HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20020806 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2002
4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES ROOM
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public'
II. MINUTES
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. LITTLE AJ~4J( CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD,
Joyce Ohlson, continued from 7/16
B. OUTLOT B, MEADOWS SUBDIVISION REZONING, James
Lindt, continued from 6/18
V. BOARD REPORTS
VI. ADJOURN
5 August 2002
Editor,
Rocky Mountain High — when John Denver penned this title for his famous song, he
meant the "high" to stand for an overwhelming joy of being in such a beautiful place as
our city of Aspen. I'm sure he never envisioned the "high", one day, to mean high-rise
buildings obstructing the view of his beloved mountains. Obermeyer Rio Grande Place
would do just that with its plans to change the laws of height limit and all zoning
regulations that are now in place.
From the John Denver memorial area of Rio Grande Park, the planned fifty foot high
building would rise as a signal of Aspen's change forevermore!
Diana Van Deusen
Aspen
cc:
All Aspen Government Offices
P15
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
DATE: August 6, 2002
RE: Little Ajax Townhomes
Attached to this memo is the staff report that was previously forwarded to the
Commission on the Little Ajax Townhomes, dated July-2, 2002. It is my understanding
that the State Geological Survey has been meeting with the applicant regarding this
project, and some modifications will need to be addressed to satisfy that referral agency.
The applicant has assured Joyce Ohlson that they are prepared to discuss these issues and
that these issues will not have a dramatic effect on the proposed site plan. At the
applicant's request, we are scheduling this project before you to keep this project on
track. The commission will need to decide if there is adequate information presented for
them to make a recommendation, or alternatively continue this project until more
information is forthcoming. Joyce Ohlson will be present at the meeting on August 6th
W
MEMORANDUM
.TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Joyce Oh1sop ut
Y p y City of Aspen Community Development Director
DATE:
RE: Little Ajax Townhomes /Affordable Housing- Project - Consolidated
Conceptual / Final. PUD
OWNERS: Parcel 1, located in the City, is owned by Aspen GK, LLC, and
Parcel 2, located in Pitkin County, is owned by Burton B. Kaplan
REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells of Joseph Wells Land Planning
EXISTING ZONING: Parcel 1 is zoned R-15 / Parcel 2 is zoned-R-15
LOT SIZE: Parcel 1 is 8,213 sq. ft.
Parcel 2 is 44,974 sq. ft.
Total = 53,187 sq. ft. (or 1:22 acres)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions
SUMMARY
The owners -of Parcels 1 and 2, a property located at the 600 block of West Hopkins Avenue
across from the Madsen Apartments, request land use approvals, to- develop the site to
Ele
include eleven (11) "for -sale" affordable housing units and four (4) free market units.
Because Parcel 2 is currently located in Pitkin County, the owners have requested the.City
annex the parcel into the City concurrently with the development review process. Assuming
Parcel 2 is annexed into the City, the owners request the following land use approvals in
order to conduct the proposed development:
"Final PUD Plan
Subdivision
➢ Rezoning to AH/PUD
8040 Greenline Review
➢ GMQS Exemptions for Affordable Housing
➢ Waive of Residential Design Standards -Review
Special Review
PROC -PS";
This project received Conceptual PUD approval .in February 2001 from City Council,
which is memorialized via Resolution No. 19, Series 2001(see Exhibit B). The Land Use
Code requires that the Final PUD application be submitted to the City within on year of
the Conceptual PUD approval. The Applicant was.unable to meet this deadline; however,
the Community Development Director determined that this "Final PUD" proposal may be
processed as a Consolidated. Conceptual / Final PUD due to a significant community
interest which the project would serve and that the four -step PUD process would be
redundant and serve no public purpose since the development proposal received
Conceptual PUD approval from City Council and has remained virtually unchanged since.
its original approval. As a result, the Applicant shall present the project to the Planning
and Zoning Commission in order to .obtain a recommendation to the City Council.
STAFF COMMENTS
The subject -site proposed for development contains 53,187 sq. ft. Parcel I (containing
8,213 sq. ft.) is located in the City of Aspen and zoned R-15. Parcel 2 (containing 44,974 .
