Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19990803 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1999, 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES HI. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PUBLIC HEARING 4:40-4:45 Ao Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment, Chris Bendon (continued to September 21, 1999) 6:30-?:0o B. Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment, Julie Ann Woods (to be continued) 4:45-5:~5 C. Minor PUD Code Amendment, Chris Bendon ~9~0~'~2~ 5:~5-6:0c D. 550 Aspen Alps Road (Mitchell! 8040 Review and Zoning Variances, Chris Bendon 6:oo-6:3o E. Land Use Code Definition--Si~n Code P~nendment, Sarah Oates V. ADJOURN Times are a£proxima~e. We recommend applicants arrive at least ~ hour frior to the scheduled time. CITY AGENDAS For discussion on 7/19, 2:00 p.m. P&Z: 1s' and 3rd Tuesdays CC: 2Id and 4" Mondays Revised 7/29/99 7/28 HPC (5:00) City Notice 7/7 City Hall, Work Session (mechanical equip.) Mesa Store, Minor Norwest Bank, Sidewalk Canopy 121 N. Fifth, Variances, Public Hearing 400 W. Smuggler, Minor 302 E. Hopkins (con't from 6/9) 330 Lake Ave. -Work Session 8/3 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) Council Chambers City Notice 7/13 Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment, Public Hearing (CB) (con't to 9/21) ADU Program, Public Hearing (CB/JAW) (con't to 8/24) 2.Mitchell 8040 and Zoning Variances, 550 Aspen Alps Road, Public Hearing (CB) 3.LUC Definitions -Sign Code Amendment, Public Hearing (con't from 7/6) (SO) 1.Minor PUD Code Amendment Public Hearing (con't from 7/20) 815 DRAC 234 W. Hallam (CB) 819 City Council (5:00) City Notice 7/20 LUC Definitions, 1st Reading (SO) Aspen Club Traffic Impact Report (tentative) (JAO) 8/10 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) @ Library Meeting Room Aspen Mountain PUD Public Hearing (con't from 7/13) 8111 HPC (5:00) City Notice 7/20 332 W. Main (con't from 7/14 & 7/28) 214 E. Bleeker, Extend 135 W. Hopkins 302 E. Hopkins 426 N. Second 8116 Housing Symposium County/City/HB (8:30-4:30) place TBA 8117 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) Sister'Cities City Notice 7/27 Joint Meeting with County P&Z: Aspen Area Community Plan, Public Hearing (SM) 8/23 City Council (5:00) City Notice 8/3 308 N. First, Inventory, 2"d Reading Public Hearing (AG) Code Amendment re. Conservation Zone-2"d Reading PH (JAW) 8124 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) Bavarian Conceptual Review PH (con't from 7/20) Lodge Preservation Text Amendment, Public Hearing (con't from 7/20) ADU Code Amendment PH (con't from 8/3) Lighting Ordinance PH (SM) Moore PUD Zoning 8/24 Council & HPC Discussion 8/25 HPC (5:00) City Notice 8/3 Election of Officers 8/31 City Planning and Zoning (5:00) Special Meeting with County P&Z Buttermilk Master Plan 917 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 8/17 9/21 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 8/31 Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment, Public Hearing (CB) (con't from 8/3) 9/28 City Planning and Zoning (5:00) Special Meeting with County P&Z Buttermilk Master Plan -Gondola 10/5 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 9/14 10/19 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 9/28 cc: P&Z Packet City Attorney's Office City Planning Staff City Clerk's Office 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director Jo FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner RE: Code Amendments — Public Hearing (continued from 6.8. 99) Planned Unit Development (PUD) DATE: August 3, 1999 SUMMARY: As a component of the Lodge Preservation Program, staff was directed to incorporate a "Minor PUD" process into the land use code to provide LP lodges with the additional zoning flexibility available with the PUD process. Inevitably, staff reviewed and amended the entire PUD section, creating additional flexibility for property owners and more directed review criteria for review Boards. It is important to note that the PUD section, and this re -write, affects not only the LP properties, but the majority of larger projects which are reviewed by the City. Most affordable housing projects, municipal projects, and large subdivisions are reviewed under these provisions. The Minor PUD provision, however, only apply to LP Properties, as requested by the Commission. The Commission should be particularly aware of proposed Section 26.445.050 Review Standards. This section defines the criteria staff and the Boards will use to evaluate and ultimately judge projects. At a minimum, the Commission members should each be satisfied with the adequacy of these criteria in addressing the issues typically related to significant projects. During the public hearing session on June 8, 1999, the Commission members indicated their general support for the proposed amendments and requested staff return with a proposed Resolution with specific modifications. These modifications have been included in the proposed Resolution. Staff suggests the Commission use the "Main Issues" section of this memo as a framework for discussion, make modifications to the proposed language as necessary, and pass forward a final recommendation to City Council. Staff recommends the Commission adopt Resolution 99- and pass forward a recommendation of approval for the proposed text amendment to the Planned Unit Development section of the land use code. MAIN ISSUES: Following are topics for discussion posed as questions for the Commission to consider. Some of these topic were addressed during the June 8, 1999, public hearing. Substantive Changes: 1. Should the PUD be amended to allow all dimensions to be determined through this review? Compare the dimensions from page 5 of the existing code to those provided on page 5 of the proposed code. 2. Should the maximum density from the fathering parcel be able to be varied? Currently, while the lot sizes can be changed, the aggregate density must not exceed the average allowed in the underlying zoning. Land Uses: Should there be the ability to vary uses through this process? Should the SPA provisions (which allow use variation) be phased out? Applicability: Should the provisions of the Minor PUD apply only to LP properties? Should the Minor PUD be extended to Affordable Housing projects? Criteria: Staff has proposed many different criteria, are these appropriate? Do they pursue the tangible aspects of development of concern to the community? Keep in mind that nearly all significant projects will be reviewed under these criteria. Compare the review standards starting on page 4 of the existing code of to the criteria of the new code starting on page 6. APPLICANT: Community Development Department. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission considered this code amendment during a public hearing on June 8th and recommended staff return with a resolution for adoption. 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 move to recommend City Council adopt these Planned Unit Development regulations as provided in Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 99- A" ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Proposed Resolution with attached code language Exhibit B -- Existing PUD provisions. C:\HOME\CHRISB\CASES\LP-PROGR\PUD N[Emo 2.DOC 2 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE, SECTION 26.445 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Resolution #99 - WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen directed the Planning Director of the Community Development Department to propose amendments to the Planned Unit Development provision of the land use code pursuant to sections 26.208 and 26.212; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, 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 Planning 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 Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to Section 26.445 Planned Unit Development as described in Attachment A of this resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the existing and proposed Planned Unit Development regulations on June 8, 1999, and continued the hearing to July 20, 1999, and then to August 3, 1999, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a to (_-� vote, City Council adopt the proposed Planned Unit Development Regulations by replacing, in sum, Section 26.445 with the language provided in Attachment A of this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council replace Section 26.445 Planned Unit Development, in its entirety, with the language provided in attachment A of this Resolution. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310.050 of the Municipal Code, the adoption of this resolution by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be considered a pending ordinance. APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on August 3, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMNUSSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:\home\CMISB\CASES\LP—PROGR\PZ—Reso.doc Robert Blaich, Chair Chapter 26.445 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) 26.445.010 Purpose. 26.445.020 Applicability. 26.445.030 Procedures for Review. 26.445.040 General Provisions. 26.445.050 Review Standards. 26.445.060 Application Materials. 26.445.070 Recording a Final PUD Development Plan. 26.445.080 Notice of PUD Designation. 26.445.090 Placement of PUD Designation on Official Zone District Map. 26.445.100 Amendment of PUD Development Order. 26.445.110 Enforcement of PUD Development Order. Resolution No. 99-2 Attachment A 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. However, 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, in conformance with the General Provisions of this Chapter, Section 26.445.040. All land with a PUD designation shall also be designated with an underlying zone district designation most appropriate for that land. A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) 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. A development application for a Minor Planned Unit Development (Minor PUD) 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 the purpose of the LP Overlay Zone District. 26.445.030 Procedures for Review. Proposed PUD page 1 A. General. Any development within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or on land designated with a PUD Overlay on the Official Zone District Map shall be reviewed pursuant to th procedures and standards in this Chapter and the Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304. A rezoning application for designating a parcel of land with a PUD Overlay shall be received and considered concurrently with a development application for a final PUD 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 applicatio should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not occur. 3 . Minor Planned Unit Development Review (Tivo-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 located in the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District 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 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 Growth Management. Consideration of a code text amendment, a rezoning application, or a Growth Management allocation or exemption 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 a PUD development plan, Consolidated and Minor PUD reviews require only steps three and four. Proposed PUD page 2 Step One — Conceptual Review before Planning and Zoning Commission. Purpose: To determine if application meets standards for conceptual PUD. Notice requirements: None. Standards of review: Section 26.445.050. P&Z action: Resolution recommending City Council approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a conceptual development plan. Step Two — Conceptual Review before City Council -- Public Hearing. 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 26.445.050. City Council action: Resolution approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving conceptual plan for PUD. Step - 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 26.445.050. P&Z action: Resolution recommending City Council approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a final development plan. 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 26.445.050 City Council action: Ordinance approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving the final PUD development plan. D. 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. Proposed PUD page 3 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. 26.445.040 General Provisions. The following provisions shall apply to all property designated with a PUD Overlay on the Official Zone District Map unless otherwise provided pursuant to an adopted final PUD development plan for the property. A. 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. B. Density: 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 in subsection 1. 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 in subsections 2 and 3. 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. (Slope percentage.) Maximum density allowed. (Percentage of that allowed in the underlying zone district.) 0 - 20 % 100% 21-30 % 50% 31-40 % 25% slope > 40 % 0% Proposed PUD page 4 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, divided by 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. 2. 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; 3. 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; 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. C. 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 the 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. 1. Minimum Lot Size. 2. Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit. 3. Minimum lot width. 4. Minimum front yard. 5. Minimum side yard. 6. Minimum rear yard. 7. Maximum site coverage. Proposed PUD page 5 8. Maximum height (including view planes). 9. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot. 10. Minimum percent open space required for the building site. 11. Trash access area. 12. Allowable Floor Area. 13. Minimum off-street parking spaces. 14. Other dimensions determined necessary to establish through the PUD process. 26.445.050 Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD. A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or Minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with Conceptual Reviews and properties eligible for Minor PUD Review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be 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 either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall 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 expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Proposed PUD page 6 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 and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated in a practical and reasonable manner. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programatic functions associated with the use. 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. Proposed PUD page 7 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. 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 architecture 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 resources. 2. incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems. 3. 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. The following criterion shall be accomplished: 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. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up -lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is discouraged for residential development. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: l . The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared Proposed PUD page 8 facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: l . 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 proportionately for the additional improvement. L Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use. within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 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, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for Lots within the PUD, are only proposed where necessary and are minimized to the extent practical. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. 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. Proposed PUD page 9 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. 26.445.060 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 26.304. 2. A Site Improvement Survey 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 26.445.040. 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 25.445.050. 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 26.304. 2. A Site Improvement Survey 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 26.445.040. 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. Proposed PUD page 10 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, Section 26.445.050. 11. A proposed plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section 26.480.060(A)(3) and (B). 12. Proposed PUD Plans and a proposed PUD Agreement. 26.445.070 Recording a Final PUD Development Plan. A. 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 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. Proposed PUD page 11 B. PUD Development Plans. Unless otherwise specified in the final Ordinance, the final PUD development plans for recording shall include the following: 1. Final Plat. 2. Illustrative Site Plan. 3. Architectural Character Plan. 4. Landscape Plan. 5. Grading and Drainage Plan. 6. Utility and Public Facilities Plan. C. PUD Agreement. 1. General. Unless otherwise specified in the final Ordinance, upon approval of a final PUD development plan the applicant and City Council shall enter into an agreement binding the PUD to any conditions placed on the development order. 2. 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 PUD, an undivided interest in all common park and recreations areas, together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. 3. 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. 4. 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 26.445.070(C)(3) 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, Proposed PUD page 12 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. 26.445.080 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: 26.445.090 Placement of PUD designation on Official Zone District Map. After approval of a final PUD development plan, the Community Development Director shall amend the City's Official Zone District Map to show a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation. 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: Proposed PUD page 13 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 variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. B. Other amendment. An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing, pursuant to the Review Standards, Section 26.445.050. If either the Community Development Director or the Planning and Zoning Commission determine the proposed amendment is not consistent with the approved final development plan, the amendment shall be subject to final development plan review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.030(C) Steps 3 and 4. An applicant may appeal an amendment determination made by the Community Development Director or the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council. In this case, the determinations made by the Community Development Director or the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered a recommendation and the amendment shall be subject to final development plan review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.030(C) Steps 3 and 4. 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 circumstances. This shall include, but not be limited to, portions of the development which have not 6btained building permits or are proposed to be amended, any new community polices or regulations which have been implemented since the original approval, or changed or 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. Proposed PUD page 14 C. Absence of approved final development plan. In the absence of an approved final development plan for a site designated PUD on the Official Zone District Map, 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 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 PUD shall also run in favor of the residents, occupants, and owners of the 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 PUD authorized to be enforced by the City, may be modified, removed or released by the City subject to the following: No modification, removal or release of the provisions shall affect the rights of the residents, occupants, and owners of the PUD to maintain and enforce these provisions at law or equity as provided in Section 26.445.110(B). 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 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 Proposed PUD page 15 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 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 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 page 16 Chapter 26.445 Exhibit B Existing PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Sections: 26.445.010 Purpose. 26.445.020 Applicability. 26.445.030 Procedureslor 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. 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 Existing PUD page 1 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 andfinal 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. 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. Existing PUD page 2 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. b. 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).) C. Standards of review: Section 26.445.040. d. City Council: Ordinance approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving the PUD. D. Limitations. 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. Unless an extension is granted by the City Council prior to expiration, failure to file such an application within- this time period shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan. Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval for development in a Planned Unit Development, or permission to proceed with development. Such approval shall only constitute authorization to proceed with a development application for a final development plan. Existing PUD page 3 26.445.040. Review standards. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements: 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. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. B. Density. General. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. Furthermore, densities 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; 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; Existing PUD page 4 (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 (3 0) 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. 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. 2. The parking needs of any nonresidential uses. Existing PUD page 5 3. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. 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 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. F. 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 Planned Unit Development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it: 1. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and 2. 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. 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 plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. H. Architectural site plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in 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 the 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 Existing PUD page 6 preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. J. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. K. 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. L. Traffic and pedestrian circulation. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. 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. Existing PUD page 7 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. (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 Existing PUD page 8 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: (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 (2 1) and thirty (30) percent; (3) Between thirty-one (3 1) 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 Existing PUD page 9 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 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 fiends 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. D. Pccblic facilities guarantee. In order to ensure installation of necessary public facilities planned to accommodate the development, the City Council shall require the Existing PUD page 10 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. 26.445.090 Recordation. Existing PUD page 11 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 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. Existing PUD page 12 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 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. Existing PUD page 13 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 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. Existing PUD page 14 e /3 / c7 01 NAME OF PROJECT: CODF, �C/��i� ��- — � (A I> CITY CLERK: T-AcK-1E Lvi4lA�J STAFF: WITNESSES: (1) �e11 Yl (2) 'F-> t C � vv�� (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( (Check If Applicable) 2 5 A-Mt5.)Ar,' R-o(e>E.R-4u�xr- VOTE: YES LQ NO YES ROGER HUNT YES NO ROBERT BLAICH YES NO RON ERICKSON YES /NO JASMINE TYGRE YES O TIMOTHY MOONEY YES NO STEVEN BUETTOW YES Z LN O TIM SEMRAU YES NO APPLICANT: Community Development LOCATION: ACTION: Code Amendment - Planned Unit Development 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: Community Development LOCATION: ACTION: Code Amendment - Planned Unit Development 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. co M t m ^ 00 M 0 �- o�M a0� �p L O"oN CJQ QC C " C Q m a b d b u5 N a {n Qo C O aj `'- CL L CD O L Q. 4— C U cz � O r 4-- (ii Sx Q > .C= cz 0 .0 0 O- ,Fr 0 C h s� U �c ?,;� c� C -0 CZ cn�., c� r C 0 0 CZ CL 0 a) U E ``' cz0 r- czr a) CO O- p. -� 1 cV N a--� +=+ o C O C cn :1 Co 0= L Q W O C ,1 -0 ' O cz � E cz N U Q. N 0. co � N O .0 .� W O L �+r O C C G2Co U- Ocn Q)Q�Ca�U�0CZ cn : O C � � , 'C � CL �' .0 p ,E � ?. 00 O= Q O c, , O .� , 0 cz O U L C C-0.�a CD )_ co m C f-.cn 0 Q)ir czCnQQQu-) E ci+-.f-- o�� ram- C7 a c� O c a�� a v n. _ N O W F�OCr. C E �O'r'.•- c a: �°.° �- C y a y v � ppy E.. _U0 �czCO'=v�Z i�c3z �auzac- -pj✓°0yo �°CzUaz c_ v r Cr u `�°M uM c E c E v pNs- n,F F�<Zo(s-? v o v oF- v ooF os� vi CY ►y E E 3a>F.e z[= Oao'= c� E v o �c c��o c C '- �C]U��C a�N � � "H •' y'C � O't7 ° N'D O �� C'flUmsQ U O aa'.UQUmCr rn = 3 N�= ca > E-� o a E �' m �U �wZwzC c c Uc= a ca o5_ EQ . uE a� O oy.: is V)CaO_UCLQ v _ c. r._ E:. -s._ c c cUU eh ES c crn �• rr c �._� c c c 3 7-Co. o�z c o oa aC o o-oY Qct 4 y cON °a U= 4 p. p Q.- c ^c a '�'EV ^ v y my v« oo>,o c n,..G o:�•z c� oy E `� �,� �N �.o a� � � pz u y" o �_ c = a W roc o c c a ^ M o m..�� c o .80 D° a Wit,[=. o° c a C=ZO>-S a C�jm c c W a E E pZ 6 :. N G w C. y ON v9 Eli ��z_t-n 0� E N ate° E v o R c poop Eu`i'E °3oo>,ca m�C �� ti e Ev��Ocw c0...a a� v o`a M'.Eo� :MD. V Z y f - co " Z -j ° 0 p O4u o ro$ c� a� °n c F-- .- o� .o E u SiY y u c � E o u.N iOEvOC�44��a a� y cam, o > y ° L u =J�wu�a� ° 6.•p G/'0 O.^� O.d'sC' �" y�> d= c n.d E= yn o m c�Qv� ���W a� v ❑. > ad C L, U0 -ZZgOrtF > yy_ oin UF WQ CL v c0 r>Q uiOWC wO° 0. oO�:EzU spm 0 Ma ro"U EUR OZ E � F Z�UL) cc E AQ `��� ~ O.L U'�v �M�tmN W, y `+ E N.O.. cC0 y'CM oc to c y. v 00 c a c 0.6 u c .s t z a:t a E pE c � ro 3p °� o a`�i Q E� c c v y oQ QU a o o c a� y u E., v v.. o O v u �� E•- E a, rn L 3 uc`a;�E� auyov cucn ::�E� c E c �aW c- °'u c y 00 oN �r °y'�'O E `E o yQ a•� `O� E a y v>,.� ci- - y °L 04� arc 3 ° ° = •" y y cvi >, c wp aiyy�c3°�v° D oceeo E� w a Uc E � °dc°�n "- v U E`C7: ZU `aoE�CMW—``�°'yn� yycdy u vc�co cF zz •Q :7 0 0 C 61 C '� +�+ a d) y •O _ d C O C N O C =MU= o 0 o s vu 0-5 c yY �L c cy 5 r Ea �N C-N -'y o v0� =L oCG C� cr�os obo= a m ti u aF^ O, u°°a�Qa pSpN o �� v ° :: g E n 3o c= oN °� `� EC) Fav y °c°cc c ��-°. NEB am'o� ocDcooucio c y o G °' c y CW. UFp� a `c Z Q c o y � =^yam � v QE, c o �'�`"r=�a�i� ° > ,o cvu� =Z 3 En°.ia �= J EQ O 3 N.2 W<cn GNN N N N CG.��Q�•¢6. [ cel. John YLq&-d via facsi� FROM: ChuckBrandt DATE: 07109/99 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directo FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner RE: Mitchel Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road — Public Hearing 8040 Greenline Review Front, Side, and Rear Yard Variances Residential Design Waiver for Garage Placement DATE: August 3, 1999 SUMMARY: The applicant, Cynthia and George Mitchell represented by Alan Richman, have applied for 8040 Greenline Review, variances to the dimensional requirements of the Conservation Zone District, and waiver of the garage placement requirement of the Residential Design Standards. The property, 550 Aspen Alps Road, is currently developed with a single-family residence. The 8040 Greenline standards primarily concentrate on the effects of site grading, the ability for the property to be served with utilities and fire protection, and the visual effects of the resulting development on the mountain backdrop of the City. Staff believes these standards have been met with this proposal and the suggested conditions of approval. The appeal of the Residential Design Standards for the placement of the garage responds to the requirement of the garage being recessed behind the front fagade of the house by 10 feet. Staff supports the waiver as there is no other practical alternative for placing the garage on -site without significant grading or encroachment into the dripline of a fairly significant tree. Zoning variances have been historically reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. The newly adopted land use code allows for the consolidation of the review when there are other associated planning reviews. This process is similar to the consolidation of DRAC cases and provides applicants with the ability to present one case and receive one finding, simplifying the process for both staff and applicants. An adverse finding by the Commission, however, may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. The variance request is to provide zoning setbacks to accommodate a reasonable use of the property. The Conservation Zone District has a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The setbacks (refer to Exhibit "C") are entirely appropriate for these large parcel but have little relevance on a 10,000 square foot non -conforming lot, such as the Mitchell's. The 100 foot front yard and 30 foot rear yard requirements result in approximately 1 foot of developable area on the 131 foot deep parcel. Staff believes this circumstance renders the property useless and necessitates a variance. Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review, variances to the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage placement standard, with conditions. APPLICANT: Cynthia and George Mitchell. Represented by Alan Richman, AICP. LOCATION: 550 Aspen Alps Road. Between Aspen Alps buildings 500 and 700. ZONING: Conservation (C). LOT SIZE: 10,161 square feet. LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION): The application was submitted prior to the addition of a maximum floor area for the Conservation Zone District. Therefore, a lot area analysis has not been performed. CURRENT cot PROPOSED LAND USE: Single -Family house. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered this application. REVIEW PROCEDURE: 8040 Greenline Review. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed development within an Environmentally Sensitive Area. Zoning Variance. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a variance application at a public hearing. Residential Design Appeal. With a recommendation from the Planning Director, the Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a waiver application at a public hearing. STAFF COMMENTS: This application .was received prior to the consideration by P&Z of the code amendment to apply a maximum Floor Area to the Conservation Zone District. The applicant has also relied upon the Conservation Zone District provisions and several conversations with staff, prior to the amendment, in planning and designing this house. This application is not subject to the recent code amendment to the Conservation Zone District. This is the last application reviewed under the previous zoning. Conversely, this is the first application under the newly adopted land use code provision which allows the consolidation of zoning variances for applications with the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission may now act as the Board of Adjustment in granting zoning variances concurrent with regular planning reviews. The criteria for granting a variance are more strict than the planning criteria the Commission generally uses. These criteria are included in Exhibit "A" and staff will review each of these criteria during the hearing. Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency referral comments have been included as Exhibit `B." A zoning analysis has been provided as Exhibit "C." A location Map has been included as Exhibit "D." The application has been included as Exhibit "E." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road, with the following conditions: l . The building permit plans shall be in accordance with all requirements of the Conservation Zone District and Residential Design Standards, both in effect on June 14, 1999, with the following exceptions: • Setback requirements for the parcel shall be: front = 12 feet; rear = 10 feet; sides = 10 feet. • The garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards shall not apply. 2. The building permit application shall include a permit from the Environmental Health Department for any certified woodstoves or gas log fireplaces (coal- & woodburning fireplaces are not allowed) and an approved fugitive dust control plan. 3. The building permit application shall include a tree removal permit from the City Parks Department for the removal or relocation of trees as per Section 13.20.020 of the Code. 4. The building permit application shall include a water tap permit for a tap sized for the required fire suppression system and for the domestic use. The structure shall include a fire suppression system approved by the Fire Marshall. A pump system may be required by the Fire Marshall to accommodate the required pressure for the fire suppression system. 5. The building permit application shall include a tap permit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Sources of clear water may not be directed to the sanitary sewer. 6. The building permit plans shall include construction details related to the foundation design, foundation walls and retaining walls, floor slabs, underdrain systems, site grading, soil stabolization plan, and surface drainage plan signed and stamped by an Engineer registered in Colorado. This plan must accommodate drainage on -site both during and after construction and must confirm the drywell system can be constructed without causing damage to down gradient properties. A 2 year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 3. 7. The building permit plans shall include an environmental protection plan detailing the limits of disturbance on the parcel and construction access. The limits of disturbance shall be fenced prior to issuance of a building permit and shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 8. The applicant shall contain all construction activity, including staging and contractor parking, on -site unless permission is granted by the Aspen Alps Association for use of the parking area east of the Mitchell property. Adequate width for safe passage along Aspen Alps Road shall be maintained at all times. 9. If evidence of mining activity is discovered during excavation of the property, all construction activity shall cease until a mitigation plan is approved by the City Engineer. 10. Highly reflective materials shall not be used for the roof material. 11. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. 12. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit set and all other drawing sets used for construction. The primary contractor shall be provided with a copy of this Resolution and shall submit a letter as part of the building permit application stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. 13. 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 approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements, and waiver of the garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road,. with the conditions recommended in the Community Development Memorandum dated August 3, 1999. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments Exhibit C -- Zoning Analysis Exhibit D -- Location Map Exhibit E -- Development Application M RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, WAIVING THE GARAGE SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND GRANTING FRONT YARD, REAR YARD, AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES TO THE CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT FOR THE MITCHELL RESIDENCE, 550 ASPEN ALPS ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN. Parcel No. 2737-182-00-012 Resolution #99 - �1. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Cynthia and George Mitchell, owner and applicant, for an 8040 Greenline Review, Appeal of the Residential Design Standards for the garage setback requirement, and variance from the Conservation Zone District dimensional requirements for front yard, side yards, and rear yard setback for a single-family residenceto be newly constructed and replacing an existing single-family home at 550 Aspen Alps Road; and, WHEREAS, the parcel is approximately 10,161 square feet and located in the Conservation (C) Zone District and within the 8040 Greenline Review Environmentally Sensitive Area; and, WHEREAS, the legally created parcel is non -conforming with the minimum lot size requirements of the Conservation (C) Zone District and pursuant to Section 26.312.040 a single-family home may be developed; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.435 of the Municipal Code, development within the 8040 Greenline Review Environmentally Sensitive Area may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410 of the Municipal Code, varainces to the Residential Design Standards may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission when consolidated with another required review process. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.314 of the Municipal Code, varainces to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which a property resides may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance with said Section as part of a consolidated application process authorized by the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.314 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Director has authorized the consolidation of the application review process; and, WHEREAS, the.Fire Marshall, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City Water Department, City Engineering, the City Zoning Officer, City Parks Department, the Aspen/Pitkin County Building Department, and the Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on August 3, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a to (_-� vote the 8040 Greenline Review, the variances from the front yard, rear yard, and side yard dimensional requirements of the Conservation Zone District, and waived the garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road, with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the 8040 Greenline Review, Variances to the front yard, rear yard, and side yard dimensional requirements of the Conservation Zone District, and waiver of the garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Mitchell Residence, 550 Aspen Alps Road, are hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The building permit plans shall be in accordance with all requirements of the Conservation Zone District and Residential Design Standards, both in effect on June 14, 1999, with the following exceptions: • Setback requirements for the parcel shall be: front = 12 feet; rear = 10 feet; sides = 10 feet. • The garage setback requirement of the Residential Design Standards shall not apply. 2. The building permit application shall include a permit from the Environmental Health Department for any certified woodstoves or gas log fireplaces (coal- & woodburning fireplaces are not allowed) and an approved fugitive dust control plan. 3. The building permit application shall include a tree removal permit from the City Parks Department for the removal or relocation of trees as per Section 13.20.020 of the Code. 4. The building permit application shall include a water tap permit for a tap sized for the required fire suppression system and for the domestic use. The structure shall include a fire suppression system approved by the Fire Marshall. A pump system may be required by the Fire Marshall to accommodate the required pressure for the fire suppression system. 5. The building permit application shall include a tap permit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Sources of clear water may not be directed to the sanitary sewer. 6. The building permit plans shall include construction details related to the foundation design, foundation walls and retaining walls, floor slabs, underdrain systems, site grading, soil stabolization plan, and surface drainage plan signed and stamped by an Engineer registered in Colorado. This plan must accommodate drainage on -site both during and after construction and must confirm the drywell system can be constructed without causing damage to down gradient properties. A 2 year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 7. The building permit plans shall include an environmental protection plan detailing the limits of disturbance on the parcel and construction access. The limits of disturbance shall be fenced prior to issuance of a building permit and shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 8. The applicant shall contain all construction activity, including staging and contractor parking, on -site unless permission is granted by the Aspen Alps Association for use of the parking area east of the Mitchell property. Adequate width for safe passage along Aspen Alps Road shall be maintained at all times. 9. If evidence of mining activity is discovered during excavation of the property, all construction activity shall cease until a mitigation plan is approved by the City Engineer. 10. Highly reflective materials shall not be used for the roof material. 11. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. 12.. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit set and all other drawing sets used for construction. The primary contractor shall be provided with a copy of this Resolution and shall submit a.letter as part of the building permit application stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. 13. 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 approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on August 3, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Robert Blaich, Chair STAFF COMMENTS: 8040 Greenline Review 26.435.030(C) 8040 Greenline Review Standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. Staff finding: The applicant has prepared two engineering reports on this property analyzing the geologic conditions and the subsoil conditions. The geological study reported no rockfall or avalanche hazards but did make certain findings regarding drainage, potential mining activity, and construction techniques for soil instability, earthflow creep, and earthquake potential. The geologic report sited the need to manage drainage from Spar Gulch. Upon closer review, the applicant's engineer found the Mitchell site to not be in an area impacted by the Spar drainage, even assuming a worst case scenario. This is primarily due to the proximity to the subject property and the relatively confined lower portion of Spar Gulch. Staff concurs that the Mitchell property is not threatened by the Spar Drainage. With respect to mine tailings, the engineering report identifies a mine shaft approximately 150 feet south west of the property with the shallowest mining activity occurring approximately 400 feet from the surface. It is not expected the applicant will discover any mining activity during construction. Staff has suggested a condition of approval for the applicant to mitigate mining activity if discovered during construction. The geologic report identifies the possibility of slope instability but concludes the improvements proposed will mitigate this potential. With respect to subsoil conditions, the recommendations of the geologic report have been incorporated into the application. There exists some earth creep which has caused damage to the existing house. The geologic report suggests several construction techniques to address this movement which should be part of the building permit. Staff has suggested the building permit set include these engineering considerations and be signed by a registered P.E. Staff does not suggest any special considerations be made for possible earthquakes other than the standards of the U.B.C. Staff Comments page 1 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Staff finding: The existing development has no drainage improvements. Currently the site sheet flows towards the Aspen Alps Road which conveys the water on the surface. The applicant has proposed two drywells to accommodate the site's drainage. Staff has included the standard drainage requirement from the City Engineer as a condition. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff finding: The replacement of the single-family home with another single-family home should have no noticeable effect on the City's air quality. In fact, there may be an overall improvement of the City's air quality with the replacement of two wood burning fireplaces with cleaner devices allowed by the Environmental Health Department. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff finding: The parcel is significantly smaller than allowed for the zone district and is already developed with a residence. There is essentially no opportunity and no benefit to cluster or restrict the development to one portion of the property. The single-family use is possible the only reasonable land use appropriate and compatible with the conditions of the site. The design and location of the proposed development replaces the existing development and staff believes this to be appropriate. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff finding: The final grading of the property will be very minimal. The applicant has stepped the development into the site rather than proposing to re -grade the site significantly. The applicant has proposed removal of three (3) trees which require replacement. Staff concurs with the applicants tree replacement strategy. Staff has included a condition regarding protection of the natural vegetation (much of which is below the replacement code caliper) during construction. The applicant's proposed access and garage location is appropriate for this site. Staff is appreciative of the applicant's understanding of the site constraints by not proposing a new driveway cut to access a garage further into the property. Staff Comments page 2 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff finding: The site is too small to accomplish clustering or restrict development to a portion of the site. The applicant is not proposing any new roads or significant driveway cuts into the slope. Staff agrees with the applicant's desire to replace the existing retaining walls as they may be reaching the end of their usefulness. The proposed structure will not impact the scenic resource of the mountain more than the existing structure. The site is nearly impossible to see from town and is certainly subordinate to the adjacent Aspen Alps buildings. The site is very visible from the Gondola and from the upper portions of the Little Nell ski run. Staff expressed a concern regarding the use of highly reflective roof materials. The applicant is contemplating a metal roof with muted colors. Staff has included a condition prohibiting highly reflective roof materials 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff finding: The proposed building is lower than the existing building and is one story at the highest point of the property. The proposed structure is also broken down into smaller forms, reducing the appearance of mass and bulk. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff finding: The exist sufficient utilities to serve this development. However, due to the gross square footage of the house the Fire Marshall will require a fire suppression system be installed. The increased demands for this system combined with the reduced water pressure due to the elevation requires an upgrade to the service line and may require a pump system be installed. Staff has included these as conditions of approval. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff finding: The access to the parcel is sufficient and well maintained by the Aspen Alps Association (private road). The Fire Marshall did not request any special improvements to the access. Staff Comments page 3 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Staff finding: There are no proposed trails on or near this parcel. STAFF COMMENTS: Dimensional Variations to Conservation Zone District 26.314.040 Standards applicable to variances. - In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title; Staff finding: There is no specific reference to this property in the AACP. The parcel is not identified for public trails, open space, or for any land use different from its current use. Staff believes the proposed development is generally consistent with the AACP. The Interim Citizen Housing Plan also does not specifically identify this parcel. Although the Citizen Plan is more geared towards affordable housing, the plan does support development within the metro area, in close proximity to employment and activity centers, within existing utility provisions, where it does not contribute to urban sprawl, and in a manner compatible with it's neighborhood. Staff believes these criteria are accomplished with this proposed development. The purpose of the Land Use Code (Title) is to ensure the health, safety, and general well being of the citizenry through clear, comprehensive, and consistent regulations on the use of land. The development and use of land should not unduly burden the historic, architectural, aesthetic, and natural environmental character of the City, it's economic and infrastructure capabilities, or the rights and reasonable expectations of property owners. Staff believes this purpose is maintained with the variance in combination with associated planning reviews and general requirements of the Municipal Code related to the development and use of land. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and, Staff Comments page 4 Staff finding: Staff believes this variance to be the minimum variance to support a reasonable use of the parcel. In discussing the site with the applicant, several scenarios were contemplated. Rezoning the parcel to the LTR Zone District would create a non -conforming use as a single-family home is only allowed on a lot of exactly 6,000 square feet in the LTR Zone District. This also restricted the use of the property in a manner undesirable to the owner who wishes to retain the single-family home use. Furthermore, the topography of the site and it's access do not readily support lodge or multi -family development — the two most common land uses in the Lodge/Tourist Residential Zone District. This logic also eliminated the possibility of rezoning the property to the RMF Zone District — a district in close proximity to the property. Rezoning the property to the R-15 Zone District would also create a non -conformity as the parcel is approximately 10,000 square feet in size — only 2/3 the size necessary for the zone. Lastly, rezoning to the R-6 Zone District would create a slight anomaly on the zoning map being slightly removed from other parcels zoned R-6. Considering the site's constraints, staff advised the applicant to propose dimensional requirements for the site considering the dimensional requirements and development patterns of the surrounding parcels. While the proposed setback requirements do not specifically coincide with either the LTR or R-15 Zones, the dimensions do approximate those provisions. Staff believes the proposed structure and dimensional requirements represent a reasonable use of the parcel. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district. Staff finding: Staff believes both of the conditions exist and that literal interpretation of the zoning would deprive the land owner of a reasonable use of the property and cause an undue hardship. Staff Comments page 5 The Conservation Zone District setback requirements provide merely a few square feet for building. This is created by the relatively large setback requirements applicable to all properties in the zone district. On parcels meeting the minimum size for the zone district, . 10 acres, these large setback requirements are appropriate and do not render the property un-usable. On this small parcel, however, the setbacks are unreasonable if the land owner wishes to develop the property. The front yard setback of 100 feet combined with the rear yard setback of 30 feet render approximately 1 foot of buildable space on the 131 foot deep parcel. Staff believes there exists a special circumstance unique to this parcel necessitating a variance. Granting the variance will not grant a special privilege denied by the AACP or by the land use code to other parcels in the same zone district. As mentioned above, the AACP does not specifically address this parcel but does not oppose this type of development in this location. The land use code specifically allows for the development of a single- family residence on non -conforming lots. The variance would not confer any additional rights to this property than to other properties in the Conservation Zone District. In fact, at the time of this application the district did not restrict Floor Area. It is conceivable, especially in this market, that a house of 15,000 or 20,000 square feet would be common place on a conforming 10 acre lot in the Conservation zone. The reduction in setback requirements for this property. to develop a house of less than 5,000 of Floor Area does not then represent an additional right or special provision. STAFF COMMENTS: Residential Design GARAGE: The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: All portions of a garage, carport, or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP, or, Staff Finding: The proposed variance is not'in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. b)- a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: Staff Comments page 6 The design is more effective than the standard. The standard would result in either the removal of a significant tree or the re -grading of the site to accommodate a driveway further onto the property. The driveway concept would be too severe of a road cut and might be physically impossible. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: This parcel is extremely steep and providing a garage or merely parking in any other location on -site would require significant site grading. "Pushing" the garage back, even five feet, would require the removal of a large Spruce which the applicant and the Parks Department would like to preserve. Staff believes these represent site constraints necessitating the garage placement waiver. Staff Comments page 7 MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer P z From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer JUL 199 9 Date: July 2, 1999 Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their June 30, 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. Site Drainage - The application included drainage design meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f. The building permit drawings need to include a 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 must be signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 2. Water Department — The Water Director has noted that a new water tap will be required in order to meet flow requirements for sprinklering the residence and that water pressure may need to be augmented. 3. Other — The property is not located next to a public right-of-way and therefore is not subject to many of the usual conditions of approval. The property is served by a 20' wide access and utility easement. The applicant is advised that portions of the pavement are not contained in the easement area and are located on the applicant's property without the benefit of an easement. DRC Attendees Staff Chris Bendon, Chuck Roth Applicant's Representative: Alan Richman 99Ni99 Phil Overeynder, 12:47 PM 7/8/99 -, Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline X.-Sender: philo@water Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 12:47:17 -0600 To: Chuck Roth <chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline Cc: chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us Chuck, Yes, if they are planning a fire sprinkler system they will require an upgraded water service line. Also since they are at the very highest portion of our gravity served zone, static water pressure at the building site will be in the range bf 35-45 psi and could be marginal for some sprinkler system applications. The sprinkler system designer should perform a test of the pressure at that location in order to properly accomodate the water pressure conditions at the site. This could be checked ahead of the pressure reducing valve (if one is installed) at the water service line entrance to the existing home. Phil At 10:52 AM 7/8/99 -0500, you wrote: >Phil - FYI - Chuck >>X-Sender: chrisb@comdev >>Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:39:13 -0600 >>To: Chuck Roth <chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us> >> From: Chris Bendon <chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us> >>Subject: Re: Mitchell 8040 Greenline >>They are planning on a sprinkler system. The question at DRC was whether or >>not they will need to upgrade their water system to handle a sprinkler >>system. Also, whether a special pump device is necessary due to the elevation. >>Chris . >>At 08:49 AM 7/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >>>Did I leave you a draft memo? >>>I got an e-mail from Phil about if they are sprinklering, they will Psint.ad for Chris Bandon <chrish@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Sy Kelly * Chairman John Keleher Paul Smith * Treas Fr anh Loushin Michael Kelly * Secy Bruce INlatherly, Mgr June 25, 1999 RECEIVED Chris Bendon JUi" 2 9 1999 Community Development !T E 130 S. Galena St. `�5171; n "� j! Aspen, CO 81611 -�e',�FI�,T Re: Mitchel 8040 Greenline Review i Dear Chris: The residential unit at 550 Aspen Alps Road is connected to the Aspen Alp's private collection system. We are not able to estimate the capacity of the Aspen Alp's system but we can say that we do currently have sufficient downstream collection and treatment capacity. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. A.tap permit must be completed once detailed plans are available. The connection fees must be paid. prior to the issuance of a building permit. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager �z,O \ . Im, sr, 2= J Exhibit C Mitchell 8040 Zoning Analysis: Existing Proposed R-15 Zone LTR Zone Conservation Zone Front Yard 14 12 25 10 100 Side Yards 37 10 10 5 30 Rear Yard L6 10 [_10 10 30 All measurements in feet Front Yard: The existing building exists approximately 14 feet from the front lot line. The proposed garage would be approximately 17 feet from -the front lot line while the porch would be approximately 12 from the property line at it closest point. Retaining Walls: The site is steeply sloped and significant retaining walls have been developed to mitigate the road cut. The timber construction is proposed to be replaced with concrete retaining walls. The land use code allows for development not exceeding 30 inches in height above natural grade within the setbacks. The code also allows for fences and berms up to 6 feet in height. The terrain has been substantially modified to accommodate the road developed some time ago. Taking this into account, staff is assuming the present grade to be the natural grade for the purpose of measuring the developments within setbacks. Moreover, it would be unreasonable, and possibly unsafe, to permanently remove these retaining structures. The new retaining wall is proposed in approximately the same location as the existing wall. Staff recommends the resolution acknowledge the retaining walls and their proposed replacement. E Exhibit I E, Mitchell 8040 Gondola Buildin l Mtchel Residence , Aspen Alps iiAA ANN- - 200 0 200 400 Feet Location Map I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Application Request This is an application to re -develop a parcel of land located at 550 Aspen Alps Road. The property is presently improved with a single-family residence. The owners of the property, George and Cynthia Mitchell, propose to tear down that residence, which they built more than 25 years ago, and to replace it with a new house. It is necessary to build a new house because the foundation of the existing house is cracking and it cannot easily be repaired. The house is also very wasteful from an energy use standpoint, with single -glaze windows, poor insulation, and an inefficient heating system. Moreover, because the owners of the property have gotten older and because this is a relatively steep site, it is essential that their home be made handicap -accessible. This has become a primary design consideration in the formulation of this proposal. The location of the site in relation to neighboring properties is shown on the vicinity map. As can be seen, the property is located along the edge of the Little Nell slope, near the base of Aspen Mountain. It is surrounded primarily by multi -family dwellings (the Aspen Alps) that are much larger in scale than the existing residence. Access to the property is provided from Aspen Alps Road. An improvements survey, depicting existing conditions on the property, has also been provided. It illustrates that this is an irregularly shaped piece of land that is improved with the existing residence and a surface parking area. It also identifies the locations of the fourteen trees on the property that have a caliper size of five inches (5") or greater. The house is nestled among these and other mature trees that afford the existing residence a sense of privacy, even though it is surrounded by multi -family buildings and by the Little Nell slope. These trees also screen the house from view from neighbors and skiers. This application is being submitted by the owners of the property (hereinafter, "the Applicants"). Proof of the ownership of the property is provided by Exhibit # 1, the title insurance commitment. Authorization for Alan Richman Planning Services to represent the Applicants for this application is provided by Exhibit #2. A pre -application conference was held with a representative of the City to discuss this project (see Exhibit #3, Pre -Application Conference Summary). Based on this meeting, it was confirmed that this project would require the following development approvals: 8040 Greenline Review for development above the 8040 geenline; and Variance for development within the minimum setbacks of the Conservation zone district. Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 1 This application addresses the review standards for both of these development approvals, since recent revisions to the Land Use Code now permit the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider both of these applications. B. Dimensional Limitations Table 1, on the following page, provides an analysis of how the proposed development complies with the dimensional limitations of the Conservation (CON) zone district. The table illustrates that the property is a nonconforming lot of record, since it contains considerably less than 10 acres of land and is nowhere near as wide as 400'. Section 26.104.060 A. of the Aspen Land Use Code states that a single-family residence may be developed on a nonconforming lot of record, provided a variance from the underlying dimensional requirements is obtained. The table also illustrates that it is simply not feasible for any development scenario for this property to comply with several of the other dimensional requirements of the Conservation zone district. For example, the minimum required front yard setback is deeper than the width of virtually any section of the lot, while the minimum required front and rear yard setbacks together are as deep as the widest portion of the lot. Therefore, the existing residence and the proposed residence are both nonconforming as to setbacks. This situation necessitates that a setback variance be obtained, since any re -configuration of the structure will cause an increase in the extent of the nonconformity with regard to setbacks. Responses to the standards for a variance are provided in Section III of this application The proposed development will comply with the other applicable standards of the underlying Conservation zone district. However, when this application was being prepared and when it was submitted, the Conservation zone district did not have a floor area ratio. Nevertheless, the Applicants used the maximum allowable floor area ratio of the neighboring R-15 zone district as a guide, but not an absolute limit, when formulating this application. The R-15 zone district would permit a house containing approximately 4,200 sq. ft. of floor area to be built on this property. The proposed house is approximately 10% larger than would be allowed in the R-15 zone, but will be smaller than the surrounding multi -family buildings, and most of the single-family houses that are located across the Little Nell slope. It has now come to our attention that the City is considering the adoption of an FAR for this zone. The proposed floor area ratio would also permit a house containing approximately 4,200 sq. ft. of floor area to be built on this property. The Applicants would request that the proposed floor area ratio for the Conservation zone district not apply to this application, as they were not on notice of this proposed code amendment at the time this application was being prepared, and they have spent substantial time and money to prepare plans for this house based on the adopted language of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 2 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT'S COMPLIANCE WITH CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Requirement Code Standard Existing Pr©posed Site Conditions Plan` Minimum Lot Size 10 acres 10,161 sq. ft. 10,161 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area Per 10 acres Not applicable Not applicable Dwelling Unit Minimum Lot Width 400' 58' 58' Minimum Front Yard 100, 14'* 20' Minimum Side Yard 30' 37'** 10' Minimum Rear Yard 30' 6 10' Maximum Height 28' Not available 28' Minimum Distance No requirement Not applicable Not applicable Between Buildings Percent of Open Space No requirement Not applicable Not applicable External Floor Area No requirement Not applicable Not applicable Ratio Ofi Street Parking 2 spaces per unit At least 2 spaces At least 2 spaces Notes: * This refers to the setback for the existing house. There is an existing retaining wall that is located about 10' from the front property line. This also refers to the setback for the existing house. There are existing steps located 29' from one side property line and a retaining wall that extends to that property line. C. GMQS Exemption Since this proposal involves demolition of an existing residence, it qualifies for an exemption from GMQS pursuant to Section 26.100.050 A.2.c. of the Aspen Land Use Code. This section requires that Applicants choose one of three affordable housing mitigation options for projects that involve replacement of a demolished single family house. The option that the Applicants have chosen to comply with this section is to pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee, as specifically authorized in sub -section (1) (c). Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 3 II. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW This property is located generally between 8,040' and 8,075' in elevation. Therefore, the proposed development is subject to 8040 Greenline Review. The standards for 8040 Greenline Review are found in Section 26.440.030 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Our responses to these standards are as follows: 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development, considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud low, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Response: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. has prepared two reports to determine the suitability of the property for development. One report is a geologic site assessment of the property (see Exhibit #4) while the other report is a subsoil study for foundation design (see Exhibit #5). In preparing the reports, they have conducted several field explorations of the site, including exploratory borings, and have evaluated resource materials. The geologic site assessment states that the proposed residence is not in an area that is ubject to potential rockfall or avalanche hazards. There are, however, certain geologic conditions that could affect the project and need to be addressed. The conditions include the need to manage storm water from the Spar Gulch drainage, the potential for subsidence due to past mining activities, the potential for construction -related slope instability, the potential for earthflow creep, and the potential for earthquake. Following are the findings and recommendations with respect to each of these hazards: Storm Water Management: The site assessment states that the Spar Gulch drainage could produce debris floods and flows during periods of unusually intense thunderstorms or when there is rapid melting of an unusually heavy snow pack. In response to this finding, Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon Meyer was retained to evaluate whether the existing stream channel can carry the potential water and debris flows. His resulting report is attached as Exhibit #6. Mr. Hammond evaluated the site considering information contained in the Drainage Facility Capacity Analysis for the City of Aspen, Colorado, prepared by WRC Engineering, Inc. in September, 1998. His evaluation finds that "Even assuming a worst case sediment condition for the 100-year event, the Mitchell site is outside the area impacted by the potential flow and deposition from Lower Spar". Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 4 His report also contains the following conclusion: "In short, it is my opinion that the lower Spar Gulch drainage corridor is sufficiently well defined and sufficiently far from the Mitchell residence site that the property is not threatened by flood or debris flow conditions from the Spar basin. The well-defined upper gulch, steep side gradients back into Spar, and the limited nature of obstruction to the lower gulch would not appear to create conditions whereby an overflow condition or flow diversion caused by a debris plug would get to the Mitchell site." Mine Workings: A review of mine maps was conducted. The review demonstrates that the shallowest mine workings are about 400' below the surface in this area, and the closest mine shafts are about 150' and 250' southwest of the proposed building site. The assessment concludes that "the old mine workings should not present a potential hazard to the proposed residence". It goes on to recommend that if evidence of un-mapped shafts or tunnel portals are found during excavation, then stabilization will be needed. Construction -Related Slope Instability• Because relatively deep cuts in the steep hillside are proposed, there is a potential for construction to induce slope instability. These conditions can be mitigated by following the site grading, retaining wall, surface drainage, and subsurface drainage recommendations contained in the subsoil study. The Applicants agree to follow the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer in the development of the site. Earthflow Creep: The site assessment states that "The Little Nell earthflow appears to be an old geologic feature that has not experienced large scale movements for some time. The potential for large scale earthflow reactivation is considered to be low." However, the report notes that there have been small scale movements recorded along the western part of the Little Nell slope, in the range of 0.1" to 0.25" per year, that caused structural distress to another building. The Applicants had already anticipated the need to design the structure with this hazard in mind, since the existing residence on the subject property has experience some cracking of its foundation (which is one of the primary reasons for constructing this new residence). The Applicants will follow the recommendations contained in the subsoil study (see Exhibit #5), including those addressing foundation design, foundation walls and retaining walls, floor slabs, underdrain systems, site grading, and surface drainage, to ensure there is no repeat of the failure of the foundation of the residence. Earthquake Considerations: The assessment states that the residence is likely to experience moderately strong shaking from an earthquake at some time during its useful life. The shaking that is likely to occur would have negligible impacts on a well designed structure. The Applicants agree to design the residence to withstand moderately strong shaking and not to collapse under stronger shaking. .Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 5 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Response: The proposed development will not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, nor cause increased runoff, drainage or soil erosion. In fact, since there is no evidence of any existing drainage improvements on the site, such as inlets or drywells, the drainage controls proposed in conjunction with this development should result in a considerably improved condition. As is more fully described in the attached report prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer (Exhibit #7), drainage is currently routed around and away from the building. Overflow from the northeast end of the property appears to sheet flow to the north across the pavement area, and is routed along the road edge to the south of the Aspen Alps buildings. The engineer recommends that two drywells be installed to accept runoff from the roof, decks, and any exterior drains. The capacity of these drywells will provide for in excess of 100% of the City's drainage control standard, which requires detention of the increased runoff volume associated with the 100 year, 90-minute event after development. The engineer also recommends that the geotechnical consultant make certain that there is not any existing groundwater at the depths planned for the drywells, and comment on any sub -surface concerns due to the introduction of water into the soils at this site. These natters are both addressed in the Hepworth-Pawlak subsoil study (see Exhibit #5), which contains recommendations regarding foundation design and the underdrain system. Additional recommendations made in Jay Hammond's report are: (1) to ensure grading is positive away from the structure; and (2) to not route the footer drains into the same drywells as the storm and roof drain collection lines. The Applicants will follow these recommendations, and will also comply with the other recommendations of the civil and geotechnical engineers. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Response: The proposed development should have a positive impact on air quality in the Aspen area. This is because the existing residence contains two "dirty" wood burning devices, both of which will be eliminated. The proposed residence will comply with all applicable City regulations regarding wood burning devices. In addition, there should be no additional traffic generated by the development, since the project simply involves the replacement of an existing single-family residence. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. ✓Iitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 6 S. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural features. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Response: The Applicants have designed the house to compliment the natural terrain, stepping it along the contours and burying much of the mass of the structure below the surface. The proposed development will minimize the need for grading and excavation, by limiting the new residence principally to areas within the limits of the existing excavation. No new roads will be required to serve the proposed home Although three (3) trees on the site with a caliper size of 6" or greater will have to be removed, the proposed site plan illustrates that they will be replaced by seven (7) conifer trees, each with a 6 caliper size. A calculation provided on the proposed site plan illustrates that the cross sectional area of the replacement trees exceeds the cross sectional area of the existing trees. The replacement trees will be placed near where the trees to be removed are currently located, to ensure the scenic features of the mountain remain as they are today. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Response: Elevations have been provided for the proposed residence. The elevations show that the residence has been designed as a one-story structure at the highest point on the property, and then steps down along the hillside to reveal more of the structure at the lower elevations. The roof line of the structure has a curved appearance, so it is sympathetic with, and actually replicates the form of the natural mountain hillside. At its highest point, the building will comply with the 28' height limit; at other points it will be well below that limit. Moreover, the form of the structure has been broken into two distinct masses by the introduction of a vegetated courtyard between these building elements. A careful review of the proposed elevations also reveals that the new house will have a lower overall height than the existing house when viewed from every direction. The architect has "dotted in" the existing elevation on these illustration to allow for this comparison. The new house will have a much lower overall height and profile than the surrounding multi- family buildings of the Aspen Alps. As one looks at this site from below or from the ski slope, the most prominent visual image is established by these multi -family buildings and not by this single-family house. In fact, from virtually any location within the downtown area, it is simply not possible to actually see this house, because the existing trees screen it from view, and because there are buildings within town that block views to the property. _4itchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 7 The Applicants commit to preserving the vast majority of the existing trees on the site that screen views of the building from below the house, and from both the east (Aspen Alps Road) and from the west (Little Nell slope). As is illustrated on the proposed elevations, these trees, along with the new conifer trees we commit to planting, accomplish more for maintaining the open character of the mountain than any other design innovation we could introduce into this development. These plantings will ensure that surrounding residents and users of the Little Nell slope will continue to enjoy the open, natural view of the mountain that is present today. Height and bulk will also be minimized by submerging the structure into the hillside. This is particularly true as the house is viewed from the ski slope (see Sheet 3, Proposed Elevations). In fact, because some portions of the proposed house will be below grade, and because the stairs at the front of the house (near the edge of the road) will be removed, it will appear to sit further back from the road than does the existing residence. The proposed garage will also be built into the hillside. It will be covered with earth and landscaping, to make it appear that the natural terrain continues beyond the structure. This garage will replace an existing cut where cars are now stored on the ground surface. The massive, unsightly wood cribbing wall that is failing will be replaced with a much more attractive wall that is made of concrete or natural stone materials. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Response: The existing house is already served by City of Aspen water service, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewage disposal service, and other necessary utilities. All of these services are adequate and no changes to these services are anticipated at this time. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Response: Ingress and egress is provided from Aspen Alps Road. This private road, which also serves the multi -family units at the Aspen Alps, is more than adequate for access for fire protection and snow removal purposes. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Response: The referenced Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan map has been superseded by the pedestrian and bikeway maps in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Those maps do not show a trail in the vicinity of the subject property. 'Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 8 III. VARIANCE The re -development of this property requires the Applicants to obtain a variance from the front, side, and rear yard setbacks of the Conservation zone district. The standards for variances are found in Section 26.314.040 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Our responses to these standards are as follows: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this title. Response: The Applicants have been unable to find any statement in the Aspen Area Community Plan that would relate to the proposed variance. However, we suggest that the re -development of this property for use as a single-family residence is consistent with the overall intent of the Plan, which is that Aspen continue to be an environmentally responsible, economically sustainable community. For a discussion of how the proposed variance is consistent with the purposes of the Aspen Land Use Code, please see the response to the next standard, in which we describe how the proposed variance has been designed to be consistent with the setback requirements of the City's R-15 zone district. ?. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. Response: Since the setbacks of the Conservation zone district bear no relationship to a property of this size, when the site plan was being formulated for this property, it was necessary to establish what would be reasonable setbacks to guide its development. We looked at the official zone district map and found that the properties along this portion of the base of Aspen Mountain are typically designated into one of three possible zone districts, these being Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR), Moderate Density Residential (R-15), and Conservation (CON). The setbacks in these zone districts are as follows: L/TR' R-15 Front Yard: 10, 25' Side Yard: 5' 10, Rear Yard: 10, 10' CON 100' 30' 30, The closest neighboring zoning to this property is, in fact, L/TR. A review of the site plan illustrates that the proposed development complies with the setbacks of the L/TR zone. Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 9 However, we concluded that if we could instead develop this site to conform to R-15 4 setbacks, that would be consistent with the prevailing conditions that apply to most single- family style development in this neighborhood and would constitute a "minimum variance". The Applicants have made every effort to follow the setback requirements of the R-15 zone district in the design of the proposed residence. The one area where the proposed house protrudes into these setbacks is with respect to the front yard setback, as measured in the narrowest portion of the lot. In this area, a 20' front yard setback has been achieved. It should be noted that in the area where the house will protrude into the 25' setback, it will do so to a lesser extent than does the existing house, which is only 14' from the front property line, and to an even lesser extent than does the existing retaining wall, which is 10' from the front property line. It should also be noted that at least part of the area where the structure protrudes into the setback will be for the proposed garage. As described above, the garage will be covered with earth and landscaping, to make it appear that the natural terrain continues beyond the structure. This should help to minimize the visual impacts of this variance. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings or structures in the same zone district. Response: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the setbacks of the Conservation zone district would deprive the Applicants of all use of the subject property. The Conservation zone district requires a minimum front yard setback of 100' and a minimum rear yard setback of 30'. Taken together, this 130' front and rear yard setback is wider than virtually the entire lot (the lot is just 131' wide at its southern boundary). The special circumstance that is unique to this parcel is the fact that it is an approximately 10,000 sq. ft. parcel in a zone district that requires a minimum of 10 acres. This situation makes this parcel so significantly non -conforming that it is impossible for the Applicants to comply with the applicable setbacks, which were designed to apply to much larger Mitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 10 properties. This problem is compounded by two other unique factors: • The property is oddly shaped, with a narrow section along its northern boundary, gradually widening in the southern portions of the property. • This is a relatively steep lot, and one that is important to the community visually due to its location along the Little Nell run. It is important to locate the house in the portion of the property that has already been disturbed to ensure that views from the ski area will remain open. All of these factors taken together constitute a unique circumstance that cause the Applicants unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty. It would be a particular hardship to the Applicants if they were refused permission to replace this older house, because the house has experienced cracking of its foundation and is also quite energy inefficient, and because the Applicants are unable to enjoy the house today due to their increasing age, which has made it difficult for them to use the existing multi -level house. IV. VESTED RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicants hereby request that this development be granted vested rights status. V. CONCLUSION In summary, we have submitted all of the materials requested of us during our pre - application conference. We have responded to the applicable standards of the Aspen Land Use Code and have demonstrated our compliance with said standards. Should any reviewing agency request additional information, or need for us to clarify any of the statements made herein, we will respond in a timely manner. Please feel free to contact us as necessary. Iitchell 8040 Greenline Review and Variance Application Page 11 I I 11 - - - GQ-\\ E� PA92, O - � 11, •AQEd / - w d fc- ttl , 11 -- ' (. 1 / i TREE LEGEND =� t r ---------- \ tiIEV CONIffl1 O ttl - -- OI --� \`; -"\ S 3✓ -\' \E R\ E"SG -' EXISTI NG �' ` ��\o.. S HOUSE \ MITCHELL [C E K L-------- ------- O Y-4 - I ENCE �> PAID - - + - , .♦ ♦♦ �4, Iu �,� ♦; Aspen Alps South Road -- -�--�- L \ ASPEN COLORADO 1 ' GARY TABASINSKE -� �:f y; { ����,. �� ♦♦�o�� ARCH I T E C T, AIA ' '^ ♦♦ `� 1�t y T" ��` ♦ ',l ♦♦ �4 ` ♦ 4 n;D0ERUN R(-)AI) Lt)PC7 ISLAND. WA 8z61 - ^ — ♦♦ ♦ h Gam. �t � � ti ` 1' ♦ ♦ \ �x_� 4♦ ♦♦ \�. PHONE. W" ibt3 gr-Rti ^—� � . �- �� `., ♦♦ `� 7 ��' �1♦v ��,11 ♦ '�fi F ` y i - � ♦`� ♦♦ \ ��♦ � Ijn>1 itiR : qzl email ¢tabar: har„cklcla rl.iont EXISTING CONDITIONS �._, ;i ♦, , ��, r� �, �♦ f tiN: . ��,v S<'-11,1;: 1/R" = F-0`; - - r\_�`v `�\ \♦'''-0 Sly : S`�F 1 `♦ �2`y ,\-._'� ,` �I, `� \ w - - ��✓FEF ♦ _ \_- - \'e5300011\ ♦♦` Ci,, ♦ �� - -t^♦`L - =c- - —t - ♦ .. Revisions: EXISTING CONDITIONS,If ,,,' A„proed - -- _ Drawl by. Date. I9er 2-,, 1999 Project No. 9812 of .' sheets I ------- 1— { 2 - -, r } i !x � 10 ) l� I XA�RD � s t. iCG ly -- t PQOFEQTY LWE -- - 1 OI "� tit tr J \ 1 \ , PROPOSED r - S T R U C T U R E t v�i�rk _� i1, f. v' �i \ ,III } , I -,c tilz�r nly RI� - I } JIl III i '. v ' � ,.�� ••� ,, I � II J A�\ \ kI=--- ----- -' - fFI=- - PROPERTY LINE �I85 3C'CC"1� ��1 \r 1 iC ibL 9C 80 PROPOSED SITE PLAN I' TREE ^^IT'C^ATiON CALCJLA-IONS _'REcG ✓ BE RErvC\ EO ccR L ✓A 25SQ E� 4 2 Escr NEkk - KEEE TO BE A".^EC MITCHELL RESIDENCE Aspen Alps South Road ASPEN, COLORADO GARY TABASINSKE ARCHITECT, AIA }o5 DOP RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND. WIN 98261 PHONE (}6n)g68-go88 fax ,Fit i(IR ,921 email. gtabard motkisland com PROPOSED SITE PLAN MALE- 118" = 1'-0" Revisions: APProved: Drawn by. 2 Date: tlnr?-• 1999 Project No. 9812 of ' Sheets i i i SOUTH ELEVATION e I ii'4f,b�6 r is $r tV Id s Ri r9y-ju j 3 YI i fr i ` � bit "•, 4) NO RTH E LEVATION WEST ELEVATION MITCHELL RESIDENCE Aspen Alps South Road ASPEN, COI.OItADO ARCHITECT, AIA }uS WE RUN ROAD LOPGZ ISLAND, WA 98261 PHONE (360) 468 4088 far (36W 468 29z1 email: gtahar II aroil.island culn ELEVATIONS PROPOSED HOUSE RALE: 118" =P-o° Revisrons: Approved: Drawn by: Date: .11al 29.1999 Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets EXISTING EAST ELEVATION EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION �� EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION MITCHELL RESIDENCE Aspen Alps South Road ASPEN, COI.ORADO GARY TABASINSKE ARCHITECT, A I A ,o; DOE RUIN R AD LOPE7 ISLAND. N'A 98261 PHONF(;60).468 4088 lax (J6,1).108 :92; email- giabard, aro:kisland :om ELEVATIONS EXISITING HOUSE SCALE.• 118" = F-0" Revisions: Approved: Drawn by: Date: .Unr 27. 1999 Project No. 9812 of Sheets I r L---------------------- PLAN -SKI ROOM LEVEL �4✓ E4-,-��,ES � J/ -- - -- � L�-------- -- - i ENF'RY LE\ i i I GARAGE LEVEL PLAN MITCHELL RESIDENCE Aspen Alps South Road ASPEN, COLORAI)0 GARY TABASINSKE ARCHITECT, AIA 305 DOE. RUN ROAD LOPEZ ISLAND, WA 98261 PLIONE (360) 468 V88 fax tyhtrl.10 29zr email gmbarch,iinxkriiandcom FLOOR PLANS LOWER LEVELS SCALE: 118" = 1'-0" Revisions: Approved: Drawn hv: Date:.INT27 1999 Project No. 9812 of 7 Sheets :)n,L 2 _M3 PLAN - BEDROOM LEVEL i E------------------� PLAN - FAR OUT ROOM LEVEL MITCHELL RESIDENCE Aspen Alps South Road ASPEN, COLORADO GARY TABASINSKE ARCHITECT. A I A ;o; DOI RUN ROAD LOPE7 ISLAND. WA 98261 PHON[ (36n) 168-4088 lar;3no)401-lgzi email giibarrlt.arock island.com FLOOR PLANS MIDDLE LEVELS S(AL6: 118" = 1 '-0" Revisions: Approved Drawn by: Date: thn'27.1999 Project No. 9812 of 7 Streets LIVING LEVEL PLAN MITCHELL RESIDENCE Aspen Alps South Road ASPEN, COI.ORADO GARY TABASINSKE ARCHITECT, AIA N'S DUL RUN ROAD LOPE1 ISLAND. t\ 4 o8.,61 I'IION[ (160) 468 gn88 laz t;h„gtiP :92, email gtabarrbt?rockrsland rom FLOOR PLANS UPPER LEVEL KALE: 118" = 1'-0" Revisions: Approved: Drama by. - Dater .Unr 27 l999 Project No, 9812 o/ 7 Sheets MRS. HENRY T. CHA. �W DLER 902 -NORTH GREEN BAY ROAD* LAKE FOREST, ILLL OIS 600,17 July 28,1999 Pamela Cunningham Aspen Alps 700 Ute Avenue Aspen, Co 81811 Dear Pam: As owners of two apartments in the 500 Building of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, we would like to go on record with some concerns about the proposed plans for demolition and reconstruction of the George Mitchell house, directly above o.ur building. 1. Size of proposed building and relation to its lot: The existing house on the lot is non -conforming under the Aspen Land Use Codes and 8040 Greenline regulations. To construct a larger house, covering almost the entire oddly -shaped lot, will only compound the situation. When the 400 Aspen Alps Building burned down several years ago, the reconstruction was mandated to the exact footprint of the original . building. A larger house on the Mitchell property will certainly impact the views from below, above , and to the west on Little Nell. 2. Stability of the slope: Our building, 500, has already experienced some damage from ground shifting, as have other buildings in the Alps complex. The existing Mitchell house itself has had foundation problems. A 30-foot excavation on this hillside will certainly affect the adjacent terrain. 3. Drainage: We question not only the efficacy of three large underground dry -wells on that property, but also the effects of their construction on the land below, including the road. We hope that you, as the representative of the Aspen Alps owners, will present our views to the appropriate governing body. Sncereiy, t Henn, T. Chandler Clarissa H. Chandler Owners, 504 and 508 Aspen Alps South- UJ- 2-H 140N 9:13 AM I ENICO FAX N0. 