Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20010619 AGENDA ~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2001 4:15 PM PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH STAFF 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Public II. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST III. MINUTES (06/12/01) IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HISTORIC LOT.~SPLIT CODE AMENDMENT, Amy Guthrie, Continued From 6/5/01 ~.~0 0 ~ ~ o~.~- ~F~0~,~ 5 ~ B. 707 W. NORTH ST. DRAC VARIANCE & SPECIAL REVIEW, Jan~es Lindt, Continued From 6/12/01 ~2_~ 0~~' o~ --~ ~ Ot-~ ~-~ ~rn~c~-~ C. MOUNTAIN CHALET PUD, Fred Jarman ~.~o_~F'~ -~<~'~ ~--~ D. ASPEN ALPS PUD, REZONING, Fred Jarman, Continued From 6/12/01 E. BARBEE PUD AMENDMENT, Fred Jarman D..dl~2~a_ V. ADJOURN County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) ' Via being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: l . By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of , 2001 (which is days prior to the public hearing date of ,lf,V',4: �� )• 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen fro the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the Z day of �1,' 114_ 200 9 to the 10 ��� day of n� -- _, 2001 . (Must be posted for at least �j - � r ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. tarn c ignature igned before me this 4 day of uUv\ `Q-- SS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. Commission expires: C5/29/\1 TUE 13:56 FAX 970 925 7395 MAY-29-2001 TUE 02:01 PM LLC Haas Land Planning, FAX N0,_ PUBLIC NOTICE _11 tj.r-; JUN 0 5 2001� ASVt(N I rl I KIN 010MM'JNFY DEVELOPMENT RJE: RrZ-ON NG FROM LODGE / TOURIST RESIDENTIAL L/TR) TO NT( LODGE PRESERVATION (LP) AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD)I OVERLAYS; MINOR PLANNED UNIT' DEVELOPMENT- PIECIA REi'IEW; NT (UD) SUBDIVISION; GROWTH MANAGEMZNT gUOTA SYSTEM YST M (GM EXEMPTIONS FOR LODGE PIESERVAITON AND AFFORDAR F .SOUSING; AND MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE HFVIEW NOTICE is EWREBY GLEN that a public bearing will be held on Tuesda J meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m �{� �Aspen p! y> une 19, 2UOI at a R00m, City !Lff, 3 n,ald 7�ni�g Commission, Sister Cities a ncr� 7 Calen, Sr�, o spc=&, to �n gzidc n application, S��i7Ih2�7C'tl b3' Mei owner of the Mountain Cbal�;t reg>cesc�nted by Mitch was, r uesti a re�,o mg 'i Mile, Tourist Residential a-ITR) to L/TR with Lodge Presemt7on (LP) and P fmm Lodge / Development (PUD) Overlays; Minor planned Unit Development,. S �� � Unit Growth Zvla�labernent iota Systcax (GMQS) �'rcmPrions for Lodge T'resc Rezew; Subdivision; zloUSing; and Mountain View Plane Review for t}Ic MouWain C20 et loco ed at on �d Affordable 333 F. Ihtrant Avenue, LQty � I:� G, II, and I, Block 84, Cit of t1 i>rlformagon, contact Fred Jamlall at the As Y Aspen. Pit�-in County, Colorado. For further De Ix'itkiu Cowry Conununiiy Developmemt �m�, � 130 S. Galena Sr-, . CO (974) 9L0-SIQ? fired'Jib ci_es pen.co.us. Koji Blsrch AsPen Planning and Zoning Commission Published h, the Aspen Tithes on June 5, 2001 City of Armen Acc=oaat I COOPER PARTNERS BALDERSON CABELL LLC. CITY OF ASPEN FISHER COMPANY C/O C/O HERBERT BALDERSON 130 S GALENA ST 0 E MAIN ST 708 SPRUCE ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NTAL DIVIDE CO COLORADO CORP Io S MILL ST SPEN, CO 81611 )LINSEK JOHN 50% INT )LINSEK FRANK JR 50% INT 9 SO MONARCH ST ;PEN, CO 81611 )LDSMITH ADAM D 42 HILLSIDE RD 'EVENSON, MD 21153 ANADA KENICHI 11 S MONARCH ST #1 SPEN, CO 81611 CWHEAD RAYMOND R & EMILIE M RWOOD RD -)BLES, CA 93446 OUNTAIN CHALET ENTERPRISES INC 33 E DURANT AVE SPEN, CO 81611 EYTON MARI )9 E COOPER #4 STE 1 SPEN, CO 81611 T ASPEN DEAN STREET LLC 0 STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS :UST 31 E CAMELBACK RD STE 410 IOENIX, AZ 85016 CROW MARGERY K & PETER D 46103 HIGHWAY 6 & 24 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 FLEISHER DONALD J 200 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 GREENWOOD KAREN DAY & STERLING JAMES 409 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 KLEINER JOHN P 55 SECOND ST COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 MCDONALDS CORPORATION 05/152 REAL ESTATE TAX SECTION PO BOX 66207 CHICAGO, IL 60666 MSE ASPEN HOLDINGS LTD 1575 PONCE DE LEON FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316 PICARD DEBORA J & DOUGLAS M 2600 GARDEN ROAD - STE 222 MONTERREY, CA 93940-5322 WALTERS 1/5 & ROLLINS 1/5 & GORMAN 1/5 SMITH 1/5 & BONDS 1/5 7350 W FAIRVIEW DR LITTLETON, CO 80128 CYS RICHARD L AND KAREN L 5301 CHAMBERLIN AVE CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 GOLDSMITH ADAM 28 WASHINGTON SQUARE N APT 5 NEW YORK, NY 10011 HILL EUGENE D JR 1/2 3910 S HILLCREST DR DENVER, CO 80237 LIMELITE INC PAAS LEROY G 228 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 MEYER GUIDO PAUL 23655 TWO RIVERS RD BASALT, CO 81621 PASCO PROPERTIES COLORADO LLC SMITH PATRICK A P 0 BOX 688 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303 SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ICE RINK 13530 BALI WAY MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 195 2001 4:15 PM PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH STAFF 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Public 11. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 111. MINUTES (06/12/01) IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HISTORIC LOT..,SPLIT CODE AMENDMENT, Amy Guthrie, Continued From 6/5/01 B. 707 W. NORTH ST. DRAC VARIANCE & SPECIAL REVIEW, Ja es Lindt, Continued From 6/12/01 5b 01— a -3 C. MOUNTAIN CHALET PUD, Fred Jarman D. ASPEN ALPS PUD, REZONING, Fred Jarman, Continued From 6/12/01 Q��V�` *",4 E. BARBEE PUD AMENDMENT, Fred Jarman V. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director—.zp FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Code Amendment to Section 26.480.030, Subdivision Exemptions, and Section 26.710.180, Office Zone District- PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 5, 2001 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department has received an application requesting a code amendment to extend the Historic Landmark Lot Split program, currently only available in two residential zone districts (R-6 and R-15A), to the Office Zone District. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application on June 5, 2001, and indicated concerns with the effect of the amendment in light of work underway with the Infill Committee. The Board asked staff to advise them whether there was a way, in the current code, to accomplish the subdivision of the property owned by the applicant. Staff has met as a group and discussed the situation. It is our opinion that the only process available would be to review the development as a "PUD, Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Review," allowable for lots under 27,000 square feet. That process allows for variances from certain dimensional requirements, such as minimum lot size. We have concerns about whether such an action would be appropriate, since the PUD is designed for projects with "substantial public benefit." The subdivision of this property is not more beneficial to the community than subdivision of other historic properties along Main Street. Staff would not want to see this PUD process for small lots misused, as it is intended to deal with projects such as the DRACO 100% affordable housing application, which has clear advantages for the town as a whole. It is our recommendation that the Planning and Zoning Commission support the code amendment as proposed. It is difficult to speculate. what might come out of the Infill Committee, but we do not believe that this code amendment will in any way tie the hands of that group. The type of uses generally permitted on properties in the Office Zone District is not changing, and small lots are being permitted to be split off, which is much of the intent of the infill discussion. If the Planning and Zoning Commission will not recommend approval for the code amendment, the applicant has the option of proceeding to Council with the P&Z's recommendation of denial, or to pursue condominiumization, an already allowed process for transferring ownership of part of their property. Please note that staff has attached photographs of the properties potentially affected by the code amendment for P&Z's reference. APPLICANT: Scott and Caroline MacDonald, represented by Bob Starodoj. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT 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. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The application is to amend Section 26.480.030 and Section 26.710.180 to read as follows, with text to be eliminated stric'ke and text to be added underlined: Section 26.480.030.A.4 addresses the types of development eligible for subdivision exemptions. Please note that staff has included corrections to citations in this passage that were not fixed during the most recent update of the Land Use Code. Section 26.480.030.A.4, Subdivision Exemptions 4. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling, or for commercial development in the "O, Office Zone District. " The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 6 -8-9. n znid) (2 26. 480. 030.A. 2 and 4, section 26. 100. n; nie) (2) (e) 26 470 070 C for residential development , or D for commercial development and section 26. 72. n4 26.415. 010.D of this Code, and the folloiving standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of nine thousand (9, 000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or O, Office Zone district, or a minimum of thirteen thousand (13, 000) square feet and be located in the R-1 SA zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed fog° a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat In the "O, Office Zone District, " total FAR shall not exceed the maximum floor area allolved for the proposed use on the original parcel. C. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. 2 The proposed amendment to section 26.710.180 is as follows: 26.710.180 Office (0). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Detached residential dwellings, multi family dwellings; 2. Professional business offices; 3. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; 4. Home occupations; 5. Group homes; 6. Accessory buildings and uses; 7. Dormitory; and 8. A mixed. use buildings) comprised of a residential dwelling unit and permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district so long as such conditional use has been approved subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425; and 9. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040. 10. Two detached residential dwellings on a 9, 000 square foot lot containing a historic landmark. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Only for those structures that have received historic landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery, bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, mortua7 y, music store (for the sale of musical instruments), music studio, 3 restaurant, shop craft industry, visual arts gallery; provided, however, that (a) no more than two (2) such conditional uses shall be allowed in each structure, and (b) off-street parking is provided, with alley access for those conditional uses along Main Street; 2. Duplex residential dwelling, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (113) of the total floor area of the duplex. In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit; 3. Two (2) detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum area of 6, 000 square feet, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (113) of the total floor area of the two dwellings. In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit; 4. Child care center; S. Commercial parking lot or parking structure that is independent of required off-street parking, provided that it is not located abutting Main Street; 6. Health and fitness facility; and 7. Lodge units and lodge units with kitchens. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6, 000. For lots created by Section 26.480.030, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3, 000. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwelling: 6, 000. b. Duplex: 3, 000 per unit. C. Multi family dwellings on lot between 6, 000 and 9, 000 square feet: Studio: 1, 000. 1 bedroom; 1,200. 2 bedroom: 2, 000. 3 bedroom: 3,000. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1, 000 square feet of lot area. d. Multi family dwellings on lot of more than 9, 000 square feet: Studio: 1, 000. I bedroom; 1,250. 2 bedroom: 2,100. 3 bedroom: 3,630. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1, 000 square feet of lot area. e. Multi family dwellings on a lot of 27, 000 square feet or less, when at least fifty percent (50016) of the units built on -site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 500. 1 bedroom: 600. 2 bedroom: 1, 000. 3 bedroom: 1,500. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area. f. Multi family dwellings on a lot of 27, 000 square feet or less, when one hundred percent (100%) of the units built on -site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 300. 1 bedroom: 400. 2 bedroom: 800. 3 bedroom: 1,200. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area.- 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by Section 26.480.030, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. The amendments to this section include, allowing two detached homes on a 9,000 square foot lot as a permitted use. Currently, two detached houses are allowed as a conditional use for landmark lots as small as 6,000 square feet. The new permitted use is an incentive for historic preservation and is consistent with what is allowed in the neighboring R-6 zone district. This section is also amended to allow lots created by the landmark lot split program to be as small as 3,000 square feet, also consistent with the way lot splits are addressed in the residential zone districts. REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.310, Amendments To The Land Use Code And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.314.040 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 staff s evaluation of the amendment relative to them, are provided below. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. RESPONSE: Historic Landmark Lot Splits are currently allowed in two residential zone districts; R-6 and R-15A. The goal of the lot split is to divide the mass that could be added onto a historic building into two or more structures. 5 The office zone district, the subject of this code amendment, is primarily located along Main Street, as are the four or five parcels that would be affected by the application. While the goal of dividing up the allowed floor area is as beneficial in this neighborhood as it is in the West End for instance, there is currently language in the subdivision exemption and growth management exemption standards that states that the lot split is granted for the purpose of creating one additional single family dwelling. Since the goal of the office zone district is to provide space for office and commercial uses, locking a property into a residential use in this neighborhood could be considered in conflict with the land use code. The amendment shown above allows for the subdivision of the property for any use, commercial or residential. After much debate, staff has come to the conclusion that there is no negative effect from this code amendment. It is creating no change to development rights, only an option for fee simple ownership rather than condominiumization, which has been viewed as an important historic preservation incentive. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan encourages infill development within the historic townsite. It also encourages efforts to maintain an active, mixed use character along Main Street and calls for the extension of the historic landmark lot split program to additional zone districts. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment does not create new land uses, and does not specifically increase density since a duplex or two detached houses are already allowed on a 6,000 square foot lot in the office zone district as a conditional use. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have any effect on traffic generation or road safety because, as stated above, the density is already envisioned in the zone district regulations. 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 any additional effect on infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. 0 RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have any additional effect on infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have a negative effect on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: Main Street was historically a residential area. Today, only the western portion of the street (from 7`" to 2nd Street) retains that character, becoming more commercial and lodge oriented as one travels east. The historic preservation design guidelines in regard to Main Street discuss the concept of preserving some of the patterns and characteristics of a residential area, while allowing for a .mix of uses. The code amendment would support that goal by providing an incentive to break new construction down into structures that reflect a variety of building sizes. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: Main Street has been negatively affected by traffic congestion. Any efforts to preserve a small scale, pedestrian orientation to the area would be beneficial to the neighborhood. 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: The proposed amendment is in harmony with the public interest by providing an incentive for the successful preservation of historic buildings. There has been significant community input of late calling for more assistance and options for owners of designated properties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend Council approval of the code amendment, finding that the review standards are met." RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution # Series of 2001, finding that the review standards have been met." Exhibits: Resolution o. , Series of 2001 A. Photographs of properties likely to be affected by the code amendment. 7 EXHIBIT A 604 W. Main Street 430 W. Main Street I_. 320 W. Main Street 201 E. Main Street RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE ASPEN LAND USE CODE: SECTION 26.480.030, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS AND SECTION 26.710.180, OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT Resolution No. Series of 2001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has received an application from Scott and Caroline MacDonald for a code amendment to allow historic landmark lot splits in the "O, Office Zone District;" and WHEREAS, 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 Plamzing 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; and WHEREAS, the review standards for a text amendment are stated in Section 26.314.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has consulted with the Historic Preservation Commission and, in a report prepared by Amy Guthrie, dated June 1 % 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval of the amendment; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 19, 2001, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission considered the recommendation made by the Community Development Director, took and considered public testimony and recommended, by a vote of to _, that City Council approve the text amendment finding that the review standards are met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends Council amend Section 26.480.030, Subdivision Exemptions, and Section 26.710.180, Office Zone District to read as follows: Section 26.480.030.A.4, Subdivision Exemptions 4. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling, or for commercial development in the "O, Office Zone District. " The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.480.030.A.2 and 4, section 26.470.070. C for residential development , or D for commercial development and section 26.415.010.D of this Code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of nine thousand (9, 000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or O, Office Zone district, or a minimum of thirteen thousand (13, 000) square feet and be located in the R-1 SA zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the "O, Office Zone District, " total FAR shall not exceed the maximum floor area allowed for the proposed use on the original parcel. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. 26.710.180 Office (0). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Detached residential dwellings, multi family dwellings; 2. Professional business offices; 3. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; 4. Home occupations; S. Group homes; 6. Accessory buildings and uses; 7. Dormitory; and 8. A mixed -use buildings) comprised of a residential dwelling unit and permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district so long as such conditional use has been approved subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425; and 9. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040. 10. Two detached residential dwellings on a 9, 000 square foot lot containing a historic landmark. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Only for those structures that have received historic landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery, bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance studio, florist, fi-aternal lodge, furniture store, mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical instruments), music studio, restaurant, shop craft industry, visual arts gallery; provided, however, that (a) no more than two (2) such conditional uses shall be allowed in 'each structure, and (b) off-street parking is provided, with alley access for those conditional uses along Main Street; 2. Duplex residential dwelling, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (113) of the total floor area of the duplex. In the alternative, both may be fi-ee market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit; 3. Two (2) detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum area of 6, 000 square feet, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (113) of the total floor area of the two dwellings. In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit; 4. Child care center; 5. Commercial parking lot or parking structure that is independent of required off-street parking, provided that it is not located abutting Main Street; 6. Health and fitness facility; and 7. Lodge units and lodge units with kitchens. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6, 000. For lots created by Section 26.480.030, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3, 000. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwelling: 6, 000. b. Duplex: 3, 000 per unit. C. Multi family dwellings on lot between 6, 000 and 9, 000 square feet: Studio: 1, 000. 1 bedroom; 1,200. 