sq. ft.) is located adjacent to Parcel 1 but is located in Pitkin County and zoned R-15. The
owners of the parcels are requesting to annex Parcel 2 into the City . of Aspen
concurrently with this development. A brief description of the development proposal is as
follows:
I. Affordable Housing Units
This project is primarily an affordable housing project. The Applicant proposes
eleven (11) affordable housing units located in two separate buildings on the
property described as the North Building located on West Hopkins Avenue at the
north end of the site and the South Building located just 28 feet to the south (behind)
-of the North Building on the interior of the site. A brief description of the buildings
is as follows:
A. North Building Affordable Housing
2
P19
The North Building faces West Hopkins Avenue on the north end of the site and
contains four 3-bedroom units. The structure is two stories tall (approximately 21
feet tall from finished grade to a flat roof), includes 4 covered carport parking spaces
-on the ground level, and contains 6,127 sq. ft.� of floor area. The majority of the
living space for the units is located on the second level with each unit containing a
south (mountain -facing) balcony. Each unit has two bedrooms on the upper floor
and one bedroom on the lower floor. Two of the units are Category 3 units and the
other two units are Category 4 units. These units range in size from 1,293 sq. ft. to
1,320 sq. ft. The entry for these four units is from the ground level.
B. South Building Affordable Housing
The South Building is located 28 feet south of the North Building on the interior of
the site and contains seven (7) units broken down in the following way:
i 2 Studio units containing 612 sq. ft. at Category 3
2 1-bedroom units containing 740-806 sq. ft. at Category 3
i 2 2-bedroom units containing 888-900 sq. ft. at Category 3
1 2-bedroom unit containing 976 sq. ft. at Category 4
This structure is three stories tall (approximately 28 feet tall from finished grade to a
flat roof), includes 11 covered/ sub -grade carport parking spaces located underneath
the first level level, and contains 6,5 89 sq. ft. of floor area. The majority of the living
space for the units is located on the second and third levels with each unit containing
a north -facing balcony onto the interior parking courtyard. The entry for three units
is from the ground level and there are staircases providing access to the four units on
the upper level. These affordable housing structures will be totally located on Parcel
1.
C. Free Market Units
Located on the south portion of the property behind the South Building, this
structure contains 17,278 sq. ft. in floor area and consists of four levels
(approximately 32 feet tall from finished grade to a flat roof) that consistently follow
the existing slope of the hillside southward. The structure includes .eight (8) parking
spaces located on the first level, and two 3-bedroom units and two 4-bedroom units.
This free market structure will be totally located on Parcel 2. The only change from
the Conceptual PUD plan includes two Accessory Dwelling Units (containing
between 456 and 593 sq. ft.) located at either end of the structure that are partially
sub -grade and attached to the structure.
IL Main Issues Discussed During Conceptual Approval
The main issues discussed during the Conceptual PUD process included site access,
density, traffic, trail connections, size, scale, and mass of buildings, Colorado
-Midland Right -of -Way, parking, .site plan, annexation, zoning, and rock fall hazards.
Ultimately, City Council approved the Conceptual PUD Plan with a set of conditions
to be addressed a part of the Final PUD Plan review process. A very brief discussion
of those points include:
3
A. Access The current proposal is accessed via the 5th Street stub which is offset
somewhat from the existing 5th Street across the street. There was discussion
during conceptual review as to its potential alignment with the existing 5th Street.
Ultimately, it was decided than the proposed alignment that is slightly off could
remain. However, the Applicant was required to ' discuss the 5th Street access
issue with the adjacent property owner to the east who recently received land use
approvals to expand the Boomerang Lodge project. Staff believes both projects
could benefit from a shared access off of West Hopkins Avenue. While the two
parties discussed the issue, no agreement has been realized to date for any type
of shared access.
B. Environmental Hazards There are four apparent environmental hazards
associated with the site tivhich include 1) unprocessed rock mine waste, 2)
potential subsidence due to. an unidentified mine shaft, 3) rock fall, and 4) a
septic system which -is still in place and may become an issue during the
construction process.
C. Trails There are two trails associated with the property; a trail that follows the
Midland Right -of -Way and a second . trail further up the south slope of the
property. The lower trail follows along the Midland Right -of -Way from the east
but terminates at the 5th Street ROW and turns towards West Hopkins Avenue.
.The Applicant was required during conceptual approval to dedicate both trails as
public trail easements. In addition; Staff. encouraged the Applicant to incorporate
the lower trail into the site plan by continuing the trail through the site. The
Applicant would like to continue the trail across the property between the
affordable housing units and the free market units to the west side. The proposed
final plat indicates these easements to be dedicated to the public.
D. ADU The Applicant proposes two ADUs, which represent the only significant
.difference between the proposal that received conceptual approval and the
current proposal. These are proposed to be located at each end of the free market
building. The Applicant has included these units based on the comments
provided by the Planning and Zoning Commission during the conceptual review.
While Staff recognizes the value of the additional ADUs, their configuration and
location are contrary to current ADU standards, in that, the units are slightly. sub -
grade and attached.
E. Subdivision / