be phased out?
Applicability: Should the provisions of the minor PUD apply to all small properties
in town, just those in the original Townsite, or to only LP properties?
APPLICANT:
Community Development Department.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this code amendment.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Code Amendment. The Commission shall recommend approval, approval with
conditions, or denial to the City Council during a public hearing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I recommend staff amend the proposed PUD provisions in the following manner ...
and move to continue the public hearing to July 20, 1999."
ALTERNATIVE MOTION:
"I move to recommend City Council adopt these Planned Unit Development
provisions as presented by staff in the Community Development Department memo
dated June 8, 1999."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Existing PUD provisions
Exhibit B -- Proposed PUD provisions
2
Part 400 — Development Review Standards and Procedures
Chapter 26.445
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Sections:
26.445.010 Purpose.
26.445.020 Applicability.
26.445.030 Procedures for Review.
26-445.040 Review Standards.
26.445.050 Application.
26.445.060 PUD agreement.
26.445.070 Notice of PUD designation.
26.445.080 Placement of PUD designation on official zone district map.
26.445.090 Recordation.
26.445.100 Amendment of PUD development order.
26.445.110 Enforcement of PUD development order.
26.445.010 Purpose.
The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) .designation is to encourage flexibility and
innovation in the development of land which:
A. Promotes greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings.
B. Improves the design, character and quality of development.
C. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental
services.
D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent practicable.
E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses.
F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and layout of development
encourages the preservation of natural and scenic features.
26.445.020 Applicability.
Before any development shall occur on land designated Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the
official zone district map or before development can occur as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), it shall
receive PUD approval pursuant to the terms of this Chapter, provided that in no event shall compliance
with this Chapter be required for the construction of a single detached or duplex residential dwelling on a
separate lot. All land with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation shall also be designated with an
underlying zone district designation which is determined most appropriate for that land. A development
application for a Planned Unit Development may be applied for by the property owners of any proposed
development in the City of Aspen that is on a parcel of land greater than twenty-seven thousand (27,000)
square feet. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation may be applied to land intended for
residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes.
26.445.030 Procedures for Review.
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures I
A. General. Any development within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall
be reviewed pursuant to the procedures and standards in this Chapter and the
Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304.
Unless the Community Development Director determines that the application
should consolidate conceptual and final review in accordance with subsection
B below, the procedure requires review and approval of a conceptual
development plan and final development plan by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council. A development application for Planned Unit
Development (PUD) designation shall be received and considered
concurrently with a development application for a conceptual development
plan.
B. Consolidated review.
1. Conceptual and final development plan. An applicant may request and the
Community Development Director may determine that because of the
limited extent of the issues involved in a proposed Planned Unit
Development in relation to these review procedures and standards, or
because of a significant community interest which the project would serve,
it is appropriate to consolidate conceptual and final development plan
review. The Community Development Director shall consider whether the
full four step review would be redundant and serve no public purpose and
inform the applicant during the pre -application stage whether consolidation
will be permitted. An application which is determined to be eligible for
consolidation shall be processed pursuant to the terms and procedures of
final development plan review. The Planning and Zoning Commission or
the City Council may, during review, determine that the application
should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in which case
consolidated review shall not occur.
2. _Other development review applications. An applicant may request
and the Community Development Director may determine that an
application for development within a Planned Unit Development may
be consolidated at the third step with a development application for
conditional use, special review, ESA review, subdivision review, text
amendment, rezoning, and/or for certain GMQS exemptions. However,
if the applicant requests consideration of code text amendment or
rezoning, these applications may be considered at the conceptual steps,
subject to final review at steps three and four.
C . Steps Required: Unless consolidated in accordance with subsection B above,
there are four steps required for the review of an application for development
within a Planned Unit Development:
1. Step One - Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
M
Part 400 — Develo menf Review Standards and Procedures
a. Purpose: To determine if application meets standards for PUD.
b. Notice requirements: None.
C. Standards of review: Section 26.445.040.
d. P&Z action: Resolution approving, approving with conditions, or
disapproving conceptual development plan for PUD.
2. Step Two - Public Hearing before City Council.
a. Purpose: To review recommendations of Planning and Zoning
Commission and to determine if the application meets the standards for
conceptual review of an PUD.
b. Notice requirements: Requisite notice requirements for adoption of a
resolution by City Council and publication, posting and mailing. (See
26.304.060(E)(3)(a),(b), and (c).)
C. Standards of review: Section 26.445.040.
d. City Council action: Resolution approving, approving with
conditions, or disapproving conceptual plan for PUD.
3. Step Three - Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
a. Purpose: To review application for final development plan to
determine if it meets the standards for an PUD.
b. Notice requirements: Publication, posting and mailing. (See
26.304.060(E)(3)(a),(b), and (c).)
C. Standards of review: Section 26.445.040.
d. P&Z action: Resolution recommending to the City Council approval,
approval with conditions, or disapproval of the PUD.
4. Step Four - Public Hearing before the City Council.
a. Purpose: To review recommendations by Planning and Zoning
Commission and to determine if application for final development plan
meets the standards for an PUD.
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures I
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal
and road maintenance to the proposed development;
C. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of its
slope, ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and
avalanche dangers;
d. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water
pollution;
e. The proposed development will have a deleterious effect on air quality
in the surrounding area and the City; or
f. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. .
2. Reduction in density for slope consideration.
a. In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance
soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density
of a PUD shall also be reduced in areas with slopes in excess of twenty
(20) percent in the following manner:
(1) For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the
maximum density allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying
zone district;
(2) For lands greater than twenty (20) but less than thirty (30) percent
slope, the maximum density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50)
percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district;
(3) For lands greater than thirty (30) but less than forty (40) percent
slope, the density shall be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that
allowed in the underlying zone district; and
(4) For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit
shall be allowed.
b. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is
proposed shall be calculated by each slope classification, and then by
dividing the square footage necessary in the underlying zone district per
dwelling unit.
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures
i
C. For parcels resting in more than one (1) underlying zone district, the
density reduction calculation shall be performed separately on the lands
within each zone district.
C . Land uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone
district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero
lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall only
be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district.
D . Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of
the underlying zone district; provided, that variations may be permitted in the
following:
1. Minimum distance between buildings;
2. Maximum height (including viewplanes);
3. Minimum front yard;
4. Minimum rear yard;
5. Minimum side yard;
6. Minimum lot width;
7. Minimum lot area;
8. Trash access area;
9. Internal floor area ratio; and
10. Minimum percent open space.
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be
greater or less than the minimum requirement of the underlying zone
district, provided the total .area of all lots, when averaged, at least equals
the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted shall
be clearly indicated on the final development plan.
E. Off-street parking_ The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied
from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following
considerations.
1. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development.
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures
2. The parking needs .of any nonresidential uses.
3 • The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common on parking is
4 • The availability of public transit and other transportation
facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment
to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
5 • The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial
public recreational facilities in the City. core or
Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the Cit
obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not chap ge. y shall
F. Open space. The open space requirement shall be that of the un
district. However, a variation in minimum opens ace may derlr m zone
such variation would not be detrimental to the character . be permitted if
of Planned Unit Development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall
the proposed
include open space for the mutual benefit of all development
Planned Unit Development (PUD) through a cifrecit:ommon ark the proposed
area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area ion
f t.
1 • Is to be used and is 'suitable for in scenic, landsca
purposes; and P g, or recreation
2 • Is land which is accessible and available to all dwellingunits
whom the common area is intended. or lots for
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation
areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the Planned Unit Development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial
development.
Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instru
which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spacesrecrea ent
areas, and communally owned facilities. tlon
G. Landscape plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development
plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental
species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate, plant
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures
H. Architectural site plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
development p building
consistency in the proposed development, architectural character,
, is not the
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City be so rigidly
g�
of this review that control of architectural characterbe
a articular
purpose
enforced that individual initiative is stifled m the design itectural character
building, or substantial additional expense is required. � purposes, upon the
is based upon the suitability of a building for
nciles of harmony ands u
appropriate use of materials, and upon the pri p
ses
proportion
of the buildings with each other and surrounding land u and
Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain
drama e
Bu g vegetation, as well as enhance g
maximize the preservation of existing g
and reduce soil erosion.
All li hting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
I • Lighting. g .
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands
J. Clustering. . Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
` ` °es. The proposed development shall be designed so that
K. Public facalatl ro ose
adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the vP 11 ono
adeq be
at the time development is constructed, and that there buildings
development,
net ublic cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further,
emergency
P
shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible
vehicles .
L.
1.
2
Tra is and pedestrian circulation.
or other land use permitted in the Planned Unit
Every dwelling unit,
PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or
DevelopmentC pedestrian way, or other area
through an approved private road, a
dedicated to public or private use.
Principal veh
icular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic
flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular
lo
o pe
destrian edestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit De sopas to
PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development
encourage their use by through traffic.
3. The prop
0 osed development shall be designed so that it will not create
traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads su round ngothe
ads
proposed development, or such surrounding collector
shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected.
Part 400 — Development Review Standards and Procedures
4. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an
access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street.
5. All nonresidential land uses within the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating
traffic hazards or congestion on any street.
6. Streets in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be dedicated to
public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated
improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and
ordinances.
The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the
development application, and its conformity to the standards and
procedures of this Chapter and this title.
26.445.050. Application.
A. Conceptual development plan.
1. Contents of application. The contents of a development application for a
conceptual development plan shall include the following.
a. The general application information required in Common Development
Review Procedures, Section 26.304.030;
b. A conceptual description of the proposed Planned Unit Development
(PUD) . This shall include but not be limited to a statement of the
objectives to be achieved by the Planned Unit Development and a
conceptual description, of proposed land uses, building heights and
locations, landscaping, open space, natural features, and accessways;
C. A statement conceptually outlining how the proposed PUD development
will be served with the appropriate public facilities, and how assurance
will be made that those public facilities are available to serve the
proposed development; and
d. A conceptual site plan, illustrating:
(1) Existing natural and manmade features.
(2) General configuration of proposed land uses, access ways, and
existing and proposed utilities.
Part 400 — Development Review Standards and Procedures 26 40-45 6— Q1'0
(3) A general landscaping plan and elevations or other architectural
renderings of the proposed improvements, which at a conceptual
level, depict general site design features, building mass and height,
and relation to natural features of the site.
B . Final development plan.
1. Contents of application. The contents of the development application for a
final development plan shall include the following:
a. The general application information required in Common Development
Review Procedures, Section 26.304.030.
b. A detailed plan of the proposed development which includes but is not
limited to proposed land uses, densities, natural features, internal traffic
circulation plans, and off-street parking and open space areas. The plan
shall be of sufficient detail to enable evaluation of the design features
and natural features of the proposed development. It shall show the
location and floor area of all existing and proposed buildings and other
improvements including their 'height, dwelling unit types and all
nonresidential facilities.
C. A statement specifying how the development complies with the
dimensional and off-street parking requirements of the underlying zone
district on the parcel proposed for development, and a specific listing of
any variations requested from these requirements.
d. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to
accommodate the proposed development, and what specific assurances
will be made to ensure the public facilities will be available to
accommodate the proposed development.
e. A statement outlining a development schedule specifying the date
construction is proposed to be initiated and completed, any proposed
public facilities the developer is proposing to construct, and the phasing
and construction of the proposed public facilities.
f. A statement of the reasonable conformance of the final development
plan with the approval granted to the conceptual development plan.
g. An architectural sketch indicating floor plans and all exterior elevations
of any buildings or other structures proposed for development.
h. A landscape plan indicating the treatment of exterior spaces in the
proposed development. The landscape plan should show:
Part 400 — Development Review Standards and Procedures
(1) The extent and location of all plant materials and other landscape
features;
(2) Flower and shrub bed definition;
(3) Proposed plant material at mature sizes and in appropriate relation to
scale;
(4) Species and size of existing plant material;
(5) Proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, and
gravel);
(6) Location of water outlets; and
(7) A plant material schedule with common and botanical names, sizes,
quantities and method of transplant.
i. A topographic map prepared by a registered land surveyor, registered
landscape architect or registered engineer identifying the areas on the
parcel proposed for development where slopes are:
(1) Between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent;
(2) Between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) percent;
(3) Between thirty-one (31) and forty (40) percent;
(4) In excess of forty (40) percent.
j . An open space plan, and if applicable, a legal instrument or instruments
setting forth a plan providing for the permanent care and maintenance
of open spaces, recreational areas and communally -owned facilities and
private streets. If the common open space is proposed to be deeded to a
homeowners association, the proposed documents governing the
association shall also be submitted. Such documents shall meet the
following requirements: (a) The homeowners' association must be
established before any residences are sold (b) membership in the
association must be mandatory for each residence owner (c) open space
restrictions must be permanent and not for a period of years (d) the
homeowners' association must be made responsible for liability
insurance, taxes and maintenance of recreational and other facilities (e)
the association must have the power to levy assessments which can
become a lien on individual premises for the purpose of paying the cost
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures
of operating and maintaining common facilities (f) the governing board
of any such association shall consist of at least five (5) members who
shall be owners of property in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) .
k. A plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section
26.480.060(A)(3).
1. A proposed PUD agreement which conforms to Section 26.445.060
below.
26.445.060 PUD agreement.
A. General. Upon approval of a final development plan for the Planned Unit
Development (PUD), the applicant and City Council shall enter into a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement binding the PUD to any
conditions placed on the development order.
B . Common park and recreation areas. The PUD agreement shall outline any
agreement on the part of the applicant, to deed to each lot or dwelling unit
owner within the Planned Unit Development (PUD), an undivided interest in
all common park and recreations areas, together with a deed restriction
against future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
C . Landscape guarantee. In order to ensure implementation and maintenance of
the landscape plan, the City Council may require the applicant to provide a
guarantee for no less than one hundred twenty-five (125) percent of the
current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements in the approved
landscape plan, as estimated by the City engineer, to ensure the installation of
all landscaping shown and the continued maintenance and replacement of the
landscaping for a period of two (2) years after installation. The guarantee
shall be in the form of a cash escrow with the City, or a bank or savings and
loan association, or an irrevocable sight draft or letter of commitment from a
financially responsible lender and shall give the City the unconditional right
upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements or
pay any outstanding bills, or to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or
fully complete or pay for any improvements or pay for any improvement or
pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party.
As portions of the landscaping improvements are completed, the City
engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall
authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the
improvements, except that ten (10) percent which shall be withheld until all
proposed improvements are completed and approved, and an additional
twenty-five (25) percent, which shall be retained until the improvements have
been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years.
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures 26Ag4g
D . Public facilities guarantee. In order to ensure installation of necessary public
facilities planned to accommodate the development, the City Council shall
require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred
(100) percent of the current estimated ,cost of such public improvements, as
estimated by the City. Engineer. The guarantee shall be in the form specified
in Section 26.445.060(C) above, and may be drawn upon by the City as
therein specified. As portions of the public facilities improvements are
completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and
acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that
portion of the improvements, except that ten (10) percent which shall be
withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved.
26.445.070 Notice of PUD designation.
Subsequent to receipt of a development order for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the
applicant shall file in the Clerk and Recorder's office of Pitkin County, Colorado, the following notice:
Notice of PUD Designation
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that on the day of ,
the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, approved development on the
following described tract as a Planned Unit Development pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 26.445 of the Aspen Municipal Code. No
development shall occur on the tract except in accordance with such
development order and under any conditions that may be imposed
thereby. The above referred to land is located within the City of Aspen,
Pitkin County, Colorado, and is more fully described as follows:
(Insert Legal Description)
A copy of the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is of
record in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
City Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO
) SS:
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
by , City Clerk.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
26.445.080 Placement of PUD designation on official zone district map.
After final approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the Community Development
Director shall amend the City's official zone district map to .show a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
designation.
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures 16
26.445.090 Recordation.
The final development plan, which shall consist, as applicable, of final drawings depicting the site
plan, landscape plan, utility plan and building elevations, and Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement
shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall be binding upon the
property owners subject to the development order, their successors and assigns, and shall constitute the
development regulations for the property. Development of the property shall be limited to the uses, density,
configuration, and all other elements and conditions set forth on the final development plan and PUD
agreement. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the final development plan and PUD agreement
within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following its approval by City Council shall render the
plan invalid. Reconsideration of the final development plan and PUD agreement by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council may be required before its acceptance and recording.
26.445.100 Amendment of PUD development order.
A. PUD Insubstantial Amendments. An insubstantial amendment to an
approved development order for a final development plan may be authorized
by the Community Development Director. The following shall not be
considered an insubstantial amendment:
l . A change in the use or character of the development.
2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of
structures on the land.
3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the
proposed development, or the demand for public facilities.
4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space.
5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and
loading space.
6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and
easements.
7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable
floor area of commercial buildings.
8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential
density of the development.
9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the
project's original approval or which requires granting a further variation
from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements.
B . Other amendment. Any other amendment shall be approved pursuant to the
terms and procedures of the final development plan; provided, that the
proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures 16T4456 01Q I
development plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved
final development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual
and final development plan review and approval.
During the review of the proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council may require such conditions of approval as are
necessary to insure that the development will be compatible with current
community conditions. This shall include, but not be limited to, applying to
the portions of the development which have not obtained building permits or
are proposed to be amended any new community polices or regulations which
have been implemented since the original approval, or taking into
consideration changing community circumstances as they affect the project's
original representations and commitments.
The applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the
review process.
C .. Absence of approved final development plan. In the absence of an approved
final development plan for a site designated Planned Unit Development
(PUD), an accurate improvements survey of existing conditions may be
substituted to permit evaluation of whether the proposal is an insubstantial or
other amendment.
26.445.110 Enforcement of PUD development order.
A. City. The provisions of a development order approving a final development
plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) relating to the use of land and
the location of common open space shall run in favor of the City, and shall
be enforceable at law or in equity by the City, without limitation on any
power or regulation otherwise granted by law.
B . Residents. All provisions of the development order approving a final
development plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall also run in
favor of the residents, occupants, and owners of the Planned Unit
Development (PUD), but only to the extent expressly provided in the
development order and in accordance with the terms of the final development
plan. To that extent, said provisions, whether recorded by plat, covenant,
easement or otherwise, may be enforced at law or in equity by residents,.
occupants, or owners acting individually, jointly, or through an organization
designated in the development order to act on their behalf. However, no
provisions of the development order shall be implied to exist in favor of
residents, occupants, and owners except those provisions of the development
order which have received approval.
C . Release by City. All those provisions of the development order approving a
final development plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) authorized to
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures I
be enforced by the City, may be modified, removed or released by the City
subject to the following:
1. No modification, removal or release of the provisions shall affect the
rights of the residents, occupants, and owners of the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to maintain and enforce these provisions at law or
equity as provided in Section 26.445.110(B).
2. No modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the development
order by the City shall be permitted except upon compliance with the
requirements of Section 26.445.100.
D. Release by residents. Residents and owners of the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) may, to the extent and in the manner expressly authorized by the
provisions of the development order, modify, remove or release their rights
to enforce the provisions of the development order, but no such action shall
affect the right of the City to enforce the development order.
E. Enforcement of open space and common area conditions. In the event the
organization established to own and maintain common open spaces,
recreation areas, communally -owned facilities and private streets, or any
successor organization shall at any time fail to maintain the common facilities
in reasonable order and condition in accordance with the approved open
space plan in the final development plan, the City Council may cause written
notice to be served upon such organization or upon the owners of property in
the development setting forth the manner in which the common facilities have
failed to be maintained in reasonable condition, which notice shall include the
demand that the deficiencies noted be cured within thirty (30) days. If the
deficiencies noted are not cured within thirty (300 days, an additional notice
shall be sent setting forth a date and place. of a hearing to be held within
fourteen (14) days of notice.
At the time of hearing, the City Council may modify the terms of the original
notice as to deficiencies and may extend the time within which the same may
be cured. If the deficiencies set forth in the original notice or modifications
are not cured within the time set, the City Council, in order to preserve the
taxable values of properties within the development and to prevent the
common facilities from becoming a public nuisance, may enter upon such
common facilities and maintain the same for a period of one year. Such entry
and maintenance shall not vest in the public any right to use the common
facilities not dedicated to public use.
Before expiration of the one-year period, the City Council shall, upon its own
initiative or upon the written request of the organization responsible for
maintenance, call a public hearing and give notice of such hearing to the
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures
organization responsible for maintenance or the property owners of the
Planned Unit Development (PUD). At such hearing, the organization
responsible for maintenance and/or the residents of the development may
show cause why maintenance by the City of Aspen should not be continued
for the succeeding year. If the City Council determines that it is not
necessary for_the City to continue such maintenance, the City shall cease such
maintenance at the time established by the City Council. Otherwise, the City
shall continue maintenance for the next succeeding year, subject to a similar
hearing and determination at the end of each year thereafter. The* cost of
maintenance by the City shall be a lien against the common facilities of the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the private properties within the
development.
The City Council shall have the right to make assessments against properties
in the development on the same basis that the organization responsible for
maintenance of the facilities could make such assessments. Any unpaid
assessment shall be a lien against the property responsible for the same,
enforceable the same as a mortgage against such property. The City may
further foreclose its lien on the common facility by certifying the same to the
county treasurer for collection as in the case of collection of general property
taxes.
Aspen Area Community Plan Update
Public Outreach Summary Report
June 4,1999
Open Houses and Community Outreach
In total, five public open houses were held in conjunction with this project. The first was
the Kick -Off Meeting in March of 1998. Other public meetings were held in October and
December of 1998, and in January, February and March of 1999. Participation at these
meetings was very high, sometimes drawing over 130 citizens. In addition, all Focus
Area Committee meetings were open to the public. All meetings were advertised in at
least two local newspapers and press releases were submitted to local radio and TV
stations. In addition, the meetings in March, October and December were video taped and
shown on Grass Roots TV.
Special efforts were made to reach out to existing community groups to make sure they
were aware of the AACP Update and the direction the process was going. Staff and
consultants made themselves available to any interested community group and met with
the following groups between January and March of 1999.
Community Outreach Presentations:
♦ Aspen Chamber Resort Association Board, January 26, 9:30 AM
♦ Housing Authority Board, February 3, 5:00 PM
♦ County Planning and Zoning Commission, February 16, 5:30 PM
♦ City Planning and Zoning Commission, February 23, 5:30 PM
♦ Aspen Chamber Resort Association general Membership: March 10, noon
♦ Rotary Club: March 11, 7:30 AM
♦ Aspen Realtors Board: March 17, noon
♦ Aspen Chamber Resort Association Board, June 16, noon
A web page was developed by Focus Area participant Nick DeWolf and was widely
publicized. The web site offers copies of the recommendations from each of the Focus
Area Committees and an opportunity for citizens to submit their own statements about
the "Character of Aspen". In addition, the web page shows the latest draft of the Plan
Update, enabling people to review the document and comment from the comfort of their
own homes. The draft also is available for review at the Pitkin County Library and in the
Community Development office.
Focus Area Committees
The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) Update was initiated in the spring of 1998. At
a kick-off community meeting in March of that year, citizens formed committees
matching the original plan sections, with a few variations. At the recommendation of
citizens, a committee to discuss Arts, Culture and Education was added and the
"Commercial/Retail/Office and Lodging" section was expanded to address the broader
topic of "Economic Sustainability".
The Focus Area Sections for the Plan Update included:
• Community Character
• Growth
• Transportation
• Affordable Housing
• Economic Sustainability (formerly Commercial, Retail, Office and Lodging)
• Parks, Open Space, and the Environment
• Historic Preservation and Design Quality
• Art, Culture & Education Action Plan (new section)
The committees meet for several months and over 135 people participated in the various
committees at different times. In December of 1998, the committees submitted their final
recommendations to the Oversight Committee and disbanded. The Focus Area
Committees each recommended one of their members to meet with the Oversight
Committee to ensure that their recommendations were carried forward with integrity to
their original intentions.
Oversight Committee
The Oversight Committee was composed of two members each from the City Council,
Board of County Commissioners, and the City and County Planning and Zoning
Commissions. This group was put together to ensure understanding and cooperation
among the areas decision making bodies which would later be asked to adopt the
document. Their task was to help resolve conflicts between the focus area committee
recommendations and ensure a final plan that met community goals and was ready for
adoption. The Oversight Committee met several times between September 1998 and May
1999.
Working Towards Adoption
Following submission of the final recommendations by each of the Focus Area
Committees, the Oversight Committee and the selected representatives of the Focus Area
Committees met together between January and May to work through conflicts in the
recommendations and come up with a unified vision for the plan update.
At their final meeting in May, the committee endorsed the 1998 Plan Update and
recommended it move forward for formal adoption through the public hearing process.
The Plan Update now moves into the public hearing process with joint meetings of the
City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions and the City Council and Board of
County Commissioners.
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures��
Section 26.44,445.030
Chapter 26.445
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Sections:
26.445.010 Purpose.
26.445.020 Applicability.
26.445.030 Procedures for Review.
26.445.040 Review Standards. >Change these to new numbers
26.445.050 Application.
26.445.060 PUD agreement.
26.445.070 Notice of PUD designation.
26.445.080 Placement of PUD designation on official zone district map.
26.445.090 Recordation.
26.445.100 Amendment of PUD development order.
26.445.110 Enforcement of PUD development order.
26.445.010 Purpose.
The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and
innovation in the development of land which:
A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a
greater variety in the type and character of development, and a greater compatibility with existing
and future surrounding land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the
underlying zone district provisions.
C. Preserves natural and man-made site features of historic, cultural, or scenic value.
D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services.
E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to
neighborhood and community goals and objectives.
26.445.020 Applicability.
Before any development shall occur on land designated Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the official zone
district map or before development can occur as a PUD, it shall receive final PUD approval pursuant to the
terms of this Chapter. All land with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation shall also be designated
with an underlying zone district designation which is determined most appropriate for that land.
In no event shall adoption of a final development plan be required for the construction of a single detached or
duplex residential dwelling on a separate lot. However, the General Provisions contained in Section * * of this
chapter shall apply to all lands designated with a PUD Overlay on the Official Zone District Map, regardless
of the existence of an adopted development plan for the property.
A development application for a Planned Unit Development may be applied for by the property owners of any
proposed development in the City of Aspen that is on a parcel of land greater than twenty-seven thousand
(27,000) square feet intended for residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes.
Proposed PUD 1
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures 1,4W56.019_
Section 26.44 45.030
(Option A) A development application for a Minor Planned Unit Development may be applied for by the
property owners of a parcel of land located within the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District intended
for development consistent with purpose of the LP Zone District.
(Option B) A development application for a Minor Planned Unit Development may be applied for by the
property owners of a parcel of land less than or equal to 27,000 square feet in size intended for multi -family,
tourist, commercial, or mixed -use development. In no event may an application for Minor Planned Unit
Development be considered for the development of a single-family or duplex residence on a single lot of
record.
26.445.030 Procedures for Review.
A. General. Any development within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall be reviewed
pursuant to the procedures and standards in this Chapter and the Common Development Review
Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304. A development application for Planned Unit
Development (PUD) designation shall be received and considered concurrently with a
development application for a conceptual development plan.
B. Types of Review.
1. Conceptual and Final Review (Four -Step Review).
All development proposed within a PUD, unless eligible for minor review or determined eligible
for a consolidated review, shall be reviewed for conceptual approval by the Commission and
Council and then reviewed for final approval by the Commission and Council. This is a four
step process requiring public hearings at steps two, three, and four.
2. Consolidated Conceptual and Final Review (Two -Step Review). An applicant may request and
the Community Development Director may determine that because of the limited extent of the
issues involved in a proposed PUD in relation to these review procedures and standards, or
because of a significant community interest which the project would serve, it is appropriate to
consolidate conceptual and final development plan review. The Community Development
Director shall consider whether the full four step review would be redundant and serve no public
purpose and inform the applicant during the pre -application stage whether consolidation will be
permitted.
An application which is determined to be eligible for consolidation shall be processed pursuant
to the terms and procedures of final development plan review - steps three and four. The
Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council may, during review, determine that the
application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in which case
consolidated review shall not occur.
3. Minor Planned Unit Development Review (Two -Step Review).
Due to the limited extent of the issues involved, a development application requesting approval as
a Planned Unit Development on a parcel of land (A. located in the Lodge Preservation Overlay
(LP) Zone District) (B. 27,000 square feet or less in area) shall be processed pursuant to the terms
and procedures of Minor Planned Unit Development plan review (Minor PUD). This two step
process does not require approval of a conceptual development plan, only review and approval of
Proposed PUD 2
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures*4948
Section 26.44445.030
a final development plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, with
public hearings occurring at both.
4. Concurrent Associated Reviews.
An applicant may request and the Community Development Director may determine that an
application for development within a PUD may be combined, during final review, with a
development application for conditional use, special review, ESA review, subdivision review,
text amendment, rezoning, and for certain GMQS exemptions. Consideration of a code text
amendment or a rezoning application may be considered during conceptual review, subject to
final review.
The Community Development Director shall consider whether the associated reviews may be
reviewed concurrently and inform the applicant during the pre -application stage whether
concurrent reviews will be permitted and if any redundant submission requirements may be
waived.
C. Steps Required: There are four steps required for the review of an application for development
within a PUD. Consolidated and Minor PUD reviews require only steps three and four.
C'ton n»o - rmnrpntual Review hefnre Planning and Zoning Commission.
Purpose:
To determine if application meets standards for conceptual
PUD.
Notice requirements:
None.
Standards of review:
Section 26.445.040.
P&Z action:
Resolution recommending City Council approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove a conceptual development plan.
Qton Tuwn - rn"rontnnl Raview hpfnrp City 1"nuncil -- Puhlic Heating.
Purpose:
To review recommendations of the Community Development
Director and Planning and Zoning Commission and to
determine if the application meets the standards for conceptual
review of an PUD.
Notice requirements:
Requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by
City Council and publication, posting, and mailing. (See
26.304.060(E)(3)(a),(b), and (c).)
Standards of review:
Section 26.445.040.
City Council action:
Resolution approving, approving with conditions, or
disapproving conceptual plan for PUD.
Sten Three - Final Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission -- Public Hearing.
Purpose:
To review application for final development plan to determine
if it meets the standards for a final PUD.
Notice requirements:
Publication, posting, and mailing. (See
26.304.060(E)(3)(a),(b), and (c).)
Standards of review:
Section 26.445.040.
P&Z action:
Resolution recommending City Council approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove a final development plan.
Proposed PUD 3
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures 4Q456,19_
Section 26.44445.060
Step Four — Final Review before the City Council -- Public Hearing.
Purpose:
To review recommendations by the Community Development
Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission and to
determine if application for final development plan meets the
standards for a PUD.
Notice requirements:
Requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by
City Council and publication, posting, and mailing. (See
26.304.060(E)(3)(a),(b), and (c).)
Standards of review:
Section 26.445.040
P&Z action:
Ordinance approving, approving with conditions, or
disapproving the final PUD development plan.
C. Limitations. .
Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval for a PUD, or permission to
proceed with any aspect of the development. Approval of a conceptual development plan shall only
authorize an applicant to submit an application for a final PUD development plan in accordance with the
City Council Resolution granting conceptual PUD approval.
Unless otherwise specified in the Resolution granting conceptual approval, a development application for a
final development plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual
development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the
approval of a conceptual development plan. The City Council may, at its sole discretion and for good cause
shown, grant an extension of the deadline, provided a written request for extension is received no less than
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
Development on any land within a Planned Unit Development may occur only after all land use approvals
are received, all requisite documents, agreements, and plats have been filed, and the applicant has received
all necessary permits as required by the Municipal Code and any other County, State, or Federal authority
with jurisdiction over the land.
26.###.### General Provisions.
The following general provisions and limitations shall apply to all property designated with a PUD
Overlay on the Official Zone District Map with or without an adopted final PUD development plan.
1. Uses: The land uses permitted in a PUD shall be limited to those allowed in the underlying zone
district in which the property is located. Detached' residential units may be authorized to be
clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall only
be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district.
(Possible future ability to vary use when SPA provisions. are combined. Questions: Extra review
criteria. Additional noticing requirements. Vary use in LP?)
2. Density.
Proposed PUD 4
Part 400 — Development Review Standards and Procedures , '16,4s456'419_
Section 26.4.1445.060
The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district,
considering the inclusions and exclusions of Lot Area, as defined, and considering the mandatory
density reduction for steep slopes as described below. Furthermore, during review of a PUD
development plan, lands designated with a PUD Overlay are subject to additional possible reductions
in allowable density due to insufficient infrastructure capabilities or the presence of natural hazards
or critical features of the site as described below.
Mandatory Reduction in density _ for steep slopes:
In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil, stability; and guarantee
adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall be reduced in areas with slopes in excess
of twenty (20) percent according to the following schedule:
Slope
classification.
(Sloe percentage.)
Maximum density allowed.
(Percentage of that allowed in
the underlying zone district.)
0 - 20 %
100 %
21-30 %
50%
31-40 %
25 %
sloe > 40 %
0 %
Notes:
a) There shall be no density credit allowed for lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope.
b) Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be
determined by calculating the net lot area after the reductions for each slope classification
have been subtracted, and then by dividing the square footage per dwelling unit necessary in
the underlying zone district regulations.
c) Maximum density and minimum lot sizes for individual lots within a. PUD may be
established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying zone district as long as,
on average, the entire PUD conforms to the dimensional provisions of the respective zone
district and there exists no aggregate increase in density.
d) For parcels resting in more than one (1) underlying zone district, the slope reduction and
maximum density calculation shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone
district.
Possible Density reduction_for infrastructure capabilities:
The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if:
a) There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the proposed
development;
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance
to the proposed development;
Possible Density reduction for natural hazards and critical natural site features:
The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the
possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers;
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to
runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution;
Proposed PUD 5
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures
Section 26.41.445.060
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding
area and the City; or
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed
development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical
natural features of the site.
3. Dimensional Requirements.
The following dimensional requirements shall be established with the adoption of a final PUD
development plan. The underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the
appropriate dimension for each provision. The final development plan shall clearly define all
dimensional requirements for each lot within the PUD. In absence of a final development plan, a
single detached or duplex residential dwelling, if listed as a permitted use in the underlying zoning,
may, be developed in conformance with the provisions of the underlying zone district.
a) Minimum Lot Size.
b) Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit.
c) Minimum lot width.
d) Minimum front yard.
e) Minimum side yard.
f) Minimum rear yard.
g) Maximum site coverage.
h) Maximum height (including view planes).
i) Minimum distance between buildings on the lot.
j) Minimum percent open space required for the building site.
k) Trash access area.
1) Minimum distance between buildings.
m) Allowable Floor Area.
n) Minimum off-street parking spaces.
26.445.040. Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD Review. A
development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or Minor PUD shall
comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with Conceptual
Reviews and properties eligible for Minor PUD Review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The
burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and its
conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the
surrounding area.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding
area.
4. The proposed development has been granted or is seeking GMQS allotments.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
Proposed PUD 6
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures 2494A�A =
Section 26.4-445.060
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the
PUD as described in General Provisions, Section ***, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying
zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review
of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development
patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements must comply with the following:
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the
following influences on the property:
a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and future land uses in the surrounding area.
b) Natural or man-made hazards
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding areas such as slopes, waterways,
shade, significant vegetation, and significant historical landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as
noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, historical structures.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site
coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following
considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-
residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed.
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian
access and/or the commitment to. utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed
development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development.to the commercial core and general activity centers in
the city.
Note: The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in
the final PUD development plans.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the
site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health
and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a
specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in
an appropriate manner.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where
appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
4. Buildings are appropriately arranged to allow emergency vehicle access.
5. Site drainage is accommodated in a practical and reasonable manner.
6. For non-residential land uses, structures are sited and with consideration of indoor and outdoor
activities.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately scaled to allow visual relief
from structures and any programatic functions associated with the space.
Proposed PUD 7
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures 010
Section 26.44445.060
D. Landscape plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual
character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the
subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing
significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species
suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features which provide uniqueness and interest in
the landscape are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is
appropriate.
E. Architectural Character.
It is the purpose of these criteria to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual
identity in the proposed development and within the City. Architectural character is based upon the
suitability of a building for its purposes,' legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed
massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and
other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There
shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which
adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architectural character
of the development shall:
1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing
and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of,
the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural monuments.
2. induce a sense of regionalism appropriate for the Rocky Mountains without presenting a
specious interpretation of a western mountain town. ???
3. incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the
property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non-, or less -intensive, mechanical
systems for ventilation.
4. accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner
that does not require significant maintenance.
F. Lighting.
The purpose of this criterion to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an
appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns.
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to
adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in
an appropriate manner. Up -lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting
to call inordinate attention to the property is discourage. (or, shall comply with city outdoor
lighting requirements.)
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
Proposed PUD 8
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures Z6,.49456,A1.9
Section 26.44445.060
If the proposed development proposes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the
mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area
enhances the character of the proposed development considering existing and proposed structures
and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form,
and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in
perpetuity, not for a number of years, to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or
ownership is proposed in another appropriate manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and
maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction
against future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the
City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden to
improve the infrastructure. (This section needs a technical engineering standards section to refer
to)
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary
improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where
the developer is reimbursed for the proportionate additional improvement..
L Access and Circulation. (Does not apply to Minor PUD applications)
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to. a public street
either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area
dedicated to public or private use.
2. The proposed development and vehicular access points do not create traffic congestion on
the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to
be improved to accommodate the development.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the
bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the
rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for
appropriate improvements and maintenance.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans
regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to
be implemented in an appropriate manner.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private
ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and
emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts, sentry stations, perimeter walls, or other forms of fortification
and protection from the general populace represent an appropriate level of defense against
possible sustained offensives mounted on residents of the PUD.
J. Phasing of Development Plan.
Proposed PUD 9
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures 16 4045,09_
Section 26.44445.060
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary
burden on the surrounding properties and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated. If phasing of
the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final. PUD
development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development
and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to. the extent practical, occupants of
initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan -ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public
facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used
jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any
mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with
the phase.
26.445.050. Application Materials.
A. Conceptual Development Plan.
The contents of a development application for a conceptual development plan shall include the
following:
1. The general application information required in Common Procedures, Section
26.52.030.
2. A Site Improvement Survey prepared by a registered land surveyor, registered landscape architect
or registered engineer depicting:
a) Existing natural and man-made site features.
b) Existing topography and categorization of site slopes falling within the thresholds described in
General Provisions (Section **)
c) All legal easements and restrictions.
3. A conceptual description and site plan of the proposed development including a statement of the
objectives to be achieved by the PUD and a description of the proposed land uses, densities,
natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, off-street parking, open space areas,
infrastructure improvements, and site drainage.
4. A conceptual architectural character plan generally indicating the use, massing, scale, and
orientation of the proposed buildings.
5. A conceptual landscape plan generally describing the type, location, and size of existing and
proposed landscape features.
6. A general description of the dimensional requirements being considered.
7. A written response to each of the PUD Review Criteria contained in section
B. Final, Consolidated, and Minor Development Plan.
The contents of the development application for a Final Consolidated Conceptual and Final, and
Minor development plan shall include the following:
1. The general application information required in Common Procedures, Section
26.52.030.
2. A Site Improvement Survey prepared by a registered land surveyor, registered landscape architect
or registered engineer depicting:
a) Existing natural and man-made site features.
Proposed PUD 10
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures �_ ,gig
Section 26.44445.060
b) Existing topography and categorization of site slopes falling within the thresholds described in
General Provisions (Section **)
c) All legal easements and restrictions.
3. A detailed description and site plan of the proposed development including a statement of the
objectives to be achieved by the PUD and a description of the proposed land uses, densities,
natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, off-street parking, open space areas,
infrastructure improvements, and site drainage.
4. An architectural character plan indicating the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility
of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public
spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly
represent the proposed development.
5. A landscape plan depicting:
a) The type, location, and size of all existing plant materials and other landscape features.
b) The proposed method of protecting vegetation through construction.
c) The type and location of all proposed plant materials, other landscape features proposed
treatment of ground surfaces, and a plant material schedule with common and botanical
names, sizes, and quantities.
6. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the proposed
development, and what specific assurances will be made to ensure the public facilities will be
available to accommodate the proposed development.
7. A statement specifying the method of maintaining any proposed common areas on the site,
including but not limited to common parking areas, walkways, landscaped areas, and recreational
facilities, and what specific assurances will be made to ensure the continual maintenance of said
areas.
8. A description of the dimensional requirements requested to be established through the review.
9. A description of any proposed project phasing detailing the specific improvements proposed for
each phase.
10. A written response to each of the PUD Review Criteria contained in section
11. A proposed plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section
26.88.040(D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a).
12. Proposed PUD Plans depicting the applicable information described in Section
13. A proposed PUD Agreement detailing the applicable information required in Section,***.
26.## Recording a Final PUD Development Plan.
General.
Unless otherwise specified in the City Council Ordinance granting final approval of a PUD development
plan, all necessary documents, as applicable, shall be recorded within one -hundred -and -eighty (180) days of
the adoption date of the final Ordinance. Failure to file these documents within this time period shall render
null and void the approval of a final development plan. The City Council may, at its sole discretion and for
good cause shown, grant an extension of the deadline, provided a written request for extension is received
no less than thirty (30) days prior to the deadline. Reconsideration of the final development plan and PUD
agreement by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may be required before its acceptance
and recording.
The final development plan, which shall consist, as applicable, of final plats, drawings, and agreements as
described below shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall be
Proposed PUD 11
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures 145456,019
Section 2644 445.060
binding upon the property owners subject to the development order, their successors and assigns, and shall
constitute the development regulations for the property. Development of the property shall be limited to the
uses, density, configuration, and all other elements and conditions set forth on the final development plan
and PUD agreement.
Final Plat. Final plat shall conform to the requirement of section ###
PUD Development Plans
Unless otherwise specified in the final Ordinance, the final PUD development plans for recording shall
include the following:
Illustrative Site Plan.
Architectural Character Plan.
Landscape Plan.
Grading and Drainage Plan. In conformance with [need engineering standards]
Utility and Public Facilities Plan In conformance with [need engineering standards]
PUD Agreement.
A. General. Upon approval of a final development plan for the Planned Unit Development (PUD),
the applicant and City Council shall enter into a Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement
binding the PUD to any conditions placed on the development order. A PUD Agreement is
required for all types of development within a PUD.
B. Common park and recreation areas. The PUD agreement shall outline any agreement on the
part of the applicant, to deed to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the Planned Unit
Development (PUD), an undivided interest in all common park and recreations areas, together
with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
C. Landscape guarantee. In order to ensure implementation and maintenance of the landscape plan,
the City Council may require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred
twenty-five (125) percent of the current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements in the
approved landscape plan, as estimated by the City engineer, to ensure the installation of all
landscaping shown and the continued maintenance and replacement of the landscaping for a
period of two (2) years after installation. The guarantee shall be in the form of'a cash escrow
with the City, or a bank or savings and loan association, or an irrevocable sight draft or letter of
commitment from a financially responsible lender and shall give the City the unconditional right
upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements or pay any outstanding
bills, or to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay for any
improvements or pay. for any improvement or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by
any party.
As portions of the landscaping improvements are completed, the City engineer shall inspect
them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost
for that portion of the improvements, except that ten (10) percent which shall be withheld until
all proposed improvements are completed and approved, and an additional twenty-five (25)
percent, which shall be retained until the improvements have been maintained in a satisfactory
condition for two (2) years.
Proposed PUD 12
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures 16.484�5419_
Section 26.44445.060
D . Public facilities guarantee. In order to ensure installation of necessary public facilities planned to
accommodate the development, the City Council shall require the applicant to provide a
guarantee for no less than one hundred (100) percent of the current estimated cost of such public
improvements, as estimated by the City Engineer. The guarantee shall be in the form specified in
Section 26.445.060(C) above, and may be drawn upon by the City as therein specified. As
portions of the public facilities improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect
them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost
for that portion of the improvements, except that ten (10) percent which shall be withheld until
all proposed improvements are completed and approved.
26.445.070 Notice of PUD designation.
Subsequent to receipt of a development order for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant
shall file in the Clerk and Recorder's office of Pitkin County, Colorado, the following notice:
Notice of PUD Designation
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that on the day of , , the
City Council of Aspen, Colorado, approved development on the following
described tract as a Planned Unit Development pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 26.445 of the Aspen Municipal Code. No development shall occur on
the tract except in accordance with such development order and under any
conditions that may be imposed thereby. The above referred to land is located
within the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, and is more fully described as
follows:
(Insert Legal Description)
A copy of the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is of record in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
City Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO )
SS:
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
by , City Clerk. Witness
my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
26.445.080 Placement of PUD designation on official zone district map.
After final approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the Community Development Director
shall amend the City's official zone district map to show a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation.
Proposed PUD 13
Part 400 — Development Review Standards and Procedures 164845681-9
26.445.100 Amendment of PUD development order.
A. PUD Insubstantial Amendments. An insubstantial amendment to an approved
development order for a final development plan may be authorized by the
Community Development Director. The following shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment:
1. A change in the use or character of the development.
2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures
on the land.
3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed
development, or the demand for public facilities.
4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space.
5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading
space.
6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and
easements.
7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor
area of commercial buildings.
8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of
the development.
9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the
project's original approval or which requires granting a further variation from the
project's approved use or dimensional requirements.
B. Other amendment. Any other amendment shall be approved pursuant to the terms
and procedures of the final development plan, provided, that the proposed change is
consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan. If the
proposed change is not consistent with the approved final development plan, the
amendment shall be subject to final development plan review and approval.
During the review of the proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council may require such conditions of approval as are
necessary to insure that the development will be compatible with current community
conditions. This shall include, but not be limited to, applying to the portions of the
development which have not obtained building permits or are proposed to be
amended any new community polices or regulations which have been implemented
since the original approval, or taking into consideration changing community
circumstances as they affect the project's original representations and commitments.
Proposed PUD 14
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures 1614g4-56.4310
The applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the review
process.
C. Absence of approved final development plan. In the absence of an approved final
development plan for a site designated Planned Unit Development (PUD), an
accurate improvements survey of existing conditions may be substituted to permit
evaluation of whether the proposal is an insubstantial or other amendment.
26.445.110 Enforcement of PUD development order.
A. City. The provisions of a development order approving a final development plan for
a Planned Unit Development (PUD) relating to the use of land and the location of
common open space shall run in favor of the City, and shall be enforceable at law or
in equity by the City, without limitation on any power or regulation otherwise
granted by law.
B. Residents. All provisions of the development order approving a final development
plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall also run in favor of the residents,
occupants, and owners of the Planned Unit Development (PUD), but only to the
extent expressly provided in the development order and in accordance with the terms
of the final development plan. To that extent, said provisions, whether recorded by
plat, covenant, easement or otherwise, may be enforced at law or in equity by
residents; occupants, or owners acting individually, jointly, or through an
organization designated in the development order to act on their behalf. However,
no provisions of the development order shall be implied to exist in favor of
residents, occupants, and owners except those provisions of the development order
which have received approval.
C. Release by City. All those provisions of the development order approving a final
development plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) authorized to be enforced
by the City, may be modified, removed or released by the City subject to the
following:
1. No modification, removal or release of the provisions shall affect the rights of
the residents, occupants, and owners of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) to
maintain and enforce these provisions at law or equity as provided in Section
26.445. 1 10(B).
2. No modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the development order
by the City shall be permitted except upon compliance with the requirements of
Section 26.445.100.
D . Release by residents. Residents and owners of the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) may, to the extent and in the manner expressly authorized by the provisions
of the development order, modify, remove or release their rights to enforce the
provisions of the development order, but no such action shall affect the right of the
City to enforce the development order.
Proposed PUD 15
Part 400 - Development Review Standards and Procedures 16AQ456.
E. Enforcement of open space and common area conditions. In the event the
organization established to own and maintain common open spaces, recreation areas,
communally -owned facilities and private streets, or any successor organization shall
at any time fail to maintain the common facilities in reasonable order and condition
in accordance with the approved open space plan in the final development plan, the
City Council may cause written notice to be served upon such organization or upon
the owners of property in the development setting forth the manner in which the
common facilities have failed to be maintained in reasonable condition, which notice
shall include the demand that the deficiencies noted be cured within thirty (30) days.
If the deficiencies noted are not cured within thirty (300 days, an additional notice
shall be sent setting forth a date and place of a hearing to be held within fourteen
(14) days of notice.
At the time of hearing, the City Council may modify the terms of the original notice
as to deficiencies and may extend the time within which the same may be cured. If
the deficiencies set forth in the original notice or modifications are not cured within
the time set, the City Council, in order to preserve the taxable values of properties
within the development and to prevent the common facilities from becoming a public
nuisance, may enter upon such common facilities and maintain the same for a period
of one year. Such entry and maintenance shall not vest in the public any right to use
the common facilities not dedicated to public use.
Before expiration of the one-year period, the City Council shall, upon its own
initiative or upon the written request of the organization responsible for
maintenance, call a public hearing and give notice of such hearing to the
organization responsible for maintenance or the property owners of the Planned Unit
Development (PUD). At such hearing, the organization responsible for maintenance
and/or the residents of the development may show cause why maintenance by the
City of Aspen should not be continued for the succeeding year. If the City Council
determines that it is not necessary for the City to continue such maintenance, the
City shall cease such maintenance at the time established by the City Council.
Otherwise, the City shall continue maintenance for the next succeeding year, subject
to a similar hearing and determination at the end of each year thereafter. The cost of
maintenance by the City shall be a lien against the common facilities of the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) and the private properties within the development.
The City Council shall have the right to make assessments against properties in the
development on the same basis that the organization responsible for maintenance of
the facilities could make such assessments. Any unpaid assessment shall be a lien
against the property responsible for the same, enforceable the same as a mortgage
against such property. The City may further foreclose its lien on the common
facility by certifying the same to the county treasurer for collection as in the case of
collection of general property taxes.
Proposed PUD 16
b
END
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Burlingame Seasonal Affordable Housing — Public Hearing
Burlingame Ranch Subdivision
Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Lot #2
Rezoning of Lot #2 to Residential Multi -Family Residential (RMF- A)
Special Review for Parking
DATE: June 8, 1999
SUMMARY:
The Aspen Music Festival and School (a.k.a. the MAA), represented by Jim Curtis
and Harry Teague Architects, has applied for Final Planned Unit Development,
Subdivision, Rezoning, and Parking Review for a seasonal housing project to include
100 two -bedroom units and 1 two -bedroom manager's apartment to be located just
north of the Maroon Creek Club affordable housing units. The City of Aspen owns
this property and has authorized the MAA to submit a land use application. This area
has been commonly referred to as "Parcel B" during discussion about the Burlingame
Ranch, and is the smaller of the two projects being considered for the parcel. This
review does not contain any recommendations regarding the larger `Burlingame
Village" project.
This application would subdivide the Burlingame Ranch parcel into two lots. Lot #2
of the subdivision would be approximately 3.92 acres and is the subject of the final
PUD application for the seasonal housing. Lot # 1 would remain approximately 181
acres in size.
The project received conceptual PUD approval pursuant to City Council Resolution
99-7. This approval document is included in the application packet. As part of the
conceptual approval, the applicant was required to further discuss site planning
options during a joint work session with the Commission and the Council. The plan
has since progressed through a series of modifications which staff believes have
benefited the project in a very positive way.
The expected users of the seasonal housing would be the Aspen Music Festival and
School during the summer season and the general public the rest of the year. There
have been some discussions concerning the possibility of using a few units for longer -
term occupancy periods.
Staff has summarized all of the review criteria related to this proposed development
in attachment A of this memorandum and has highlighted certain topics for discussion
under the heading "Main Issues," below.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a
recommendation of approval to City Council for this Burlingame Seasonal
Housing Final Planned Unit Development, Subdivision of Burlingame Ranch,
Rezoning to the RMF-A Zone District, and Special Review for parking, with
conditions.
APPLICANT:
The City of Aspen, owner. Represented by Jim Curtis on behalf of the Aspen Music
Festival and School.
LOCATION:
Owl Creek Road and State Highway 82. See location maps included in the
application.
ZONING:
Burlingame Ranch was recently annexed into the City of Aspen. The zoning for the
land is pending, however, Rural Residential (RR) has been recommended by the
Commission for this portion of the Ranch.
LOT SIZE:
The proposed parcel, Lot #2 of the subdivision, is approximately 3.92 acres. Lot #1
of the proposed Burlingame Ranch Subdivision is approximately 181.3 acres.
LOT AREA, FAR:
There are some steep slopes on the property as depicted in the application drawing
4/14. These slopes reduce the lot area for both density and FAR. The allowable
density and FAR, considering the proposed RMF-A zoning is for 221 two -bedroom
units and approximately 54,892 square feet of Floor Area. These numbers are subject
to confirmation by the City Zoning Officer, although the proposed development
appears to be well within these thresholds.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Seasonal affordable housing and accessory uses. 101 residential units consisting of
202 beds (100 two -bedroom units and 1 two -bedroom manager's apartment).
N
Accessory uses include a common facility with a lounge, laundry machines, and
practice rooms for music students.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The project received conceptual approval pursuant to Council Resolution 99-7, a copy
of which has been included in the application.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Final Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, and Rezoning. The Commission shall
recommend City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application at
a duly noticed public hearing.
Special Review for Parking. The Commission shall approve, approve with conditions,
or deny the application at -a hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen purchased the Burlingame Ranch parcel in January of 1997. The
subject area of this proposal was generally referred to as "Parcel B" in discussions
about the Burlingame Ranch.
There are two Burlingame projects currently being discussed. The "Seasonal
Housing" and the "Burlingame Village." This is the seasonal housing project and
does not include any review or recommendation concerning the larger Burlingame
Village project. That project is still in its infancy and, while there are still public
meetings on occasion and much public discourse, there has been no formal
application made for Burlingame Village. Staff does emphasize, however, that the
Seasonal Housing project does not preclude or superceded development opportunities
on the remainder of the Ranch.
MAIN ISSUES:
Site Plan.
During the conceptual review, there was some concern over the site plan. The
Council Resolution includes a depiction of the two site plans considered.
Specifically, there was a concern that the evolution of the site plan providing the
parking in the center of the project was, in fact, "a step in the wrong direction."
As part of the conceptual approval, the applicant was required to attend a joint
Commission/Council work session for site planning in which the Boards expressed
preference for more articulated building massing, a focus on green spaces rather than
on parking, and investigation of third story elements in the "back" buildings closest to
"Deer Hill."
Since that discussion, the applicant has been through several iterations of the site
,r
design concentrating on the issues raised by the Boards and has provided the current
41
plan which staff believes is very desirable and a logical conclusion to the concerns
raised earlier.
The plan does not provide third story elements. This extra story, while appearing
better in plan view, started to create very massive buildings, over -scaled to the
adjacent MCC housing. The proposed plan does provide green spaces within each of
the building courtyards and a larger green space common to the entire project. This is
accomplished while providing full emergency access required by the Fire Department
and no need to provide circuitous access behind the development. Also, the focus of
the project is on public spaces and the commons building rather than the parking lot.
Architecture.
During the conceptual review, staff expressed concerns about the modern architecture
and its difference from the more "barn -like" character of the MCC housing. This was
raised specifically to address the issue during conceptual so the applicant would have
adequate time to respond during the final review. The Commission and Council
acknowledged the difference but supported the modern style.
While the intent of this criteria is not to "control [the] architectural character" staff
believes this style is appropriate and has a festive and amusing nature often lacking in
the typical log, stucco, and rock lodge -homes built in town. The mere fact that there
are not colossal timber beams dominating the design is a welcome relief. Staff
supports the proposed architectural character.
There are some very minor changes that could benefit the project. Some variations in
the exterior materials could provide visual interest and distinctiveness to individual
buildings. These color changes would not have to be significant and staff is not
suggesting the project resemble a carnival. Also, the airport prefers non- reflective
roof materials for obvious reasons. Staff has included a suggested a condition
regarding roof materials.
Parking.
During the conceptual review, the applicant suggested 80 parking spaces for the
development. Sixty-nine of these were to be "gated" spaces and 11 were to be
"guest" spaces. The unit configuration depicted three -bedroom units and later four -
bedroom units. The proposal now calls for two -bedroom units in response to
concerns raised by the Commission and the Council. The number of bedrooms has
remained essentially constant throughout — 200 beds, plus a manager's unit.
As many elected and appointed officials realize, there is a concerted effort by the City
to minimize the reliance on the automobile in all land use decisions. This has the
obvious consequence of balancing the desire for a "no car town" and the more
realistic needs of people who will live and have a car here. The Marolt project was an
effort in providing fewer spaces than "what the market would dictate." Their parking
al
supply is roughly 1 space for every two residential units (4-6 beds), but their property
manager has reported the parking issue as an on -going problem.
Staff divides the parking issue into car storage and car use. In almost any scenario,
the overwhelming desire is to limit the reliance on the automobile in everyday life.
There exists, and there will continue to exist, a need to have a car even if use is
infrequent. So, while there may be an opportunity to use a car less, there is still a
need to store the car while it is not being used.
Staff does not wish this project to be primarily a parking lot with a secondary housing
development and is, thus, appreciative of the applicant seeking to limit the availability
of parking to a practical minimum. The applicant has consulted with the property
manager at the Marolt Housing project in considering the number of parking spaces
that should be provided.
The current. application proposes two parking scenarios: A and B. Both of these
provide approximately 104 —110 parking spaces for the development. Both parking
plans accommodate some on -site long-term parking with 25 "stacked" spaces, control
the availability of short-term parking with a gate, and provide 8 "guest" spaces.
Scenario B provides 22 additional short-term spaces on -site while plan A provides
those spaces as off -site long-term parking. Also provided are adequate planting
buffers to break-up the parking and provide some shade.
Staff and the City's referral agencies prefer parking scenario A. Staff suggests this
concept be pursued with some specific understandings:
1. The ability to easily expand parking on -site (to resemble concept B) is maintained
and can be approved by the Planning Director if the off -site parking scenario
proves to be unworkable.
2. A reduction in the number of off -,site spaces required in the PUD may be
approved as an insubstantial amendment if the reduction. will not create a
significant effect on the project or the neighborhood.
3. The location for the off -site spaces may be amended from time to time as an
insubstantial amendment and with demonstration that the alternative site is viable.
Transit.
The transit discussion is far simpler than during the conceptual review due to the
expected timing of area improvements. The Buttermilk intersection is expected to be
complete prior to the completion of this project, providing a protected pedestrian
crossing and easy access to the full range of transit service. Staff is suggesting a
condition that the applicant provide shuttle service in the event there is a delay or
change in plans for the improvement.
In addition, the applicant is proposing an additional route for music students from
Burlingame to the Campus and directly to the Tent. for concert events. This is slightly
different from the concept during conceptual but recommended by RFTA.
M
RFTA is requesting what are in effect impacts fees to be assessed on the developer for
capital and operational impacts. Staff believes this type of request is warranted and
appropriate where a specific service is being provided, such as the shuttle route for
music students. However, the land use code does not provide for transit impacts fees
to be generally assessed upon new development. Notwithstanding this fact, RFTA
may arrange an agreement to lease units from the land owner — the City. Staff
stresses that any arrangement brokered is not a de -facto impact assessment and should
not considered a precedent.
Airport.
The development is proposed just outside of the "Runway Protection Zone" (RPZ).
This is the triangular -shaped delineation on the site plans and is essentially where the
planes are most likely to crash.
During the conceptual review, the airport administrator responded to the application
with a memorandum to staff requesting an avgation easement be filed with the FAA
and that noise reduction construction techniques be used for the residences. The tone
and content of the memorandum, and the conversations staff had with the airport
official, did not indicate any opposition to the project. The concerns became
conditions of approval for the applicant to address.
Staff again referred the final application to the Airport Administrator and received
comments of a much different tone. ". the airport staff does formally oppose the
proposed project." It is important to note that the issues raised by the airport, while
valid, pertain to areas outside of the RPZ and there are no Federal prohibitions on
development in this area.
The issue remains whether or not the site itself is too encumbered by the airport to
accommodate development. Staff is sympathetic to the concerns raised by the airport
but also recognizes the various other developments in the area. The base of
Buttermilk Ski Mountain, the MCC affordable housing, and the entire ABC have
similar noise issues to deal with albeit to a lesser degree. In addition, the proposed
development is outside of areas described as inappropriate for development. In other
words, there are no prohibitions against development or recommended land use
policies for areas adjacent to RPZ's.
Staff believes the applicant has proposed a reasonable solution given the proximity to
the airport and that the event noise can be adequately mitigated. Staff has asked Dave
Bravdica, Assistant Director of Aviation for the Airport, to attend the hearing to
address specific concerns and questions from the Commission.
STAFF COMMENTS:
rel
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." The application has been
included as Exhibit "C."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a
recommendation of approval to City Council for the Subdivision of Burlingame
Ranch, Final Planned Unit Development for Lot #2 - the Seasonal Affordable
Housing project, Rezoning of Lot #2 to the RMF-A Zone District, with conditions,
and recommends the Commission approve the Special Review for Parking, with the
following conditions:
1. Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a
Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Final PUD/Subdivision plat and
development plan. The plat shall include a "Fire Protection Plan" with a signature block
for the Fire Marshall. The site plan shall be amended to depict a six (6) foot wide
sidewalk on the northern portion of the traffic circle. The avigation easement shall be
noted on the plat.
2. Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building
Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and PUD
Agreement binding this property, Lot #2 of the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision —
Burlingame Seasonal Housing; to this development approval.
3. The berm shall be developed in substantial compliance with the representations made in
the application and during public hearings. Insubstantial changes in height, slopes,
modulation, and landscaping may be made during construction as needed.
4. A practice room building of no more than 1,500 square feet, no more than 2 stories in
height, and in the same architectural style as the principal development may be
developed in the location labeled "future practice rooms" on the illustrative plan of the
final PUD drawings with no amendment to the PUD necessary. This future phase of
development may occur at any time and the approval shall not expire at the conclusion
of the vested rights period.
5. Residents of the project shall be able to use the primary courtyard trail around the area
labeled "commons" as temporary vehicular access for loading. At all other times this
area shall remain free and clear of any obstructions for the purpose of emergency
access. The Fire Marshall shall be supplied with adequate access through the gate at the
entrance to the main parking area.
6. The buildings shall be constructed with a 30 dba sound reduction between the outside
and the inside of the units.
7. Bicycle parking should be provided in or near the center of individual courtyards with
an additional area near the commons building.
W
8. The buildings shall incorporate variations in the exterior materials to provide some
visual identity and uniqueness to individual structures. Exterior colors should be muted
in tone. No highly reflective materials shall be used for the roofs.
9. The project shall be developed with parking scenario "A" as presented in the
application. 84 spaces shall be provided on -site in the manner proposed and a
minimum of 20 off -site spaces shall be available to the project's residents. The site
grading shall be accomplished in a manner allowing the future development of
additional on -site parking spaces.
10. The parking management plan shall be included in the PUD agreement with the
amendments suggested by the City Transportation Department.
11. The expansion of on -site parking may be approved by the Community Development
Director as an insubstantial amendment upon demonstration that the off -site parking
scenario is unworkable.
12. A reduction in the number of off -site spaces required may be approved by the
Community Development Director as an insubstantial amendment if the reduction
will not create.a significant effect on the project or the neighborhood.
13. The location for the off -site spaces may be amended from time to time as an
insubstantial amendment and with demonstration that the alternative site is viable.
14. During construction contractor parking shall be limited to the north side of Stage
Court unless adequate space is available on -site. To the extent possible, all
construction staging should be accomplished on the parcel and not within public
rights -of -way. The applicant shall encourage contractors to car-pool and/or use of the
daily parking lots at the airport park -and -ride.
15. Conversion of unit plans from one -bedroom to two -bedroom, or vice -versa, shall not
require an amendment to the PUD as long as there is no change in the total number of
units. Altering the total number of units, including combining or division of units,
shall require a substantial amendment.
16. Zoning requirements for this parcel shall be those of the Residential Multi -Family
(RMF-A) Zone District with the following modifications:
a) Improvements as shown on the illustrative site plan of the PUD plans are
permitted within setbacks regardless of the height difference from natural grade.
These include the access drive, landscape walls, berms, and trash enclosures.
b) The minimum open space provision shall be that as represented in the illustrative
site plan of the final PUD drawings.
c) The minimum distance between building shall be as represented in the illustrative
site plan of the final PUD drawings with no two buildings being closer than three
(3) feet in distance, or as regulated by the U.B.C.
17. Construction hours shall be limited to those provided in the Municipal Code, as
amended.
�3
18. The exterior lighting plan shall be included with the PUD drawing for recordation.
Pedestrian bollards shall not be more than 36 inches in height from finished grade.
19. The access drive shall be named Stage Lane and the buildings shall be designated with a
Stage Lane address. A stop sign shall be located at the end of Stage Lane as it intersects
with Stage Court.
20. The building permit application shall include:
a) A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval and a signed copy
of the PUD/Subdivision Agreement.
b) A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department
which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt
fencing, daily cleaning of adjacent rights -of -way, speed limits within and
accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a
nuisance during construction.
c) A payment for all park dedication fees not waived by City Council.
d) The appropriate approvals from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District for a
line extension and shared service agreement. Addition fees associated with
rectifying any downstream flow capacity limitations shall be paid.
e) A payment for the School Land Dedication payment -in -lieu fee based on the
following calculation formula:
(Fair Market Value per square foot of the Lot) x (.33) x (applicable dedication
standard for unit)
The City shall retain the right to concur with the fair market value represented by
the owner or obtain a third party appraisal performed by an agreed upon real
estate appraiser at the sole cost of the Lot owner.
21. The trash containers provided on -site shall be "bear proof," meeting the standards of
Ordinance , Series of 1999.
22. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall:
a) Fully monument Lot #2 of the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision.
b) Expand the transit provision proposed for the summer season to a year-round
service if the Buttermilk intersection on State Highway 82 is not operational. Said
service shall be provided at the land owner's expense until the intersection is
complete or indefinitely if the intersection is not developed.
23. At all times the Music Festival and School provides seasonal student housing at this
location, the School shall provide transit service as follows: between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.
daily on 30 minute headways to the Campus and to and from the Music Tent for
concert events on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays, or as otherwise scheduled. The
School shall use the Roaring Fork Transit Agency, or another viable coach service, as
the service provider. The Music Festival and School shall compensate the service
9
provider for capital and operational costs in a means agreeable to each party.
Amendments to this condition shall be considered substantial.
24. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza. Building. There is a per page
recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who
will record the resolution.
25. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of the recommendation, unless otherwise amended by an entity with the
authority to do so.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend City Council approve the Subdivision of Burlingame Ranch,
Final Planned Unit Development for Lot #2 - the Seasonal Affordable Housing
project, Rezoning of Lot #2 to the RMF-A Zone District, and approval of the Special
Review for Parking, with the conditions outlined in the Community Development
Department memo dated June 8, 1999."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C -- Development Application
10
Exhibit Ei
Burlingame Seasonal Housing
Final PUD
Staff Comments: PUD
A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements:
A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff Finding:
Community Vision: The proposed development increases housing opportunities for
seasonal workers in a location close to town and transit, and within a short commute.
Compact development around transit stops is consistent with the community's desire to
efficiently use a limited land supply in an efficient manner.
Community Vitality:. The proposed development is 100% affordable, addressing the
community's desire to provide affordable housing opportunities. The seasonal rental
units will help the local economy and local employers. The additional, and permanent,
housing opportunity for the Music Festival students will help ensure this symbol of
modern Aspen will continue with greater self-sufficiency.
Open Space and Environment: While the proposed development would take place on an
area that is undeveloped, it is compact, clustered, and provides a significant amount of
density within walking distance to reliable transit. This allows for the preservation of
open space on parcels with greater open space value, less adequate for this type of
development.
AACP. The proposed development site is not specifically identified in the 1993
Community Plan. Nevertheless, two sites which provide some guidance for this parcel
were identified with the following recommendations:
The Zoline parcel: 1 ("great" rating), deed restricted lots via the growth management
process. If this property ever submits a growth management application for development
this would be an' appropriate location for deed restricted lots.
Pfister (Maroon Creek Club AH): 2 ("good" rating), if in the event the Development
Corporation cannot put the 39 deed restricted units in the location as approved at the
intersection of Stage Road and Highway 82, the location should be re-evaluated and
perhaps units should be dispersed throughout the property in a less -dense manner.
Staff Comments 1
The Zoline parcel is somewhat removed from this specific parcel and has more relevance
on the possible "Burlingame Village" project. The Pfister parcel (Maroon Creek Club)
was developed in the original development pattern (not re-evaluated). The affordable
housing units were a mitigation requirement by the County and the property is now
within the City of Aspen.
The draft update of the community plan (the 1998 AACP) specifically identifies the
Seasonal project as a location to concentrate affordable housing efforts. It is important to
note that the 1998 plan is a draft plan, has not been adopted, and has no binding effect.
Following are statements relevant to this project from the draft AACP:
". . . we again call for a critical mass of permanent residents and employees to be housed
within the urban area. Our goal is to reverse the tide and bring back the ebbing balance of
our community/resort." Excerpt from Managing Growth Philosophy.
■ "We should discourage sprawl and recognize its cost to the character of our community, our
open spaces, and our rural resources." Excerpt from Managing Growth Philosophy.
"To conserve our rural resources, we recommend that an Aspen Community Boundary be
identified... A Community Growth Boundary will focus and reduce infrastructure
expenditures, reduce the spread of development into the countryside and maintain a rural
character between communities, while at the same time promoting concentrations of
development supportive of transit and pedestrian accessibility." Excerpt from Managing
Growth Philosophy.
■ "Local and regional land use and development patterns should enable and support travel by
alternative modes of transportation. New development should take place only in areas well
served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and
bicycling." Excerpt from Transportation Philosophy.
■ "We still believe that a `critical mass' of local working residents is needed to sustain our
economy." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Philosophy.
■ "Housing sites should be rated with emphasis placed on living within walking distance of
transit, employment areas and social connections." Excerpt from Affordable Housing
Philosophy.
■ "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so
as to protect our open and rural lands." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Philosophy.
■ "Evaluate opportunities for publicly held properties to be developed or redeveloped to
include or be replaced by affordable housing. The public holds properties that could be
redeveloped with affordable housing without impeding the existing use. These parcels
should be evaluated for their qualities as affordable housing sites and their ability to
contribute to our town's affordable housing dilemma without consuming our valuable rural
lands or open space." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Action Plan.
Staff believes the proposed development plan and this zoning is consistent with the AACP. The
parcel is virtually identical to the Maroon Creek Club Affordable Housing site and both the
Staff Comments 2
Housing and Growth sections of the revised AACP (under review and not adopted) depict this
parcel as a site for affordable housing.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
To the south there is affordable housing in several multi -family buildings along with the
primary Maroon Creek Club facilities. The parcel is bordered by the highway to the west
and steeply ascends Deer Hill to the immediate north. Across the highway is the base of
Buttermilk Mountain which is currently being master planned. There is virtually no
development, or potential for development, to the east of the site due to the topography.
The proposed multi -family affordable housing development is compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
A small portion of the land is located within the Airport Runway Protection Zone (RPZ).
This area is proposed for surface auto parking which is an allowed use in this designation.
The. Airport staff has formally objected to the proposed development adjacent to the RPZ.
As one would expect, there will be significant event noise associated with planes arriving
and departing. In addition, although the residences are proposed outside of the RPZ,
there are risks associated with living close to the RPZ. These comments are more fully
described in the Airport referral letter.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
The immediate area to the south is essentially built -out with the Maroon Creek Club
(MCC) facilities and the MCC affordable housing. Other lands adjacent to the proposed
site are either un-buildable because of the topography, the flight path, or the proximity to
the highway. The proposed site does not affect the development potential of lands across
the highway at the base of Buttermilk.
Stage Road is the primary access for the seasonal project and will likely be the primary
access to any development on the remainder of the Burlingame Ranch parcel. The City
Transportation Planner reviewed the traffic report submitted during the conceptual review
and determined that Stage Road has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed
development without unduly burdening surrounding properties or degradation to the
current intersection levels of service.
A Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which
GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
Staff Finding:
Affordable Housing exemptions are granted by City Council after considering
recommendations from the Growth Management Commission and the Housing Board.
The Housing Board reviewed the project and recommended an exemption with deference
to City Council concerning the possible use of a few units as long-term occupancy. The
Staff Comments 3
GMC will consider this case on June 15"' and make a recommendation to City Council as
part of the Final PUD review process.
2. Density:
A. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying
zone district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if:
1. There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed
development;
2. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development;
3. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of slope,
ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers;
4. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution;
5. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the city; or
6. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to
critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding: .
There are sufficient utilities to serve this proposal considering the required upgrades and
extensions. The applicant has made specific accommodations to protect the natural
resource of Deer Hill —where staff would recommend against development. The flat
portion of this land itself is suitable for development as there are no reported adverse
natural or manmade conditions. Staff does not recommend any density reductions for
existing site conditions.
B. Reduction in density for slope consideration.
In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and
guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in
areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the following manor:
a. For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density
allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district.
b. For lands between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum
density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the
underlying zone district.
C. For lands between thirty-one (31) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall
be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone
district.
d. For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be
allowed.
2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be
calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary
in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit.
3. For parcels resting in more than one (1) zone district, the density reduction calculation
shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district.
Staff Comments 4
4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04) Definition of Lot Area.
Density is a measurement of the number of homes per unit of land. During
conceptual review, the exact lot size had not been finalized and the a ca the
considering several different zoning options. The applicant has now p osed a s
of
3.92 acres in the RMF-A Zone District. Following is a chart summarizinglot size of
reduction (and FAR) considering the site's slopes. the density
RMF-A Zoning Analysis
Density
Gross Lot Size: 170,755
Floor Area
170,755
Slopes: 0 - 20% 158,123
158,123
Slopes: 20 - 30% 12,632
121632
Slopes: 30 - 40% 0
0
Slopes: > 40% * 0
0
Net Lot Area 177,071
177,071
Maximum 221 units*
54,892 s.f.**
* density based on a two -bedroom unit
* * above grade floor area, with exceptions, as measured by City Zoning.
The applicant is proposing 100 units of seasonal units and
of 101 units — well within the allowed density.
one. manager's units
g nets for a total
The project's proposed floor area - 51,275
square feet — is within the allowable total for the property.
3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying,zone
district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a
zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall
only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district.
Staff Finding:
The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to the RMF-A Zone District as part of
this development application. The proposed use — affordable housing — is an allowed use
in the RMF-A District at the intensity proposed.
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of
the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in
the following:
a• Minimum distance between buildings;
b• Maximum height (including viewplanes);
C. Minimum front yard;
d. Minimum rear yard;
e. Minimum side yard;
Staff Comments 5
f. Minimum lot width;
g. Minimum lot area;
h. Trash access area;
i. Internal floor area ratio; and
j. Minimum percent open space.
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the
minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted
shall be clearly indicated on the final plat development plan.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has proposed a very "tight" boundary for the subdivision. As a result, of
may of the improvements are proposed within this development require modification
the RMF-A zoning provisions. Flexibility to modify the underlying zoning is specifically
and intentionally allowed in PUD's. Staff supports these modifications, especially
considering that three sides of this parcel are un-developable and the modifications will
have little, if even perceptible, impacts on the neighbor to the south.
The Zoning Officer has pointed -out a few modifications to the zoning which are required
for this project to be developed as shown. Concerning setbacks (yards): the proposed buildings are in compliance with the setbacks. However, the City s setback requirements
also limit site improvements to be within 30 inches of natural grade. Because the natural
grade is being significantly modified, improvements such as the access drive fall within
this limitation. Staff suggests the setback provision specifically allow the improvements
as shown, including berms and retaining walls, to exist within the setback regardless of
the 30 inch limitation.
With respect the open space, there exists a very similar technical situation as with setbacks. The plan, as shown, meets the required percentage of open space. However, e or2
the open space definition does not consider grades modified more than 4 feet above
feet below to be counted towards the total. So, while the plan provides a significant
amount of space that's open, technically there is no open space being provided due to
the extent of site grading.
Staff believes the site plan provides visual relief from structures, appropriately buffers the
development from surrounding objectionable impacts, and generally provides a significant benefit to the overall project. In fact, the development would be severely
compromised without the proposed site grading. Staff suggests the open space provision
for this parcel be worded to allow the plan as shown, regardless of the technical de inition
of open space, and allow for the site plan to be developed as represented.
The remaining modification to the zoning provisions considers the minimum space
between buildings. Ten feet between individual building is required in this zone district
while approximately 8 feet is proposed. There could be presented a somewhat valid
argument that, because the units are actually connected underground with crawl spaces,
g purpose of the separation is
the buildings are not actually individual. However, the pure p
both fire protection and visual relief. This minimum fire requirements are easily accomplished and staff believes the buildings provide adequate visual separation and
Staff Comments 6
articulation. Staff suggests the separation provision be modified to allow the buildin s t rest as presented, approximately 8 feet apart. g °
5• Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be va1ed
from that required in the underlying zone district based on the followin
considerations: g
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development.
b. The parking need of any nonresidential units.
C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
d• The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public
recreational facilities in the city.
Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain
Staff Findin
assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change
g:
During the conceptual review, the applicant suggested 80 parking
development. Sixty-nine of these were to be "gated" spaces andspaces Ie were
for the
spaces. The unit configuration depicted three -bedroom units and later re to be "guest"
units. The proposal now calls for two -bedroom units in response tfour bedroom
the Commission and the Council. The number of bedrooms remained rns raised by
constant throughout — 200 beds, plus a manager's unit. essentially
As many elected and appointed officials realize, there is a concerted effort by the City
to
minimize the reliance on the automobile in all land use decisions. This has he obvious
consequence of balancing the desire for a "no car town" and the more realistic needs of
people who will live and have a car here. The Marolt project was an effort in providing fewer spaces than "what the market would dictate." Their parking supply is roughly
space for every two residential units (4-6 beds), but their roe nay g y 1
the parking issue as an on -going problem. property rtY manager has reported
Staff divides the parking issue into car storage and car use. In almost any scenario the
overwhelming desire is to limit the reliance on the automobile in everyday life. There
exists, and there will continue to exist, a need to have a car even if use is infrequent. So�
while there may be an opportunity to use a car less, there is still a need to store the car
while it is not being used.
Staff does not wish this project to be a parking lot with an accessory housing
development and is, thus, appreciative of the applicant seeking to limit the availability of
parking to a practical minimum. The applicant has consulted with the property mana
the Marolt Housing project in considering the number of parking spaces that should ger at
provided. be
The current application proposes two parking scenarios: A and B. Both of these provide
approximately 104 —110 parking spaces for the development. Both parking plans
gp
Staff Comments 7
accommodate some on -site long-term parking with 25 "stacked" spaces, control the
availability of short-term parking with a gate, and provide S guest spaces. Scenario
B
as
provides 22 additional short-term spaces on -site while plan A provides those spaces the
off -site long-term parking. Also provided are adequate planting buffers to bre up
parking and provide some shade.
Staff and the City's referral agencies prefer parking scenario A. Staff suggests this
concept be pursued with some specific understandings:
1. The ability to easily expand parking on -site (to resemble concept B) is
maintained and can be approved by the Planning Director if the off site
parking scenario proves to be unworkable. required in the PUD may be
2. A reduction in the number of off site spaces
if theregreduction will not create a
approved as an insubstantial amendment
significant effect on the project or the neighborhood. 3. The location for the off -site spaces may be amended for time to time as an
insubstantial amendment and with demonstration that the alternative site is
viable.
6. P P
Open ® Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying
zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character ®f the
space for
proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD througha
o a
common park or recreation area. An area may be approved a
s amon
park or recreation area if it:
a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; whom
b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for
the common area is intended.
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation velo mereas shall be etogether
perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unitpet (PUD)
with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument communally owned
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas,
facilities.
Staff Finding
As mentioned above, a substantial portion of this project is proposed as space that is open
but not necessarily "open space." This difference is created en �by the grade modifications
by definition. Staff believes
beyond that allowed to be formally considered " s a substantial benefit to the project that
the proposed site plan is appropriate and provides a s ade limitations. Staff
would not be achieved with strict adherence to the p g r
site
spaces
supports the open space as presented in the propose p
7
Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development
plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior
Staff Comments 8
spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant
species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding:
The Final application includes a Landscape Plan that specifies an appropriate treatment of
the outdoor spaces. Specific concerns about species from the City parks department have
already been addressed and the plan modified. The bermed area, although not technically
part of the seasonal housing parcel, is to be landscaped and irrigated (as needed) by the
applicant. There is included in the draft filing documents a grading and landscaping
license and adequate provision in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement to ensure the
short-term success of the landscape improvements and continued long-term maintenance.
8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly
enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular
building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural
character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon
appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and
proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses.
Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and
maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage
and reduce soil erosion.
Staff Finding:
During the conceptual review, there was some concern over the site plan. The Council
Resolution includes the two site plans considered. Specifically, there was a concern that
the evolution of the site plan to provide the parking in the center of the project was, in
fact, "a step in the wrong direction."
As part of the conceptual approval, the applicant was not given any reliance on a specific
site plan and was required to attend a joint Commission/Council work session for site
planning. The expressed desire in that meeting was for more articulation in the building
massing, provision of green spaces as a focus and not parking as a focus, and preference
for third story elements in the "back" buildings. Since that discussion, the applicant has
been through several iterations of the site design concentrating on the issues raised by the
Boards. Throughout this process, the applicant has involved staff for input.
The result — the plan presented in the application — meets many of those concerns
brought -up in the work session. The plan does not provide third story elements. This
extra story, while appearing better in plan view, started to create very massive buildings,
over -scaled to the adjacent MCC housing. The proposed plan does provide green spaces
within each of the building courtyards and a larger green space common to the entire
project. This is accomplished with full access required by the Fire Department and no
need to provide fire access lanes behind the development. Also, the focus of the project
is on public spaces and the commons building rather than the parking lot.
Staff Comments 9
Staff believes this is a logical and desirable conclusion to the site planning evolution of
this project and recommends no changes to the site plan. The input from staff, the
Commission, and Council during work sessions ,and the various meetings during
conceptual review has benefited this plan in a very positive way.
During the conceptual review, staff expressed concerns about the modern architecture and
its difference from the more "barn -like" character of the MCC housing. This was raised
specifically to address the issue during conceptual so the applicant would have adequate
time to respond during the final review. The Commission and Council acknowledged the
difference but supported the modern style.
While the intent of this criteria is not to "control [the] architectural character" staff
believes this style is appropriate and has a festive and amusing nature often lacking in the
typical log, stucco, and rock lodge -homes built in town. The mere fact that there are not
colossal timber beams dominating the design is a welcome relief. Staff supports the
proposed architectural character.
There are some very minor changes that could benefit the project. Some variations in the
exterior materials could provide visual interest and distinctiveness to individual
buildings. These color changes would not have to be significant and staff is not
suggesting the project resemble a carnival. Also, the airport does not appreciate reflective
roof materials for obvious reasons. Staff has suggested a condition prohibiting reflective
roof materials. .
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
Staff Finding:
Lighting should be. downcast, and no up -lighting of landscape elements or architectural
features should be allowed. The applicant has, as requested, provided an exterior lighting
plan detailing a minimum number of downcast lights. These have been proposed at low
heights (12 and 10 feet) to prevent excessive lighting and incorporate use of lighting
bollards for pedestrian areas as opposed to overheads. Staff believes the proposed
lighting plan is appropriate and appreciates the applicant's willingness to accommodate
the City' concerns. Staff only suggests that the lighting plan be incorporated into the
final PUD plans.
10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
Staff Finding:
The development has been appropriately clustered.
11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that
adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no
net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings
Staff Comments 10
shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency
vehicles.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has received comments from many of the utility agencies during the
referral process. The costs of the utility upgrades will be the responsibility of the
applicant unless specific waivers are granted. The applicant has addressed issues related
to utility providers and has modified the utility plans of the PUD accordingly.
The applicant is seeking a partial waiver of the Parks Impact fee. This fee is based on the
number of units proposed by unit type. $2,725 is assessed for each two bedroom unit to
offset demands placed on public parks from the new development. The 101 units
requires a fee of $275,225 be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The City
Council has the authority to waive a portion or all of this fee for the purpose of
encouraging the development of affordable housing.
The applicant has proposed a connection to the city trail system along Highway 82. This
is a requirement of the subdivision and PUD criteria. The City Parks Department has
suggested the applicant extend this trail to the intersection with Stage Court. (This trail is
dotted -in on the drawing sheets.) This extra trail would provide a connection to possible
future development of "Burlingame Village," if built. This is similar to the City
requesting an oversize utility in expectation of an adjacent development and represents an
additional request of the applicant not part of the normal requirements.
The Parks department is recommending the impact fee be lowered commensurate with
the cost of installing this trail. There are significant savings involved in providing this
trail link at this time as there exists an economy of scale. However, there also exists a
risk to the City of paying for an improvement to benefit a potential project that may never
be approved. The development cost is, very roughly, estimated to be approximately
WOO.
The applicant has delineated areas of disturbance and no disturbance for construction
appropriately. Staff is recommending these areas be delineated with silt fencing prior to
re -grading and remain in place through final landscape installation.
Staff is requesting an approved fugitive dust plan be submitted with the building permit.
This plan shall minimize dust associated with construction by watering of disturbed areas
including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing (as detailed above), daily cleaning of adjacent
rights -of -way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and appropriate measures as
requested by the Environmental Health Department to prevent a nuisance during
construction.
The applicant is seeking the appropriate approvals for a line extension and shared service
agreement from the Sanitation District.
12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation.
Staff Comments 11
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD)
shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area'dedicated to public or private use.
b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with
controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to
streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic.
C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion
on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such
surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be
adversely affected.
d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway
or drive providing access to a public street.
e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct
access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on
any street.
£ Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or
retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall
comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances.
Staff Finding:
The proposed street meets the City's requirements. Each dwelling unit will have access
to the private road which connects to the public road system. The street should be
retained in private ownership without becoming a City right-of-way.
Not all of the residential buildings will be within 60 feet of the roadway (criterion d). In
fact, some units are as far as 260 feet from the driveway. The internal pathways,
however, are intended to serve emergency access and can withstand the additional weight
of vehicles. Allowing temporary access for residents to move luggage, furniture, etc.
would benefit the project positively. Staff is recommending a condition that allows
residents this temporary access on the internal walkways.
Contractor parking should be limited to the north -side of Stage Court until adequate space
is available on -site. To the extent possible, all construction staging should be
accomplished on the parcel and not within public rights -of -way. The applicant is
strongly encouraged to promote the contractors' use of car-pooling and use of the daily
parking lots at the airport park -and -ride. These are suggested conditions.
The applicant has submitted a full traffic report to the City's Transportation Planner. The
report analyzes the intersection performances before and after the trip generation from the
proposed project and finds no significant deterioration of those capabilities resulting from
the project.
There is currently a full range of transit options available within walking distance to the
project. The major issue during conceptual was not the existence of transit but rather the
ability to "safely get to transit." The current un-improved situation would require
residents to run across Highway 82 - a completely unacceptable premise.
The Buttermilk intersection, which is planned to provide a pedestrian crossing light, is
proposed to be completed prior to the expected occupancy date of this project. In
addition, the applicant is proposing dedicated shuttle service to accommodate music
Staff Comments 12
students during. the summer months. The provision of this improvement prior to
occupancy eliminates the "interim" transit strategy discussion present in the conceptual
review. This also eliminates the "shoulder season" discussion, as there will exist a viable
and safe means of accessing transit.
Staff, however, is concerned about ongoing financing and scheduling debacles centered
around transportation improvements in the Valley. Therefore, staff is suggesting a
condition of approval requiring provision of a year-round shuttle service to the project be
implemented if the Buttermilk intersection is not completed or is delayed for whatever
reason. This condition would require that the shuttle service be in place at the time the
project receives a Certificate of Occupancy and remain in place until the Buttermilk
intersection is completed and operational. Staff stresses the importance of this condition,
as without the ability to access transit safely, this project has little merit as a transit -
oriented development.
Staff Comments: Subdivision
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this title.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to staff findings for these criteria under PUD general requirements (pages 1-3.)
2. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snow slide, steep topography, or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
Staff Finding:
This land is generally well suited for development considering the existence of the environmental
hazards and general topography. A small portion of the land is located within the Airport
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). This area is proposed for surface auto parking which is an
allowed use in this designation.
Staff Comments 13
The Airport staff has formally objected to the proposed development adjacent to the RPZ. As
one would expect, there will be significant event noise associated with planes arriving and
departing. In addition, although the residences are proposed outside of the RPZ, there are risks
associated with living close to the RPZ. These comments are more fully described in the Airport
referral letter.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature
extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding:
There are no in -efficiencies expected with this subdivision.
3. Improvements.
a. Required improvements. The following shall be provided for the proposed
subdivision.
1. Permanent survey monuments, range points, and lot pins.
2. Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements for paving and
improvements of a collector street.
3. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
4. Paved alleys.
5. Traffic -control signs, signals, or devices.
6. Street lights.
7. Street name signs.
8. Street trees or landscaping.
9. Water lines and fire hydrants.
10. Sanitary sewer lines.
11. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers.
12. Bridges and culverts.
13. Electrical lines.
14. Telephone lines.
15. Natural gas lines.
16. Cable television lines.
Staff Finding:
The applicant will need to fully monument the subdivision boundaries. The streets, curbs,
gutters, etc. will be improved according to the City Engineering Department's requirements. A
stop sign should be located at the exit of the parcel onto Stage Court and the entrance should be
striped to designate the trail crossing. The access drive shall be called Stage Court, unless
emergency services recommends against the name, and the building shall be numbered with a
Stage Court address. The approved street name shall be included on the final plat.
There is proposed adequate fire protection, sanitary sewer, and drainage improvements. The
applicant should provide telephone, electric, and cable line for individual units in expectation that
the project could be condominiumized in the future.
C. Approved plans. Construction shall not commence on any of the
improvements required by this Section 26.88.040(C)(3)(a) until a plan,
profile, and specifications have been received and approved by the City
Engineer and, when appropriate, the relevant utility company.
Staff Comments 14
Staff Finding:
Because this project is a PUD, the final recording documents will include plans and specifications
for these improvements with approvals from the corresponding agencies.
d. Oversize Utilities. In the event oversized utilities are required as a part of
the improvements, arrangements for reimbursement shall be made whereby
the subdivider shall be allowed to recover the cost of the utilities that have
been provided beyond the needs of the subdivision.
Staff Finding:
There are no oversize utilities required for this development. Although not a utility and not really
an oversize, the applicant is being asked to extend the trail to the intersection with Stage Court.
This extension will serve pedestrians in the Burlingame Village AH Project, if and when that
project is developed. In exchange for extending the trail, the Parks Department is recommending
the Parks Impacts fee be partially lowered commensurate with the improvement.
4. Design Standards. The following design standards shall be required for all
subdivisions (edited).
a. Streets.
b. Easements.
C. Lots and blocks.
d. Survey Monuments.
taff Finding:
Jpon initial review by the City Engineer, the proposed access way meets the City's design
standards. The appropriate easements for utilities are being proposed in the draft plat. The
proposed lot is consistent with the City's lotting requirements.
The applicant is currently monumenting the exterior boundaries of the Subdivision. The lot pins
for Lot #2 of the Subdivision (the seasonal housing lot) would be displaced during construction if
located prior to filling of the plat. Staff is recommending these pins be placed prior to acceptance
of the Subdivision by the City and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
C. Utilities.
f. Storm Drainage
Staff Finding: The appropriate utility upgrades are proposed for installation by the applicant.
The applicant needs to confirm adequate fire protections measures including hydrant locations.
The City Engineer is currently reviewing the drainage plans but has indicated the proposed
drainage system should be adequate.
g. Flood hazard areas.
h. The design and location of any proposed structure, building envelope, road,
driveway, trail, or other similar development is compatible with significant
natural or scenic features of the site.
Staff Finding:
The property is not within a flood hazard area. The proposed site improvements and structures
are compatible with significant natural and scenic features of the site.
Staff Comments 15
i. Variations of design standards. Variations from the provisions of this
section, "Design Standards," may be granted by special review as provided
for in Chapter 26.64.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has not requested any variations from these design standards.
5. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.48, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision
which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable
housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.100, Growth
Management Quota System.
Staff Finding: The applicant has applied for an exemption from GMQS for the development of
100% affordable housing meeting the standards of Section 26.100.
6. School land dedication standards.
C. Dedication Schedule.
1. Land Dedication. School land dedications shall be assessed
according to the following schedule:
Unit Type
Land Dedication Standard
Dormitory
.0000 acres (0 sq., ft.)
Studio/One bedroom
.0012 acres (52 sq. ft.)
Two bedroom
.0095 acres (416 sq. ft.)
Three bedroom
.0162 acres (707 sq. ft.)
Four bedroom
.0248 acres (1081 sq. ft.)
Five bedroom
.0284 acres (1236 sq. ft.)
2. Cash -in -lieu payment. An applicant may make a.cash payment in -
lieu of dedicating land to the City, or make a cash payment in
combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of
this section. Because the cost of subdivided land in the City of
Aspen, the School District and Aspen have decided to require
payment of a cash -in -lieu amount which is less than the full market
value of the land area. The formula to determine the amount of
cash -in -lieu payment for each residential dwelling unit is as follows:
Market value of land x applicable land dedication standard x 0.33 = cash payment.
Payment of cash -in -lieu of a land dedication shall be made to the City prior to and
on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential
dwellings.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has requested an interpretation of this dedication standard on the basis of the
project's seasonal use and operation as "dormitory" units. The Community Development
Director provided an interpretation. Please reference the attached finding. The Planning
Staff Comments 16
Department recommends this interpretation be upheld and the commensurate School Lands
Dedication cash -in -lieu fee be paid according to the provided calculation and the value of the
land. If a fair market value of the land is not presented, staff requests the property be appraised
by an independent third party.
STAFF COMMENTS: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Commission makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all standards set forth below.
B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever off-street parking requirements of a
proposed development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation via a payment in lieu
by special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following
conditions are met:
1: In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements of a proposed
development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review, the applicant
shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees
of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected
traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on -street parking of the
neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special
services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests, and employees.
Staff Finding:
Parking for affordable housing is established by Special Review. In this review, there are
no buy -down or cash -in -lieu mitigation requirements, only the establishment of the
appropriate parking scenario.
Due to the proximity of the project to a significant selection of transit options, the desire
to encourage transit.usage over automobile usage, and the desire to limit the extend to
which automobile parking dominates the entrance to Aspen landscape, the Planning
Department has strongly encouraged the applicant to limit the provision of surface
parking to a practical minimum. As was discussed during the conceptual review, staff
separates the parking issue into two categories: 1) use (daily dependence), and 2) storage
(occasional use). This project has the ability to generate significantly fewer auto trips per
day than more isolated developments. The proximity to transit, the provision of shuttle
services for Summer users, and the limited access to the auto will result in a far lower
daily usage of the car. However, while significant accomplishments may be made in
reducing auto usage, residents will remain in need of a place to store their car. This is
where staff requested the applicant be creative in both determining the minimum
necessary parking spaces to provide and finding a location for off -site spaces.
It is important to note the City code requirements for this project, as they have changed
with the modifications to the unit layouts. The City code requires the fewer of two spaces
per unit or one per bedroom. When the project was proposed as 50 four -bedroom units,
the project required 100 parking spaces. The unit plans have been amended, at the desire
of both the Commission and Council, to 100 two -bedroom units. Although this is
essentially the same program, the parking requirement for the amended plan has doubled.
Staff Comments 17
Staff stresses the importance of the larger picture over the code requirements — this is
essentially the same program — and still believes the project should provide only the
necessary minimum parking spaces. The fact that the same number of bedrooms are now
proposed in a two -bedroom configuration instead of the previous four -bedroom has little
bearing on the actual parking demand and the most effective manner to address the issue.
Based on comments from the on -site housing manager of the Marolt seasonal housing
project, the applicant has provided two parking scenarios, both providing a minimum
number of spaces of approximately 104-110. Twenty-five of these spaces are proposed
as "stacked" spaces behind the main parking. This is a concept which provides on -site
parking for infrequent auto use (storage) and originated during the conceptual review.
There are also 8 guest spaces proposed. Staff encouraged the applicant to provide these
guest spaces to accommodate visitors to the complex and avoid parking along Stage
Court. Staff is satisfied the number proposed in both scenarios will be adequate to serve
the use.
The remaining question centers around off -site parking. Staff has encouraged the
applicant to address the long-term car storage at an off -site location — the airport being
the most obvious location. The demand for off -site parking is expected to be greatest
during the winter months and essentially non-existent during the Summer months. This
is consistent with the MAA's experience in accommodating students and the seasonal
conditions at the Marolt facility.
Based on the expected peak demand for parking, an additional 25 off -site spaces could be
needed. The applicant has suggested use of the excess capacity that exists at the Truscott
golf lot during the winter. While staff may prefer a remote parking location other than the
golf parking, this location does make sense given the under -use of the lot during the
winter. As the community continues to discuss the need for an out-of-town off -site
parking facility, this lot can serve the current demand. Staff suggests Parking scenario
"A" be approved with this development and that the off -site parking arrangement be rigid
in the number of required spaces and flexible in the location. This would allow the
applicant to relocate the off -site parking requirement to another location if one is
developed in the future or if the golf lot is no longer available.
(Also reference related parking comments under PUD, page 7.)
Staff Comments: Rezoning
Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the
Commission shall consider:
Staff Comments 18
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed RMF-A zoning is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any
potential conflicts. This zoning provides land use and density regulations consistent with those
being considered in the PUD application. Staff believes the land use application to be
appropriate for the site and hence the zoning appropriate to accommodate the development plans.
The P&Z Resolution recommending this area be zoned Rural Residential (RR) specifically
recognizes this pending land use application and defers the zoning to the more specific
development application if approved. -In other words, there is no zoning conflict created for this
land by this land use application. The land has a zoning classification in place independent of the
result of this case.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
Contrary to many statements that have been made about this parcel, the 1993 AACP did not
identify Burlingame Ranch as a site for affordable housing. Of course this 1993 plan identified
specific parcels based on a then current understanding of their ownership and immediate future.
Staff underscores a commonly used statement about comprehensive plans: They are broad in
scope and general in nature. While the 1993 plan considered specific parcels, the more general
parcel characteristics are not limited by arbitrary ownership boundaries. In other words, what
was said about one parcel can often times be said about the neighboring parcel.
In close proximity to Burlingame Ranch and providing some guidance for this parcel, two sites
were identified in the 1993 AACP with the following recommendations:
The Zoline parcel: 1 ("great" rating), deed restricted lots via the growth management
process. If this property ever submits a growth management application for development
this would be an appropriate location for deed restricted lots.
Pfister (Maroon Creek Club AH): 2 ("good" rating), if in the event the Development
Corporation cannot put the 39 deed restricted units in the location as approved at the
intersection of Stage Road and Highway 82, the location should be re-evaluated and
perhaps units should be dispersed throughout the property in a less -dense manner.
The Zoline parcel could still be developed and sold as deed restricted lots. However, there has
been presented the opportunity for a partnership with the City to develop an affordable housing
project on a portion of the Zoline parcel. The Pfister parcel (Maroon Creek Club) was developed
in the original development pattern (not re-evaluated). The affordable housing units were a
mitigation requirement by the County and the property is now within the City of Aspen.
The draft update of the community plan (the 1998 AACP) specifically identifies the Seasonal
project as a location to concentrate affordable housing efforts. It is important to note that the
1998 plan is a draft plan, has not been adopted, and has no binding effect. Following are
statements relevant to this project from the draft AACP:
Staff Comments 19
■ "... we again call for a critical mass of permanent residents and employees to be housed
within the urban area. Our goal is to reverse the tide and bring back the ebbing balance of
our community/resort." Excerpt from Managing Growth Philosophy.
■ "We should discourage sprawl and recognize its cost to the character of our community, our
open spaces, and our rural resources." Excerpt from Managing Growth Philosophy.
"To conserve our rural resources, we recommend that an Aspen Community Boundary be
identified... A Community Growth Boundary will focus and reduce infrastructure
expenditures, reduce the spread of development into the countryside and maintain a rural
character between communities, while at the same time promoting concentrations of
development supportive of transit and pedestrian accessibility." Excerpt from Managing
Growth Philosophy.
■ "Local and regional land use and development patterns should enable and support travel by
alternative modes of transportation. New development should take place only in areas well
served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and
bicycling." Excerpt from Transportation Philosophy.
■ "We still believe that a `critical mass' of local working residents is needed to sustain our
economy." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Philosophy.
■ "Housing sites should be rated with emphasis placed on living within walking distance of
transit, employment areas and social connections." Excerpt from Affordable Housing
Philosophy.
■ "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so
as to protect our open and rural lands." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Philosophy.
■ "Evaluate opportunities for publicly held properties to be developed or redeveloped to
include or be replaced by affordable housing. The public holds properties that could be
redeveloped with affordable housing without impeding the existing use. These parcels
should be evaluated for their qualities as affordable housing sites and their ability to
contribute to our town's affordable housing dilemma without consuming our valuable rural
lands or open space." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Action Plan.
Staff believes the proposed development plan and this zoning is consistent with the
AACP. The parcel is virtually identical to the Maroon Creek Club Affordable Housing
site and both the Housing and Growth sections of the revised AACP (under review and
not adopted) depict this parcel as a site for affordable housing.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding:
South of the parcel exists the MCC facilities including short-term lodge accommodations,
golf course and associated uses including the primary maintenance facility for the course,
a complete athletic club with a restaurant, a retail pro -shop, and a multi -unit affordable
housing complex. To the east are active agricultural and cattle lands. To the north is
"Deer Hill" which is steeply sloped and inappropriate for a significant amount of
Staff Comments 20
£ [ j
development. To the west is State Highway 82 and clear zones for the main runway of the
Pitkin County Airport.
There are significant transportation options for this site as it is within walking distance to
frequent bus service up and down valley. This walk will also be safe with the
improvements scheduled for the Buttermilk intersection. Staff believes this proposal to
be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and existing land uses.
A small portion of the land is located within the Airport Runway Protection Zone (RPZ).
This area is proposed for surface auto parking which is an allowed use in this designation.
The Airport staff has formally objected to the proposed development adjacent to the RPZ.
As one would expect, there will be significant event noise associated with planes arriving
and departing. In addition, although the residences are proposed outside of the RPZ,
there are risks associated with living close to the RPZ. These comments are more fully
described in the Airport referral letter.
A The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
The applicant submitted a traffic analysis during the conceptual review based on the
proposed 202 beds within the development. The City's Transportation Planner found no
significant deteriorization to the level of service in the immediate area, including the
intersections. It is important to note that the total traffic associated with this development
and that which exists today is well within the capacity of the road system. Staff believes
the proposed zoning andproposed development will have no significant adverse
effect on the capacity of the road system.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including,
but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
The proposed zoning does not represent the development potential to overwhelm existing
infrastructure capacities. The appropriate utility agencies have responded to the
development application and the applicant has incorporated the appropriate
improvements into the PUD development plans.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
Staff believes the proposed zoning and the proposed development to not represent
adverse impacts upon the natural environment. In fact, the proposed development
specifically limits the extent of impacts to a relatively small area considering the amount
of density proposed.
Staff Comments 21
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The community has determined a need for seasonal housing to be part of the housing
inventory. The community also has stated desires to provide compact, dense
development within walking distance of viable transit opportunities in order to maximize
efficiency and preserve valuable open space areas. This project serves those needs and
staff believes the zoning to be consistent and compatible with the City's character.
H. , Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The City Council adopted Resolution Number 7, Series of 1999, granting Conceptual
approval for this project. The conceptual approval, appropriately so, did not request a
rezoning at that time although it was understood that a rezoning would be sought. The
conceptual approval significantly represents support for a rezoning. Staff believes the
proposed PUD is appropriate for this site and supports the rezoning in coordination with
the PUD approval.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
Additional affordable housing, and specifically seasonal housing, will support local
businesses and the town's economy. Additional housing opportunities for music students
also supports the continuation of a community tradition and symbol of modern Aspen.
For these two reasons, staff believes the public interest is being served with this project.
Staff believes the proposed zoning, and the proposed project, promotes the purpose and
intent of this Title and is in harmony with the public interest.
Staff Comments 22
I • 0• 6 Ili
To: Chris Bendon, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Chuck Roth, Project E ' eer
Date: May 21, 1999
Re: Burlingame Seasonal Housing — Final P.U.D.
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their May 5, 1999
meeting, and we have the following comments:
General — (1) These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate,
that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written
unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to halt complaints related to
approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." (2) If there are any encroachments into the public right-of-
way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements.
1. P.U.D. Plat —
a. Revise certificate of ownership to include Mayor's signature for City as owner and attestation by City
Clerk. Also include in dedication language to re -dedicate public rights -of -way as shown.
b. Lot 2 must be fully monumented before final plat approval and so indicated on the final plat sheet
titled "Detailed Plat". This sheet would also show any easements dedicated to utilities for primary
facilities, including transformers and switch gear as well as line extensions. Easements are not
required for service lines.
c. §26.88.040.D.2.a(1) specifies the size of unencumbered margins for each plat sheet. It is preferable
to have borders drawn on each sheet at those dimensions in order to ensure this section.
d. The drainage plan sheet needs to be sealed and signed by an engineer registered to practice in the
State of Colorado. .
e. The boundary plat needs to indicate the "Old" Stage Road public right-of-way.
f. There are various blanks in the submitted plat that need to be filled in for the final plat.
g. Indicate the property zone district. Complete the basis of bearings statement.
1
h. Refer to §26.88.040.D.1 and 2 for plat requirements. The vicinity map needs to appear on the first
sheet. Show the City limit line. The word "Aspen" is illegible due to the street grid.
i. On sheet 2, the line symbology is unclear and inconsistent. As of this writing, the Burlingame
Annexation is in effect. Indicate adjacent subdivisions with dotted lines of abutting lots or
indicate if adjoining land is unplatted. Beneath the Lot 1 and Lot 2 labels, indicate the area to the
nearest 0.001 acres.
2. Parking — Because the project is a planned unit development, the number of parking spaces is
determined based on the specific project. The Engineering Department has no comment for this application
concerning parking requirements, except no part of public right-of-way shall be considered as exclusive
parking space to serve this development._
3. Site Drainage - The site development approvals need to include the requirement of meeting runoff
design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and Engineering Department's interim
design and construction standards. The final plat should include drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan
sheet or on the lot grading plan), as well as a temporary sediment control and containment plan for the
construction phase. These and a report must be signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of
Colorado. The drainage plan must be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer prior to issuance of
building permit and signing the final plat. r.--
4. Trash & Utilities - All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on
the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. For pedestals and transformers, easements
must be provided and should be indicated on the final plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading
and may not be obstructed by trash stora e. Any units that may be condominiumized must have separate
utility service connections and meters.
The applicant indicated that existing overhead utilities along the southwesterly property will be ✓
undergrounded in conjunction with the proposed development. This is consistent with other developments
in the City.
5. Fire Protection District — The following are the comments from the conceptual review:
"Various fire protection details are not yet clear on the draft plat and need to be remedied for the final
plat. These will relate to access around the perimeter, hose lengths, hydrant locations, sprinklering,
turning radii, turn arounds. Any gates across emergency access routes must be locked with Knox box or
lock.
"Emergency access width is required to be 20 feet and to be maintained and drivable, free of snow
and obstructions, on a year round basis. This should be documented in the project approvals,
subdivision improvements agreement and any other agreements, such as declarations or covenants, that
maybe drafted for the project."
The final plat is not clear on these fire protection details. There should be a specific sheet in the final plat
titled "Fire Protection Plan" with the signature block for the Fire Marshal on that sheet.
,, ' There was discussion if there should be an activated fire system in place when the pre -fabricated
buildings arrive. The Fire Marshal replied that the issue would be addressed at the time of building permit
application.
2
6. City Water Department — The concern was renewed about the number and space requirements of
backflow preventers. The applicant's water engineer will work with the City Water Department on design
details.
7. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District — The utility plan does not contain enough detail for sanitary
sewer. There should be a separate sheet with the approval certificate thereon. The applicant needs to initiate
a line extension request and a collection agreement in a timely manner to avoid project delays. ,
8. Parks Department — It is preferable that temporary access to the site not cross a trail. There was
discussion about the applicant constructing trail sections which could allow for a reduction of park
dedication fees. [Engineering comment: Note that .developments are generally required to construct
sidewalk, curb and gutter in adjacent public rights -of -way. This needs to be balanced with trail construction
costs.] The Parks Department agrees with the proposed dedication fee, but it must be approved by Council.
The trail needs to be protected from having highway snow plowed onto it
9. Environmental Health— (a) Replacement traffic mitigation measures are needed. (b) The City Attorney
is researching the legality of using washing machine gray water for irrigation. (c) As provided for by the
newly enacted ordinance, the dumpsters or enclosures need to be bear -proof.
10. Snow Storage - The applicant needs to designate snow storage areas on the final PUD site plan.
11. Improvement Districts - The applicant should be required to agree to join any improvement districts
that are formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way and to
provide a signed and notarized agreement with recording fees prior to the final building inspection.
12. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts, and shall obtain
permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the city
community development department.
DRC Meeting Attendees
Staff: Tom Bracewell, Ed VanWalraven, Chris Bendon, Cindy Christensen, Lee Cassin, Phil Overeynder,
John Krueger, Rebecca Schickling, StephanieLevesque, Chuck Roth
Applicant's representatives: Jim Curtis, Michael Hassig, Julia Marshall, Eric Hendricks
99M59
Q
+MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Bendon
FROM: Sara Thomas, City Zoning Officer
RE: Zoning Analysis for Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD &
Subdivision
DATE: May 18, 1999
VARIANCES:
The Burlingame Seasonal Housing proposal appears to comply with the R/MFA zone
district dimensional requirements with the exception of setback and open space criteria.
Floor area calculations were not verified at this time as the drawings included in the
application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. All
dimensional requirements will be re -verified at time of building permit submittal.
Section 26.04.100 Yarns (A)(5)(6) of the Municipal Land Use Code permits uncovered
slabs which do not exceed thirty inches (30") above or below natural grade to project into
the required setbacks without restriction. The proposed access roadway will be requiring
a cut in excess of 30" within the front and side yard setbacks.
In addition, only fences, hedges and walls that are less than six feet (6') in height, as
measured from natural grade, are permitted within setback areas. There are two retaining
walls indicated on the Site Development Plan in excess of six feet in height within the
required rear and side yard setbacks.
Section 26.04.100 Open Space (E) of the Municipal Land Use Code excludes from open .
space calculations areas more than four (4) feet above, or two (2) feet below the existing
grade of the street which abuts the open space. Due to the proposed significant regarding
of the parcel , the entire parcel does not technically meet the open space criteria.
PUD variances for open space and setbacks will be required in order to address these
issues.
IMPACT FEES:
1. A Park Development Impact Fee is assessed on all development in the City of
Aspen that creates additional.bedrooms in residential dwellings. The fee is based on
the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit and is assessed as follows:
Studio: $1,520.00 per unit
One -bedroom: $2,120.00 per unit
Two -bedroom: $2,725.00 per unit
Three bedroom or larger: $3,634.00 per unit
The proposed units are configured as two bedroom units and would therefore be
assessed at $2,725.00 per unit, $275,225 total for the 101 units.
Section 26.44.060 permits the applicant to request city council to reduce or waive this
fee for development of affordable housing.
2. School Land Dedication Standards apply to all new subdivisions within the City of
Aspen which contain residential units. The land dedication is assessed based on the
unit type and may be provided either with a land dedication to, the city or by making a
cash payment in lieu to the city. The applicant is requesting that the city make a
determination that the proposed seasonal housing units are dormitories, thereby
exempting the project from the land dedication standard.
A dwelling unit is defined by the Land Use Code as: a separately enterable, self-
szfficient room or combination of rooms which contain kitchen and bath facilities and
which are designed for or used as a residence by a single family or guests,
independent of other families or guests.
A dormitory is defined as: a structure or portion thereof under single management
that provides group sleeping accommodations for guests or residents in one or more
rooms for compensation. Occupancy of a dormitory unit shall be limited to no more
than eight persons. Each unit shall provide a minimum of one hundred fifty (1 5 0)
square feet per person of net living area, including sleeping, bathroom, cooking and
lounge used in common.
The proposed units are configured to be self sufficient, separately enterable and may
be used independently. They each contain their own kitchen and bath facilities and
do not offer facilities which are common to all residents. The units clearly meet the
definition of dwelling unit and do not comply with the. standards applicable to
dormitory units as defined by the Land Use Code. .
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department
From: Lee Cassin , Environmental Health Department
Date: May 19,1999
Re: Burlingame Seasonal Housing — Final PUD and Subdivision
PID # 2735-023
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under
authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments, which are
in addition to the comments made during the conceptual review.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 :
"It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or
reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal device."
The plans to provide sewage disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACED) meet the requirements of this department. The
applicant would like to use the wastewater from the washing machines to irrigate either berms or
common areas or both. From a resource and environmental point of view, this would be a very
beneficial process, since water consumption would be greatly reduced and it would not be
necessary to use treated water for irrigation, which requires chemicals and energy to produce.
Unfortunately, state regulations effectively prohibit use of gray water for irrigation. However,
state regulations DO allow drip irrigation systems for disposal of sewage. We would like to work
with the applicant to see if such a system can be installed for the washing machine waste. This
does not need to be resolved for approval, since if it is not feasible, the applicant can connect the
washing machines to the sanitary sewer lines.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55:
"All buildings, structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility
system."
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental
Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen water supply meets all
f k'
standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality. There are no
additional conditions.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3:
"For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and
supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal water
supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted."
A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be
evaluated by the City Engineer. This application is not expected to impact down stream water
quality.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1
"It is the purpose of (the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring
the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..." The Land Use
Regulations seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting
the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity
by using all available practical methods. to reduce pollution and utilize automobile disincentive
measures. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Sixth Edition,
approximately 446 trips per day would be generated by the proposed project. The applicant has
proposed a number of measures that have the potential to successfully reduce automobile use.
This department agrees that eventually this project will be transit -oriented when the pedestrian
underpass at the Old Stage Road area and the signalized crosswalk for pedestrians at Buttermilk
are constructed. These two features will enable pedestrians to cross the highway safely to access
bus service into town. However, at this time the dates for construction of the underpass and the
signalized intersection are not certain and will likely not be in place when the development is
completed. If residents have to cross Highway 82 at this location to catch a bus, especially when its
is icy, a very large disincentive for bus use exists.
To allow access to town without use of cars, the applicant has agreed to provide a shuttle
bus service if the project is ready for occupancy before the traffic light and underpass are
completed "to ensure that residents will be able to safely cross SH 82. This shuttle bus will
operate until there is safe crossing infrastructure across SH 82, including off-seasons." It
will operate in the summer and in the winter. This safe crossing infrastructure needs to
include the traffic light and crosswalk in the middle of the site, and the underpass at the
NW end of the project but as close to the middle of the site as possible.
In addition, we support the recommendations made by the Transportation and Parking
Department. In particular, Parking Plan A would reduce trips much more effectively than
would Parking Plan. B. It also should be more convenient for residents to walk to the bus stop or
bike path than to their parking area. An effective pedestrian refuge is crucial at the crosswalk
area. The underpass should be as far to the east as possible. If people have to walk a few
hundred feet to a bus stop and then wait, compared to having much easier access to their cars,
there is a significant disincentive for bus use, especially from October through April. A
condition of approval should also be that a connecting trail be constructed between the
underpass and Buttermilk.
We also recommend that the applicant make every attempt to place the bicycle parking spaces
in areas that will be covered. This could include bike hanging hooks, or putting the posts or
racks under overhangs. This will make people more likely to use their bikes, since they will not
be damaged or in need of maintenance due to exposure to rain and snow. ,
Finally, we recommend that the conditions of approval include the strategies to which the
applicant committed earlier.
FUGITIVE DUST As described in our earlier comments, a fugitive dust control plan is required.
It must include, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily or
more frequent cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed
limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or
causing a nuisance.
Dust control will be crucial -for this project due to its proximity to SH 82, the Maroon Creek Club
and residences.
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1:
"The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat
to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors ...... Accordingly, it is the. policy
of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of
those levels."
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and
construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. By the time
construction begins on this project, the City's noise law will have been revised to allow
construction to continue only until 7 PM, and not to occur on Sundays. We would recommend
these hours in any case for this project, given its proximity to neighbors. _
We recommend that the applicant notify neighbors who might be affected, before any time when
there will be especially loud noise from the construction.
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: CRIS BENDON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: TIMANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 19, 1999
RE. PARKING FOR SEASONAL HOUSING.
Summary: In discussions with Lee Novak of the housing authority and Jim Curtis of
Curtis & Associates, the golf course has agreed to the. use of up to 80 parking spaces for
seasonal housing. These 80 spaces would be used by seasonal housing only during the
winter months. The seasonal housing will be required to cordon off the spaces and gate
"he access as to provide control of the area and assure the space is utilized for seasonal
housing only. The remaining 40 spaces will be maintained by the golf course for the
purpose of Cross Country Skiing guests. The seasonal housing will be paying the golf
course for the use of these parking spaces over the winter months.
Other Considerations: The gates and security improvements will be removed following
winter so that parking lot may serve both the golf course and the tennis complex to be
constructed.
Currently a taxi service utilizes the parking lot for their winter storage of vehicles. This
service is no longer going to do so and the seasonal housing will simply replace existing
winter parking. In fact with the winter improvements the seasonal housing is proposing I
believe the lot will be better maintained and regulated through the winter months than it
is currently.
In short this scenario should be a win win situation for both the golf course and seasonal
housing while creating literally no more impact than that which is felt currently.
IN FORK TRANS
IT 0
ZW
ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY
ASPEN, COLORADO
To: Chris Bendon, Community Development Depart nt
From: Mike Davis, Roaring Fork Transit Agency ;7
CC: Jim Curtis, Project Manager
Date: 05/19/99
Re: Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD & Subdivision
Summer Transit Service
Alternative transportation issues for Burlingame Seasonal Housing were discussed in
a memo dated December 11, 1998 by Claude Morelli and Mike Davis. This memo
analyzed extending the existing MAA buses to serve Burlingame. This scenario was
found to cause a reduction in service which in turn, reduced transit passengers.
After meeting with the MAA recently, a better transit solution was discussed. This
included keeping the existing MAA bus system, adding a new route which would
travel between Burlingame and Campus, and adding a route from Burlingame to the
music tent for concerts on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays. (See Figure A.) -
The route from Burlingame to Campus would run between 7:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M.
on a headway of 30 minutes (frequency of 30 minutes). Using RFTA's service
Analysis Form, this service would require 2.3 buses and 6 drivers for an annual
operating cost of $94,788 in 1999 dollars (See Attachment A). Capital costs were
estimated to be $115,693 ($11,390 annually.)
Service from Burlingame to the concerts on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays
would depend on driver availability. If RFTA can provide this service the cost could
be around $5,350 annually depending on the number of concerts. (See attached
Table A.)
0 Page 1
The bus scenario, previously described, should be able to achieve high transit
ridership. RFTA has estimated that the development will average 224 one-way
transit trips per day if the same level of transit service currently provided to MAA
students is provided to Burlingame students. (See Table B)
Winter Transit Service
RFTA has estimated that ridership for Burlingame winter and off-season service will
range from 151 a day during January to four a day during May with the winter
average being 143 passengers a day. This ridership was calculated by comparing
the land use quantities of Burlingame to the land use quantities of Aspen (See Table
C). RFTA realizes that this ridership estimation is low since the Burlingame
development is entirely employee housing, however, we feel it is a good base from
which to estimate -costs.
The subsidy requirements needed to serve these additional passengers can be
calculated by assessing existing subsidy requirements and passenger activity levels.
As passenger activity peaks during the winter season, average winter daily transit
ridership is a valid measure of passenger activity. In 1998, RFTA's Downvalley
services incurred a total operating subsidy requirement (total operating cost minus
fare revenues) of $2,887,519. Over the average winter day, the Downvalley service
carried 5,825 passenger -trips. Operating subsidy required to operate this service
therefore equaled $495.71 per winter daily passenger -trip. Multiplying this figure by
the increase in passenger -trips created by MAA Burlingame winter service, the total
impact of the proposed development on operating subsidy needs is estimated to
equal $70,886 per year in-1998 dollars.
In addition, the increase in ridership associated with the proposal will increase capital
costs associated with the Downvalley service. RFTA's projection of capital needs
over the next twelve years indicates an annual average capital funding requirement
of $2,862,956. However, some of these funds can be expected to be generated from
federal transit funding programs; a review of federal capital funding received over the
last 10 years indicates an average revenue of $650,000. The difference of
$2,212,956 represents the local funding required for RFTA capital needs.
An equitable way of allocating capital costs to the Downvalley service is by the
proportion of annual vehicle -hours of service. The Downvalley services currently
comprise 54.27 percent of all RFTA services. Using this proportion, the estimated
local capital subsidy required for RFTA equals $1,200,979, or $206.18 per winter
daily rider. Multiplying this latter figure by the number of additional daily riders
generated by the proposed development and a capital impact of $29,484 per year is
identified.
0 Page 2
Conclusion
Summer service as described in this memo would require 2.3 additional buses and 6
drivers to operate at a cost of $94,788 per year, not including concert runs. Since
RFTA does not have adequate resources to run this service, RFTA will need an
annual payment of $94,788 from the developer before services can be provided. In
addition, the capital costs associated with this service will be $115,000 ($11,390
annually). RFTA is interested in receiving housing units as part of the mitigation for
capital costs.
Winter and off-season transit service for Burlingame will add additional riders onto
the valley bus service requiring and estimated annual subsidy of $71,000 for
operating costs and $29,484 for capital costs. RFTA feels these costs should be
mitigated for by the developer. Again, RFTA is interested in receiving housing units
as part of the mitigation for the capital costs.
• Page 3
o
o w
o
� zCon
c >1
w O W
LW
E
U.
Ift
M
CL
-
Sam
_
.N
CO--
_
-
-
- --CL
0
-------
0)
cu
I
I -
I
ROARING R;VF0RKTyRANSITAG ENCY Attachmen t A I ASPEN, COLORADO I by Mike Davis
SERVICE CHANGE ANALYSIS FOR 1999
Planner Mike Davis Hours of Service 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 R.M.. Date 19-May-99
Route MAA Burlingame Days of Service Mon -Sun Effective Date
A. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE CHANGE:
Cost of MAA Burlingame Route
B. OPERATING LEVELS: source - Winter 1998/99 ATC 33
One -Way
Daily Service
Miles/Trip Running Min.
Trips Days/Year
3.00 .20.0
64 68
@ Revenue Miles
14,362 Total Miles 14,994]
@ Revenue Hours
1,596 # Platform Hours 2,12
@ Revenue miles and hours plus budget factor of:
Revenue Miles plus deadhead factor of:
4.4%,
# Revenue Hours plus deadhead/layover factor of:
33.3%
C. GROSS COSTS: source - 1 UUU Kt- I A 1-inal budget (11/25/98) - Exhibit L
Op. Cost/Plat Hour $26.85 Maint. Cost/Total Mile $0.86
Annual Operating Cost $57,113 Annual Maintenance Cost $12,894
Direct Annual Operating Cost j $70,0077
Fixed Cost/Plat Hour: $111.65 Direct Annual Fixed Cost j $24,78
Total Gross Cost j $94,78
Unit Costs:
Gross Cost/Total Mile $6.32 Gross Cost/Passenger #DIV/01
Compare RFTA'99 System Ave. $3.25 RFTA'99 System Ave. = $2.69
E. PASSENGER REVENUE: source - 1999 RFTA Final Budget (11/25/98) - Exhibit L
Average Passenger Fare
Annual Passenger Revenue $o
Revenue Recovery Ratio of Direct Operating Costs:
RFTA'99 System Average = This Change 0.0%]
F. VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS:
Round Trip 40.0 EOL (min) 20 Required Buses 2�
Travel Time (min.) Spare Ratio = 15% 0.
Total
Headway (min.) 30 EOL (%) 33.3% Required Buses i 2.30]
I G. DRIVER REQUIREMENTS:
Driver Requirements l 5.76]
H. NET COSTS:
Total Costs: $94,788 Passenger Revenue: $0
1 Net Annual Cost j $94,78E
L BUS REPLACEMENT COSTS:
Type of Bus 40'Transit Cost Per Bus:
$270,000.00
Takes into account service days per year Total Bus Replacement Costsi $115,693]
Table A:
11
Burlingame Seasonal Housing MAA Ridership - Summer
One -Way
Average*
MAA
Average
Daily
opulation Trip
Daily
MAA
Generation Burlingame
Burlingame
Monthly
Ridership i
9501 Rate Population
Ridership Days
Ridership
June 1042
1.09705293 200
219 21
4608
July 1151
1.21191751 200
242 31
7514
August 1002
1.05525155 200
211 16
3377
Average
224 Total
15498
Student ridership was estimated by subtracting tent passengers.
El
Table C:
Burlingame Seasonal Housing Ridership Off -Season and Winter
Average* Aspen
Average
Daily Population
Trip
Daily
Aspen
Generation
Burlingame Burlingame
Monthly
Ridership 5524
. Rate
Occupancy
Ridership
Days
Ridership
January
4,162
0.7534687
200
151
31
4,672
February
4,082
0.7390413
200
148
28
4,139
March
4,098
0.7419063
200
148
31
4,600
April
29470
0.4470734
200
89
30
2,682
May
1,172
0.2122527
20
4
31
132
September
1,689
0.3058231
60
18
30
550
October
1,510
0.2733994
140
38
31
1,187
November
2,120
0.3838161
200
77
30
2,303
December
3,423
0.6196538
200
124
31
3,842
Winter Average
143 Annual Total
24,106
Note: Source --- RFTA 1998 Ridership Information
RECEIVED
MAY 1 � 1999
MEMORAI'�TDUNI AsPLiV / PITKIN
TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department
FROM: David Bravdica, Assistant Director of Aviation '
DATE: Monday, May 17, 1999
SUBJ: Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD &
Subdivision
CC: Suzanne Konchan, County Manager
Airport staff has reviewed the Final P.U.D. Application and offers the following
comments:
It appears that several concerns and requirements as noted in past comments from the
airport has either been omitted or not considered in the Final P.U.D. Application.
I reiterate the following comments and concerns:
1. Noise impacts from arriving and departing aircraft will be significant.
2. The proposed development lies within the airport high hazard zone.
3. The proposed development is directly adjacent to the Runway Protection
Zone.
Each of the above listed items is explained in more detail in the attached documents. The
documents attached are comments and concerns, dated January 19, 1998 and November
27,1998, of the Burlingame Seasonal Housing development from the airport as solicited
by Community Development.
In addition to the comments above, it is required by the airport and subsequently Pitkin
County that the sponsor of the development execute an avgation easement. Again, this
requirement is absent from the language in the final application.
Lastly, the proximity and location to the airport combined with the intended utilization of
the proposed development does not adhere to the principles of compatible land use. As a V
result, the airport staff does formally object to the proposed project. 19
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 27, 1998
TO: Aspen Community Development Department '
Aspen City Council, Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners A
FROM: Scott Smith, Pitkin County Director of Aviatior, �,,�r
RE: Conceptual PUD Application, Burlingame Seasonal Housing'G� - 0, �
CC: Suzanne Konchan, County Manager
have again reviewed the above referenced project, and notwithstanding the
airport's previous review memorandums dated July 25, 1997 and January 19,
1998, offer the following concerns:
1. Construction on this parcel will require submission of FAA Form 7460,
Notice of Construction or Alteration, by the applicant. The proper form for the
notice has been forwarded to Tom Baker by the airport.
2. Due to the reality of airport noise impacts on the proposed development, I
continue to strongly recommend that construction standards be implemented
which will result in a exterior/interior noise reduction of 30 dBA for the sake of the
future residents in these buildings. Materials detailing the additional standards
necessary to achieve this reduction are available to the applicant from the airport
and from the applicant's own resources.
3. An avigation easement should be executed with the County before the
development takes place. A current avigation easement with exhibits has been
forwarded to Mr. Baker.
3. The runway protection zone (RPZ) for runway 33 extends approximately
100 -150 'beyond highway 82 from the airport into this parcel. I recommend
that no development take place on that portion of the property that lies within the
RPZ, with the exception of the construction of a landform berm and the proposed
pedestrian underpass.
DATE: January 19, 1998
TO: Aspen City Council; Dave Tolen; Jim Curtis--
FROM: Scott Smith, Director of Aviation
RE: Burlingame Ranch, Parcel "B Potential'Airport
Impacts on Affordable Housing Project
CC: Suzanne Konchan, County Manager
I have again reviewed the above referenced project, and offer the following
concerns:
1. Single -event noise impacts from Stage 2 aircraft departures will be
significant (85-90 dBA). For comparison, a 90 dBA event is similar to the sound
level of a motorcycle at a distance of 25 feet. Airport statistics indicate that the
property is subject to 850 -1,000 Stage 2 departures annually. Compatible land
use around airports is defined by the local community, and this definition usually
places noise tolerant uses closer to flight paths than noise sensitive ones.
Housing is viewed as one of the more sensitive uses. Airport staff strongly
recommends that housing not be located on this parcel.
2. The property lies within the airport high hazard zone, defined as a zone
within which encompasses the majority of flight paths/patterns used at the
airport which subjects the property to flight hazards.
3. . The runway protection zone (RPZ) for runway 33 extends approximately
100 - 150 ° beyond highway 82 from the airport into this parcel. This places
proposed development directly adjacent to the RPZ. The RPZ is an area created
for "the protection of persons and property on the ground". The airport questions
the appropriateness of placing housing directly adjacent to the RPZ.
4. In addition to potential problems of development on this parcel related to
dust, smoke, glare, radio magnetic interference and lighting, any future
improvements related to Stage Road intersection will create potential for lighting
issues with airport operations.
It is the airport's recommendation that Parcel "B" be withdrawn from
consideration for housing development and that other parcels ("D", "A") which
are more suitably located for airport operations be considered for housing
development.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Sy Kelly * Chairman John Keleher
Paul Smith * Treas i�1 �y r y'?.��1 Frank Loushin
Michael Kelly * Secy Bruce Niatherly, N'Igr
May 10, 1999
Chris Bendon
Community Development
13 0 S . Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
R e: Burlingame Final PUD
Dear Chris:
The Burlingame Seasonal Housing project is located within the District's service area. The
application proposes two short line extensions in order to provide service to this area. A line
extension request and collection system agreement will be required and must be approved by our
Board of Directors. Both forms are available at our District office. Shared service line agreements
will be required if individual buildings containing multiple units are served by a single service.line.
The detailed on -site collection system plan will need to be reviewed and approved by our
engineers once it becomes available. We would also like to review the detailed landscape,
irrigation, and drainage plans to ensure compliance with the District's regulations.
Treatment facility capacity is currently available but collection system capacity will need to be.
reviewed through a downstream flow study. If downstream constraints exist then they would be
eliminated through a system of proportionate additional fees.
The total connection fees for the project can be estimated when the detailed plans are approved,
and tap permit is completed at our office. We would request that all of the total connection fees
be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
As usual, service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications which are on file at the District office.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill St -Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 921-2537
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Dept.3199
� 9
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: May 18, 1999
RE: BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING FINAL PUD & SUBDIVISION
Parcel ID No.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval 'for a 200-bed seasonal residential
project proposed for an approximately 3.92 acre parcel known as Parcel B, Burlingame
Ranch.
BACKGROUND: The applicant reviewed the proposal with the Housing Board on June,
2, 1999. The Board was very pleased with what was being presented.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board recommends approval with the following
conditions:
1. That at least two of the buildings be converted to one -bedroom, long-term units,
with the possibility of a third building. If a third building is included, the .Board is
willing to review the possibility of master leasing a few of the units to the MAA or
possibly some other entity. If master leasing is allowed, the other entity should be
required to buy into that unit or units at 100% to allow a unit to be tied to a specific
employer.
2. The rents for the seasonal units go no higher than $350 per bedroom and go no
higher than $700 for the one -bedroom units. This relates to the mitt -point of
Category 2.
3. The Board was not unanimous regarding the parking for this project. However, the
Board did feel it was a good idea to provide less amount of parking, with the ability
to expand at a later date. The Board also recommends reviewing ways to provide
incentives for not using cars and disincentives for using the cars.
4. A deed restriction shall be recorded prior to building permit approval.
5. A site visit shall be done by staff prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
\referraRbu ding. mit
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Bendon, Community Planner
FROM: Claude Morelli, Transportation Planner
DATE: 14 May 1999
RE: Burlingame Seasonal Housing -- Final PUD & Subdivision
This memorandum responds to your request for referral agency comments on the final,
application for the Burlingame Seasonal Housing PUD. The Transportation and Parking
Department's recommendations regarding this project are as follows:
1. Transportation & Parking Department staff strongly prefers parking Plan "A" to
Parking Plan `B". Plan "A" offers much greater potential for project residents to
choose alternative travel modes over driving alone. Research on travel behavior
shows a strong positive correlation between the availability of automobiles and the
number of "solo" trips made by car. Separation of a residence from its parking
effectively reduces automobile availability for most types of trips.
2. Pedestrian connections between the housing units and the "trail head" for access to
the Highway 82 bus stops are not sufficiently clear, distinct and safe to promote high
rates of transit use. Ironically, this is in stark contrast to connections between the
housing units and the parking area. Our interpretation of the "Site Development Plan
- Technical" is that pedestrian access to the Highway 82 bus stops would require
cutting through the circular drive just south of the Commons Building. This creates
an unacceptable conflict between pedestrians, automobiles and the MAA shuttle
buses. Pedestrian paths between the Highway 82 bus stops and housing units in the
proposed development should be uninterrupted, pleasant, and easy to navigate and
use. At a minimum, a curbed sidewalk at least six feet wide should be provided along
the edge of the circular drive.
3. Access between the housing units and the parking need not be direct. The area
between the parking lot and the common area needs to be appropriately landscaped.
Thus, the northernmost pedestrian connection between the housing and the parking
lot should be eliminated, and some sort of low fence or low vegetation provided to
separate the parking lot from the common area (while continuing to keep the parking
lot visible to residents for safety and security purposes).
4. The intersection of the pedestrian trail leading to the Highway 82 bus stops and the
BUR REF2 Page 1 of 2
driveway leading to the parking area should be designed to ensure safety and give
priority to pedestrians. For example, the intersection could be designed as a raised
crosswalk with flared curbs on both sides to slow motorists.
5. The title of and all references to "Parking Management Plan" in the application
(especially on pages 8 and 9) should be changed to "Transportation and Parking
Management Plan."
6. Item #7 in the list of transportation management techniques shown on pages 8 and 9
should be amended as follows: "Bicycles will be made available for free to project i
residents on a `use and return' basis or other system. Such system will be monitored
closely and adjusted periodically (if need be) by the Property Manager working in
close consultation with Transportation & Parking Department staff."
7. Add a new item to the list: "At least two secure bicycle parking spaces (e.g., ribbon
racks, lean posts, bike hanging hooks, etc.) will be provided close to the front door of -e
every unit in the project. At least eight `visitor' bicycle parking spaces will also be
made available near the entrance to the Commons Building."
8. Add a new item to the list: "As a means of monitoring and evaluating the
Transportation and Parking Management Plan, the property manager will cooperate
with Transportation & Parking Department staff to conduct summer and winter
surveys of resident travel patterns and preferences."
9. Add a new item to the list: "The project manager will ensure that all residents
periodically receive updated transportation options information from the City
Transportation & Parking Department. Means of distributing the information may
include mailbox inserts, bulletin boards, outdoor signs, etc."
10. Add a new item to the list: "All project residents will receive one taxi voucher per
month for shopping travel. The cost of the voucher will be included in the rent."
BUR REF2 Page 2 of 2
V�
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado SECTION 26.52.060(E)
being or representing an
Applicant to City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property v,�ithin three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the' day of , 199n (which is A6— days prior to the public
a
hearing date of L0 ).
2. By post4 a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the -d earest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from theZO day
r
Of , 199n, to the day of , 199a. (Must be posted for at least
fr114
ten (10) full Jays before the hearing date)..A ph ograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
(Attach photograph here)
.0
4;d before me this day of (A P1-P-� ,
1991. by
Q►tee 5. � S
i
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING FINAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD), SUBDIVISION, REZONING, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR
PARKING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 8, 1999 at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Council
Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application for Final Planned Unit
Development (PUD), Subdivision, Rezoning to Residential Multi -Family (RMF-A), and Special
Review for Parking, submitted by the Aspen Music Festival and School, 2 Music School Road,
Aspen, CO 81611 for 101 affordable housing units located near Old Stage Road and State Highway
82, as shown in the site map below. The property is part of the Burlingame Ranch parcel which is
legally described as Lots 6 and 18, Section 2, and Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21,
Section 3, TS 105, R85 W of the 6th PM, with exceptions. For further information, contact Chris
Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO
(970) 920-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us.
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 22, 1999
City of Aspen Account
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department
Sarah Oates , Community Development Department
FROM: Jim Curtis , Project Manager
DATE: May 17, 1999
RE: Addendum II
Updated Exhibit #8
Property Owners Within 300' of Burlingame Ranch
Burlingame Seasonal Housing PUD
Final PUD Application, Dated April 28, 1999
Submitted herein is an updated Exhibit 8, ("Property Owners Within 300'
of Burlingame Ranch") to replace the Exhibit 8 submitted as part of the Final
PUD Application. The updated Exhibit 8 is true and correct to the best
knowledge of the applicant as of May 17, 1999, based on the records of the
Pitkin County Assessor's and Treasurer's Offices. Multi -mailing addresses have
been used for property owners where the applicant is aware that the property
owner has a local representative or attorney.
Please use this update Exhibit 8 for all public notices, mailings, etc. for
the above referenced project. Please feel free to call on any questions
(920-1395.) Thank you.
5/17/99
UPDATED EXHIBIT 8
BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING PUD
PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300' OF BURLINGAME RANCH
1. Parcel No. 2735-03-400040
Craig R. Stapleton Craig R. Stapleton
Stapleton Associates C/O Stapleton Property
P.O. Box 1576 Dave Myler
Greenwich, CT 06836 Freilich, Myler, et.al, Attorneys
106 South Mill Street, Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611
2. Parcel No. 2735-02-309052
Maroon Creek Apt. LP Maroon Creek Apt. LP
Pearce Equities Pearce Equities
10 Club Circle C/O Andrew V. Hecht
Aspen, CO 81611 Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys
601 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
3. Parcel No. 2735-02-309051
Maroon. Creek LLC
Maroon Creek LLC
Maroon Creek Club House
Maroon Creek Club House
Pearce Equities
Pearce Equities
10 Club Circle
C/O Andrew V. Hecht
Aspen, CO 81611
Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys
601 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
4. Parcel No. 2735-02-309051
Maroon Creek Club Lot 51
Maroon Creek Club Lot 51
Arthur O. Pfister
Arthur O. Pfister
P.O. Box EE
C/O
Andrew V. Hecht
Aspen, CO 81612
Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys
601 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
5. Parcel No. 2735-112-209053
Maroon Creek LLC
Maroon Creek LLC
Golf Course
Golf Course
Pearce Equities
Pearce Equities
10 Club Circle
C/O
Andrew V. Hecht
Aspen, CO 81611
Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys
601 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
6. Parcel NO. 273 5-112-20905 5
Maroon Creek LLC
Maroon Creek LLC
Common Area
Common Area
Pearce Equities
Pearce Equities
10 Club Circle
C/O
Andrew V. Hecht
Aspen, CO 81611
Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys
601 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
7. Parcel No. 2735-02-300005
Soldner Family Partnership
Soldner Family Partnership
Paul Soldner
C/O
Stephanie Sullivan
P.O. Box 90
P.O. Box 2238
Aspen, CO 81612
Frisco, CO 80443
8. Parcel No. 2735-02-300006
Joseph T. Zoline
Joseph T. Zoline
Zoline Family Ranch
Zoline Family Ranch
624 N. Canon Drive
C/O
John Lifton and
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Pamela Zoline Lifton
P.O. Box 997
Telluride, CO 81435
2
9. Parcel No. 2735-02-409851
City of Aspen
City Manager
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
10. Parcel No. 2735-02-200802
Park Trust Ltd.
P.O. Box 940
Aspen, CO 81612
11. Parcel No. 2735-02-400004
Connie Harvey
42 D AABC
Aspen, CO 81611
12. Parcel No. 2735-02-400005
Joy Caudill
P.O. Box FF
Aspen, CO 81612
13. Parcel No. 2735-03-100045
Dale Eubank
0498 Rose Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623
14. Parcel No. 2735-03-101001&2
BMC Holdings, Inc.
P.O. Box 7006
720 Park Blvd, Suite 200
Boise, ID 83707
Park Trust Ltd.
C/O Reid Haughey
1228 Kings Row Ave.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Connie Harvey
1100 Stage Road
Aspen, CO 81611
k
15. Parcel No. 2735-03-101003
U.S. West Communications
6300 S. Syracuse Way
Suite 700 N
Englewood, CO 80111
16. Parcel No. 2735-02-200001
Robert Lorton
Tulsa World
P.O. Box 2008
Tulsa, OK 74101
17. Parcel No. 2735-03-400039
Norwest Bank Des Moines, Trustee
Friedl Pfeifer Trust
P.O. Box 837
Des Moines, IA 50309
18. Parcel No. 2735-03-100004
Otto Studhalter & Patricia K. Jt.
3 Seven Oaks Road #L4
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
19. Parcel No. 2735-03-100851
Pitkin County Property
Pitkin County Manager
530 E. Main Street, Ste 302
Aspen, CO 81611
20. Parcel No. 2643-343-20085
Pitkin County Airport
Airport Manager
233 E. Airport Road, Ste A
Aspen, CO 81611
Pitkin County Airport
C/O Pitkin County Manager
530 E. Main Street, Suite 302
Aspen, CO 81611
2
21. Parcel No. 2735-03-400948
Buttermilk Mountain Skiing Company
C/O Chris Kiley
ASC, Planning Department
P.O. Box 1248
Aspen, CO 81612
Footnote:
This Updated Exhibit #8 is true and correct to the best knowledge of the
applicant as of May 17, 1999, based on the records of the Pitkin County
Assessor's and Treasurer's Offices. Multi -mailing addresses have been used for
property owners where the applicant is aware that the property owner has a
local representative or attorney.
E
4
82
cue
Yr
Buttemilk Ski Area
ly
! Pro
Seasonal
Housing
North,
ba
41
t.
Maroon Ci
tti®y
beach,
n, ]ways cold,
Iotvercast.
1.real seasons. In fact,
iety seems to be out
°,-haps because it's
the business world
g. Isn't that why we
decorations in all
re the Halloween
off the shelves?
s a young man, I
ed to go skiing
nas vacation because
;r showed up until
sober was the time
I masks and Novem-
ne to start looking
)n tr-nksgiving
's 1. ime to go
gall p;. L-, of snow
gar the summit of
iwadays, ski areas
to see who can
,ason the earliest.
the snow doesn't
important as being
y opened before the
. Then, in the spring
and the weather
,t, there is no one
ski lifts, because
t the beach —
ould just go fly a
70
FELT
SON
•:�_/,�NI`Speclal Review. 1041
pn��GiytQS Exemption. The sub-
-e�
op is located in part of Sections 15,
7Nngliip 9 south, Range 85 West, Sections 16,
17,
7 18, 19, 20, 21, 28 and 29, Township 9 South,
Range 86 West and Sections 13 and 24, Township
9 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian. This approval of a site specific devel-
opment plan includes a vested property right
pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, CRS.
Jeanette Jones,
Deputy County Clerk
Published in The Aspen Times on May 22, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF ASPEN
PUBLIC AUCTION
IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 15.04.510 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
A PUBLIC AUCTION OF BICYCLES AND OTHER
MISCELLANEOUS PROPERTY WILL BE HELD
ON SATURDAY, MAY 22, 1999, AT THE LIBRARY
PLAZA, ASPEN, COLORADO. ITEMS WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT 8:30 A.M., AND
THE AUCTION WILL BEGIN PROMPTLY AT 9:00
A.M.
TERMS OF SALE
1. All items sold as is.
2. All sales final.
3. Sales tax of 8.2% will be assessed on all pur-
chases.
4. All items must be paid for at the time of the
auction.
5. All items must be removed immediately after
the sale.
6. Payment terms:
Cash, money order, cashier's check, travelers'
checks, and local checks will be accepted with
proper identification (must present two forms of
ID: one photo ID such as Driver's License, and a
major credit card).
a gro
lodges in t
velop, allow all
property, including
pursuant the Plannnn
process, and redefine the
occupancy periods of one morX
ther information, contact Chris de
Aspen/Pitkin Community DeVe
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, c
920-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us.
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on May 22, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE TEXT
AMENDMENT: MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVEL-
OPMENT (PUD) REVIEW.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday, May 18, 1999, at a meet-
ing to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 So. Galena St.,
Aspen, to consider an application submitted by
the City of Aspen Community Development
Department requesting adoption of a Minor
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review
process. The proposed code amendment would
affect Section 26.445 - Planned Unit
Development (PUD) - of the Municipal Code. The
proposed code amendment would allow for a
simpler and shorter land use review for proper-
ties in the Lodge Preservation Program, desig-
nated with a Lodge Preservation (LP) Zoning
Overlay. For further information, contact Chris
Bendon at the Aspen/ Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO, (970) 920-5072,
chrisbQci.aspen.co.us.
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on May 22, 1999.
2t.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Community Development Department
LOCATION:
ACTION: Code Amendment
Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in'conflict with any
applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent
to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of
such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
J
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Community Development Department
LOCATION:
ACTION: Code Amendment
Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent
to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of
such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Community Development Department
LOCATION:
ACTION: Code Amendment
Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent
to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of
such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
BURLINGAME FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION,
REZONING, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING - PUBLIC HEARING
Planned Unit Development
A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements:
A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which
GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
2. Density:
A. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone
district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if:
1. There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed
development;
2. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development;
3. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of slope,
ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers;
4. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution;
5. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the city; or
6. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to
critical natural features of the site.
Staff Comments 1
B. Reduction in density for slope consideration.
1. In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and
guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in
areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the following manor:
a. For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density
allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district.
b. For lands between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum
density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the
underlying zone district.
C. For lands between thirty-one (31) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall
be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone
district.
d. For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be
allowed.
Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be
calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary
in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit.
For parcels resting in more than one (1) zone district, the density reduction calculation
shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district.
4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Definition of Lot Area.
3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone
district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a
zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall
only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district.
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of
the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in
the following:
a.
Minimum distance between buildings;
b.
Maximum height (including viewplanes);
C.
Minimum front yard;
d.
Minimum rear yard;
e.
Minimum side yard;
f.
Minimum lot width;
g.
Minimum lot area;
h.
Trash access area;
i.
Internal floor area ratio; and
j.
Minimum percent open space.
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the
minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted
shall be clearly indicated on the final plat development plan.
Staff Comments 2
5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied
from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following
considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development.
b. The parking need of any nonresidential units.
C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
d. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public
recreational facilities in the city.
Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain
assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change
6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying
zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be
permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the
proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a
common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common
park or recreation area if it:
a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and
b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom
the common area is intended.
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in
perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together
with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned
facilities.
7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development
plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior
spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant
species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate.
S. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly
enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular
Staff Comments 3
building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural
character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon
appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and
proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses.
Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and
maximize the preservatinn of existing Vegetat.on, as well as enhance drainage
and reduce soil erosion.
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that
adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no
net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings
shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency
vehicles.
12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD)
shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with
controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to
streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic.
C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion
on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such
surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be
adversely affected.
d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway
or drive providing access to a public street.
e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct
access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any
street.
f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained
under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all
pertinent city regulations and ordinances.
Staff Comments 4
Subdivision
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this title.
2. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography, or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature
extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
3. Improvements.
a. Required improvements. The following shall be provided for the proposed
subdivision.
1.
Permanent survey monuments, range points, and lot pins.
2.
Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements for paving and
improvements of a collector street.
3.
Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
4.
Paved alleys.
5.
Traffic -control signs, signals, or devices.
6.
Street lights.
7.
Street name signs.
8.