2 bedroom: 2, 000. 3 bedroom: 3,000. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1, 000 square feet of lot area. d. Multi family dwellings on lot of more than 9, 000 square feet: Studio: 1, 000. I bedroom; 1, 250. 2 bedroom: 2,100. 3 bedroom: 3,630. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1, 000 square feet of lot area. e. Multi family dwellings on a lot of 27, 000 square feet or less, when at least fifty percent (5001o) of the units built on -site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 500. 1 bedroom: 600. 2 bedroom: 1, 000. 3 bedroom: 1,500. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area. f. Multi family dwellings on a lot of 27, 000 square feet or less, when one hundred percent (10001o) of the units built on -site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 300. 1 bedroom: 400. 2 bedroom: 800. 3 bedroom: 1,200. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by Section 26.480.030, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 19, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk G: planning/aspen/resos.doc/p&z/officelotsplitamend Robert Blaich, Chair MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission (Acting as DRAC) THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director, Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directors* FROM: James Lindt, Acting Zoning Officerz_t' RE: 707 W. North Street Build -to -lines Variance and Special Review to vary height for ADU on rear 1/3 of parcel DATE: June 19, 2001 APPLICANT: Jeffrey and Molly Gorsuch PARCEL ID: 2735-121-15-001 ADDRESS: 707 W. North Street, Lots G, H, and I, Block 14, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 9,000 SF Vacant Lot that used to contain a Single -Family Residence PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to construct a single-family dwelling with an ADU over the garage, which will be located on the alley. The applicant is seeking a Variance from the Residential Design Standards build -to -lines requirement and a Special Review approval to vary the height requirement on the back 1/3 of an R-6 parcel, for an ADU to be constructed above the garage. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant, Jeffrey Gorsuch, seeks a variance from Section 26.410 Residential Design Guidelines from the build -to -lines requirement and a special review approval to vary the height on the back 1/3 of the parcel for an ADU at 707 W. North Street, Lots G, H, and I, Block 14 of the City and Townsite of Aspen. (See Exhibit A for a description of the specific standard.) All applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints. The corner parcel contains mature trees on the N. Sixth Street portion of the lot that would have to either be moved or removed in order to meet the build -to -lines requirement on both street facing facades as is required by the land use code. The City forester Stephen Ellsperman has visited the site and determined that the mature trees are valuable and should be saved. (Please see Exhibit D for referral comments.) Saving these trees makes it impossible to meet the build -to -lines requirement on the N. Sixth Street fagade. Therefore, staff feels that the variance request is necessary due to the unusual site -specific constraint. In addition, staff believes that this approval yields greater compliance with AACP by developing the site with regards to the existing landscape and by protecting and enhancing the natural environment. All applicants that request special review to vary the ADU design standards set forth in section 26.520.050 must meet the following review criteria pursuant to Section 26.520.080(D), Special Review: a) The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability; and, b) The proposed ADU is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property; and, c) The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on -street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. Staff believes that varying the height of the ADU standards to allow it to be constructed at 21 feet on the rear 1/3 portion of the parcel is generally in character with the mass of the rest of the neighborhood. The R-6 Zone District limits the height of an accessory building on the rear 1/3 of a parcel to 12 feet in height. Staff feels that constructing the ADU on top of the garage makes it more livable than the likely other option of constructing it in the basement of the primary residence. Constructing the ADU over the garage allows for more light to penetrate the unit and makes it feel like a more separated unit than if it were constructed in the basement of the primary residence. The garage is required by the Residential Design Standards to be accessed from the alley if one exists. There are no designated view planes in the area that the proposed ADU would encroach upon. 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the variance request from the build -to -lines requirement and the special review to allow the height of the ADU to be constructed at 21 feet on the rear 1 /3 of the parcel be approved. RECOMMENDED MOTION BY DRAC (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2001, approving a variance from the Build -to -Lines Standard of the Residential Design Standards for the parcel of land located at 707 W. North Street, Lots G, H, and I, Block 14 of the City and Townsite of Aspen." ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED MOTION BY PLANNNING AND ZONING COMMISSION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2001, approving a special review to vary the accessory dwelling unit design standards to allow the applicant to construct an ADU above the garage to a height limit of 21 feet, as measured by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, on the rear 1/3 portion of the parcel of land located at 707 W. North Street, Lots G, H, and I, Block 14 of the City and Townsite of Aspen." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria & Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Parcel Location Exhibit C -- Applicant's Application & Plans Exhibit D -- Referral Comments Exhibit E -- DRAC Resolution No. a�, Series 2001 Exhibit F -- Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No.04 Series 2001 3 EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.410 Residential Design Standards The Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be : 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. Section 26.410.040(A)(2) Site Design- Build -to lines Variance In response to the review criteria for a DRAG variance, staff makes the following findings: a) The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Staff finds that granting a build -to -lines variance in this situation yields greater compliance with AACP goal of protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Granting this variance will be in compliance with the policy objective set forth in the AACP to "develop and design sites with regard to the existing landscape". City Forester Stephen Ellsperman has identified the spruce tree that the variance is intended to save as an asset to our Community. b) The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to. Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable to this variance application. c) The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Findinin The intent of the following build -to -lines standard is to provide a consistent building line in a neighborhood. The code indicates that on a corner lot that both street facing facades must 2 have at least 60% of their facades within 5 feet of the required setback, the following standard shall be met: Build -to lines. On parcels or lots of less than 15,000 square feet, at least 60% of the front facade shall be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, at least 60% of both street facades of the building shall be within 5 feet of the minimum setback lines. Porches may be used meet the 60% standard. Staff Finding Staff finds that proposed variance is necessary in that the proposed residence meets the build - to -lines standard on one of the street facing facades. Staff feels that it would be virtually impossible to meet the build -to -lines standard on the N. Sixth Street facade if the mature spruce tree is to be saved and not be moved or removed. By examining the rest of the structures on the block, it appears that the consistent building line to be preserved should be on the north street facade. The Sixth Street block is only one additional lot. Staff feels that preserving the mature spruce tree on the Sixth Street facade is more important in this situation than maintaining a consistent building line for two parcels. REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.520.080 Special Review for ADU Design Standards The Planning and Zoning Commission may grant relief from the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance from the design standards is found to be: a) the proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability; and, b) the proposed ADU is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property; and, c) the proposed ADU is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on -street parking, 5 availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. In response to the review criteria for a variance from the ADU design standards, staff makes the following findings: a) The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability. Staff Finding Staff finds that the special review to vary the height requirement on the rear 1/3 of the parcel to allow for the ADU to be 21 feet, will generally make the unit more liveable than if it were constructed either below grade in the primary residence or under the garage. The ADU over the garage will allow for more light to enter the unit as well as it will make feel more like a separate unit than if it were forced under the primary residence because the applicant could not meet the height requirement on the rear 1 /3 of the parcel. b) The proposed ADU is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all the dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property. Staff Finding Staff finds that the ADU is designed in a manner that is compatible with the architecture and character of the primary residence. Staff feels that placing the ADU above the garage is the best placement on the site for the unit. The fact that the unit is detached from the primary residence will also lend itself to more privacy for the ADU resident. c) The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of off-street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed ADU is in compliance with this standard. There are no designated view planes that would be affected by this development. There is sufficient off- street parking to meet the land use code requirement of one space for the ADU and two spaces for the primary residence. The rest of the block is primarily two story buildings, therefore, the height is in character with the with rest of the block. it! EXHIBIT C PARCEL LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP 707 W. NORTH ST. N W E S 7 Stephen Ellsperman, 08:16 AM 5/22/01 -0600, 707 North Street X-Sender: stephene@commons X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:16:17 -0600 To: jamesl@ci.aspen. co. us From: Stephen Ellsperman <stephene@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: 707 North Street Cc: rebeccas@ci.aspen.co.us Page4 1 EYNII,� The following contains comments on the 707 W. North Street application: The Parks Department supports the variance request for the following reasons: 1) The Colorado Blue Spruce trees on this property are in excellent condition and are significant community value. These trees have been maintained in good condition and the survival potential is high. 2) Extensive on site meetings with the property owner have ensured the protection of these trees throughout the design process. The variance will allow the applicant to provide for the trees protection, while still providing a residence which is of the size desired. 3) No permits will be granted for tree removals on this site (with the exception of the declined tree in the corner near the proposed garage.). Please contact me with any questions. Stephen Ellsperman Natural Resources and Construction Manager (970)920-6010 Printed for James Lindt <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us> 5/29/01 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner RE: MOUNTAIN CHALET LODGE PRESERVATION PROJECT DAT'V• T....1oth )"III PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Mountain Chalet Enterprises, represented by Mitch Haas, requests appropriate land use approvals in order to conduct a three phase expansion of the Mountain Chalet Lodge in a Lodge Preservation project. Specifically, the land use requests include: 1) Rezoning from Lodge / Tourist Residential (L/TR) to L/TR with Lodge Preservation (LP) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlays or (L/TR / LP / PUD); (Rezoning will allow the Applicant to take advantage of the Lodge Preservation program designed to allow small lodges to expand via available Lodge Preservation allotments.) 2) Minor Planned Unit Development; (Lodge Preservation projects are required to go through a Minor PUD process to set their dimensional requirements for the project as well as respond to compatibility criteria.) 3) Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions; Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 1 1. Lodge Preservation Exemption 2. Affordable Housing Exemption (The additional lodge units / allotments and employee units are exempt from GMQS.) 4) Mountain View Plane Review (The Mountain Chalet is exempt from the Wheeler Opera House View Plane because expanded Mountain Chalet will still be lower than the Ritz located behind it) APPLICATION PROCESS: As a matter of process, the Planning and Zoning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council for Rezoning, GMQS Exemptions, and the Minor PUD portions of this application; however, the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final authority for providing Lodge Preservation (LP) allotments to a project as well as providing exemptions from Mountain View Planes. STAFF COMMENTS: The Applicant wishes to expand the Mountain Chalet which continues to be one of Aspen's unique small lodges. The lodge opened for Christmas in 1954 and has continued to grow and evolve over the years with significant additions occurring between 1955 and 1995. The lodge is located on the southwest corner of Durant Avenue and South Mill Street in the L/TR zone district with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. The Applicant requests the aforementioned land use approvals to conduct a three phase redevelopment scheme for the Mountain Chalet. Specifically, the three phases are outlined below: Phase 1: This phase involves fourth and fifth floor additions to the central portion of the structure. This phase will add eight new lodge units on the fourth floor and a 1,530 sq. ft. lounge on the fifth floor. Employee generation mitigation for this phase will be accommodated by a temporary off -site deed restricted unit at the Kitzbuhel Lodge. Phase 2: This phase includes the demolition of the lodge's eastern wing (2.5 stories) and replacement with a four story wing containing lodge rooms (7 units per floor) and five sub -grade / garden level employee housing units. Phase 3: This phase three involves only the interior remodeling of the lobby and common areas on the first and second floors, and improvement of the Durant Avenue sidewalk. As mentioned above, the Applicant would like to expand the Mountain Chalet lodge using the City's Lodge Preservation Program. In order to accomplish this expansion, the Applicant is required to rezone the property first, then go through a Minor PUD process, and is eligible for GMQS exemptions for the Lodge Preservation effort as well as providing affordable housing units in the lodge for lodge employees. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 2 At present, the Mountain Chalet contains fifty-one (51) lodge units. This expansion will increase the lodge units by sixteen (16) units for a grand total of sixty-seven (67) lodge units. In addition to these lodge units, this expansion will also provide five (5) deed restricted affordable employee units for Mountain Chalet employees. LODGE PRESERVATION ALLOTMENTS The Applicant is requesting to rezone the lodge to add the Lodge Preservation (LP) and PUD Overlays to the already established L/TR zone district. This rezoning will allow the Applicant to take advantage of the Lodge Preservation Program designed to allow for the expansion of Aspen's existing small lodges. According to the provisions in the Lodge Preservation Program, the Planning and Zoning Commission determines whether there exists sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the proposed development and the allotments are deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotment and Metro Area Development Ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.050. According to the Lodge Preservation (LP) Growth Summary as of February 2001, there are currently 21 available lodge allotments. The Mountain Chalet redevelopment proposes to use 16 of those allotments leaving 5 allotments in the pool. The LP Lodge allotment pool is automatically refreshed by eleven (11) units every June 1 St. These LP allotments are granted on a first come / first served basis by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Please see the Lodge Preservation (LP) Growth Summary as Exhibit F.) The Applicant is eligible for a (GMQS) Exemption for the development of these additional 16 lodge units. Specifically, under the LP Program, development, or redevelopment after demolition, of properties zoned LP Overlay to increase or decrease the number of lodge units, the number of affordable housing units, or the amount of accessory commercial square footage, or the change in use between said uses, shall be exempted from the GMQS competition and scoring - procedures, provided that the Planning and Zoning Commission determines, at a public hearing, that certain criteria are met. In this case, Staff finds that the proposed expansion is exempt from GMQS competition and scoring finding that there are sufficient available LP allotments to provide the Mountain Chalet with the units they request for their proposed expansion and that all conditions have been met. AFFORDABLE HOUSING / EMPLOYEE UNITS The Applicant is requesting a GMQS Exemption for affordable housing; more specifically, this lodge expansion includes the provision of five (5) employee dwelling units to be located in the sub -grade / garden level of the Mountain Chalet. According to the GMQS in Section 26.470.070(J) of the land use code, All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exempt. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this Section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 3 development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. This exemption is deducted from the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.470.040 and from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Review is by City Council. The Applicant received a unanimous recommendation of approval to the City Council from the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) for the proposed employee units on April 18, 2001. It has been the opinion of the Housing Office that a maximum 0.4 employees per lodge room generation figure be used. Further, the Land Use Code states that mitigation is done at a rate of 60%. Therefore, employees generated by the 16 additional lodge rooms would result in (16 x 0.4 = 6.4) 60% = 3.84 FTEs. Per this request, the Applicant proposes to provide the following units: Proposed unit size FTE Number of Units Total FTE's housed 380 sq. ft. Studio 1.25 X 1 Unit = 1.25 396 sq. ft. Studio 1.25 X 2 Units = 2.50 447 sq. ftA bedroom 1.75 X 1 Unit = 1.75 699 sq. ft. 1 bedroom 1.25 X 1 Unit = 1.75 Total FTEs = 7.25 As a result, the Applicant is proposing affordable housing units for 7.25 FTEs which is 3.41 more FTEs than is required. Staff agrees that due to exaggerated housing costs in Aspen and the commuting workforce, it is difficult to maintain steady employees. This higher mitigation will go a long way towards maintaining good employees for the Mountain Chalet lodge. PROPOSED HEIGHT In general, this expansion will result in the creation of a fourth floor over the central portion and east wing of the current structure as well as adding a fifth floor lounge. The Applicant is proposing to increase the heights of the Mountain Chalet from the existing as indicated below: Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 4 A picture of the Mountain Chalet on Sheet A3.0 of the application shows the full expanded scheme illustrated by a dashed line indicating the expanded lodge. The current height of the lodge is 36 feet (eight feet taller than allowed); the proposed new height established in the PUD is 49 feet. This proposed height allows for this fourth floor and fifth floor lounge expansion while still remaining lower than the Ritz located directly behind or south of the Mountain Chalet. The Ritz will continue to rise above the Mountain Chalet as shown in the photo on SheetA3.0 of the application thereby making it exempt. PARKING Currently, the Mountain Chalet maintains thirty-seven (37) off-street parking spaces and three (3) loading spaces primarily accommodated in a sub -grade parking garage under the Mountain Chalet accessed from South Mill Street. The parking requirement for the L/TR zone district is 0.7 spaces per bedroom. The parking requirement for the LP Overlay'is also 0.7 spaces per bedroom unless otherwise established in a PUD. Currently, the Mountain Chalet contains 55 bedrooms which requires 38.5 spaces. The proposed redevelopment will create a total of 76 bedrooms (including the 5 employee housing bedrooms) which by the land use code require the provision of 53.2 off-street parking spaces. Effectively, the applicant would need to provide 16.2 spaces to satisfy the requirement of the Land Use Code; however, the applicant is not proposing any additional parking with this expansion. The applicant wishes to establish a new parking requirement of 0.49 spaces per bedroom as established through the PUD. While the Mountain Chalet has operated in the past with 37 spaces and taken advantage of the Rubey Park Transit Center located across the street, Staff is concerned that an increase in 21 units (16 lodge units and 5 employee units) without any new parking or additional alternative transportation methods to accommodate may result in unforeseen impacts. However, the Lodge Preservation Program and the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) are sympathetic to considering transportation alternatives as discussed below. The Lodge Preservation Program was adopted to provide incentives allowing Aspen's small lodges to expand through a more streamlined process so that they may continue to be a viable lodging alternative for Aspen's visitors while staying competitive with the luxury condominium type developments. Due to the fact that an expansion generally refers to a site that is currently built out that wishes to add on to its current structure, on - site parking has most likely been long established on the site with little room for additional spaces. This is certainly the case for the Mountain Chalet. The AACP indicates that much should be done to provide disincentives for visitors / commuters to Aspen to leave their cars at home. One of the main Policies of the AACP regarding transportation is: Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 5 Structure new growth in the community in compact, mixed use patterns that enable and support travel by foot, bicycle, public transportation for all types of trips. The AACP Transportation element also contains the following Goals towards this end: A. Continue to improve traveler's Aspen experience by providing local travel information at bus stops, on the Internet, through brochures, etc. Reduce travel by visitors in automobiles through support of innovative traveler services; B. Consider other innovative transportation modes; C. Provide a wide range of flexible transportation management tools and techniques to reduce single -occupant automobile use. The Applicant indicated during the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting that he gave out a total of 9 residential parking passes to guests over the course of the year 2000. In addition, upon a recent site visit to the lodge during peak capacity, the sub -grade garage remained half full. The Staff has suggested to the Applicant to provide additional alternative and innovative transportation options for guests of the lodge as well as the employees living in the affordable units. It should be noted, that Staff provided the Applicant with successful alternatives proposed by the Hotel Aspen Lodge Expansion in their efforts to deal with a parking shortage associated with a lodge expansion. SUCCESSFUL PARKING ALTERNATIVES The City's Environmental Health Department indicated that the Applicant shall agree to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution. The applicant needs to implement measures that will minimize traffic increases of the development, or offset the emissions from the project with PM-10 reduction measures elsewhere. More specifically, the standards used by the Environmental Health Department to determine the number of trips generated by new development indicated the following: Using these trip generation figures coupled with reduced trip generation due to the proximity to transit, skiing and commercial facilities, and the presence of onsite employee housing, the project will generate just over 100 additional trips per day. The Environmental Health Department also indicated that the Applicant should implement traffic mitigation measures such as providing carpool/vanpool financial incentives to employees, free bus passes, vanpools, dial -a -ride service, paying for additional RFTA buses and service, private bus service for employees, limiting parking, covered and secure bike storage, or free bike fleets for residents. Whatever combination of measures the applicant chooses to mitigate PM-10 emissions and trips generated, is acceptable as long as it prevents additional traffic that would significantly impact air quality. The City Environmental Health Department has no preference for which trip Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 6 reduction measures are used, and typically an applicant chooses measures that provide an ancillary benefit to the project. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION It is clear, Aspen's small lodge bed base has declined considerably within the last ten years. The City Council adopted the Lodge Preservation Program as a result of this serious reduction to allow for easier expansion of small lodges given the economic climate which caters more towards the higher end condominium units. Staff finds that the proposed Mountain Chalet lodge expansion is a very strong example of why the Lodge Preservation Program was created. This lodge expansion will allow one of Aspen's most defining small lodges to expand and maintain a competitive presence in Aspen's dynamic lodge base economy. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the provision of 16 lodge preservation allotments and an exemption for the Wheeler Opera House View Plane and recommend approval to City Council for this request for the requested rezoning, minor planned unit development, GMQS exemptions for affordable housing for the Mountain Chalet with the conditions listed in the Resolution at the rear of this memorandum. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution No. &, Series 2001, approving the provision of 16 Lodge Preservation allotments and an exemption for the Wheeler Opera House View Plane and recommend approval to the City Council for a rezoning, minor planned unit development, and GMQS exemptions for affordable housing and Lodge Preservation for the Mountain Chalet Lodge with the conditions placed in the resolution." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Minor Planned Unit Development Exhibit B: Rezoning Exhibit C: GMQS Exemptions Exhibit D: Mountain View Plane Exhibit E: Resolution ' , Series 2001 Exhibit F: Lodge Preservation Growth Summary Exhibit G: Application Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 7 EXHIBIT A REZONING 26.310.040 Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with all applicable portions of the Land Use Code. The intended use of the property is consistent with the Lodge Preservation (LP) zoning; specifically, the proposal is for the expansion of the Mountain Chalet lodge so that more lodge units and affordable employee housing units can be provided. Both of these uses are allowed uses in the LP Overlay Zone District. In order to accommodate the requests made in this application, the property will need to be rezoned from its current designation of L/TR to include LP and PUD overlays. The resulting zoning will be L/TR/LP/PUD. This rezoning fits exactly with the purpose of the L/TR and LP zone districts. The purpose of the L/TR zone district is "to encourage construction and renovation of lodges, in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain." Similarly, the Code describes the purpose of the LP Overlay zone district as being: To provide for and protect small lodges on properties historically used for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses . . . to encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood and respective of the manner in which the property has historically operated, and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on -site or onto adjacent properties. The Applicant proposes an expansion, which is located in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain. The Mountain Chalet has been located at its current location and used as a lodge since 1954. The LP zoning request provides incentives to enable upgrading of the existing lodge so that it can remain competitive with respect to visitor expectations that have changed since the lodge was originally constructed. The current lodging market demands "up-to-date" facilities and rooming accommodations with more space and choices. The Mountain Chalet still maintains a somewhat uniform supply of room sizes, most of which have outdated facilities. Additionally, due to highly exaggerated cost of housing in the Aspen area coupled with the increases in commuting traffic from the down valley area, the Mountain Chalet has had a difficult time finding and maintaining quality employees. The proposed on -site expansion will ensure the Mountain Chalet's continued viability as a lodge while providing on -site housing for its employees. By rezoning the property with LP and PUD Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 8 overlays, this expansion and upgrading of the Mountain Chalet lodge can be realized in order to allow for the continued existence of the lodge and the additional provision of affordable housing for its employees. Staff finds this standard to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the AACP. It will allow for the expansion and continued viability of one of Aspen's few remaining locally owned and operated small lodges and the development of affordable housing for employees. The AACP states that, "It is ... balance between all sectors of the community that we are striving to retain and enhance." This statement refers to a balance between "Aspen the community and Aspen the resort." By expanding this type of bed base, furthering the viability of such a small lodge, and providing affordable housing, this proposed expansion will further promote reestablishing the balance the community has been struggling to retain and enhance. Moreover, the "Growth Action Plan" is intended to "Encourage land uses, businesses and events which serve both the local community and the tourist base." This expansion of the Mountain Chalet lodge and providing affordable housing for its employees will serve the local community and the tourist base. This proposed development will further the "Intent," policies and goals of the AACP's "Transportation Action Plan." The transportation element of the AACP includes: "The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters that reduces congestion and pollution;" "...reducing dependency on the automobile requires offering alternatives both for automobile use and storage and other means of transport;" and, "Seek to balance public and private transportation ... by increasing the number of available transportation choices." The Mountain Chalet is located across the street from Rubey Park Transit Center and the commercial core. Free bus service is available on a regular basis to and from the airport, the three ski areas that are not within walking distance, the music tent, the Maroon Bells, and various other locations. There is no need for customers to have a vehicle at the Mountain Chalet, but for those who do rent or otherwise arrive in their cars, the thirty- seven existing spaces owned by the lodge, combined with the spaces on the surrounding streets, have proven more than adequate. By limiting the amount of available off-street parking to those spaces currently existing, guests and employees of the lodge will be encouraged to utilize these alternative means of transportation to the maximum extent practicable. Upon a recent site visit to the lodge during peak capacity, the sub -grade garage remained only half full. The "Intent" of the "Housing Action Plan," is to "Create a housing environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the neighborhoods and affordable." This expansion will further the intent by creating affordable employee housing that is dispersed and Mountain Chalet Staff Report � Page 9 appropriately scaled to the neighborhood. The proposed employee housing units will be deed restricted and registered with the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority to ensure their continued affordability. The design of the affordable housing units is appropriately scaled as they will be integrated with the expansion. This requested expansion is consistent with the AACP policy for the development of "...small scale resident housing which fits the character of the community and is interspersed with free market housing..." The project site is within the original City and Townsite of Aspen. In accordance with the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District's encouragement of "affordable housing for employees of the lodge," the proposal promotes the following "Housing Action Plan" policies: "Encourage infill development within the existing urban area so as to ... allow more employees will be able to live close to where they work;" and, "... an employer that builds affordable housing units shall have the right to designate that their employees shall have first right to those affordable units, if they meet the qualifications." The "Intent" of the "Commercial/Retail Action Plan" is to "Provide incentives for managed strategic growth by ... small lodges." This portion of the AACP explains that, "The community must find ways to maintain these small lodges and the experience they offer to our guests." In addition, the policies of the "Commercial/Retail Action Plan," indicate the following: "Provide incentives to keep small lodge owners in operation;" and, "... allow for minor expansion with less mitigation required in order to maintain the small lodge inventory in the community." The proposed sixteen unit expansion is consistent with the goal of managed strategic growth by small lodges. The combination of the LP and PUD Overlays allow for mitigation at the level of incremental increases, in impacts due to an expansion, and the proposed employee housing exceeds 100% of the incremental increase in employment that will be caused by the expansion. The proposed layout of the new lodge units and their architecture have been designed to be fully compatible and consistent with the current design. The philosophy of the "Design Quality" section of the AACP explains that, "Modern buildings woven throughout the traditional townsite and along the hillsides create an eclectic design quality that contributes to the small-town uniqueness of our community." The architecture of the existing Mountain Chalet lodge has been described as "Swiss/Mountain Chalet," and it is one of the structures that contributes to the eclectic design quality and small-town uniqueness of Aspen. The expansion will maintain and enhance this design quality in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. The subject site is surrounded to the south and the west by Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain PUD (AMPUD), which maintains a zoning of L-TRIPUD. The properties to the east, northeast, and north are zoned park, public, and park, respectively. This request will result in the project site being zoned Lodge -Tourist Residential with Lodge Preservation Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 10 and Planned Unit Development overlays (L/TR/LP/PUD). The underlying L/TR zoning will remain consistent with the neighboring, adjacent properties to the south, west, and northwest. Surrounding land uses include a mix of lodges, retail shops, parks and recreation facilities, bars and restaurants, transportation facilities, and duplex, single-, and multi -family residential. In comparison with other neighborhoods, the subject area is densely developed. Staff finds the proposed amendment is fully compatible with surrounding land uses, zone districts, and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. The rezoning itself will not effect traffic generation or road safety. However, the lodge expansion enabled by the rezoning, will effect traffic generation creating a maximum of 100 additional trips per day according to the Environmental Health Department's analysis. However, this slight increase will be positively affected by the immediate proximity to the Rubey Park Transit Center, skiing, and the commercial core. The increase of vehicle trips over existing conditions for the site will have a negligible impact on surrounding streets. It appears that the surrounding streets can adequately and safely handle the impacts of the proposed development, and no improvements to the adjacent streets are required as a direct result of the additional traffic volumes that may result from the proposed expansion. By limiting the amount of available off-street parking to those spaces currently existing, guests and employees of the lodge will be encouraged to utilize alternative means of transportation to the maximum extent practicable. 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. The proposed rezoning will not affect infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. With regard to future plans for the property under the proposed L-TR/LP/PUD zoning, adequate water supply and pressure is available to serve the proposed project without additional upgrades to the City's treatment and distribution systems. Fire protection provided by existing hydrants will be adequate and will not be affected or interrupted by development. The Applicant is required to install sprinkler systems the entire building. Treatment capacity is available from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ASCD) to serve the additional demand associated with the proposed project. Historic drainage patterns and rates will be maintained (via the installation of roof drains, downspouts, and dry wells) due to the fact that the amount of impervious spaces will not increase as a result of this expansion. Impacts on parks and schools will be minimal as most of the development is comprised of tourist accommodations. Only five affordable 1-bedroom dwelling units are proposed, and these will have little affect on schools or parks; they will contain only one bedroom each and be used by employees of the lodge. There are several parks located immediately Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 11 across the street. Paepke and Bass Parks are both just a few blocks to the north. These parks provide adequate capacity to adequately serve the proposed development. The roads serving the project site are currently plowed and maintained by the City of Aspen. The site is located on a public street, making it easily accessible for emergency medical and fire protection services. The introduction of sixteen new lodging units and three affordable housing units 'will not result in demands exceeding the capacity of any public facilities or services. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. This proposed rezoning will not affect the natural environment. The site is already developed and located in a densely developed area. The expansion will not result in any additional land consumption as the slight expansion of the building footprint will involve already developed lands. The property will continue to be served by public water and sanitary sewer systems, and historic drainage patterns will be maintained. The availability of public transportation will help to reduce dependency on individual automobile use by the guests and employees of the lodge, in turn, significantly reducing the proj ect's PM 10 generation and affects on air quality. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. This rezoning will not be inconsistent or incompatible with Aspen's community character. In fact, this rezoning enables application for the expansion of the Mountain Chalet lodge which is consistent with the community character as indicated above. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. It is clear, Aspen's small lodge bed base has declined considerably within the last ten years. The City Council adopted the Lodge Preservation Program as a result of this serious reduction to allow for easier expansion of small lodges given the economic climate which caters more towards the higher end condominium units. In the last ten years, a total of 264 lodge rooms have been added/constructed while Community Development Department records indicate 317 units have been lost since the start of the 1990s. This proposed amendment is a good step toward counteracting the trend of the 1990s resulting in significant losses to Aspen's small lodge and economy/ moderately - priced tourist bed base. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 12 L Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. The proposed amendment is in harmony with the public interest as well as the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. The "Purpose" of the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone includes providing "an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on -site or onto adjacent properties." The LP rezoning will enable the on -site expansion and upgrading of the Mountain Chalet. Therefore, the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Regulations and the Lodge Preservation zoning. In addition, it has been repeatedly recognized that the provision of housing for employees in Pitkin County and Aspen is in the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Regulations. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 13 EXHIBIT B MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Review Standards: Minor Planned Unit Development. A development application for Minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with 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. Staff Finding Please refer to Rezoning (Criterion B) of this Memorandum. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding Please refer to Rezoning (Criterion C) of this Memorandum. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding With the exception of an increase in traffic generation that the applicant will further mitigate for, the proposed development will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The surrounding properties are essentially built out. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding The Applicant is aware that a total of twenty-nine LP tourist accommodation allotments are currently available. This proposal requires 16 LP allotments. Pursuant to Section 26.470.070(J) of the Land Use Code, the five proposed affordable housing units are exempt from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 14 As a matter of process, the Planning and Zoning Commission decides whether or not to grant the sixteen requested LP allotments. The GMQS Exemptions for the five affordable housing units will be decided by City Council during its review of the Minor PUD. Therefore, in accord with the requirements of this standard, all GMQS allotments and exemptions needed to accommodate the proposed development will be considered in combination with this PUD development plan review. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below and shall comply with the following: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) 1Ylinimum Lot Size 6,000 18,750 6,000 aximum, Iowab�e. � See Minimum lot area per One lodge unit One lodge unit per 245 sq. Densi dwelling unit 340 per sq. ft. of ft. of lot size lot size lY.inimum Lot.Width 60 feet 125 feet 60 feet minimum Front Yard 10 feet 2 feet As per the PUD Plan minimum Side Yard 5 feet 0 feet As per the PUD Plan 1'Vfinimum Rear,Yaru 10 feet 20 feet 10 feet 1V[aximum Site ge flYera Not regulated Not Regulated No Requirement q iYlaximum Height 28 feet 36 feet As per the PUD Plan min"Distance. between �Buiidiings ©nait 10 feet N/A 10 feet of tmn"Prt pn. o 25 /o Approximately As per the PUD Plan Space ' :; o 11 /o "'rash ,access Area Not Regulated 7.5' x 6' As per the PUD Plan Rental space limited to a max. of 0.5:1, which can be increased to 0.75:1 if at least 33 1/3 % of the Alwrableternl _ additional FAR is approved for Has not been a'FAR residential use restricted to AH for determined As per the PUD Plan employees of the lodge; non -unit space must account for no less ` than 0.25:1 I1'iinimum Off-street 0.7 spaces per two bedroom unit; 1 0.67 spaces for 0.49 spaces per bedroom Parking .. space per one bedroom unit 55 bedrooms (37 spaces for 76 bedrooms) *Setbacks and height vary in the development program. The specific dimensions included in the approved PUD plan define these dimensional standards. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 15 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding There are no known natural or man-made hazards affecting the project site. There are no waterways affecting the project site or surrounding area. Given the location of the site, it is subject to the same solar access .patterns as the majority of downtown Aspen (i.e., morning and afternoon sun until the sun begins setting behind the ridge of Shadow Mountain). The angle of this solar access results in shadows cast almost exclusively on the property itself, with very little shadowing on the public right-of-way. This helps to minimize the development's impacts relative to icing of the street and the sidewalk; that is, very little change with respect to existing shadowing and icing is expected as a result of the expansion. The existing vegetation on the project site is sparse, consisting mainly of that which has been planted within the various planter boxes. It is the Applicant's intention to remove and replace only those trees within the planters that have caliper measurements of less than four inches. All other trees are to remain. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding The Applicant proposes increasing the height to accommodate a fourth and fifth floor that is in keeping with the current architecture that has helped to define the Mountain Chalet today. This PUD will allow primarily for the ability to set the parking requirements and height requirements as discussed in this memorandum. Neither the site coverage nor the open space conditions of the site will change from those which currently exist. The massing and scale of the proposed development is consistent with that of the surrounding neighborhood. The expanded structure will provide for a more'appropriate and complete backdrop to Wagner Park. This will better help to define the edge of the commercial core and the start of the Aspen Mountain base area neighborhood. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 16 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. Staff Finding The Land Use Code requires 0.7 parking spaces per lodge bedroom unless otherwise established via this standard. A total of 37 off-street parking spaces are proposed on the project site (no change). Moreover, the commercial core (one block), the Rubey Park Transit Center (across the street), and Aspen Mountain (1.5 blocks) are all within easy walking distance. Limiting the amount of available off-street parking to those spaces currently existing will serve as a disincentive, encouraging guests and employees of the lodge to utilize alternative means of transportation to the maximum extent practicable, thereby forwarding the community goals expressed in the AACP. However, Staff believes that the Applicant should designate five spaces for the affordable housing units in accordance with the Housing Office's suggestion of 3 to 5 spaces. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding The project site benefits from sufficient infrastructure capabilities to serve the proposed development and, therefore, no density reductions are necessary. As a result of the DRC meeting with various referral agencies, all utilities are available to the site and the existing capacities are adequate to accommodate the proposed density. Durant Avenue and South Mill Street are City of Aspen public rights -of -way and, as such, are already plowed and maintained by the City of Aspen. Vacated Dean Street is plowed by the St. Regis Hotel in exchange for the Mountain Chalet's commitment to provide maintenance (i.e., chip sealing in the summer); the two hotels maintain an agreement to this effect. The Aspen Fire District station is a three blocks from the project site, and the Mountain Chalet which is served with ample existing hydrants and is located within the fire protection district. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 17 S. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding The project site is suitable for the proposed development. It is already developed and the proposed expansion will not consume much additional land. It is essentially flat, and all of its area is within the slope classification category of 0-20%. As a result, very little addition impervious surfaces will be created on the property and only minimal impacts to the existing drainage conditions will result. Historic drainage rates will be maintained via the installation of an engineered roof drain, downspout and dry well system. Thus, the proposed development will not be detrimental to the natural watershed and will not result in water pollution. No wood burning devices will be installed. Further, the development will encourage the use of alternative means of transportation such as the buses to/from Rubey Park and walking. This will help to limit the amount of PM-10 generation attributable to the development. Regardless, the applicant will be required to comply with all requirements of the Environmental Health Department in connection with the issuance of building permits, and this will ensure that affects on air quality are addressed. No additional driveways, roads, or trails are proposed on the project site. There are no critical natural features on the site, and site disturbance will be kept to the minimum required for construction. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 18 subparagraphs 4 and S, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding The maximum allowable density in the underlying L/TR zone district is regulated via minimum lot area per dwelling unit; otherwise, it is not specifically regulated at all for allowed uses such as lodges. The proposed dimensional requirements, will allow one lodge or residential bedroom per 245 square feet of lot size. The discussion regarding the proposal's consistency with the goals and objectives of the AACP clearly demonstrates that the project will serve to advance many goals of the community, not the least of which address small lodges and affordable housing. Also, as demonstrated in response to the two previous criteria, the site is physically capable of supporting the proposed density. Finally, the proposed development will be compatible with and complimentary to the existing and expected surrounding development patterns, land uses, and characteristics. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The site does not presently contain any unique natural or man-made features that provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, but Wagner Park and the Silver Circle Ice Rink are both located directly across the street from the subject property. The Mountain Chalet will maintain its existing street orientations and architectural style. As the proposed elevations demonstrate, the building will continue to exhibit and provide a strong example of the Mountain Chalet style. The roof pitches will be maintained, as will the patterns created by the horizontal wood siding, balconies and shutters. The "Chalet" style detailing will be continued onto the redeveloped east wing as well as the new fourth and fifth floors. The perceived mass will be broken up by the inclusion of several gable ends, many balconies, and a change in exterior building materials between the lower and upper floors. The peak ridge height is reached in only two small areas that are set back in the center of the structure. The structure's height will be significantly less from the Dean Street side Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 19 due to the higher grade existing on the south side. Designated and protected view planes from the Wheeler Opera House will not be affected, and views from the commercial core to Aspen Mountain will not be compromised. In fact, only the north St. Regis facade will be obstructed. Further, the proposed overall height of the Mountain Chalet will be similar to, but still lower than that of the St. Regis. Moreover, the heights proposed herein will be perceived as significantly lower than the height of the St. Regis and the hotel proposed for replacement of the Grand Aspen since both of these sites are located substantially higher up the hillside created by the base of Aspen Mountain. The existing Mountain Chalet lodge was constructed in multiple (11) phases over a period spanning some forty-one years. As a result, the existing design is somewhat disjointed, with a four story west wing next to a two and one-half (2.5) story center and east wing. Architectural detailing is not consistent on all sides. The completed expansion will provide an overall balance to the structure. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding Only one structure exists on the property and no additional structures are proposed. The peak ridge height of the expansion is clustered into only two small areas that are set back in the center of the structure. Please refer to the response provided for the previous standard for greater elaboration on the proposal's effect on 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. Staff Finding Please refer to the response provided for standard C. l ., above. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding The site is surrounded on two of its four sides by public rights -of -way, and by a private street on its third side. Emergency vehicle access will continue as is, primarily from Durant Avenue and vacated Dean Street. The structure is and will continue to be accessible for fire protection. Service and delivery vehicles will continue to use the existing loading areas on vacated Dean Street and Durant Avenue. The trash area will remain in its current location, just off South Mill Street at the top of the garage ramp. S. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 20 Staff Finding The existing detached sidewalks will be maintained around the structure's east, north and south sides. All sidewalks will remain in their current configurations, except the Durant Avenue sidewalk will be improved as part of the development's third phase in order to provide a level grade. The improvement of the Durant Avenue sidewalk will greatly help with handicap access. The handicap accessible ramp along the side of the garage ramp will be rebuilt as part of the expansion and will continue to comply with ADA specifications. The elevator access to the upper levels will be maintained throughout the expansion processes. The two handicap accessible rooms (units 108 and 110) will continue to comply with ADA specifications. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding The project site is already developed and the proposed expansion will consume very little additional land. Therefore, only minimal additional impervious surfaces will be created on the property and, only minimal impacts to the existing drainage conditions will result. Regardless, an engineered roof drain, downspout and dry well system will be installed to ensure that no drainage related impacts will be felt on surrounding properties. Z For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding There are no detached buildings to accommodate spaces between. No new outdoor programmatic functions are associated with the proposed development. The existing courtyard areas will be maintained. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding There is currently very little landscaping on the property as it is mostly built out to the lot lines with the lodge structure itself except for several planters and a large tree located in Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 21 front of the Mountain Chalet. To date, no landscaping plan has been submitted and for practical reasons, is unnecessary in the subject case. The Applicant intends to replace all existing trees located in planter boxes and having caliper measurements of less than four inches. Otherwise, all existing plantings will be maintained and no additional plantings are currently proposed. 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. Staff Finding Please refer to the response provided for the previous standard. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding For any trees to be protected or otherwise requiring protection, the applicants propose the following methods of ensuring their protection. Prior to construction, all trees to be protected will have orange protective barrier fencing erected which, as a minimum, will be supported by l' x 1' or similar sturdy stock for shielding of protected trees no closer than six feet from the trunk or one-half (1 /2) the distance of the drip line, whichever is greater. Within this protection zone, there will not be any movement of equipment or storage of equipment, materials, debris, fill, or cut unless approved by the City Forester. During the construction stage, the developer will prevent cleaning of materials or equipment, or the storage or disposal of waste materials such as paints, oils, solvents, asphalt, concrete, mortar, or any other material harmful to the life of a tree within the drip line of any protected tree or group of trees. If these methods are deemed by the City Forester as unsatisfactory or in need of supplementation, the applicant is willing to work with him to arrive at an acceptable plan. 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: Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 22 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 far, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding The existing Mountain Chalet lodge was constructed in eleven phases over some forty- one years. As a result, the existing design is somewhat disjointed, with a four story west wing next to a two and one-half (2.5) story center and east wing. Architectural detailing is not consistent on all sides. The completed expansion will provide an overall balance to the structure. The expanded structure will provide for a more appropriate and complete backdrop to Wagner Park. The "Design Quality and Historic Preservation" element of the AACP is intended to "Ensure the maintenance of character through design quality and compatibility with historic features." The architecture of the existing Mountain Chalet lodge has been described as, appropriately enough, "Swiss/Mountain Chalet," and it is one of the structures that contributes to the eclectic design quality and small-town uniqueness of Aspen. The expansion will maintain and enhance this design quality in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain. The proposed layout of the new lodge units and their architecture have been specifically designed to be fully compatible and consistent with the existing design. This will ensure that the architecture represents a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use. 2. incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding There is an existing, outdoor swimming pool and hot tub, both of which are partially heated with power generated from the six solar collectors on the roof of the building's east wing. If practical, the Applicant intends to reinstall the existing solar panels or replace them with new ones after the expansion is completed. The reinstalled or replaced solar panels would be moved to the center portion of the building, facing Dean Street in order to make them less visible from the surrounding public streets and sidewalks. All existing and created sub -grade spaces benefit from natural cooling. 3. accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding The functions described in this standard are already accommodated by the existing lodge and will continue to be facilitated in the same manners as presently employed. F. Lighting. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 23 The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards 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. Staff Finding No exterior lighting beyond that currently existing is proposed. Nevertheless, the development will comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Regulations, and specifically with Section 26.575.150(E), Non -Residential Lighting Standards (including mixed use projects). Compliance with said section will ensure consistency with this PUD review standard. No lighting of site features or structures is proposed, and no lighting will cause direct glare on or hazardous interference of adjoining streets or lands. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up -lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding Please refer to the narrative provided in response to the previous standard. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation, area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Staff Finding No designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas are proposed as part of the PUD, rendering this standard inapplicable. 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 Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 24 dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Staff Finding No common park or recreation areas are proposed. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding No such areas are proposed; thus, there is no need for 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: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding Connections to public water and sewer will be made and the respective capacity of these services will not be exceeded. Historic drainage patterns and rates will be maintained. Impacts on parks and schools will be minimal as most of the development is comprised of tourist accommodations. Only three affordable studio dwelling units and two affordable one -bedroom dwelling units are proposed for use by employees of the lodge, and these will have negligible affects on schools and parks. Given the one bedroom or smaller size of these units, it is not at all likely that school age children will be living on site. Park lands are plentiful in the neighborhood, with Wagner Park, Bass Park, Paepke Park, and the Silver Circle Ice Rink all located nearby. These parks and Aspen Mountain all maintain more than enough capacity to adequately serve the proposed development. The roads serving the project site are already plowed and maintained by the City of Aspen. The site is located on a public street, making it easily accessible for emergency medical services and fire protection. The introduction of sixteen new lodging units and three affordable housing units will not result in demands exceeding the capacity of any public facilities or services. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 25 Staff Finding While no adverse impacts on public infrastructure are anticipated, the Applicants have agreed to bear the costs of any necessary connections, upgrades, and line extensions. Pursuant to Section 26.610.020 of the Regulations, park development impact fees for the new lodge bedrooms (but not the affordable housing bedrooms) will be due at the time of building permit issuance. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding It is not believed that any over -sizing of utilities will be necessary, but if such should be required, the applicant will be glad to be reimbursed. In the event that utilities have been oversized in connection with other developments in the area and an agreement for reimbursement is in place, the applicants will pay their proportionate reimbursement fees for connection to such facilities. L Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding Each unit of the proposed PUD will have direct access to the adjacent streets via the various exits from the lodge. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. .Staff Finding As mentioned above in prior sections of this memorandum, the proposed development will not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the property. The property is surrounded by streets on three of its four sides. The surrounding streets can accommodate the proposed development without any need for further improvement. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 26 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. Staff Finding The applicants propose three separate phases to complete the development of the PUD. The division of construction into three separate phases is necessary for the Applicants' ability to finance the project. Phase one involves fourth and fifth floor additions in the central portion of the structure. The phase one addition will accommodate the development of eight new lodge units on the fourth floor and a new lounge on the fifth floor. Phase two includes the demolition of the building's existing two and one-half (2.5) story eastern wing and its redevelopment with four stories of lodge rooms and sub-grade/garden level employee housing. The phase two eastern wing will house seven new lodge units on each of its four floors, as well as five employee dwelling units in the sub-grade/garden level space. Phase three will involve only the remodeling of the lobby and common area spaces on the first and second floors, and improvement of the Durant Avenue sidewalks. Each of the first two phases will function independently, as a complete development when concluded. All necessary facilities and staff are already in place and will be maintained throughout the various phases of development. When phase one is completed, the lodge will function as normal. Phase two will be a bit more disruptive to operation, but since it involves a distinct wing of the lodge, the unaffected portions will be able to go on operating as usual. Phase three will require some interim measures, all of which will be easily accommodated within the existing structure and during the off season. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. Staff Finding Potential occupants of the initial phases will be made aware of when subsequent construction phases will commence, and will have the choice of whether or not to use the affected unit(s). 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, Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 27 construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding The proposed phasing plan will be described in detail and guaranteed via the PUD Agreement. The only applicable impact fees will be those associated with Parks, and said fees are required, and guaranteed, at the time of building permit issuance. Building permit and PUD Agreement requirements will also guarantee any necessary improvements to public facilities. As discussed, the Applicant shall provide for employee generation for Phase 1 by deed restricting rooms at the Kitzbuhel Lodge until Certification of Occupancies are provided for the five employee units in Phase 2. Specifically, it is proposed that a one -bedroom unit in the Kitzbuhel Lodge, owned by the applicant, will be temporarily deed restricted to mitigate for the minor employee generation impacts attributable to the phase one expansion. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 28 EXHIBIT C GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS 26.070.070(J) Affordable housing. All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exem t. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this Section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. This exemption is deducted from the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.470.040 and from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Review is by City Council. Staff Finding Section 26.470.070(M) defines, authorizes, and regulates the process for exempting certain types of development in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District from the competition and scoring procedures of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). According to said Section, development of properties zoned with an LP overlay to increase the number of lodge units and the number of affordable housing units shall be exempted from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures, provided that the Planning and Zoning Commission determines, at.a public hearing, that the following criteria are met. (1) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Please refer to the response provided for the same standard under the Rezoning portion of this memorandum, above. (2) The proposed development is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District. With regard to the proposed development's compatibility with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area, please refer to the response provided for standard "C." of the Rezoning portion of this memorandum, above. In general, please refer to the Rezoning portion of this memorandum. The "Purpose" of the LP Overlay Zone District is to "provide for and protect small lodge uses ... to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses, to provide uses accessory and normally associated with lodge and affordable housing development, to encourage development which is compatible with the Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 29 neighborhood ... and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on -site or onto adjacent properties." The proposed lodge expansion and affordable housing development is being sought specifically to protect the future of the Mountain Chalet and its small lodge use. The proposed development's compatibility with the neighborhood has been addressed above, and the proposal involves the upgrading of an existing lodge on - site. Therefore, the proposed development is fully compatible with the purpose of the LP Overlay Zone District. (3) Employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional employees generated by the development or to mitigate for the demolition of multi- family housing, as required by section 26.530. This shall include an analysis and credit for existing employee generation and the incremental impact between the existing development and the proposed development. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. No multi -family housing units will be demolished. The new lodge units will be operated as part of the Mountain Chalet, under the same management and using the existing facilities and employees. In accordance with the above standard, employee generation impacts are to be reviewed on the basis of incremental change. The Housing Office has used a generation factor of 0.4 employees per lodge room to evaluate the expected employee housing needs of lodge expansion proposals, and requiring that 60% of the employees generated be provided with deed restricted affordable housing. Such as in the evaluation of the Hotel Aspen expansion. With the 0.4 employees per room factor, the mitigation requirement was still established based on a need to house 60% of the employees theoretically generated. The proposed expansion will theoretically generate 6.4 new employees (16 x 0.4). With a requirement to provide housing for 60% of the employees generated, the development will need to house 3.84 employees (6.4 x 60%). The Applicant has proposed housing for much more than 60% the incremental increase in employment that will theoretically result from the proposed expansion, even using the higher standard of 0.4 employees generated per lodge room. That is, three studio employee housing units and two one -bedroom employee housing units are proposed as part of the redeveloped east wing. Given their location within the lodge and the proximity to customers, the deed restricted units will be rented to employees of the Mountain Chalet only. Also because of these considerations, the units will in no case be sold to employees for fear that the buyer could then resign from working for the lodge but still own an apartment therein. This is consistent with the recent approvals granted to the Hotel Aspen. All five of the new employee units will be deed restricted in accordance with the Housing Guidelines, providing credit for housing 1.75 employees per one -bedroom unit and 1.25 employees per studio unit. This means the applicant will be providing new housing for a Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 30 total of 7.25 employees ([1.75 x 2] + [1.25 x 3]). The provided housing equates to over 117% of the employees generated by the expansion, or approximately double the amount of housing required. Based on size, the Housing Guidelines would typically require that Employee Apartments 15 21 3, and 4 be deed restricted to the Category 1 or 2 level, while Employee Apartment 5 be deed restricted to the Category 3 or 4 level. Such limited restrictions would be too confining for the subject case. Instead, the category designation for each of these units needs to accommodate the salary levels of the Mountain Chalet lodge employees who need to be housed. Therefore, the Applicant requests that it have the ability to, from time to time, adjust the categories as necessary to accommodate the income levels of the employees to be housed. This, too, is consistent with the recent approvals granted to the Hotel Aspen. Regardless of the time -to -time category designations, rental of the units will comply with the APCHA minimum lease requirements. The Applicant also owns and maintains twelve units (with sixteen bedrooms) in the Kitzbuhel Lodge which is currently used to house many of his employees. These units are not deed restricted, nor are they being offered as a means of meeting any permanent housing requirements associated with the expansion proposed herein; however, these units will continue to be available to employees of the Mountain Chalet, including any generated by its expansion. Recognizing that the proposed employee housing units will be built in the second phase of the expansion, the applicant is prepared to mitigate the incremental employee generation attributable to phase one of the proposal by temporarily deed restricting a one - bedroom unit in the Kitzbuhel Lodge. Phase one involves the addition of eight new lodge units. The Applicant proposes, and APCHA agrees, that a one -bedroom unit at the Kitzbuhel Lodge be deed restricted in a manner consistent with the terms described above with the caveat that the deed restriction be permanently dissolved when a certificate of occupancy is issued for the on -site housing to be developed during phase two of the Mountain Chalet expansion. (4) Adequate parking spaces and public facilities exist, will be provided for the development, or that adequate mitigation measures will be provided. An existing deficit of required parking may be maintained through redevelopment. The Land Use Code requires 0.7 parking spaces per lodge bedroom unless otherwise established via PUD review. In the subject case, the number of required parking spaces for the proposed lodge and affordable housing uses need to be established pursuant to Section 26.445, as part of the PUD review. Parking for the existing lodge is located primarily below grade in a garage. Access to the sub -grade parking garage is gained via a ramp off South Mill Street. The vacated Dean Street right-of-way serves as access to the St. Regis Hotel and as a loading/unloading area Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 31 for the Mountain Chalet. There is also parking for four vehicles and two loading area spaces, all of which serve the Mountain Chalet and are located in a designated area off the vacated Dean Street right-of-way. Another loading area space for the Mountain Chalet is designated in front of the lodge, on Durant Avenue. Additional on -street parking is available to the public on Durant Avenue. In total, the lodge maintains thirty-seven off- street parking spaces and three loading spaces. Vehicular access to parking for the Mountain Chalet will continue to be gained via the parking garage entrance ramp off South Mill Street. The loading areas on vacated Dean Street and Durant Avenue will continue to exist in their current condition, as will the diagonal parking area on Dean Street. All sidewalks will remain in their current configurations, except the Durant Avenue sidewalk will be improved as part of the development's third phase in order to provide a level grade. As mentioned earlier, the Mountain Chalet's thirty-seven existing off-street parking spaces for its fifty-five lodge bedrooms, results in an off-street parking to lodge bedroom ratio of 0.67 spaces per lodge bedroom. This ratio decreases only slightly to 0.52 spaces per lodge bedroom with the proposed addition of sixteen new lodge units, and to 0.49 when the five employee housing units are included. The Applicant proposes no additional off-street parking. The Applicants believe the 0.49 spaces per bedroom (including employee housing) will prove to be more than adequate, particularly in consideration of the following. The subject site is conveniently located with respect to downtown, event forums (music concerts), and transit. To employ the same parking to bedroom ratio as would be used for hotels such as the St. Regis (with its restaurants, multiple bars, convention facilities, salons, etc.) or the Inn at Aspen (located at the base of Buttermilk) is difficult. Staff agrees that the need for off-street parking is largely alleviated by the Mountain Chalet's location, which is across the street from both the Rubey Park Transit Center and the commercial core. Free bus service is available on a regular basis to and from the airport, the three ski areas that are not within walking distance, the music tent, the Maroon Bells, and various other locations. There is no need for customers to have a vehicle at the Mountain Chalet, but for those who do rent or otherwise arrive in their cars, the thirty-seven existing spaces owned by the lodge, combined with the ability to issue residential parking permits for nearby spaces and the existence of hundreds of spaces on the surrounding streets, have and will continue to prove more than adequate. In addition, residential parking permits are available through the City for employees of the lodge as well. The proposed expansion is occurring almost completely in an upward direction. This is because the existing structure occupies almost all of the land area available on the property. As demonstrated above, the proposed expansion is in complete harmony with Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 32 the purpose of the Lodge Preservation zone district, and the main goal of the LP program was to enable and ensure the continued viability of Aspen's small lodges by providing the ability to expand. Surely, the ability to protect Aspen's small lodges was never intended to be directly limited by the ability to provide off-street parking. It should be stated that AACP seeks to limit the dependency of Aspen's residents and guests on the automobile and suggests that disincentives to the use of automobiles be implemented as a means of furthering this goal. (5) There exists sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the proposed development and the allotments are deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotment and Metro Area Development Ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.050. There are currently a total of twenty-nine LP tourist accommodation allotments are currently available. The proposed development requires only sixteen LP tourist accommodation allocations. Therefore, there are more than enough allotments available to accommodate the proposed development. Pursuant to Section 26.470.070(J) of the Regulations, the three proposed affordable housing units are exempt from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures. 2. Section 26.470.070(.0, Affordable Housing GMQS Exemption Section 26.470.070(J) of the Regulations provides that, "All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exempt [from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures]." Review is "by City Council. The section goes on to state that, The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this Section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. The City is certainly in need of affordable housing; not only to mitigate the proposed development, but to help meet the shortfall of affordable housing available throughout the community. The proposed development complies with the "Aspen/Pitkin County 1999 Affordable Housing Guidelines." Five employee dwelling units are proposed on the project site, as described in the foregoing. Each unit will be deed restricted on a case -by - case basis to match the income level of the lodge employee to be housed. For more elaboration of the proposed employee housing, please refer to the narrative provided in response to standard 3 of Section 26.470.070(M), above. Mountain Chalet Staff Report - Page 33 EXHIBIT D MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE Section 26.435.010(C) of the Code provides that development within designated mountain view planes is subject to heightened review so as to protect certain mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic character of the City, maintain property values, and enhance the City's tourist industry by maintaining the City's heritage as a mountain community. The view planes originating from the above mentioned locales are described to project in a manner which would require a surveyor to determine true applicability. The applicant has not hired a surveyor to make such a determination. Nevertheless, the Applicant has responded to the applicable code sections and concedes that mountain view plan review may apply pursuant to Section 26.435.050 of the Code; This section states that, "No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all of the requirements set forth below." 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided in Section 26.435.050(C)(2). [Note: no such. Section exists in the Code; presumably the citation is meant to refer to Section 26.435.050(B), Exemption.] When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the view -plane may be otherwise accommodated When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re -open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and redevelopment to re -open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve the development. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 34 It is not absolutely clear whether the proposed development will infringe upon the designated mountain view planes. This proposal seeks to use the PUD process to establish the maximum allowable height. The fifth floor portion of the addition occurs in only two small areas that are set back in the center of the structure; otherwise, the predominant form of the building will have a height closely approximating the existing height of the structure's west wing. The protected and designated view plane of the Wheeler Opera House will not be at all affected by the proposed expansions, nor will views from the commercial core to Aspen Mountain be compromised. Virtually, only the north St. Regis fagade will be obstructed. The proposed overall height of the Mountain Chalet will be similar to, but still lower than, that of the St. Regis. Furthermore, the heights proposed herein will be perceived as significantly lower than the height of the St. Regis and the hotel proposed for replacement of the Grand Aspen since both of these sites are located substantially higher up the hillside created by the base of Aspen Mountain. The proposed development is located immediately in front of another development (the St. Regis Hotel). The height of the St. Regis Hotel is such that its upper portions will still be visible from the points of origin associated with the view planes even after construction of the proposed Mountain Chalet expansion. Consequently, the proposed development will in no way further infringe upon the view planes than already done by the St. Regis Hotel and is therefore exempt. Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 35 Exhibit E RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2001) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE PROVISION OF 16 LODGE PRESERVATION ALLOTMENTS AND EXEMPTION FROM THE MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR REZONING TO L/TR WITH LP AND PUD OVERLAYS, MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LODGE PRESERVATION FOR THE MOUNTAIN CHALET LODGE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-45-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Mountain Chalet Enterprises (Applicant), represented by Mitch Haas, requesting land use approvals for the provision of 16 Lodge Preservation allotments, an exemption for the Wheeler Opera House View Plane, rezoning, minor planned unit development, and GMQS exemptions for affordable housing and Lodge Preservation for the Mountain Chalet lodge; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed land use requests for the Mountain Chalet lodge for the provision of 16 Lodge Preservation allotments, an exemption for the Wheeler Opera House View Plane, rezoning, minor planned unit development, and GMQS exemptions for affordable housing and Lodge Preservation; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval to City Council to approve the proposed five affordable housing units for the employees of the Mountain Chalet lodge; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 36 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a vote of to (_ — _), the provision of 16 Lodge Preservation allotments, an exemption for the Wheeler Opera House View Plane; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, by a vote of to L J, to City Council to approve a rezoning, minor planned unit development, and GMQS exemptions for affordable housing and Lodge Preservation; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2001, THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for the provision of 16 Lodge Preservation allotments, an exemption for the Wheeler Opera House View Plane, rezoning, minor planned unit development, and GMQS exemptions for affordable housing and Lodge Preservation is approved with the following conditions stated herein. 1. That the Applicant shall adequately mitigate for employee generation by providing deed restricted employee housing for 7.25 FTEs as per the recommendation from the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority; 2. That the Applicant shall submit to the Housing Office prior to the application of building permits reconfigured employee unit square footage which meets the minimum square footage requirements as stated in the Guidelines and agreed to by the Applicant; 3. That the five employee units shall be deed restricted at the Category 2 rental rate, but that since the units are included in the lodge itself, the employees income and assets be waived. Further, the Applicant shall be required to meet with the Housing Office Staff prior to the completion of Phase 1 to work on the lease period that is satisfactory for the Housing Office and for employees whose employee units are attached to the business; 4. That the Applicant complete and record the deed restriction for the units prior to the application of building permits, along with deed restriction for the unit being Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 37 used prior to completion of Phase 2, which is located in the Kitzbuhel Lodge. Housing Office Staff shall approve of the unit prior to the acceptance of this unit for deed restricted purposes. This unit shall be restricted at a Category 2 rate. The deed restriction on this specific unit will be released upon approval of the Certification of Occupancy for the five employee units provided for in this expansion; 5. That the Applicant provide deed restriction language which addresses the controlled rents due to the Telluride Case and such language shall meet with the approval of the City and Housing Offices' Attorneys; 6. That the Applicant will conduct a site visit with the housing office representatives of all the deed restricted units prior to the issuance of the Certification of Occupancy; 7. That the Applicant shall designate five specific parking spaces for the deed restricted affordable housing units; 8. That the Applicant shall implement traffic mitigation measures such as providing carpool/vanpool financial incentives to employees, free bus passes, vanpools, Bial- a -ride service, paying for additional RFTA buses and service, private bus service for employees, limiting parking, covered and secure bike storage, free bike fleets for residents. Whatever combination of measures the applicant chooses to mitigate PM-10 emissions and trips generated, is acceptable as long as it prevents additional traffic that would significantly impact air quality. The City Environmental Health Department has no preference for which trip reduction measures are used, and typically an applicant chooses measures that provide an ancillary benefit to the project; 9. That the Applicant submit to the Environmental Health department a fugitive dust control plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of disturbed areas, continual cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. This shall be required prior to the submittal for building permits; 10. That the Applicant shall complete (prior to any of the remodel work, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc.,) the Building Department's asbestos checklist, and if necessary, a person licensed by the state to do asbestos. inspections must conduct an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it; Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 38 11. That the Applicant agrees that if any food will be provided, the Environmental Health Department will need to determine whether the facilities are adequate for the expansion. If changes are planned for food preparation areas, a review of plans and specifications by this department is required by Section 10-401 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado. The Department should be consulted before preparation of plans and specifications. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District must be contacted for their recommendation on the proper size of the grease trap; 12. That the Applicant shall provide a foundation drainage system that is separate from site storm drainage system. Rain and snow melt runoff must be detained and routed on site. These facilities must be shown on drainage plans and submitted for approval prior to application for building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm drain; 13. That the Applicant shall designated and install all sidewalks, curbs, and gutters in accordance with the City of Aspen Design Standards which are available in the City Engineering Department; 14. That the Applicant shall install a sprinkler system and a fire alarm system throughout the entire Mountain Chalet lodge as required by the City of Aspen Fire Department; 15. That the Applicant investigate the opportunity to join the City's free Transportation Options Program (TOP). As a TOP member, the Mountain Chalet will receive updated road construction information, free emergency transportation for employees, RFTA marketing materials and other services that will help both employees and guests to use alternative transportation. For assistance, contact transportation staff at 920-5038; 16. That the Applicant shall be required to provide for accessibility for all the basement units. All of these units will be Type B, Ref Chapter 11 and the lounge area on the 5th floor shall also be assessable as required by the City of Aspen Building Department; 17. That the Applicant shall submit a site improvement survey dated withthin the last twelve months of building permit application to the City of Aspen Engineering Department that includes monuments (found and set), setback lines, easements, and such survey shall be intitled "improvement survey" in the title; 18. That the Applicant shall agree 1) that there will be no construction material stored on the public right of way. In addition, the Applicant shall submit a full set of construction management plans prior to building permit stage including: a noise, Mountain Chalet Staff Report -W Page 39 dust control, and construction traffic management plan which addresses the following issues: A. Signal traffic control devices; B. Press release — Radio — Local TV; C. Defining the construction debris hauling routes and impact on local streets; and D. Construction parking mitigation, except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to parked in the area around the site. The city encourages that personal be shuttled in from the airport parking area. 19. That the Applicant shall submit a full drainage and erosion plan to prevent mud getting tracked into the streets and that roof drainage is not to discharge onto the sidewalk or into drain chases through the sidewalk; 20. That the Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as required by the City of Aspen Water department; 21. That the Applicant agrees that there will be no clear water connections such as roof drains, foundation drains or storm water connections. All clear water connections are prohibited as required by the Aspen Consolidated Waste District; and 22. That the Applicant shall submit and record a "Final Plat" and PUD Agreement indicating all current and proposed improvements and conditions of approval for the entire Mountain Chalet lodge property. CP(`tlnn 2 All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Cpetinn i- This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. �ectinn 4-- If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 40 shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 19, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk HAM), Documents\Current Cases\PUD and LP Projects\Mountain Chalet PUD\Memos\Mountain Chalet Memo.doc Mountain Chalet Staff Report Page 41 114 � O � CIS _ O + o U Cz O > 0 �. V O `-' C'. C"rj O U cn P. �V. a 64 .C" o 0 Q., r a 'b N V V V O o 0 0 0 0 bA cd ha Q� N •-� N p4 � � o O� N i/ 4-� A A A A MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission _J THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner3'. RE: Aspen Alps Condominiums Consolidated Planned Unit Development, Rezoning, Subdivision Amendment, GMQS Exemption DATE: June 12, 2001 (Continued from June 121h to June 191h, 2001) PROJECT REQUEST SUMMARY: The Aspen Alps Condominium Association (Applicant), represented by Alan Richman, requests land use approvals in order to redevelop Lot 2B of the Aspen Alps Condominiums, currently developed as tennis courts, into a two -level sub -grade parking garage to be located under tennis courts which will include a maintenance and laundry facility, and 3 employee -housing units for the Aspen Alps. The Applicant wishes to rezone Lot 2B (which is the subject property for the proposed redevelopment) from R-15 PUD to Lodge / Tourist Residential PUD (L/TR PUD). Staff is proposing to rezone the remainder parcels of the Aspen Alps complex to L/TR including the 300, 400, and 700 buildings of the Aspen Alps, and surrounding lands owned by the Aspen Alps Condominium Association. These lands are currently zoned either R-15 or Conservation and are proposed to be rezoned Lodge / Tourist Residential PUD (L/TR PUD). Staff s goal is to consolidate the entire development into one PUD with appropriate zoning. In order to accomplish this project, the Applicant's land use requests include: 1) Rezoning from R-I5 PUD and Conservation to LITR PUD (Rezoning Lot 2B to LITR PUD would allow the 3 affordable housing units, defined as multi family units, to be constructed as a permitted use. In addition, and upon Staffs request, this rezoning will also include rezoning the rest of the Aspen Alps buildings to LITR PUD.) 2) Consolidated Planned Unit Development; (A Consolidated PUD is required because the underlying Zoning of Lot 2B maintains an existing PUD overlay.) Aspen Alps Planning & Zoning Commission Memorandum Page 1 3) Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption for Affordable Housing; (A GMQS Exemption is being sought for the three proposed deed restricted Affordable Housing units.) 4) Subdivision (A request for subdivision is sought for 1) the development of the three Affordable Housing units and 2) an amendment to the original subdivision approval of Ordinance 31, Series 1992.) S) Residential Design Standard Variances (Two variances are requested due to the existing site constrains.) APPLICATION PROCESS: The Applicant's requested land use approvals will require the following process outlined in the matrix below. STAFF COMMENTS: Understanding the recent history of the Aspen Alps Condominiums is important to this application. In 1992, the Applicant received subdivision approval via Ordinance 31, Series of 1992 from the City, effectively creating three lots: Lots 2, 2A, and 2B known as the Moses Subdivision. Although, there is a recommendation from the Community Development Department to rezone all of the Aspen Alps, Lot 2B is the sole subject of this application regarding development. Ordinance 31 spelled out specific burdens for Lot 2B which are one of the key issues surrounding this application. Specifically, Ordinance 31 placed certain conditions on the future development of Lot 2B that, although entered into voluntarily by the Applicant, stated: 1) The floor area, bedroom and density attributed to Lots 2A and 2B shall not be utilized by the Aspen Alps Condominium Unit Owners for purposes of increasing the floor area, bedroom number or density of existing or future Aspen Alps Condominium Units; Aspen Alps Planning & Zoning Commission Memorandum Page 2 2) No further development or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms and additional density or major new recreational facilities such as tennis courts and swimming pools shall occur on said Lots 2A and 2B. The Applicant is aware their proposal to add three (3) deed restricted affordable housing units is in direct conflict with Ordinance 31; that is to say, it will add approximately 6,500 sq. ft. of floor area and bedrooms to Lot 2B. As a result of this conflict, the Applicant is requesting City Council replace Ordinance 31 with a new Ordinance to allow this development to take place. Further, the Applicant would like to establish the maximum allowable floor area ratio to be 0.20:1 for Lot 2B to accommodate the above grade sections of the development which includes the three (3) deed restricted affordable housing units. The Applicant has indicated that no free market units are to be built on Lot 2B at this time or any time in the future. The Applicant proposes the garage, maintenance facility, and laundry facilities as accessory uses to the Aspen Alps. The Aspen land Use Code treats accessory uses (pursuant to Section 26.575.140) as the following: An accessory use shall not be construed to authorize a use not otherwise permitted in the zone district in which the principal use or structure to which it is accessory. An accessory use or structure may not be established prior to the establishment of the principal use or structure to which it is accessory. Accessory buildings or structures shall not be provided with kitchen or bath facilities sufficient to render them suitable for permanent residential occupation. In accordance with this definition of an "Accessory Use", Staff maintains that the garage, maintenance facility, and laundry facilities are accessory to the principal use. Even though the proposed uses as described above could be considered accessory uses to the Aspen Alps in the R-15 / PUD zone district, the request to provide three (3) affordable housing units is not allowed in the R-15 zone district. Specifically, the Land Use Code states development of three or more attached dwelling units (that have kitchen and bath facilities) is considered multi -family housing, which is not permitted in the R-15 zone district. In order to accommodate the employee housing component of this project, the applicant proposes to rezone Lot 2B from R-15 PUD to the Lodge / Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district with a PUD overlay where multi -family dwellings are allowed as a permitted use. Rezoning from R-15 PUD to L/TR PUD The Aspen Alps Condominiums are situated at the base of Aspen Mountain and contain three different zone districts: Conservation (C), Lodge / Tourist Residential (L/TR), and R-15 (PUD). In earlier discussions with the Applicant and Community Development, Staff suggested the Applicant rezone the entire Aspen Alps to L/ TR (PUD) and not just rezone Lot 2B even though this proposed development will take place entirely on Lot 2B. Aspen Alps Planning & Zoning Commission Memorandum Page 3 This would, in effect, clean-up this area's current zoning fragmentation without substantial changes to already existing development rights. Even though the Applicant has applied to only rezone Lot 2B to L/ TR (PUD), Staff feels that rezoning the entire property is in the best interests of the City. This rezoning of the property to L/ TR (PUD) is intended to place a clean and logical zoning classification on the Aspen Alps Condominium. In addition, the Applicant's request for the PUD is not for the ability to change or expand any of the dimensional requirements of the L/TR zone district; rather, it is to ensure that any subsequent change to any part of the entire Aspen Alps property will require a PUD Amendment review process which includes public review if there are significant changes in the future. In effect this rezoning will achieve a land use and zoning designation that is very compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Further, the PUD overlay would establish a site -specific set of dimensional requirements that would serve as a safeguard to any future changes to the property, in that, any future requests would require City review in a PUD Amendment process. The area proposed for rezoning, has had an interesting history. Today, a majority of the uses preceded their current zoning classifications. As a result of this apparent downzoning philosophy that occurred in the mid 1970s, uses became non- conforming. The Aspen Alps is located in an area with a variety of residential and tourist accommodation uses. Additionally, when the City adopted the 8040 Greenline provision in the Land Use Code, the line that was actually drawn on the Official Land Use Map actually split zoned certain properties and everything above the 8040 Greenline was zoned Conservation, again creating nonconforming structures and uses. Today's Land Use Code seeks to bring non -conforming uses and structures into compliance. The rezoning component of this application seeks to do just that. It intends to bring the existing nonconforming uses and structures into compliance with the Land Use Code by rezoning the current uses at the Aspen Alps, defined as lodge and tourist - oriented residential uses located at the base of Aspen Mountain, to a more logical zone district for both the use and the location. Staff believes the most appropriate zone district Aspen Alps Planning & Zoning Commission Memorandum Page 4 to achieve this end to be Lodge / Tourist Residential or L/TR zone district with a Planned Unit Development or PUD overlay. Currently, over half of the Aspen Alps Condominiums property is already zoned L/TR, the remaining portions are zoned either Conservation or Moderate -Density Residential R-15 PUD. Presently, the neighborhood includes a mix of single-family and duplex residences and larger multi -family complexes that are occupied by visitors and permanent residents. The larger multi -family complexes include the Gant Condominiums (which operates as a condominium hotel), and the Clarendon Condominiums, which are located across Ute Avenue from the Aspen Alps. In addition, the Black Swan Hall Condominiums are located west of the Aspen Alps. The surrounding land uses also contain a number of affordable housing projects which include 1) Billings Place, a seven unit affordable housing project built in the mid 1990s and 2) Ute Park, a seven unit affordable housing project constructed about the same time as the Billings project. Given this presence of affordable housing projects in the immediate area, Staff finds that the addition of three affordable housing units located at the Aspen Alps property to be consistent with other affordable housing units in the surrounding area without creating a concentration of affordable housing in one area. There are four main zone districts covering the subject property and the immediate surrounding area. Specifically, these include Lodge / Tourist Residential, Medium - Density Residential, Moderate -Density Residential, and Conservation. Both the R-6 and R-15 maintain PUD (Planned Unit Development) Overlays. As stated earlier in this Memorandum, over half of the Aspen Alps (buildings 100, 200, 500, 800, and 777 Ute) is zoned L/TR. It should be noted, that this variety of zone districts is not consistent with the current uses to a large degree. For example, the Aspen Alps buildings 300 and 400 (which are multi- family dwellings) are zoned R-15 PUD which makes them non -conforming because multi -family dwellings are not allowed in the R-15 Zone District. Further, the Clarendon Condominiums and the Black Swan Hall Condominiums (which are multi -family dwellings) are zoned R-6 which also makes them non -conforming because multi -family dwellings are not allowed in the R-6 Zone District. The purpose of the L/TR zone district is: to encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist -oriented detached, duplex and multi family residential dwellings. Indeed, the Aspen Alps is the use that fits this purpose as well as the other multi -family residential dwellings that are tourist -oriented such as the Clarendon, the Black Swan, and the Gant. In addition, building 700 of the Aspen Alps is zoned Conservation which is Aspen Alps Planning & Zoning Commission Memorandum Page 5 clearly inconsistent with the current use as a result of the 8040 Greenline. The Ute Trail Townhomes, located on Ute Avenue, are properly zoned as R/MF (PUD). Given this fractured zoning for the Aspen Alps, Staff has recommended through several discussions over the course of several years that the Applicant rezone those portions of the Aspen Alps to bring them into conformance with our Land Use Code; that is to say, the Applicant should not just rezone Lot 213, but should also rezone buildings 300, 400, and 700, thereby bringing them into compliance in the L/TR zone district. To be clear, the Applicant, is primarily interested in rezoning Lot 2B for the purposes of achieving 3 affordable housing units. Staff is proposing the rezoning of the entire property and the Applicant is in agreement with this. Therefore, Staff has prepared two Resolutions for the Planning and Zoning Commission. The first Resolution, if approved, will effectively rezone only Lot 2B. The second Resolution, if approved, will effectively . rezone the entire property including Lot 2B. Affordable Housing Units By the nature of the Applicant's request to develop three deed -restricted affordable housing units in the sub -grade garage, this constitutes a multi -family project. The City's definition of a multi -family project which (three or more attached units) is considered a subdivision. In addition, the nature of this request will, in effect, modify the original subdivision established through Ordinance 31, Series 1992. In order to be able to construct these units in this project, the applicant is requesting an Exemption from the City's Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). They are eligible for this exemption because these units would be permanently dedicated as 100% affordable housing. The Aspen Alps has requested the ability to provide these (rental) units to meet their staffing needs by providing on -site employee housing units in order to attract more permanent employees. Therefore, these units are to be specifically provided for Aspen Alps employees only and not for the general public. However, as a result of the Telluride case, it has become somewhat of a challenge to enforce rental caps for private developments so that the City can ensure these units remain as affordable units for the Aspen Alps employees. This would not be the case if these units were "for sale" units. If the units are "for -sale" units, then they would become affordable category units available through the lottery (available to the general public) and then they could be controlled at category prices. In light of all this, there are appropriate mechanisms through which the City will still be able to ensure these rental units will maintain their affordable housing status through appropriate language determined by the City of Aspen Attorney. In the past, other similar situations have provided the City of Aspen with a 1 / 10`h of 1 % interest in the units so that the affordable housing status is ensured. Aspen Alps Planning & Zoning Commission Memorandum Page 6 Housing Authority Recommendation The Applicant presented the application to the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority on May 2, 2001. The Housing Authority unanimously recommended approval of the project (6 to 0) to the City Council. Points of discussion raised at the meeting included 1) waiving the Income and Assets requirement regarding the appropriate rental categories because these units are specifically designated for Aspen Alps employees; 2) exploring alternative ways to ensure the rentals units' rent can be controlled other than the current method of selling the City of Aspen a one tenth of one percent (0.1 %) interest in real property so that the City would have the authority to ensure rental caps on the units. (The board agreed that the attorneys for the City, Applicant, and Housing Authority should meet to explore other equally effective mechanisms to achieve the same end) and 3) the board highly applauded the Applicant for offering to provide non - mitigation employee units as part of a development and the potential ability of creating a "vesting plan" by the Aspen Alps employees so that a portion of their rent goes into an account towards the eventual purchase of their own unit. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Since a portion of the proposed development is a residential component, the Applicant is required to comply with the Residential Design Standards. Staff finds that the proposed development is unique in nature, in that, it is not primarily a residential structure; rather, the structure contains residential units. This is not a common occurrence and as a result, the Applicant's design is not able to meet all of the standards. Specific standards that require variances include: 1. Secondary Mass: All new structures shall locate at least 10%of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Staff finds that almost the entire structure will be located below grade. In effect, there will be no primary mass above grade. The intent of this standard is to break up the massing on a certain site into a primary and secondary mass. In effect, neither will exist in this case due to the current and unique topography of the site. Staff supports the variance due to site constraints and that this proposal better meets the intent of the standard. 2. Covered Entry: A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet (6), shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story in height. Staff finds that the proposed location of the three employee units fronting Ute Avenue have been designed without a covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet. This is a north eleN,ation unable to take advantage of the solar access from the south. Staff does not feel that a covered porch is necessary in this case given the provision of employee Aspen Alps Planning & Zoning Commission Memorandum Page 7 units and their somewhat limited access to natural light and air. Staff supports the variance in that it furthers the goal of the AACP in providing better and more livable affordable housing units. 3. One-story Element: All residential buildings shall have a one-story street -facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width. Staff finds the structure has not been designed to include a one-story element because the entire structure will be located below grade. In effect there will be no primary mass above grade. The intent of this standard is to break up the viewable plane of certain facades, which add to massing of buildings. In effect, these units are single story units and are buried into a hillside due to the current and unique topography of the site. Staff supports the variance due to site constraints and that this proposal better meets the intent of the standard. SUMMARY In summary, Staff supports this proposal for the following reasons: 1) The proposal is consistent with the AACP, in that, the AACP encourages the private sector to provide housing opportunities for its employees working in the City of Aspen in an infill type of development. In addition, given the housing units' close proximity to Aspen's downtown, it provides an incentive for those employees to walk to shopping and so on, leaving their cars in the garage which is also strongly supported by the AACP; 2) The proposal of the sub -grade storage garage intends to remedy a parking problem for the Alps, significantly reducing a non -conforming situation with the Land Use Code by simply providing more parking for owners and visitors as well as reducing existing trips on Ute Avenue due to the relocation of the laundry and maintenance facilities into the garage. This is all done by burying the structure almost entirely underground, taking advantage of the existing topography of the site so that the structure will not visually impact views or change the character of the surrounding neighborhood to any significant degree. 