305 179 9 724 HALGLENN CORP. 1428 Brickell Avenue / Miarm, Florida 33131 Tel. (305) 371-4112 Fax: (305) 579-9724 �1 NMER RESIDENCE: August 2, 1999 ASPFN AIDS, #503 700 UTF AVENUE Mrs. Pamela Cunningham ASPEN, COIORADD 810 General Manager Aspen Alps Condominium; 700 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 , RE: George Mitchel) Proposed Zoning Variances Dear Mrs. Cunningham: The purpose of this letter is to request that you express to the proper- authorities our concerns about the proposed demolition and reconstruction of the Mitchell house. As you know, our corporation is the owner of Unit 503 in the five hundred building which is adjacent to the Mitchell property, and I believe will be adversely affected by the proposed reconstruction. Our concerns are as follows: I. Slope Stability — construction of this oversized house will adversely affect stability and contribute to ground shifting. 2. Drainage we are very much concerned about the effect the construction will have on the drainage of the contiguous areas, the 500, 400 and 300 buildings as well as the Aspen Alps Road. 3. Size of the proposed home — the home already crowds the road and appears to occupy the entire lot. A larger home will obscure views from all directions. 4. Staging of the construction — construction of this home will requite heavy equipment, trucks and workers vehicles and will cause hardship and parking problems for the residents of the 400 and 500 buildings, as well as traffic hazards on an already overcrowded Aspen Alps Road. We respectfully request that you vigorously represent our concerns to the hearing authorities. ,Sincerely, ErnestM alpn President ME Attachment 8 County of Pitkin State of Colorado AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS } SS. } SECTION 26.52.060(E) being or representing an I, - Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice As Applicant to the City of p , p t to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following requirements pursuan manner: co of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. 1, By mailing of notice, a copy as indicated owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, Mail to all p to the Public 199 � (which is � days prior P on the attached list, on the day of 5 `� hearing date of ���`� ) a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from 2, By posting a sign in p was posted and visible continuously from the Z �a day the nearest public way) and that the said sign p st be osted for at least . Mu �S �A , 199 `� , to the day of ko�w� , 199� ( p of `�- ten (10) full days befor e the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Signature Signed before me this day of X l 199q.by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: \\ ay- 2-0� Notary Public PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 550 ASPEN ALPS ROAD REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FROM THE FRONT YARD, REAR YARD, AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday August 3, 1999, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Cynthia and George Mitchell, owners, Box 4000, The Woodlands, TX 77387. The applicant is requesting variances to the front yard, rear yard, and side yard setback requirements of the Conservation (C) Zone District to develop a single family home on the parcel. The property is currently developed with a single- family residence and is legally described as a tract of land in the NW 1/4 of Section 18, TS 10 R 84 W of the 6" P.M., City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072. sBob Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on July 16, 1999. City of Aspen Account List of Owners Within 300' of 550 Aspen Alps Road FRIEDMAN RICHARD L C/O CARPENTER & CO 20 UNIVERSITY RD r"""BRIDGE MA 02138 CARMAN PETER CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER C/O CITIBANK GLOBAL ASSET MGMT 100 FIRST STAMFORD PL 7TH FL STAMFORD CT 06902 KENNER JEFFREY L 720 PARK AVE #6-8 NEW YORK NY 10021 LOSSING JOHN HAROLD & JANE BLACKMAN 730 24TH NW STE 1 WASHINGTON DC 20037 HIRSCH LEON C & TURI L H 150 GLOVER DR NORWALK CT 06850 OTTO GERDEAU CO 82 WALL ST NEW YORK NY 10005 DRAKE L RODMAN 270/1000 INT 485 PARK AVE #5A NEW YORK NY 10022 KAPLAN JEROME A 6001 MONTROSE RD STE 403 ROCKVILLE MD 20852 OHERRON EDWARD M JR QUAL PERS PUGH JAMES H JR RES TRUST 359 CAROLINA AVE OHERRON EDWARD M JR AS TRUSTEE WINTER PARK FL 32789 6827-C FAIRVIEW RD c I OTTE NC 28210 ASCALI CORPORATION C/O MENDEZ-INSUA CPA 8300 S W 8TH ST #303 MIAMI FL 33144 CABANISS WILLIAM J 3812 FOREST GLEN DR BIRMINGHAM AL 35213 DUBIN HOWARD & JEANIE 381 CRANBROOK RD BLOOMFIELD HILLS MI 48304 TAYLOR WALTER & SHIRLEY 39.296% PO BOX 595 BUSBY MT 59016 AMOS BETTY 13724 SW 92 CT MIAMI FL 33176 PORTER ROBERT A & CHARLYNN MAXWELL 611 PARKWAY STE F-13 GATLINBURG TN 37738 FORD SIMON JOHN HUBIRD & JULIE DERKS 700 LYNCOTT NORTH MUSKEGON MI 49445 HOPKINS DOUGLAS D HEPLER JOHN C 911 SURREY LN GLENVIEW IL 60025 MOSES ASPEN VIEW HOMESITE INC HIRSCH LEON - C/O 150 GLOVER AVE NORWALK CT 06856 BAECHLE JAMES J 550 PARK AVE NEW YORK NY 10021 SALOMON CHESTER B & ROSALIND S 975 PARK AVE NEW YORK NY 10028 GARTEN HERBERT & SUSAN F 36 S CHARLES ST 2300 CHARLES CENTER S BALTIMORE MD 21201 HALGLENN CORPORATION 1428 BRICKELL AVE MIAMI FL 33131 MCINTOSH HENRY P IV & SUSAN RIGGS 124 VIA BETHESDA PALM BEACH FL 33480 LEWIN DON C 7101 DIXIE HWY FLORENCE KY 41042 HARRIS NANCY M 386 S MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVD ST PAUL MN 55105 CHANDLER CLARISSA HAFFNER 902 NORTH GREEN BAY RD LAKE FOREST IL 60045 Lf 7S & MOSES ROIN MAUREEN M SHODEEN KENT W TRUST NO 1 10-LENBARR AVE 1225 WESTMOOR RD 17 N 1ST ST LOS ANGELES CA 60064 WINNETKA IL 60093 GENEVA IL 60134-2220 ASPEN SHADOW LLC LETTS W JACKSON & JOYCE H MCCLUSKEY DARLENE M JOHN HANCOCK CENTER 2700 W 63RD ST TWO COVENTRY CT 875 N MICHIGAN AVE STE 1560 MISSION HILLS KS 66208 PRAIRIE VILLAGE KS 66208 ..'.SAGO IL 60611 SPENCER MARGARET R MAUTNER RICHARD & MARIANNE TROTTER WILLIAM E II 12.3943% 1306 ROYAL STREET 5544 JACQUELINE 600 JEFFERSON ST STE 1202 NEW ORLEANS LA 70116-2515 NEW ORLEANS LA 70124 LAFAYETTE LA 70501 MEYERS BAKERIES INC BLACK JANE K ALPS PARTNERS PO BOX 7498 2323 BRYAN LB 145 C/O PETER G MCGUIRE LITTLE ROCK AR 72217 DALLAS TX 75201 5910 N CENTRAL EXP #1780 DALLAS TX 75206 VERDESCA SANDRA RAE ARNOLD ISAAC JR RIDDELL JOHN F JR & BARBARA B 3601 TURTLE CREEK ATTN ROYANN BECKHAM 1111 FANNIN STREET - STE 1555 DALLAS TX 75219 601 JEFFERSON #4000 HOUSTON TX 77002-6923 HOUSTON TX 77002 MARZIO FRANCES & PETER C MITCHELL GEORGE P & CYNTHIA W OSUNA GUILLERMO & DORIS 101 WESTCOTT #1702 C/O ALAN P VITALE P 0 BOX 1093 HOUSTON TX 77007 2002 TIMBERLOCH PL STE 260 DEL RIO TX 78841-1093 THE WOODLANDS TX 77380 BRADLEY EDWARD W & JANIE G LODESTAR WEST PARTNERSHIP LLP ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM 3006 S HUGHES 175 BELLEVUE DR ASSOCIATION AMARILLO TX 79109 BOULDER CO 80302 PO BOX 1128 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN ALPS HOMEOWNERS BILLINGS PRENTICE BOYD KEATING MICHAEL ASSOCIATION 20 ASPEN MOUNTAIN RD 60 ASPEN MOUNTAIN ROAD 700 UT AVE ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 ODONNELL KEVIN & MARYANN PARIS JAIME I TASH DAVID L TRUSTEES 700 S UTE AVE #205 40 ASPEN MOUNTAIN RD 700 UTE AVE ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 HARVEY CONSTANCE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY COONEY THOMAS E 421 D AABC PO BOX 1248 PO BOX 4517 ASPEN CO 81611-3548 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 RE KARINJO & NICHOLAS III EBRAHIMI SHAINE S HODGE RON F JX 03 PO BOX 8590 PO BOX 1496 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 KELLER KURT E LAMBERTI PAULA PARK TRUST LTD PO BOX 840 PO BOX 8685 PO BOX 940 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 PECKHAM THOMAS C UTE CHALET INC WINTER HERBERT J PO BOX 9766 PO BOX 1284 C/O ASPEN ALPS ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 PO BOX 1228 ASPEN CO 81612 BASLO A CO PARTNERSHIP POLK JOHN V & PEGGY J HURT FAMILY LIMTED PARTNERSHIP C/O TERTIARY INC 586 CAMINO MONTEBELLO CAPITAL GROUP INC 600 E RIVER PARK LN STE 205 SANTE FE NM 87501 50TH FL 333 S HOPE ST BOISE ID 83706 LOS ANGELES CA 90071 GELFAND HERBERT M WINKLER REVOCABLE TRUST DEUTSCH COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP 9171 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 610 840 LOMA VISTA DR 2444 WILSHIRE BLVD STE #600 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 SANTA MONICA CA 90403 PHELPS MARGARET T DAVIS FAMILY TRUST RONYA REALTY NV 389 CALIFORNIA TERR PO BOX 1909 C/O DAVID S ZWEIG ESQ PASADENA CA 91105 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 4425 BAYARD ST STE 200 SAN DIEGO CA 92109 HEMPHILL CALVIN R REVOCABLE FIGI J TODD & ERIC PAUL JAMES TRUST C/O QUALITY COMPUTER SUPPLIES C 9051 C SIEMPRE VIVA RD STE 070-166 PO BOX 85 55-525 CHERRY HILLS SAN DIEGO CA 92173 SAN DIEGO CA 92186 LA QUINTA CA 92253 THOMSON GARY FRED RHODES MARJORIE S DENNIS K L THOMSON TOM WILBUR TRUST 1913 E 17TH ST #118 PO BOX 190 1401 AVOCADO AVE SANTA ANA CA 92705 COLTON CA 92324 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 AUHLL RICHARD A COX JONATHAN C S ROCK ARTHUR C/O CIRCON CORP C/O COX BUCHANAN & PADMORE #1 MARITIME PLAZA STE 1220 6500 HOLLISTER AVE 396 SELBY LN SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SANTA BARBARA CA 93117-3019 ATHERTON CA 94027 KLEIN MICHAEL S ISAAC JENNIFER F TRUSTEE HO MARINA M Y PO BOX 626 13461 APPLE RD 4607 KOLONALA ST CORTE MADERA CA 94976 WILTON CA 95693 HONOLULU HI 96816 R IOLDINGS PTY LTD K ;HER JOSEPH & ASSOC - C/O P 0 c5OX 780 MASCOT NEW SOUTH WALES 2020 AUSTRALIA APPLICANT: ADDRESS: REQUESTED ACTION: Variance Pursuant to the Aspen Municipal Code, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the Board of Adjustment shall make a finding that each of the following three circumstances exist: The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the.Aspen Area Community Plan and this title. The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building, or structure. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building, or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures, or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant, or Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings, or structures in the same zone district. APPLICANT: Cynthia and George Mitchell (represented by Alan Richman) LOCATION: 550 Aspen Alps Road ACTION: 8040 Greenline Review The provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above eight thousand forty (8040) feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen, and to all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline, unless exempted by the Community Development Director. 8040 greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. r 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality of the city. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to ' the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. �6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. k` L Nk` Nk ir - ML� Aa N2jj r a a jf s (! NAME OF PROJECT: MITC-�L-- `DSO A,,,,S'-sav 7kt�S Pb �b CITY CLERK: ��, �E �Ti}7y�,1 STAFF: WITNESSES: (1) 4L4P� (3) 4�', yK1-r4AA.,. (4) Tp DD � ITCL4�L-L- (5) EXHIBITS: I 2 3 4 5 �-NIOTION� 1 C&) ?AA� (2L4qAt/AkqR,,4v" , jxy 41;&-M 0 d o,i t:) Staff Report ( (Checy If Applicable) Affidavit of Notice ( (Check If Applicable) Board Criteria Sheet (✓/ (Check If Applicable) \/pRio uS MAC l-� rT�2 1'1'h lne. I ,,-RDf3 -o VOTE: ES NOf) JASMINE TYGRE YES NO ROGER HUNT YES NO 1/ ROBERT BLAICH YES V NO RON ERICKSON YES NO TIMOTHY MOONEY YES V NO STEVEN BUETTOW YES NO %ol TIM SEMRAU <-----Y—E—S--- NO kft� �:U�M APPLICANT: City of Aspen Community Development Dept. LOCATION. - ACTION: Code Amendment (Conservation - Dimensional Requirements) 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: Cynthia and George Mitchell (represented by Alan Richman) LOCATION: 550 Aspen Alps Road ACTION: 8040 Greenline Review The provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above eight thousand forty (8040) feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen, and to all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline, unless exempted by the Community Development Director. 8040 greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality of the city. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the it as a scenic resource. - over - 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community. VARIANCE CRITERIA: For a variance to be granted, it would have to be based on one of the following three criteria: The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, or The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard responds to, or A variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness. related to unusual site specific constraints. Residential Design: Is the proposal: a. In greater compliance with the goals of the AACP, or b. A more effective method of addressing the standard in question, or c. Clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director �--� Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director A-O - FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer RE: Code Amendment --- Section 26.104.100, Definitions, "Sign." Section 26.510, Signs DATE: August 3, 1999 SUMMARY: This proposed code amendment is in response to City Council's direction to differentiate between window/merchandise display and store signage. Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a recommendation to adopt the code amendment to Section 26.104.100, Definitions, "Sign" and Section 26.510, Signs as proposed herein. APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department. PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.310.020, 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 "Sign" as follows: Sign. An object, device, symbol, light or structure fixed to, painted on, placed on, or incorporated into the surface of a building or structure, or displayed from or within a building or structure, or freestanding, constructed, designed, place or intended to convey information or to advertise. This definition is so broad in scope that window displays, as well as any merchandise that is visible to the public, can technically be considered signage. The conflict arises when the staff is asked to enforce and regulate window displays under the sign code criteria. As the sign code prohibits moving parts, neon lighting or backlit lighting we have been asked to regulate items such as: a moving bicycle wheel in the window of the Hub, a small rotating "chef' in the window of Charcuterie, and a backlit panel in the window of Gucci. Staff is concerned that if merchandise is actually considered as signage, then all aspects of the sign code must apply to displays, not just the regulations regarding lighting and moving parts. However, if we were to apply all provisions of the sign code to window displays, and create equity with all window displays, then virtually every business in town would be violating the sign code in that they would be exceeding the allowed size and number of signs. But, staff is also concerned about the use of several sources of illumination that may be used inappropriately in window displays, which has been addressed in Section 26.510, Signs. The sign chapter does not currently address window displays. The proposed changes are outlined below. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Staff proposes amending the above -cited definition to read as follows, with text to be added in bold: Sign. An object, device, symbol, light or structure fixed to, painted on, placed on, or incorporated into the surface of a building or structure, or displayed from or within a building or structure, or freestanding, constructed, designed, place or intended to convey information or to advertise. Window displays of merchandise are not considered signage and shall not be subject to sign regulations (see Section 26.510.140, Signs - Window Displays). 26.510.140 Window displays. Window displays of merchandise are not subject to sign regulations, sign square footage, and do not require a sign permit, except the following are prohibited in window displays: a) Televisions, computer monitors, or other similar technological devices that create oscillating light. b) Neon or other gas tube illumination, rope lighting or low -voltage strip -lighting. 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. RESPONSE: None of the proposed amendment would be in conflict with any elements 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 code amendment primarily impacts the commercial zone districts, in which creative window displays are important to activity in those zone districts. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 2 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. Further, it is staff s hope that this amendment will reduce some enforcement time that it takes when complaints come in regarding certain "displays" in store windows. 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 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: The ability of business owners to creatively display their merchandise is consistent and compatible with the community character of Aspen. Excluding window displays from the sign regulations will also eliminate the feeling of being "picked on" by some businesses because their window displays are being regulated while others are not. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: With the competitive nature of Aspen business, it is important that the business owners ' are able to attract consumers into their shops, restaurants, etc. This condition is a supporting factor to 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. RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendment would be in harmony with the public interest in allowing all business to have window displays and display their merchandise in a manner they see fit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a recommendation to approve the amendments to Section 26.104.100, Definitions,"Sign," and Section 26.510, Signs, as proposed herein. RECOMMENDED .MOTION: "I move to recommend that City Council adopt the amendments to Section 26.104.100, Definitions, "Sign," and Section 26.510, Signs as proposed in the Community Development Department memorandum dated August 3, 1999." cAhome\saraho\planning\code amendments\signp&z.doc 3 P&Z Resolution 99-A Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26.104.100, DEFINITIONS, "SIGN" AND SECTION 26.510, SIGNS OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE Resolution #99 - WHEREAS, City Council directed staff to pursue a simple code amendment that would allow window displays to be excluded from the sign code regulations; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, 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 August 3, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a to vote, the City Council approve the amendments to Section 26.104.100, Definitions, "Sign," and Section 26.510, Signs 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 26.104.100, Definitions, "Sign," of the Municipal Code, making said Section read as follows: Sign. An object, device, symbol, light or structure fixed to, painted on, placed on, or incorporated into the surface of a building or structure, or displayed from or within a building or structure, or freestanding, constructed, designed, place or intended to convey information or to advertise. Window displays of merchandise are not considered signage and shall not be subject to sign regulations (see Section 26.510.140, Signs — Window Displays). Section 26.510.140 of the Municipal Code to read as follows: 26.510.140 Window displays. Window displays of merchandise are not subject to sign regulations, sign square footage, and do not require a sign permit, except the following are prohibited in window displays: a) Televisions, computer monitors, or other similar technological devices that create oscillating light. b) Neon or other gas tube illumination, rope lighting or low -voltage strip - lighting. P&Z Resolution 99--s- Page 2 of 2 APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on August 3, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk cAhome\saraho\planning\code amendments\signreso.doc Bob Blanch, Chair APPLICANT: Community Development LOCATION: ACTION: Code Amendment - Sign 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. r t e c: >, "a 0 O •0 '0 O y y t _ ,C y C w y >, C �• A �' y as y '0 •O rn at to .• y ►. t •� M - Y cC0 CN 'a 7 E C " O C °- C -« •- X Y X '�,, O° to �' O C O O O y K. r.. O A G G C C co oy o. to 00 W wG y 3 c3 =(v o>,Wro� yCIL ° y.. >?a h r• �,C� c c�cn �a auip4) 000 a)`n oa `C °-' °c o ° y °G' y ti° oIL ro o oU0 a axi o a o c o a °'a a 3 0 3 ac o o S. o aE�j E 0.yaoUc u>Ny _ Euo._Eo . 0E oyY,OC >0�^aNia �ai0°�' c ay° oy ° a�oiy0.� oayC .'n=>, cNaG cry ypm Cycki ° 0�¢'"ci °' CGUy y a� E°v >,._:�ar aO E O 0>yw ° "°c a G>E ¢ a°�0 `>' cao°�� o..•-°yc-vim; OaWC^9Co oUr,Gm'C�a Yun �ocz �° a>,p=ti Ey ..a yo E O E oc Ea�O'i. C20 ow y oy•0 A.a •� U ,y N w p y y. y �,' Lt. C C A U �. k 0 U RS E y V a% y a% t.. 0 y O O Z C E x w y 4 c o . y c ti o w c�-- <c y. O E �a w a� O yv a� >,x y o o °' E;? � c 3 u N ° o >'E Y a o N v t° y y ❑ u p o >+ a W a y y as E y y a E 3 c c c W 7 u ", 0 o. x yA 0 v E a y. �. t c"A G GCj 0 G y O❑ >� �c o 0 on„ N u y y y p y 5C ❑ °1 °. y o y. a w., b00 O•.. o A y coy ci 'a u C o y c a c 0 E y ,� y.ta y o y'- w C N - o E o o y ., t6 .- u C ._ c oo A p A '5 v y c _ G v c c - v^ «, a)0 cOy o -= ❑ �Oy. o aN coyyCytao U y 0uU cn Ny �cu Mw00 a y C C y b y c y C � U p iri y <0 O (L) - N •0 b0' O C E ._ y C N ._ A p G a+ ,, C y U N /� N O r ca C y U LL. ,C ,fie k .., O y y G +' ea u. V E O C V y O '0 ca u U « y y M E 06 Y y a> °_ c o ,a . 3� 3L Y a o s 3 y,a G ,. y o G� c= p y y- 3 N A7W >,0 O y O y 0 .. ► ti �.�itf - W ;; C a E O.� aap y to y w a y �L R yia ,a �" CO 0� UA E 3o y a 3 to pax aU- o cae y o y W- ,, u� u y o.e o 0 0- a O a E y E N c„ ,. d a`°i ac°i . y u y o y yC G'v°a F ya E ° `-_ ° uyoo �_'y°a �5$ yaOE"EdG y >u ,c E . yy ..a ° �u E °c v o10 o p "¢,r" E oU cc o `-'U C ,cn o c y W C.. cU a a y >,� yv•v °' L r° c �.a° oci °� y `� a °: `-' g vi o�Y y ro 3 y ro c. ,n w y u c y c y o cA Y y R y C o ,� c y o c > i O is L ►• U '0 +•' ca •p O ,..,� >i y C C y V y E a C 'a A 3 .y 'a >,'w ° ro '= A «y. oY�,. yaE.Nc� y �a e c y yW .�0 cA Fyyy i 'o v - a� a=- Fy s. wV C0 "..E.aOONVC -O° F V COU V 0 u F, ViO >r C.0 E E 'D'G,O«OyOa O•fl tG''' y.. yy> _ U F O ._ C C '0 = 4? V C O y E +-' •p 'G C N C d� '.' C y > tt//�� E•� c� y y o d) c_ a._ a p_.. WU �.c'a• .c 3 e p c y,- y c c e .c y o ..a a tai u y y ,y E .p Q O N •^� ,C u •p O s d 0 N C_ E~ C (0° O C_ ._ W M A y u O .+ y u y N n7 y y y O•'r y O y C y v ►n y E j fWY x 9 y ._ N ,a ,n y E V o D 'S po . c o at UyiaaA„-c O q"yy`¢gcc• u•0'dU>r. > qy� Uq► ,.cam cE-EO'Eta�EEt y U �ic:°ooNa Go o .A y C 000 n, b0 . '0 . E N ca o y ca tb a u. y ox� >ayyvo�Y VO>,o,:°opyoo>.. o ycoo� °' u oyy aaa�^•y yoRNM,;;`a-,EOt»°'� v ° aEOz'y pia t_ aci `a c� v0. N `� oD �F o uF CV �F, c ow u77 y ° c E v u v'a �'t'n c c c o E.c o 0 a� � `bc o a c u�C � [ i �.N�p: � tEa o u c ap03 _ pd� vyY E y� °'0�� y `° y i yvy'_'�O y eo v p o y v `i a��u� y �A c e 3 cF �F y EF > >FU y �0 5 enw� c o O. <C n. U RR. 7U ca.'L..0 EzUC .c Os•- y'`�«.s i .0 ►.y...a 0 0 0 y ,G O v y y N C Z: G)._ R y`" 3. try._ .�+.«U t o eo in U: A ¢duo Ao.3v=ved a«.uti,000�.�a._y:=c:=. aoo> y wa> c4)cu°_o a M`"' cS. 0aiw.-to Uc ai > N Rf w Ea o y C N o E.� U U)M >yM. oyyo'aw.0tD 50 cErn m v w y c; A F aZ, - 010 06 � c o y vFi3 prn o� v0 y y CL) Coo � y mU ? WW>;; u�' aCi~cA«°-aye °cam yCO U w�caAE_Ey_Ncy C_yUy.r nc F taW Y > SOu a va�_� ° E O N to W°N ayi twn a O C� vi W .<0 . y a`ai o' o u 'c y 'v E z Orz p,ci o G L a a �U aai cam;0 a c �[- Q oy v �ticEy ❑ 0 bo a-- W 0 ,, yMO.CCOU•c o o is r p> �� oia uC0 np OW E u v CU kp cUVj c a WF wF "Nx a- c c C y w-c o o m y JAW C `a a to a°M�`n y"'pw m a c _ c c c WZ ° c �C� C� a C 3 A 0 yf1 �._ V C FO bD eC.. 0-0 a) 0+' y 4 Oy C vd_ VFW w 0 CA y N O, C Nm wU.0 o C E u ty._ y NN yG1 y y C o� = c ; c c F- Crz� C++ U dy WtFnz 3 �a o y at�c�n`. ¢0� a �zF-zwogQ�t�OO WZQwOzzwzZA•,Wo nz a a>iCY G °' CC c a`i w9AOzowQ- Ww6�Aa. �Fx�F-wUC) .;L, a .. t�3ticL y u E ZF Zap �Ztnc�tnt,.z>,F c�Qcn aF fin. W'a' Fl a a y a o is •'� ; �zp �o�p z viJaaA"orL.WzAact z cy to C 0 >,� y D r N.�C� woW.00ow�oaL�zaOwaO ¢ p o'in :... >0 M G y c, a N C7,a �ZA�xOZF ox�ooOZW¢o:a UWA4cN OO o E y G ,.;, a� v ` -v to cz N z�a W�aaF Qz'v3Ft?nCGixcOi,>nG�a4 r;]Wj�n,=iwoc � �Z >, y r----,M y pa ; >b wNr,E'tnzW❑. Oat Oau�w w ¢ way, a .. ��` a; m a a c . ,. '0 �0a Q-v0aa... wF 0.pL01-prix� c� z� ��F OU C E c u D o a� acm �C FWMCL. Wzwr�')o W-A�usE",(w -,. z�oz0.+�A F 0- u v y d0 E oC y y Ow C) C) W rzz [: �zzF .�Fti a �L Z Q u c o oo.. cc a co y zz oWOFOaa cc��C70jn4uu•at"z U-)O OW Ww to o c n �O?f ,c U Na F= A z Wc� W>nzgN p, L ❑,� �z �wZoOZUQoW Ots.��O�a�� �Q yy ca° �� coca mV v O to 00..0 NrjN,onu.aaG¢.CCOoFwW0 wLL-zc�iaA 3 aV - ao y to o M G >, WFop,c7�'w^ti Wtnp Fo Fy >a00_�-FZ A L y caU M r- .0. x o y 0 Z zis.a;_r-0fs'wE zOt��O¢¢��¢�FNORZO_O > c C c a,o ¢wO9;, %-+OW•Q O-c"W.-iM Wt1. N t�F•y9 W AF. �'"' F- . A t.. 00 a'C.+ N p'co C Cfi CWxy,+_a,D zp +9��wwUOyoOG.o_EsZ toH�M�Wu.aW ¢�¢ti -:� o� > a a_ a a y A F xWwtn.. ¢ C7o_ OpyyC�OC?UWrn , Q c tacau. Hsu- n c > W 0 (.0 c�O 0006 WOwzMAOripa z Otn Z rirc�n zwx t`zZtortn� O�Oo c .>,� io y� v aar x c Z,j W. z xea..::) �iQOj ¢fZ-:XQu.X� ZFaaAwoc"CT.x � Wx y = cL owx a a� ¢¢au.F4F[�.rs.o40In, Q-E, s.c,.Uau�wa owFFC�¢¢w< 1611 w E_ - 4)iz0� : .M07 : 3: .0 O M ti vi y'x,,, ai O � :+ C C C .'+ a+ y 0, C ai !' c ci ►. U t.. 3 G N C 7 y O '0 y' t., ,. 'p C a" t. •a N-�+ t t .p N N ++ otn0 c°'rn cayiaco`L°aayiaciYc"Ey y `°oa c>'' ey0 `ayUa~i"o-0.- is '�o'�°°�;oa`bav0 a'ooaayi3b;g;vv M ,: ,C o U --� a o y N a y= �, ._ o f •a •y rn y A C u 3 a o_ ac U ea y a to ,,, c _ .c E E bo c M y U :-- w a'- y a 3 y u V y o u,b ,° o u ° E ayi u y ac c oa E 'o � Eyo'a y yy°' 00 y0.. -, >, o y oW'0¢ a''o ❑ E --r- .� "OE y y ¢ y o N o- .Q, y= y.x^ U `• y L > y rz 0_ � .. .c U y c• - c, >, o U CA E y y. N 3 N A C y aCWL > u^.- y t G y E E ," .. C '"" a+ y to N t.. y N. C A L E U y .� ... p G ca C y O ., O C N rtS p0 y p ca _. t.. O ,. C C o° w N `-' �'._ 0. >o. L e y o =� .. Z° 0 3 c•_ w oz ti._ .. c 3 ay a co 7 y C Ca >." O^ O O O ca _ -= O .0 N C 'C b0 = O ,- v�''i C O� x 3 t'O y ..+ C •a +. O 5-- 0 C 0 C BM U C.Q y 0 0 y y 0 C C1..0 E a, C to._. y y ,a '_ A N d'o y y ° 3 E •�-• v .. ... .... Yo W00 eCUa z aO�yUyp y ►•U .. OaUa y LNC'ay U eU..F�00E Cda .-+ x0�. �aO C.ayr>>C c y " O_ = cb .. Y y G � E no -� W 3 UO y 'a y -- V y c ' 0 ca 0 E . y >, y d ._ ,o _ >, E o o u c E. c y y .. 7 d� G G y ono �+�c -�oc� 0tnvoay> ac c•-��a y_. Y._•- ter. .� yc c •., a ;; C '0 a 0 W F' to O e (j >.. O G y ._ .. - A O ._ C 3•'' .�+' ed y 'a O ° E CUi ed ,., p U .0 C e6 "'. C� O bA y W to y 0 p Y W A b0 - y y a E U CO ti 0.y UU .�toA'y N y 't O p.'� ti... p,d C 0 w...] U E u O -Z Cia .to >...0a.. y Co.- W-- •- d y G p O E y t.. CU y� C a� a Q y En Y > .'?: c°� >,aai a'_.c C ° o�rn In U y to ° vo o `C �a °�' y ayi - �0 .0 C¢ E- V W u GW°' cn y 0 E C E '- •Q A A y O y ti F G E_ p •.. N y ._ E> G A t.. bn c j y N '0 N_ y y^ ,G a •.., ._ . > c^U OO Z"9 U N >~b y c C E Oz - u'0 �c > i o _ o" CZ C y'o yY ° x p_ y E-- c _ .� o oa o y G. • U F z F E a+ y 0. N ca «S « a) «. t.. ca t•. N >, O A. �: O C t- vi E-• z A •- C"Y-' U E y N^ y y y O y c 3 C >-• +' .� .zl > >i d O i' '0 C p, A y y >> •a .J •v ._ _ y O ad ,. +-' C '- a _ to '0 to y k y y y z 't00 O U y� ay.. E O� o L �' a 0 E E O C� U O ►. C "' E •0�- O A 4 G ro ::.yc ,a>'+ N U O a• >.>'. C G L C F. rG''' +-' "" � O a+'G-. � O O� y y C h, '.. o• d mw C7 yM bow as OF y N= ao u C 0. �_ y0'- y y y er E.ry a.. y c C �.y E vy O W >,C ca V - U r-am Z y•� C O r b4-F OU C U N C-a) - N O yA•c O C y C u >.., E 9 a to L7 -A E G 0� U•3.. n.Q^ma a m 1 . -0 �a� O � �' ° aCL � aim-°._ as y-- �' a U v o y 6. y C7 C y r �• C to N y .r C ,. N ._ ;� O y, ,4; 0 U. C N p C> y a y i oW w c Z`n�aMN�Oa>S..oboc�3t'a>va y n OW.Sy y c"boaaxi3at"a yd._ Eto-E .o ay" -.a -0 -0 o s y N a s '0 ° .0 ° y` A N '� v 3 m `° c y y0 lz o ��W ° c a oo y�wN U a�A dt° aciF roc u o' E o u�ae oC to �k. °; :° nova °+-' c��' 0 G;� to 'u w a3 0� o o �,� eyin00 ¢zx'0'oo� mC>> ovc� ¢`�v ac �y�o�y•��actnaE CO� �;yrLE,aa �o �� y .� ^a e D 0Ldy N O C a "� N Md a x O0C yy _t3C GCiG GU)iC y>y Y rc a bp r- ¢C = dcc �aNaoriy3:a �CANo3��yEybo c'bo.r c C ca a a'u y 0 a ca bo z 'a t,,, y 3 y C U '0 y y, .+ y U y - ,2 y ��rn Ozc�C o•E v_ E yaaui: 3C u E c ° c c c byoa�; o _oy' S nC °apt' '^ o `cao c 0p 0 a3 y °N `.�?eya- C�l [;1LWtl0-tt�eco �aEbo`nNyxOOitf,N, a h'L�cu OeCCpL.00.��dy V �,.,y03�_MW CtoN� yC '�tvOG►ya..0 CObats1->"Gvyi� eaerWrn a WAz 3 r-- E: tav ° a E y:jUC7 R a ¢Fz vui cuU NF taax E °O v 3.°�¢ oz �°�'Y E oW- u o NFZ a- c v` A °' E4v, A A>•aW �O • �4vab0i 3 2 r >_> E WOuW izin::7 O��Zwj t�]�� N xM>Owz VN- Ci. W En Nr r=W E c �N � UJ AF to>p C% N co W A ,U¢W�ET-� Mcn C00 J �U a A 0 2 0 F H> U- WZOU�p�zO w E.aF�'cvM WC�00 O UAW jz A c co co mac= a¢�ozoap ¢ °Ya. >3 A a m-4L.�zz� o a c UCLC)0OOc0 W '1M o ao�xx�z F ,o� cq LQ ac) N F y ZaOO¢°i� U o u > 0zOQ°,Q¢ x y o IV wOF'^'tzz7M > w >R] >O ¢ U to CL Q; w �? > xN¢NOvO O FWUW -3 F¢UtFi� .moo. aEi o-z_, W¢¢<200 a t`a ► cq zWA�xO< C cc Owwz�FZO�tnoyo C7�W �wu Eu ?�aO omCC2=::a °�ayr..N O r w C O u E VC C� °•� e c ro � =' �•P�w �•` ° �.� a _� � s a to C) C C� V S C N to a >to M oo M C' 00 N En UCD m O N O r- LOLO if) o p" 0 a C a w C W to 0. oo >X� >z- w W C m 3 * o �-'C C C d '0 N N 00 '0 �o 0.5U E �ac�C�z ° V° y C p A_ w O H t.. N C i W 3cn* a��3vac�3ixxc�A °' M M N ti O _ a N t,o QLO CD CN LO wc. cli tD o N co Ln .-+ O00 Q > E to 00 N to to o M VOo A MCD N to ,- r- 00a� D7 M M to 41. O V) C=> N tz ¢ c Z > O m ¢ W m N N N tom• a 000 ¢ 00 Q W 0o N --i c - M ¢ ., m y �p y p CO G W "T to N LO - to a a W °G a� a 3 c )' V-)F- cw c> 3 > t`n° m> > > .W� N to C y a' 0.0 �° w 0 CC] i0 � t~ A oan � a WC(1W v'i U 0 U Ex- A ,a, � p y a c E •� > U ri c° rL Q u n°. S >i° iL cn n c°. � F N M M 00 Co to t- �• •--t M ' r M t- W 00 t� a, a 00 rn 00 2.1 00 t-- rn rn tom- a 00 rn r- as 00 00 rn rn 00 t- a, rn 00 t-- 00 rn a, a. C y .a OG y 7 X 3 Q v > m A L U a Q00i ate•. 00 O N M C' t1': to t:• 00 O) O .•-� N M �• to M �' lf) to t- W a: .-. .-..- -. ,--, .-. •--. .-. N N N N N N ton. LO N LO LO x Q Coj F 00 to CL 0 0 w 0 ° y T - C N10 V cu N y, V 7 0 CU F y r-> . oo-. 3 0 N et: . V3 v, C"", y w y N w i N C cz N 0 t- U5 .2 0 U- V r"O Nia v v� aazz�< NF.-+CV M V'lfjt NAME OF PROJECT: CITY CLERK: fa STAFF: f�4RIC�4 oftrz-��m WITNESSES: (1)0--'�� =.,,� (2) L-� aq,� I ff c3> � �— (zoo-4 BUAH ca> (5) EXHIBITS: I 2 3 4 5 MOTION: Staff Report 0 (Check If Applicable) Affidavit of Notice V) (Check If Applicable) �� Board Criteria Sheet �)(Check If Applicable) VOTE: YES NO C R2ML�*MqJES V NO ROGER HUNT YES Z NO ROBERT BLAICH YES . NO RON ERICKSON YES NO JASMINE TYGRE YES NO OPV-- TIMOTHY MOONEY YES -Y/ NO VEN B V STE UETTOW YES NO TIM SEMRAU YES NO ��� sus/9q APPLICANT: Community Development LOCATION: ACTION: Code Amendment - Sign 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.