Street trees or landscaping.
9.
Water lines and fire hydrants.
10.
Sanitary sewer lines.
11.
Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers.
12.
Bridges and culverts.
13.
Electrical lines.
14.
Telephone lines.
Staff Comments 5
15. Natural gas lines.
16. Cable television lines.
b. Approved plans. Construction shall not commence until on any of the
improvements required by this Section 26.88.040(C)(3)(a) until a plan, profile,
and specifications have been received and approved by the City Engineer and,
when appropriate, the relevant utility company.
C. Oversize Utilities. In the event oversized utilities are required as a part
of the improvements, arrangements for reimbursement shall be made whereby
the subdivider shall be allowed to recover the cost of the utilities that have been
provided beyond the needs of the subdivision.
4. Design Standards. The following design standards shall be required for all
subdivisions.
a. Street and related improvements. the following standards shall apply to streets
regardless of type or size, unless the street has been improved with paving, curb,
gutter, and sidewalk.
1. Conform to plan for street extension. Streets shall conform to approved
plans for street extensions and shall bear a logical relationship to the
topography and to the location of existing or planned streets on adjacent
properties.
2. Right-of-way dedication. Right-of-way shall be dedicated for the entire
width for all local, collector, and arterial streets.
3. Right-of-way width. Streets and alley right-of-way widths, curves and
grades shall meet the following standards:
Street Min. Curve ROW Max %
Class. Radius Width Grade
Local 100 60 10
Collector 250 80 6
Arterial 625 100 5
Alley 50 20 5
4. Half -street dedications. Half -street dedications shall be prohibited
unless they are for the purpose of increasing the width of an inadequate
existing right-of-way.
5. Street ends at subdivision. When a street is dedicated which ends on the
subdivision, the last foot of the street on the terminal end or outside
perimeter of the subdivision shall be dedicated to the City of Aspen in
fee simple and shall be designated by using outlot(s). The City shall use
the dedicated land for public road and access purposes.
6. Cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed four hundred (400) feet in
length and shall have a turnaround diameter of one -hundred (100) feet.
A cul-de-sac of less than two hundred (200) feet in length in a single-
family detached residential area does not require a turnaround if the City
Engineer determines a "T," "Y" or other design is adequate turnaround
for the vehicles expected to use the cul-de-sac.
7. Dead-end streets. Dead-end streets, except for cul-de-sacs, shall be
prohibited unless they are designed to connect with future streets on
adjacent lands that have not been platted. In cases where these type
Staff Comments 6
dead-end streets are allowed, a temporary turnaround of one hundred
(100) feet shall be constructed.
8. Centerline offset. Streets shall have a centerline offset of at least one
hundred and twenty-five (125) feet.
9. Reverse curves. Reverse curves on arterial and collector streets shall be
joined by a tangent of at least one hundred (100) feet in length.
10. Changes in street grade. All changes in street grades shall be connected
by vertical curves of a minimum length in feet equivalent to the
following appropriate "K" value multiplied by the algebraic difference
in the street grades.
Street Classification: Local Collector Arterial
"K" Value for:
Crest vertical curve 28 16 55
Sag vertical curve 35 24 55
It. Alleys. Alleys shall be provided in subdivisions where commercial and
industrial development is expected, except when other provision are
made and approved for service access.
12. Intersections. Intersections shall approximate right angles and have a
minimum tangent of fifty (50) feet on each leg. The subdivision design
shall minimize the number of local streets that intersect arterial streets.
13. Intersection grade. Intersection grades shall not exceed four (4) percent
for a minimum distance of one hundred (100) feet on each leg. Flatter
grades are desirable.
14. Curb return radii. Curb return radii for local street intersections shall be
fifteen (15) feet. Curb return radii and corner setbacks for all other types
of intersections shall be based upon the expected types of vehicle usage,
traffic volumes, and traffic patterns using accepted engineering
standards. In case of streets which intersect at acute angles, appropriate
increases in curb return radii shall be made for the necessary turning
movements.
15. Turn by-passes and turn lanes. Right -turn by-passes or left -turn lanes
shall be required at the intersection of arterial streets or the intersection
of an arterial street and a collector street if traffic conditions indicate
they are needed. Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated to
accommodate such lanes when they are required.
16. Street names and numbers. When streets are in alignment with existing
streets, any new street shall be named according to the street with which
they correspond. Street which do not fit into an established street -
naming pattern shall be named in a manner which will not duplicate or
be confused with existing street names within the City or its environs.
Street numbers shall be assigned by the City Building Inspector in
accordance with the City numbering system.
17. Installation of curb, gutter sidewalks, or driveways. No finish paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, or driveways shall be constructed until one year
after the installation of all subsurface utilities and improvements.
18. Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be eight (8) feet wide in the Commercial
Core (CC), Commercial (Cl), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and
Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone Districts and five (5) feet wide in all
other zone districts where sidewalks are required. Consideration shall be
given to existing and proposed landscaping when establishing sidewalk
locations.
Staff Comments 7
19. City specifications for streets. All streets and related improvements
shall be constructed in accordance with City specifications which are on
file in the office of the City Engineer.
20. Range point monuments. Prior to paving any street, permanent range
point monuments meeting the standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(d)
shall be installed to approximately finish grade. Permanent range point
boxes shall be installed during or a soon as practicable after paving.
21. Street name signs. Street name signs shall conform to the type currently
in use by the City.
22. Traffic Control signs. Any required traffic -control signs, signals, or
devices shall conform to the "Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices."
23. Street lights. Street lights shall be placed at a maximum spacing of three
hundred (300) feet. Ornamental street light are desirable.
24. Street tree. One street tree of three-inch caliper for deciduous trees
measured at the top of the ball or root system, or a minimum of six-foot
height for conifers, shall be provided in a subdivision in residential zone
districts for each lot of seventy (70) foot frontage or less, and at least
two (2) such trees shall be provided for every lot in excess of seventy
(70) feet frontage. Corner lots shall require at least one tree for each
street. Trees shall be placed so as not to block sight distances at
driveways or corners. The City Parks and Recreation Department shall
furnish a list of acceptable trees. Trees, foliage, and landscaping shall
be provided in subdivisions in all other zone districts in the City in
accordance with the adopted street landscaping plan.
b. Easements.
1. Utility easements. Utility easements often ten (10) feet in width on each
side of all rear lot lines and five (5) feet in width on each side of lot lines
shall be provided where necessary. Where the rear or side lot lines abut
property outside of the subdivision on which there are no rear or side lot
line easements at least five (5) feet in width, the easements on the rear
and side lot lines in the subdivision shall be between twenty (20) feet
and ten (10) feet in width, respectively.
2. "T" intersections and cul-de-sacs. Easements twenty (20) feet in width
shall be provided in "T" intersections and cul-de-sacs for the
continuation of utilities or drainage improvements, if necessary.
3. Potable water and sewer easements. Water and sewer easements shall be
a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width.
4. Planned utility or drainage system. Whenever a subdivision embraces
any part of a planned utility or drainage system designated on an adopted
plan, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the
subdivision.
Irrigation ditch, channel natural creek. Where an irrigation ditch or
channel, natural creek or stream traverses a subdivision, an easement
sufficient for drainage and to allow for maintenance of the ditch shall be
provided.
Staff Comments 8
6. Fire lanes and emergency access easements. Fire lanes and emergency
access easements twenty (20) feet in width shall be provided where
required by the City Fire Marshal.
7. Planned street or transit alignment. Whenever a subdivision embraces
any part of an existing or planned street or transit alignment designated
on an adopted plan, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the
plan with the subdivision.
8. Planned trail system. Whenever a subdivision embraces
any part of a bikeway, bridle path, cross country ski trail or hiking trail
designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan Map, an easement shall be
provided to accommodate the plan within the subdivision.
C. Lots and blocks.
d. Survey Monuments.
1. Location. The external boundaries of all subdivisions, blocks and lots
shall be monumented on the ground by reasonably permanent
monuments solidly embedded in the ground. These monuments shall be
set not more than fourteen hundred (1400) feet apart along any straight
boundary line, at all angle points, and at the beginning, end, and points
of change of direction or change of radius of any curved boundaries.
2. C.R.S. 1972 38-51-101. All monuments shall be set in accordance with
the provisions of C.R.S. 1973 38-51-101, as amended from time to time,
unless otherwise provided for in this title.
3. Range points and boxes. Range points and boxes
meeting City specifications shall be set on the centerline of the street
right-of-way unless designated otherwise.
C. Utilities.
1. Potable waterline and appurtenances. All potable waterlines, fire
hydrants and appurtenances shall meet the City's standards on file in the
City Engineer's office.
2. Size of waterlines. All potable water lines shall be at least eight (8)
inches in size unless the length of the line is less than two hundred (200)
feet. Where the potable waterline is less than two hundred (200) feet in
length, its minimum size shall be six (6) inches in width.
3. Fire hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be spaced no farther apart than five
hundred (500) feet in detached residential and duplex subdivisions. Fire
hydrants shall be no farther apart than three hundred fifty(350) feet apart
in multi -family residential, business, commercial, service, and industrial
subdivisions.
Staff Comments 9
4. Sanitary sewer. Sanitary sewer facilities shall meet the requirements of
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
5. Underground utilities. All utilities shall be placed underground, except
transformers, switching boxes, terminal boxes, meter cabinets, pedestals,
and ventilation ducts.
6. Other utilities. Other utilities not specifically mentioned shall be
provided in accordance with the standards and regulations of the
applicable utility department or company.
7. Utilities stubbed out. All utilities shall be stubbed out at
the property lines of lots.
f. Storm Drainage
g. Flood hazard areas.
h. The design and location of any proposed structure, building envelope,
road, driveway, trail, or other similar development is compatible with significant
natural or scenic features of the site.
i. Variations of design standards. Variations from the provisions of this
section, "Design Standards," may be granted by special review as provided for in
Chapter 26.64.
Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.48, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of
new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with
the requirements of Chapter 26.100, Growth Management Quota System.
>chool land dedication standards.
Dedication Schedule.
1. Land Dedication. School land dedications shall be assessed according to
the following schedule:
Unit Type
Land Dedication Standard
Dormitory
.0000 acres (0 sq., ft.)
Studio/One bedroom
.0012 acres (52 sq. ft.)
Two bedroom
.0095 acres (416 sq. ft.)
Three bedroom
.0162 acres (707 sq. ft.)
Four bedroom
.0248 acres (1081 sq. ft.)
Five bedroom
.0284 acres (1236 sq. ft.)
2. Cash -in -lieu payment. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu of
dedicating land to the City, or make a cash payment in combination with
a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this section. Because
the cost of subdivided land in the City of Aspen, the School District and
Staff Comments 10
Aspen have decided to require payment of a cash -in -lieu amount which
is less than the full market value of the land area. The formula to
determine the amount of cash -in -lieu payment for each residential
dwelling unit is as follows:
Market value of land x applicable land dedication standard x 0.33 = cash payment.
Payment of cash -in -lieu of a land dedication shall be made to the City prior to and on a
proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential dwellings.
REZONING:
Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Comments 11
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Commission makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all standards set forth below.
B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever off-street parking requirements of a
proposed development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation via a payment in lieu by
special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions
are met:
1. In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development
are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate
that the par u'ng needs of the residents, customers, g'UeOLO, a nd eiiFIU.Y S of thk, prvjCct have been
met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the
p eject, the projected impacts onto the on -street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to
n _ ,; transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for
residents, guests, and employees.
Staff Comments 12
ff-. co
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
RE: Code Amendment --- Section 26.28.220, Conservation, D. Dimensional
Requirements, 11. External Floor Area Ratio (Public Hearing)
DATE: June 15, 1999
SUMMARY: In the course of simplifying the Land Use code, staff has identified several
sections of the code which require some amendments in order to address size and scale
issues in our various zone districts. Currently, the "C" Conservation Zone District,
requires a minimum lot size of ten acres, but does not establish a cap on the size of a
residence that may be built on such a parcel. Currently, there are some parcels of land
zoned Conservation, but are non -conforming in lot size. This becomes further
complicated because a single family residence can be built on such a parcel, but the zone
district does not restrict the allowable FAR for such a parcel. Staff is proposing a code
amendment which establishes generally the same FAR used in the Low Density
Residential District (R-30) to properties zoned C. The one difference is that staff is
proposing a maximum FAR of 6,600 square feet in the Conservation Zone.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a development
application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and
recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the Planning
Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and then
approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing.
DISCUSSION: Currently, Section 26.28.220, Conservation Zone District establishes
Dimensional requirements, but item D. 11 reads as follows:
11. External floor area ratio: No requirement.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Staff proposes amending the above -cited definition to read
as follows, with text to be. eliminated o+rirkan ^"* and text to be added as underlined:
1 1. External floor area ratio: No requirement. (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of
record):
Lot Size Detached Residential Allowable Square Feet*
Dwellings (Square Feet)
0--3,000 80 square feet of floor area for each 100 in lot
area, up to a maximum of 2,400 square feet of
floor area.
3,000--9,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet
of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in
lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of
floor area.
9,000--15,000 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square feet
of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in
lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet of
floor area.
15,000--50,000 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet
of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in
lot area, up to a maximum of 6,600 square feet of
floor area.
50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor area maximum.
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations And
Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A -I) standards for City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed amendments to the
text of the Land Use Code. These standards and staffs evaluation of the potential
amendment relative to them are provided below, with the standard in italics followed by the
staff "response."
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any applicable
portions of the Aspen Municipal Code. It is intended to clean up a section of the code to be
consistent with other zone districts which do set a cap on allowable FAR.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any elements of the
AACP, and is very much consistent with the "Policies" of the Housing Action Plan (page 31
of the AACP) which recommends "Develop small scale residential housing which fits the
character of the community...".
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would effect only the Conservation Zone District
which tend to be located in areas of the City intended to be preserved for open space
purposes or have steep slopes. By proposing a cap on the FAR allowed on these parcels, it
2
will ensure that, should a development right exist, it would be allowed to develop similarly
to our lowest density residential district (R-30). This would ensure that the scale of the
project would be compatible with the natural environment as well as other low density
developments.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
.RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have any effect on traffic
generation or road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools,
and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have an effect on
infrastructure or infrastructure capacities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have a negative effect on
the natural environment. In fact, staff believes that by establishing a cap on the allowable
FAR, there should be less visual impact on the surrounding natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Staff believes that by limiting the development size of a residential unit, it will
ensure that the scale is more in keeping with the community's desire to minimize the
"monster homes" that have developed. Using the same proportions allowed in the R-30 zone
district, the maximum size home on a lot greater than 50,000 square feet would be 6,600
square feet under this proposed cap. Currently, there is no restriction to the FAR in the zone
district.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: There has been no significant change in Aspen's general character. The
concern is that there is no limit to a house size in this zone district. Not all C zoned lands are
public, and staff believes it is time to bring this zone district's development criteria into
conformity with other low density properties, and on sensitive lands. This is one of many
land use code amendments staff will be bringing before the commission throughout the year.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is
in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendment would be in harmony with the public
interest by ensuring a limit to the size of a residence in the Conservation Zone District.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
forward to City Council a recommendation to approve the amendments to Section 26.28.
220, Conservation, D. Dimensional Requirements, 11. External Floor Area Ratio, as
proposed herein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend that City Council adopt the
amendments to Section 26.28. 220, Conservation, D. Dimensional Requirements, 11.
External Floor Area Ratio, as proposed in the Community Development Department
memorandum dated June 15, 1999."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A — Existing C Zone District language
G:/planning/aspen/cases/text/conservation. doc
4
SYC"Ie'r A
XI STIA Co.
oos
26.28.200
1. Timesharing.
Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permi
and con ' 'oval uses in the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone district.
1. imum lot size (square feet): 6,000
2. Mini m lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement
3. Minimu of width (feet) : No requirement
4. Minimum fr t yard (feet): No requirement
5. Minimum side , d (feet) : No requirement
6. Minimum rear yard t): No requirement except trash/utility servic ea shall be required abutting
alley. The dimensional requiremen f the trash/utility service area shall be ollows unless reduced pursuant
to Chapter 26.64:
For up to 6,000 square fe f net leasable floor ar within a building: An area a minimum
of 20 feet in length, measured parallel to the , with a minim vertical clearance of 10 feet and a minimum
depth of 10 feet at ground level.
For each additional 1,200 square feet t leasable floor area within a building, the minimum
length measured parallel to the alley shall be incr ed one (1) foot.
7. Maximum height (feet): 28 (32 by cial revie ursuant to Chapter 26.64
8. Minimum distance between p ' pal and accessory 'ldings (feet): No requirement
9. Percent of open space requi for building site: 25
10. External floor area ratio- _:1
11. Internal floor area : No requirement
E. Off-street par ' equirement. The following off-street parking spa shall be provided for each
use in the Commercial odge (CL) zone district, subject to the provisions of Cha r 26.32.
1. Lodge u . 0.7 space/bedroom of which 0.2 space/bedroom may be provide 'a a payment in lieu
pursuant to Ch er 26.64:
2. idential use: N/A
3. All other uses: 2 spaces/1,000 square feet of net leasable area which may be provided vi ayment
in 1' pursuant to Chapter .26.64. (Ord. No. 22-1995, § 6: Code .1971, § 5-215)
26.28.220 Conservation (C).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Conservation (C) zone district is to provide areas of low density
development to enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the production of crops and
animals, and to contain urban development.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Conservation (C) zone district.
1. Detached residential dwelling;
2. Park, playfield, playground and golf course;
3. Riding stable;
4. Cemetery;
5. Crop production, orchards, nurseries, flower production and forest land;
6. Pasture and grazing land;
7. - Dairy;
8. Fishery;
9. Animal production;
10. Husbandry services (not including commercial feed lots) and other farm and agricultural uses;
11. Railroad right -of --way but not a railroad yard;
523 (Aspen 3/97)
26.28.220
12. Home occupations; and
13. Accessory buildings and uses.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted
subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter conditional uses in the Conservation (C) district,
1 • Guest ranches; P r 26.60.
2• Recreational uses including a riding academy, stable
ISki lift and other ski facilities; club, country club and golf course;
4. Sewage disposal area;
5• Water treatment plant and storage reservoir
6• Electric substations and gas regulator including business or administration off,
ator stations (not i
and ices);
7. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.40.090.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimension and conditional uses in the Conservation (C) zone district. requirements shall apply to all permitted
I • Minimum lot size (acres): 10
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (acres): 10
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 400
4. Minimum front yard (feet): 100
5• Minimum side yard (feet): 30
6• Minimum rear yard (feet): 30
7. Maximum height (feet): 28
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessorybuildings
9• Percent of open space required for building site: Nrequirement
(feet): No requirement
10. External floor area ratio: No requirement requirement
11. Internal floor area ratio: No requirement
E. Off-street parking requirement. The followingoff-str
use in the Conservation (C) zone district, subject to the rovi eet parking spaces shall be provided for each
I. Lodge use: N/A P dons of Chapter 26.32.
2• For single-family and duplex residential use and mu1 '-
Fewer spaces may be provided by special review pursuant t ti family use: two �
fewer spaces may be Provided o Chapter 25.64 for historic spaces/dwelling unit.
P pursuant to Chapter 26.60 for accessory dwelling units Only.
landmarks only, and
unit is required if the unit is either a studio or one -bedroom y One (1) space/dwelling
3. All other uses: Requires special review pursuant to nit. _ g
No. 22-1995, § 6; Ord. No. 38-1996, § 2: Code 1971, Chapter 26.64. (Ord. No. 4?-1988, § 2; Ord.
§ 5-217)
26 Academic (A).
A. Pos • urpose of the Academic (A) zone district activities with attendant rese tract is to establish 1 education and cultural
district is to proceed according to a concnb and administrative facilities.
velopment in the Academic zone
to the provisions of Chapter 26.80, Spec Specially P elopment final development plan approved pursuant
B. Permitted uses. The folio y P ant
1 • Private school b ses are permitted as o the Academic (A) Zone district.
ersity, teaching hospital, research facility or tes
such facilities c osed and there are no adverse noise or story, Provided that
Auditorium and other facilities for performances and environmental al effects;
3• Gallery; Lures;
(Aspen 3M)
524
P&Z Resolution 99-' 3
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION
26.28.220, CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT, D. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS,
11. EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
Resolution #99 - 15
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.92, applications to amend the text of Title 26
of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning
and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after
reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the recommended
revisions as outlined herein and recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing at a meeting on June 15, 1999, the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended, by a to (_-_) vote, the City
Council approve the amendments to 26.28.220, Conservation Zone District, D.
Dimensional requirements, 11. External floor area ratio as proposed by the Community
Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That City Council is advised to adopt amendments to 26.28.220, Conservation Zone
District, D. Dimensional requirements, 11. External floor area ratio of the Municipal
Code, making said Section read as follows:.
11. External floor area ratio: (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
Lot Size Detached Residential Allowable Square Feet*
Dwellings (Square Feet)
0--3,000 80 square feet of floor area for each 100 in lot
area, up to a maximum of 2,400 square feet of
floor area.
3,000--9,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet
of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in
lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of
floor area.
P&Z Resolution 99-1-3
Page 2 of 2
9,000--15,000 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square feet
of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in
lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet of
floor area.
1500--5000 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet
of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in
lot area, up to a maximum of 6,600 square feet of
floor area.
50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor area maximum_
APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on June 15, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
G:/planning/aspen/reso.doc/p&z/conservation. doc
Bob Blaich, Chair