3) Staff finds the rezoning of Lot 2B to be appropriate. In, addition Staff further promotes the rezoning for the Aspen Alps property that is more consistent and logical with the lodge's location at the immediate base of Aspen Mountain and current and historic tourist -oriented use. In addition, the PUD overlay will serve to consolidate the development as a master plan for the property and serve as a safeguard for any future development, in that, it would require public involvement for any change. The Applicant would also be subject to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) for any proposed free market residential growth. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested variances from the Residential Design Standards and recommend approval to City Council for this request for a planned unit development, rezoning, subdivision Aspen Alps Planning & Zoning Commission Memorandum Page 8 "Mr T County of Pitkin } } State of Colorado } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 26.304.060(E) I �, 1. A `��� �n .h�, , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 1-15 day of N.-:A , 200 \ (which is 70 days prior to the public hearing date of \'Y`p" 1-5 ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 1-1 day of \ , 200 t , to the '\� day of , 200 \ (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. e Signature �1n. Signed before me this 0�ay of 200 1 . by (� \ 1L.VVV4rVN WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: ►1—ate► - �- o o� Notary Public �(�o,,,-,•.,,� ��� Nancy Ramaley / Notary Public 0031 Eagles Nest Court Carbondale, CO 81623 My Commission expires 11-24-2001 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUMS CONSOLIDATED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, REZONING, SUBDIVISION REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, at the Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado in the City Council Chambers Room, to consider an application submitted by Alan Richman Planning Services on behalf of the Aspen Alps Condominiums for a consolidated planned unit development, rezoning, and subdivision review. The proposal includes the construction of 3 employee -housing units and a two level subgrade parking garage. The property on which the construction is proposed to occur is described as Lot 2B of the Moses Lot Split, City of Aspen. The lands highlighted on the map below, which include Lot 2B, the 300, 400, and 700 buildings of the Aspen Alps, and surrounding lands owned by the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, which are currently zoned either R-15 or Conservation are proposed to be rezoned Lodge / Tourist Residential PUD (L/TR PUD). For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102. s/Bob Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 24", 2001 City of Aspen Account 700 400 300 Lot 2B Area to be rezoned L/TR 1 Am -me LIST OF OWNERS WITHIN 300' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 679534 ONTARIO LTD 774302 ONTARIO LTD AGER RONALD & ELEANOR S C/O CHARLES C GOLD C/O CHARLES GOLD 2800 ISLAND BLVD #2305 130 ADELAIDE ST WEST #3302 130 ADELAIDE ST WEST #3302 MIAMI, FL 33160 T INTO ONTARIO CANADA, M5H3P5 TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA, M5H3P5 ALPS PARTNERS ANDERSON JUNE H APPELQUIST THOMAS & MARION C/O PETER G MCGUIRE C/O YORK NEEL & CO 400 LIVINGSTON ST 5910 N CENTRAL EXP #1780 P 0 BOX 1824 NEW HAVEN, CT 06511 DALLAS, TX 75206 OWENSBORO, KY 42302-1824 ARNETT DAVID & BETTE ARNOLD ISAAC JR ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM 5333 N CAMINO REAL ATTN ROYANN BECKHAM ASSOCIATION TUCSON, AZ 85718 601 JEFFERSON #4000 700 LITE AVE HOUSTON, TX 77002 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASPEN ALPS HOMEOWNERS ASPEN SHADOW LLC ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION 676 N MICHIGAN AVE STE 3660 PO BOX 1128 700 UT AVE CHICAGO, IL 60611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY AUHLL RICHARD A BAECHLE JAMES PO BOX 1248 ASPEN ALPS CONDO #710 HORSESHOE RD ASPEN, CO 81612 700 UTE AVE MILL NECK, NY 11765 ASPEN, CO 81611 6,... ,-ON DOMINGO & YVONNE BAKAR GERSON 1984 TRUST BASLO A CO PARTNERSHIP 612 W 18TH ST 201 FILBERT ST C/O TERTIARY INC PUEBLO, CO 81001 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133 600 E RIVER PARK LN STE 205 BOISE, ID 83706 BASORE ANN W 19.2% INT BECK CYNTHIA BECNEL DANIEL JR & MARY H 210 TOWN CENTER SE P 0 BOX 1569 PO DRAWER H BELLA VISTA, AK 72714 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 RESERVE, LA 70084 BEEM CORPORATION BILLINGS PRENTICE BOYD BLACK JANE K 3528 OAKTON DR 20 ASPEN MOUNTAIN RD 2323 BRYAN LB 145 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75201 BLOCK JOEL A BOTT ALLEN D BOWERS ANN S TRUST 647 W BARRY AVE 726 CRAGMONT AVE 237 COLERIDGE AVE CHICAGO, IL 60657-4504 BERKELEY, CA 94708 PALO ALTO, CA 94301-3522 EY EDWARD W & JANIE G BRITTEL STEPHEN H 50% BURNS DARYL R HUGHES 4125 BRAJANZA ST 7169 SO POPLAR LN AMARILLO, TX 79109 COCONUT GROVE, FL ENGLEWOOD, CO 80112 CABANISS WILLIAM J CALLANS J MICHAEL REVOCABLE CARMAN PETER CHIEF INVESTMENT 3812 FOREST GLEN DR TRUST OFFICER BIRMINGHAM, AL 35213 1800 BEN FRANKLIN DR C/O CITIBANK GLOBAL ASSET MGMT SARASOTA, FL 34236 100 FIRST STAMFORD PL 7TH FL STAMFORD, CT 06902 CARRUTHERS LUCY MARSTON TRUST CHANDLER CLARISSA HAFFNER CHAPIN ANZLE FAMILY TRUST 2220 E CAMINO MIRAVAL 902 NORTH GREEN BAY RD 1887 STILLWATER ST TUCSON, AZ 85718 LAKE FOREST, IL 60045 WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110 CHASE MICHAEL CHMELIR FRANK J & SANDRA L CHOZEN MERRILL A &JILL E 1981 450 NEWPORT CENTER DR STE 304 201 39TH ST TRUST 3/91 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 DOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515 1230 SACRAMENTO ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 CITY OF ASPEN CAAMAN HENRY N & JANET S 1/2 INT CLARK RICHARD C B & ALEXANDRA M 130 S GALENA ST 518 RIVER VIEW DR PO BOX 899 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503 OSTERVILLE, MA 02655 COLORADO CONDO TRUST COONEY THOMAS E COX JONATHAN C S 6296 WILLOWGATE PO BOX 4517 C/O COX BUCHANAN & PADMORE DALLAS, TX 75230 ASPEN, CO 81612 396 SELBY LN ATHERTON, CA 94027 c,. 4VFORD JOAN CRUM THOMAS F & CATHRYN R DAHRLING BRUCE E II 12921 BRUSHWOOD TERRACE 991 UTE AVE 3280 HOWELL MILL RD NW STE 319 POTOMAC, MD 20854 ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30327 DAVIS FAMILY TRUST DE PALMA JOHN R DEFRANCIA JAMES M 58% & CYNTHIA J PO BOX 1909 ATTN MARIA 42% RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 1560 E CHEVY CHASE DR #435 17 UTE PLACE GLENDALE, CA 91206 ASPEN, CO 81611 DEHNERT G PAUL & VICKY DENNIS K L DESTIN CO 3110 MAYWOOD AVE 1913 E 17TH ST #118 C/O JOHN DICARLO AUSTIN, TX 78703-1133 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 PO BOX 87 LONG BEACH, CA 90801 DEUTSCH COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP DEVORE KARINJO & NICHOLAS III DILLARD WILLIAM T II & DILLARD MARY 2444 WILSHIRE BLVD STE #600 PO BOX 03 A SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 ASPEN, CO 81612 DILLARD DEPT STORES INC C/O PO BOX 486 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203-0486 G TASHA S DOLL ROBERT H & ANN N DRAKE L RODMAN 104/1000 INT i . i'E AVE #502 3321 CREEKVIEW DR 485 PARK AVE #5A ASPEN, CO 81611 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 NEW YORK, NY 10022 EBRAHIMI SHAINE S EMERSON JANE C EPSTEIN JEROME P & DEBORAH R PO BOX 8590 129 TUNXIS VILLAGE_ 1900 RITTENHOUSE SQ #8A ASPEN, CO 81612 FARMINGTON, CT 06032 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 FAYEZ ZU HAIR H 777 29TH ST STE 202 BOULDER, CO 80303 FITZPATRICK JOHN T 65 E 76TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10021 FRANKLIN ROBERT A 3505 WILDWOOD CIR COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133 FRY LLOYD EDWARD 1335 STRATFORD DR PIQUA, OH 45356 L._ .-AND HERBERT M 6310 SAN VICENTE BLVD STE 560 LOS ANGELES, CA 90048-5421 GRAHAM NELL C 6081 W CRAWFORD ST DENISON, TX 75020 GROUP 102 LLC 6400 RIVERSIDE DR BLDG B DUBLIN, OH 43017 HALGLENN CORPORATION 1428 BRICKELL AVE MIAMI, FL 33131 FIDELITAS HOLDING CO LTD 30 CARTIER ST OTTAWA ONTARIO CANADA, FIGI J TODD & ERIC C/O SARA FINKLE K2P 2E7 117 AABC STE 311 ASPEN, CO 81611 FORD SIMON JOHN HUBIRD & JULIE DERKS 700 LYNCOTT NORTH MUSKEGON, MI 49445 FRAUTSCHI STEVEN & MIE 1561 CREST DR ALTADENA, CA 91001 FRYKLUND ROBERT 2917 DUKE ST HOUSTON, TX 77005 GESSNER RICHARD W & SUSAN R 1705 11TH ST NE MASSILLON, OH 44646 GRANT WALTER W 841 N MILFORD RD DOWNINGTOWN, PA FOSSIER MIKE W 7 WAINWRIGHT RD #88 WINCHESTER, MA 01890 FRIEDMAN RICHARD L C/O CARPENTER & CO 20 UNIVERSITY RD CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 GALLEGOS J E & FELICE G 460 ST MICHAELS DR BLDG 300 SANTE FE, NM 87505 GLADSTONE FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP 720 N FRANKLIN STE 300 CHICAGO, IL 60610 GRIEF IRVIN JR & NANETTE 36 S CHARLES ST 19335 2300 CHARLES CENTER S BALTIMORE, MD 21201 GRUDER ROBERT & ILENE 508 NORTH PKWAY GOLDEN BEACH, FL 33160 HARRIS NANCY M 386 S MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVD ST PAUL, MN 55105 HAHN TRUST 2120 S 72ND ST STE 800 OMAHA, NE 68124 HARRISON TRAVIS J & JOAN G PO BOX 19024 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119 F AN BARTON HARTMAN DOYLE & MARGARET HARVEY BRIAN L 2L c 24TH COURT PO BOX 10426 PO BOX 240011 FT LUDERDALE, FL 33305 MIDLAND, TX 79702 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 HARVEY CONSTANCE HAUGER MICHAEL A & JUDY L HAWTHORNE PROPERTIES LTD 421 D AABC 1618 CAMINO DE LA SIERRA NE C/O GANT ASPEN, CO 81611-3548 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87112 610 S WEST END STASPEN, CO 81611 HEMPHILL CALVIN R REVOCABLE TRUST 1605-B PACIFIC RIM CT PMB 070-166/439015 SAN DIEGO, CA 92143-9015 HERBST CLARENCE A JR C/O RESINOID ENGINEERING CORP 7557 N ST LOUIS AVE SKOKIE, IL 60076 HISER BRUCE QPR TRUST 117 MANOR CIR BLOOMINTON, IL 61704-7601 HODGE RON PO BOX 1496 ASPEN, CO 81612 r, G DANIEL A & DIANE C 13094 REDON DR PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410 HYDE JUDY KENDALL 55 N CHERRY RD MEMPHIS, TN 38117 ISAAC JENNIFER F TRUSTEE 13461 APPLE RD WILTON, CA 95693 JANNA INC 500 PATTERSON RD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 HENDERSON WAYNE F & BEA B 39 CANTERBURY RD MADISON, NJ 07940 HIGH MEADOWS LAND COMPANY 106 MC LAUGHLIN LEXINGTON, VA 24450 HO MARINA M Y 4607 KOLONALA ST HONOLULU, HI 96816 HOLM WILLIAM J & DOROTHY B THE HAMLET 571 PINE LAKE DR DELRAY BEACH, FL 33445 HUCKE TIMOTHY L 1225 W 7TH AVE VILLA 1 VANCOUVER B C CANADA, V61-1 1 B7 HYDE MARY ANN REVOCABLE TRUST HYDE MARY ANN TRUSTEE PO BOX 1557 ASPEN, CO 81612 JACK EVELYN ALBERTA 10 WESTGATE WALK KITCHENER ONTARIO CANAD, N2M 2T8 JOHNSON NANCY D & JAMES B 3/4 INT 11175 NW SALTZMAN RD PORTLAND, OR 97229 HENRY CHARLES V III AND JEAN D 937 WILLOW STREET LEBANON, PA 17042 HIRSCH LEON C & TURI L H ONE GORHAM ISLAND WESTPORT, CT 06880 HOCKER DAVID E & MARY J 1901 FREDERICA ST OWENSBORO, KY 42301-4818 HOLMAN CARL R & CHERYL A 3 LORENZO LN ST LOUIS, MO 63124 HURT FAMILY LIMTED PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL GROUP INC 50TH FL 333 S HOPE ST LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 HYMAN DIANA 8 WINTHROP DR DIX HILLS, NY 11746 JACOBS HARLAN & DEBRA FAMILY TRUST 8040 N LA JOLLA SCENIC DR LA JOLLA, CA 92037 JONES WARREN D & KATHLEEN K 2105 LEE SHORE PL WILMINGTON, NC 28405-5273 ENTERPRISES INC KAPLAN JEROME A KAUFER LUIS & SYLVIA TRUST "LARK ST #3140 6001 MONTROSE RD STE 403 610 WEST END AVE APT # D-101 THE GANT CONDOMINIUMS CHICAGO, IL 60603 ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 ASPEN, CO 81611 KAY DONALD M KEATING MICHAEL KEENAN MICHAEL 2127 BROADWAY #1 60 ASPEN MOUNTAIN ROAD 1135 BELLVIEW AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 90410 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCLEAN, VA 22102 KELLER KURT E PO BOX 840 ASPEN, CO 81612 KNAUS ANDREW & FLORENCE M 2775 KIPPS COLONY DRIVE S - APT 101 GULFPORT, FL 33707-3939 LANDELS JOHN A PO BOX 300 SPIT JUNCTION NSW 2088 A, LEBOVITS & MOSES 10318 GLENBARR AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 L. _RANT FAMILY TRUST 5945 RUTGERS RD LA JOLLA, CA 92037 LINEBERGER WILLIAM CARL 145 GREEN ROCK DR BOULDER, CO 80302 LOWE DEVELOP CORP 610 S WEST END ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MARSLAND SUSAN L TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT 1310 N RITCHIE CT CHICAGO, IL 60610 KENNER JEFFREY L 720 PARK AVE #6-B NEW YORK, NY 10021 KOLMER DONALD E REVOCABLE TRUST 5 B EISENHOWER CIR JACKSONVILLE, IL 62650-1737 LARSON DAYL A & KAY W FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 2153 S BEELER WAY DENVER, CO 80231 LEE MARIANNE S LTD PARTNERSHIP 251 SHEFFIELD LN GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137 LEWIN DON C 7101 DIXIE HWY FLORENCE, KY 41042 LITTLE NELL HOTEL ASPEN SKIING CO 675 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 MADDALONE CHARLES MARITAL TRUST PO BOX 635 ASPEN, CO 81612 MARTIN MARIANNE 1/3 INT 1920 DIPLOMAT VW APT 1511 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 KLEIN MICHAEL S PO BOX 626 CORTE MADERA, CA 94976 LAMBERTI PAULA PO BOX 8685 ASPEN, CO 81612 LATTERMAN EARL M & MARILYN S 1230 SQUIRREL HILL AVE PITTSBURGH, PA 15217 LETTS W JACKSON & JOYCE H 2700 W 63RD ST MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 LIBERMAN KEITH & KATHLEEN FAMILY TRUST 9554 HIDDEN VALLEY RD BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 LODESTAR WEST LLC 175 BELLEVUE DR BOULDER, CO 80302 MADIGAN PETER C/O HEALTHCO CARE CORP 20301 ACACIA ST #150 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MARZIO FRANCES & PETER C 101 WESTCOTT #1702 HOUSTON, TX 77007 P ER RICHARD & MARIANNE MCCLUSKEY DARLENE M MCCORMICK ROGER 66% INT 5, ACQUELINE TWO COVENTRY CT PO BOX 21532 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70124 PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66208 OWENSBORO, KY 42304-1532 MCGOVERN PHILIP C & MARY ANN MCINTOSH HENRY P IV & SUSAN RIGGS MEHL HARRIET 30 OLD PLANTERS RD 124 VIA BETHESDA . 350 W 57TH ST BED/ERLY, MA 01915 PALM BEACH, FL 33480 NEW YORK, NY 10019 MERRILLS DAPHNE THEE WING TYNINGHAME HOUSE DUNBAR E LOTHIAN SCOTLAND EH42 1XW, MEYER HOWARD W 2660 MIDDLEBURY LANE BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 MITCHELL GEORGE P & CYNTHIA W C/O ALAN P VITALE 2002 TIMBERLOCH PL STE 260 THE WOODLANDS, TX 77380 MOSES ASPEN VIEW HOMESITE INC HIRSCH LEON - C/O ONE GORHAM ISLAND BOX 9 WESTPORT, CT 06880 WELL KEVIN & MARYANN TRUSTEES 700 UTE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 OROVITZ JAMES & NANCY B 13635 DEERING BAY DR #224 CORAL GABLES, FL 33158-2812 METCO REALTY LTD TEXAN BUILDING 333 W LOOP N STE 410 HOUSTON, TX 77024 MEYER WILLIAM J & SUSAN A 3104 N SHEFIELD CHICAGO, IL 60657 MOEN DONNE P & ELIZABETH A 8 CABALLEROS RD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 MOSES GAARD HOPKINS 1/2 INT PATTON MARY LYNN 1/2 INT PO BOX 21 ASPEN, CO 81612 MEYER CHARLES T III GRANTOR RET AN TRUST 8804 LAPALMA LN NAPLES, FL 34108 MILLER ROBERT & ELEANOR S 3551 CRYSTAL VIEW CT MIAMI, FL 33133 MORRIS TRUST 906 FRANKLIN RIVER FOREST, IL 60305 NADLER STEVE 1/2 INT 7195 S POLO RIDGE DR LITTLETON, CO 80128-2537 OHERRON EDWARD M JR QUAL PERS ORNITZ MARTIN N & BEATRICE C RES TRUST ONE NORTH BREAKERS ROW OHERRON EDWARD M JR AS TRUSTEE PALM BEACH, FL 33480 6827-C FAIRVIEW RD CHARLOTTE, NC 28210 OSUNA GUILLERMO & DORIS OTTO GERDEAU CO P 0 BOX 1093 82 WALL ST DEL RIO, TX 78841-1093 NEW YORK, NY 10005 OWEN BILLYE HOWELL PAGEAL VENTURES LTD PANTER BARRY M TRUST 4544 BELFORT LEVIN PAUL C 14205 VALLEY VISTA BLVD DALLAS, TX 75205 4292 VILLAGE CENTRE CT SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91423-4025 MISSISSAUGA ONTARIO CAN, L42 1 S2 PARELMAN ALLEN G REVOCABLE TRUST 402 W 50TH ST KANSAS CITY, MO 64112-2310 PARIS JAIME 1 700 S UTE AVE #205 ASPEN, CO 81611 PARK TRUST LTD PO BOX 940 ASPEN, CO 81612 f R WILLIAM A JR PAUL JAMES PEARLMAN DANIEL L 1. .ARRAUX WOODS RD NW C/O QUALITY COMPUTER SUPPLIES 2714 FORRESTER DR ATLANTA, GA 30327 55-525 CHERRY HILLS LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 LA Q U I NTA, CA 92253 PECKHAM THOMAS C PETERSON JACQUELINE PHELPS MARGARET T PO BOX 9766 640 LAKESIDE DR 389 CALIFORNIA TERR ASPEN, CO 81612 HINSDALE, IL 60521-5111 PASADENA, CA 91105 PHILLIPS STEPHEN & BARBARA 900 FIFTH AVE NEW YORK, NY 10021 POLK JOHN V & PEGGY J 586 CAMINO MONTEBELLO SANTE FE, NM 87501 PRATER BILL GEORGE & MARIE C IRV TRUST 1257 POST OAK CT SPRINGFIELD, MO 65809 RATERMANN BOB INC 543 TERRY LN CRESCENT SPRINGS, KY 41017 ER VALERIE ARDEN 6214 N 34TH ST PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 PINSKY STEPHEN & ALENE 382 DELEGATE DR WORTHINGTON, OH 43235 POPE KRISTEN L 159 COVE DR DESTIN, FL 32541 PUGH JAMES H JR 359 CAROLINA AVE WINTER PARK, FL 32789 REICH MELVIN L TRUST 75% INT 4609 SEASHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 RIDDELL JOHN F JR & BARBARA B 1111 FANNIN STREET - STE 1555 HOUSTON, TX 77002-6923 ROCK ARTHUR 2000 TRUST ROIN MAUREEN M C/O ARTHUR ROCK & CO ATT: ARTHUR 1225 WESTMOOR RD ROCK WINNETKA, IL 60093 ONE MARITIME PLAZA STE 1220 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 ROSE FAMILY TRUST 240 S BRISTOL AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 RULY HOLDINGS PTY LTD PO BOX 739 BROADWAY NEW SOUTH WALES AUSTRALIA, 2007 ROSENBERG HENRY A & DOROTHY C/O CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORP BLAUSTEIN BLDG 22ND FL ONE N CHARLES BALTIMORE, MD 21201 SALOMON CHESTER B 975 PARK AVE NEW YORK, NY 10028 PITKIN COUNTY 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 ASPEN, CO 81611 PORTER ROBERT A & CHARLYNN MAXWELL 611 PARKWAY STE F-13 GATLINBURG, TN 37738 RAPPAPORT FAMILY PARTNERS LTD PO BOX 127 TIBURON, CA 94920 RHODES MARJORIE S LLC 1401 AVOCADO AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RIGHETTI THOMAS 13724 SW 92 CT MIAMI, FL 33176 RONYA REALTY NV C/O DAVID S ZWEIG ESQ 4425 BAYARD ST STE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92109 ROSENBERG MORTON 1/3 INT 3092 NELSON DR LAKEWOOD, CO 80215 SANDERS RICHARD & JOANNE 8 PARKWAY DR ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 0. "EN EDWARD STANLEY SAVIO GEORGE SCHALDACH NANCY F < 11566 2600 CARDENNA ST 720 S MASHTA DR ASr-CN, CO 81612 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149 SCHARLIN HOWARD R & GLORIA G 3615 BATTERSEA RD MIAMI, FL 33133 SCHOLL DENNIS & DEBRA S 803 E DILIDO DR MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 SEWELL BEVERLY JEAN & RALPH BYRON 717 WEDGE DR GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 SHIRK JAMES A & LINDA S PO BOX 1549 BLOOMINGTON, IL 61702 SILVERMAN MARK J & NANCY C 7404 BROOKVILLE RD CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 :INS B DOUGLAS & JOHNETTE JW 2921 AVALON PL HOUSTON, TX 77019 SMART EDWIN J TRUSTEE. 74924 COUNTRY CLUB DR STE 150 PALM DESERT, CA 92260-1969 SPENCER MARGARET R C/O DAVID B SPENCER 915 ROYAL ST NEW ORLEANS, LA 70116-2515 STOPEK RICHARD E & JULIE 6311 VIA VENETIA NORTH DELRAY BEACH, FL 33484 SCHIRMER LESLIE M 4100 E QUINCY AVE ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 SCHWARZ JOHN H CALTECH 452-48 PASADENA, CA 91125 SHAPIRO CYNTHIA R GRANTOR RETAINED INTEREST ANNUITY TRUST 5704 DEVILLE DR EDINA, MN 55436 SHODEEN KENT W TRUST NO 1 17 N FIRST ST G E N EVA, IL 60134-2220 SILVESTER JULIE P PO BOX 2267 HAMILTON BERMUDA, HMJX SIMUNOVICH JOHN & BRIGID COLETT- PO BOX 47 DROGHEDA IRELAND CO LO, SMITH PEGGY TRUST INDENTURE 525 HIGHLAND TERRACE BRICK, NJ 08723 STANTON ROSAMOND L TRUSTEE PO BOX 280 SANTA FE, NM 87504-0280 TASH DAVID L 40 ASPEN MOUNTAIN RD ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHNEIDER ROBERT C 3003 S ONG ST AMARILLO, TX 79109 SEIFERT COLORADO TRUST 2526 KELLOGG AVE AMES, IA 50010 SHASITY ABRAHAM N M JR &JOY M 8407 BROOKEWOOD CT MC LEAN, VA 22120 SIEGEL LOIS H QUAL PERS RESIDENCE TRUST THREE GROVE ISLE DR #1109 CORAL GABLES, FL 33133 SIMMONS FAMILY TRUST 2500 TORREY PINES RD APT 1203 LA JOLLA, CA 92037 SINAI ALLEN 16 HOLMES RD LEXINGTON, MA 02173 SNYDER JAMES DANIEL & LINDA RAE 1225 BRAEBURN FLOSSMORE, IL 60422 STEWART TITLE CO PO BOX 3050 ASPEN, CO 81612 TATEM H RANDOLPH III & SUE BRINKLEY PO BOX 12373 ASPEN, CO 81612 T' "IN JOHNS TAYLOR WALTER & SHIRLEY 39.296% THIGPEN PETER L A GIRT AVE PO BOX 595 233 WOODLAND RD Ni, 18QUAN, NJ 08736 BUSBY, MT 59016 KENTFIELD, CA 94904 THOMSON GARY FRED THOMSON TOM WILBUR PO BOX 190 COLTON, CA 92324 TORESCO DONALD M 170 ROUTE 22 SPRINGFIELD, NJ 07081 VANTILBURG JOHANNES & JOANNA 3330 SWEETWATER MESA RD MALIBU, CA 90265-4920 WENTWORTH STRAFFORD 15380 KITTRIDGE RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 WINKLER REVOCABLE TRUST 840 LOMA VISTA DR BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 )WARD TERRY & NORMAN L 3,-„ THIRD ST OWNESBORO, KY 42301 THORNE EDWIN & HEATHER LIVING TRUST 410 MONROE DR - PALO ALTO, CA 94306 TROTTER WILLIAM E II 12.3943% 600 JEFFERSON ST STE 1202 LAFAYETTE, LA 70501 WAGNER PAUL L & DOROTHY H 3199 BLOOMFIELD SHORE DR W BLOOMFIELD, MI 48323 WERNST INC 3526 KOSO STREET DAVIS, CA 95616-6041 WINTER COLORADO REAL ESTATE TRUST C/O ASPEN ALPS PO BOX 1228 ASPEN, CO 81612 YONKER PHYLLIS & RICHARD A 1424 CEDAR BAY LN SARASOTA, FL 34231 TOBEY ROBERT W 41 CHERRY HILLS FARM DR ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110-7113 UTE CHALET INC PO BOX 1284 ASPEN, CO 81612 WATCHMAKER TODD A & LINDA L 4527 BRUCE AVE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55424-1122 WILKERSON WILLIAM 3000 NE 30TH PL FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33306 WISE JOSEPH 1320 HODGES ST RALEIGH, NC 27604-1414 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner f!� RE: BARBEE FAMILY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT DATE: June 26, 2001 PROJECT REQUEST SUMMARY: The Applicant, Shadow Mountain Investment, LLC, represented by David Miller, requests the Planning and Zoning Commission grant an Insubstantial Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for the Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD for the following: 1) Modify approved design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11; 2) Increase the Floor Area (FAR) dimensional requirement by 360 square feet for the allowance of moving the Paepcke shed to RO Lot 7 to satisfy the Secondary Mass requirement of the Residential Design Standards; 3) Increase the approved building envelope on RO Lot 7 to accommodate the Paepcke shed; and 4) Establish building envelopes for Lots 8-11. The Applicant also requests the following approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee: 1) A variance from the Secondary Mass requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Resident Occupied Lots 5 and 6. BACKGROUND: The Barbee Family PUD was originally approved by the City Council on April 12, 1999 via Ordinance #11 (Series 1999). This approval by the City of Aspen City Council, granted final subdivision / PUD approval for the creation of four free market single- family residential lots (Lots 1-4); three Resident Occupied lots (Lots 5-7); and four category lots (Lots 8-11) each of which will contain one affordable housing condominiumized unit; Lot 12 will contain the parking facility for Lots 8-11 and a Conservation Parcel. Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 1 The property is zoned according to the following matrix: Lots Zoning Classification Lot 1 R-15 / PUD Lots 2-12 AH1 / PUD Conservation Parcel C Ordinance #12 (Series 1999) annexed a portion of the lands within the Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD and Resolution 17 (Series 1999) granted special review approval for the parking requirements for affordable housing Lots 5-12 by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 16, 1999. PROCESS: An insubstantial amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final PUD development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing and that action shall be considered the final action, unless the decision is appealed. Staff finds that the requested amendment, although consistent with the approved plan, does not meet the following thresholds for an administrative insubstantial amendment and therefore requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission: 1. A change in the use or character of the development. 2. 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. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE (DRAG As a practical matter, the variance request form the Secondary Mass requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the RO Lots 5 and 6 can be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission using the DRAC review criteria. STAFF COMMENTS: The Applicant wishes to amend the approved Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD to 1) modify the architectural design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11, 2) increase the Floor Area (FAR) dimensional requirement by 360 square feet for the allowance of moving the Paepcke shed to RO Lot 7 to satisfy the Secondary Mass requirement of the Residential Design Standards, 3) increase the approved building envelope on RO Lot 7 to accommodate the Paepcke shed, and 4) establish building envelopes for Lots 8-11. Staff addresses these requests in the following way. Finally, Staff addresses the secondary mass requirement in Exhibit A. Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 2 A. Modify architectural design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11 The Applicant would like to modify the originally approved architectural design of the affordable housing units (duplexes). The originally approved design and proposed design are attached to this Memorandum for your comparison. The original two-story design maintained a more traditional "Victorian" gable roof form with some shed roof dormers and considerable covered porch elements. The proposed redesign reduces the structure to a one and a half story miner's cabin style of architecture using a palate of materials such as vertical barn wood siding, corrugated rusted metal siding and roofing, and cedar fascia. The structures still offer roughly the same amount of square footage but are reduced in mass and scale. In addition, the architectural element of the barrel vaulted roof on either end of the main form of each duplex is certainly a contemporary elements and is out of character and represents a distinct departure from the typology that defines the western neighborhoods of Aspen and the original PUD. More importantly, the Applicant has reduced the two story units to one and a half story units by going partially below grade bringing the overall height down (to 24.5' as measured to the ridge which is far below the City requirement) and the Applicant has added two window wells for each unit for a total of eight window wells. Staff finds this design considerably reduces the "livability" of the units by going partially sub -grade and using light wells to get the required natural light. Staff finds that too often, "affordable housing" units are sunk into the ground as sub -grade units so that they are unseen or minimize, at all costs any slight impact they might have on more profitable free market homes. The project originally received approval with a design, as mentioned above, that provided a very livable feel compared to the considerable reduced proposed version. It is for these reasons that Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed architectural design for the Lots 8-11. B. Increase the FAR for RO Lot 7 The Applicant has recently received approval from the Historic Preservation Commission to relocate the Paepkce shed (currently on blocks at the Bus Barn) to RO Lot 7. The Applicant would like to preserve the shed and have it satisfy the secondary mass requirement of the residential design standards. Staff finds this to be acceptable except that the shed would constitute an addition of 360 square feet of FAR. The Applicant is requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission grant the 360 sq. ft. FAR increase on Lot 7 to accommodate the shed subsequently satisfying the secondary mass requirement. The Applicant has also proposed to restore the shed. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning approve this request. C. Increase the building envelope on RO Lot 7 The Applicant requests the ability to enlarge the building envelope for RO Lot 7 in order to accommodate the relocation of the Paepkce shed which would also satisfy secondary mass requirement. Staff Finds this to be acceptable and in accordance with the discussion described above. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning approve this request. Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 3 D. Establish building envelopes for Lots 8-11. The approved Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD established the setbacks for the affordable housing duplexes in a "zero lot line" configuration. This was meant primarily to accommodate the duplexes as they straddled lot lines and shared a common wall, thus zero lot lines. However, Staff recommended that more specific building envelopes be established for any future development that may occur. The Applicant suggested establishing a building envelope to accommodate the building area footprints with the newly proposed window wells as shown on the plat. Pursuant to the final PUD, the Applicant shall be required to follow the landscape Guidelines adopted with the PUD for all areas outside the building envelopes. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning approve this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed insubstantial amendments are consistent with the originally adopted PUD and recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny 1) the modified architectural design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11, and approve 2) the increase in Floor Area (FAR) by 360 square feet for RO Lot 7, 3) the enlargement of the building envelope on RO Lot 7, and 4) the establishment of building envelopes for Lots 8-11. In addition, Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as DRAG, approve the requested variance from the secondary mass requirement for Lots 5 and 6. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution Na-;, Series 2001, for an Insubstantial PUD Amendment of the Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD which approves 1) the modified architectural design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11, and approves 2) the increase in Floor Area (FAR) by 360 square feet for RO Lot 7, 3) the enlargement of the building envelope on RO Lot 7, 4) the establishment of building envelopes for Lots 8-11, and 5) the variance from the secondary mass requirement for Lots 5 and 6 finding that criterion b and c are met with the conditions placed in the resolution." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Secondary Mass Variance Request / Findings Exhibit B: PUD Standards & Staff Findings Exhibit C: Location of Project Exhibit D: Photo Documentation Exhibit E: Resolution On(" Series 2001 Exhibit F: Application Barbee Family PUD Memorandum - Page 4 EXHIBIT A VARIANCE FROM THE SECONDARY MASS REQUIREMENT The Applicant has provided a design for a single-family residence on RO Lots 5. The Applicant intends to design an almost exact duplicate design for Lot 6 as well. However, this design does not meet the City's secondary mass requirement in the residential design standards. The Applicant seeks a variance from this standard for RO Lots 5 and 6. [It should be noted that the Applicant is also aware that a variance from secondary mass requirement will also be required for RO Lot 7 if the Planning and Zoning Commission does approve the FAR increase and building envelope enlargement for Lot 7 to accommodate the relocated Paepkce shed] The requirement is stated in the Land Use Code as the following: i All new structures shall locate at least 10%of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. The graphic illustration (left) shows the intended meaning of this standard. Specifically, The intent of the standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes, which are more similar in their massing, by promoting the development of accessory units off of the City alleys, and by preserving solar access. The criteria used by the Commission to determine if such a variance should be granted are: a. Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed design is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan in that the private sector provision of affordable housing through developing Resident Occupied housing is laudable; it does not yield greater compliance the AACP. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. b. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or Staff Finding: The intent of the.standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes, which are more similar in their massing, by promoting the development of accessory units off of the City alleys, and by preserving solar access. The proposed house Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 5 design for Lots 5 and 6 are 1,700 square feet in size. Currently, the proposed design does not locate at least 10% of its total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. However, in light of this, the proposed design maintain significant single -story elements on the east, south, and north elevations constituted by the first story shed roof / porch elements. Staff believes due to the small size of the houses and their considerable single story elements, the intent of the standard is met and the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue of bulk and overpowering mass on a site as intended by the standard. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints. Staff Finding: Lot 5 and 6 are between 5,887 and 6,318 sq. ft in size with associated building envelopes that are approximately 2,646 sq. ft. in size substantially reducing where development can take place. In addition, a steep slope begins to rise toward Shadow Mountain halfway through Lots 5-7 thereby further reducing appropriate buildability. In essence these are small houses on small building envelopes further restricted by existing steep topography. Staff finds that the proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 6 EXHIBIT B PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Barbee Family PUD has already been approved by the City Council on April 12, 1999 via Ordinance #11 (Series 1999). These insubstantial amendments are addressed by applicable criteria in the PUD standards as they apply to the specific requests. Specifically, there is no increase in density B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below and 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. Staff Finding: The Applicant is requesting to change the dimensional requirements of the final PUD for site coverage and FAR. Specifically, the Applicant would like to increase a' building envelope on Lot 7 in order to accommodate the relocation of the Paepkce shed currently sitting on blocks at the Bus Barn. The Applicant has recently received approval from the Historic Preservation Commission to relocate the Paepkce shed to RO Lot 7. The Applicant would like to preserve the shed and have it satisfy the secondary mass requirement of the residential design standards. Staff finds this to be acceptable except that the shed would constitute an addition of 360 square feet of FAR. The Applicant is requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission grant the 360 sq. ft. FAR increase on Lot 7 to accommodate the shed subsequently satisfying the secondary mass requirement. The Applicant has also pledged to restore the shed. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning approve this request. Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 7 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposed increase in FAR (by 360 square feet) to allow the Paepkce shed relocation continues to permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 that 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 hon- 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. Staff Finding: The Applicant received approval for a particular design for the affordable housing duplexes on Lots 8-11; however, the Applicant would like to drastically modify this approved architectural design. As stated above, the original two-story design maintained a more traditional "Victorian" gable roof form with some shed roof dormers and considerable covered porch elements. The proposed redesign reduces the structure to a one and a half story miner's cabin style of architecture using a palate of materials such as vertical barn wood siding, corrugated rusted metal siding and roofing, and cedar fascia. The structures still offer roughly the same amount of square footage but are reduced in mass and scale. In addition, the architectural element of the barrel vaulted roof on either Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 8 end of the main form of each duplex is certainly a contemporary elements and is out of character and represents a distinct departure from the typology that defines the western neighborhoods of Aspen. More importantly, the Applicant has reduced the two story units to one and a half story units by going partially below grade bringing the overall height down (to 24.5' as measured to the ridge which is far below the City requirement) and the Applicant has added two window wells for each unit for a total of eight window wells. Staff finds this design considerably reduces the "livability" of the units by going partially sub -grade and using light wells to get the required natural light. Staff finds that too often, "affordable housing" units are sunk into the ground as sub -grade units so that they are unseen or minimize, at all costs any slight impact they might have on more profitable free market homes. The project originally received approval with a design, as mentioned above, that provided a very livable feel compared to the considerable reduced proposed version. The Applicant contends that these proposed units remain livable, are of a better design by providing higher ceilings in the main level, and allow for a gradual rise in building form on the site as one views the Barbee Family PUD from the adjacent park / open space where the volleyball courts are located. It could be argued that this reduction in the overall massing and scale of the units are the result in attempting to achieve greater views for the RO Lots directly behind them and for the free market lots to the southeast of them. Therefore, Staff finds that sacrificing the livability and consistent west end Victorian design of the approved units for the increased views of the RO Units towards Red and Smuggler Mountains is inconsistent with the original PUD. Lastly, Staff finds that the proposed design is not compatible with or enhances the visual character of the city or appropriately relates to the proposed architecture of the RO units on the property. It is for these reasons that Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed architectural design for the Lots 8-11. Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 9 EXHIBIT C PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Barbee Family PUD Memorandum � Page 10 EXHIBIT D SITE PHOTOS tsarnee ramiiy rull Memorandum Page l 1 EXHIBIT E RESOLUTION N0. � fi (SERIES OF 2001) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN INSUBSTANTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT OF THE BARBEE FAMILY SUBDIVISION / PUD FOR 1) THE MODIFIED DESIGN OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON LOTS 8-119 2) THE INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA (FAR) BY 360 SQUARE FEET FOR LOT 79 3) THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ON LOT 79 4) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BUILDING ENVELOPES FOR LOTS 8-11, AND 5) A VARIANCE FROM THE SECONDARY MASS REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS 5 AND 6 OF THE BARBEE FAMILY SUBDIVISION / PUD, CITY OF ASPEN. Parcel ID: 2735-131-00-100 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Applicant, Shadow Mountain Investment, LLC, represented by David Miller, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission grant an Insubstantial Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for the Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD for the following: 1) Modify approved design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11; 2) Increase the Floor Area (FAR) dimensional requirement by 360 square feet for the allowance of moving the Paepkce shed to RO Lot 7 to satisfy the Secondary Mass requirement of the Residential Design Standards; 3) Increase the approved building envelope on RO Lot 7 to accommodate the Paepkce shed; and 4) Establish building envelopes for Lots 8-11. The Applicant also requests the following approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee: 1) A variance from the Secondary Mass requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the Resident Occupied Lots 5 and 6; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the requested modification of approved design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8- 11, and recommended approval for 1) an increase in floor area (FAR) by 360 square feet for Lot 7, 3) an enlargement of the building envelope on Lot 7, 4) the establishment of building envelopes for Lots 8-11, and 5) a variance from secondary mass requirement for Lots 5 and 6. Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 12 WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee, has reviewed and considered the secondary mass variance request from the residential design standards and has approved the variance request finding that the following criteria are met: b. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; and c. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a vote of to (_ — _), for the 1) modification of approved design for the affordable housing units on Lots 8-11, 2) an increase in floor area (FAR) by 360 square feet for Lot 7, 3) an enlargement of the building envelope on Lot 7, 4) the establishment of building envelopes for Lots 8-11, and 5) a variance from secondary mass requirement for Lots 5 and 6; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2001, THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the request for an insubstantial planned unit development amendment, is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the Applicant shall record the Plat Amendments to the Barbee Family Subdivision / PUD Final Plat within one -hundred -and -eighty (180) days of the adoption date of the Resolution established herein. 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 Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 13 plan and PUD agreement by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may be required before its acceptance and recording. 2. 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. 3. 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; 4. That the Applicant shall amend the PUD Agreement regarding the approved changes and shall have the Agreement 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 within one -hundred -and -eighty (180) days of the adoption date of the Resolution established herein. Certinn 2 All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. �qertinn 3! This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Certinn d- If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 14 Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 19, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Robert Blaich, Chair Barbee Family PUD Memorandum Page 15 EXHIBIT C 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 u SILVI - of 32 R I6d. d0 0 0.00 X0.20pDAVIS PITKIxC0UNTT CC ! I�I�II IIIII IIIIII IIIII llll IIII Illr�dl III I11lIII II Illl ` 438302 12/06/1999 11:35q SUB ACRE DAVIS SILVI 22 of 32 R 168.90 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY Ca gz�+ E-�F, �s �:�e'�'fi � � � . �. ,.. . � y. �.�ru-T ��{� � '4^''7�'^�'` c •zx-SVT=' x �'� aSi" _ F � a fit. 47 kP Pq Ik xf M4 MIN, 14 v c a « x e� ; uxrat A S. r " r • "taw.._ �� � �. ��'�`, v { - ' - r. F ..0 tom• 4 4 ' • ' �."� yr _ _« � r • � t < m Ty1VS� r �• , �� F,..r- , t ae 7st r. s �,. , ,. � �. , � is •. �.� �� � � �� � . -? s �c���`f� {-� -•.�� 'ice' �c g``�" • �,t .. � rsiy7 �" � .?7.r, �..+ .�'a-u'� � c�t . Imam t � �,,. .ass"w:zi: � ys.-.^-;'+,._ st, .:hJwt_e.'%;y^... n.�S�:_ -- r:. "1.. r • ,-a -_-.c.-':t: _�x'rr.-.14.c}: :-.. .i.�'.. _ sr April 12, 2001 Tim Semrau Semrau Building and Design 208 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Tim, ASPEN PITKIN COMMUMT), DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The Historic Preservation Commission would like to voice their support for your idea to move the "Paepcke Garden Shed" onto the Barbee parcel. Although the building does not have any formal historic designation, they feel it is commendable to find a.use for the building, to keep it within the City limits, and to make needed repairs. ce ly, Amy Gu hrle Aspen Vistoric Preservation Officer 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.9205090 • FAX 970.920.5439 Pnnted on Recvded Paper NN L41 lz� 7-:7- 77� ,n 7r- It On _W CL -can V7 z cr GI to G Cl 6D CD (S) La 4 UO C-1 a � 01 -:V 5/24/01 SEMRAU To: Julie Ann Woods/Fred SALITERMAN From; Shadow Mountain Investment, L.L.0 DEVELOPMENT Timothy Semrau RE; Administrative changes to Barbee PUD Per our conversation the following changes are approved for the Barbee PUD. L Single car garages can be substituted for the carports. 2. A plat amendment will be filed showing an easement for a common driveway between Lots 4 and 5 3. The building envelope for Lot 6 will be enlarged to accommodate a 360 sq. ft detatched historic shed. The 360 sq. ft. will not be deducted from the allowable FAR for the existing RO FAR on Lot 6. Items going to Planning and zoning on June 19`h 1. A Commission determination if the proposed design of the 4 Category AH Units are acceptable under the terms of the PUD. 2. An exception requested for the secondary mass provision of the residential design standard for the small RO homes on Lots 4, 5, and 6. Thank you, Timothy Semrau / ( - '/' �' 8, '� -/ C/ -m_ a 208E East Main • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 970-925-6447 • Fax 970-925-6437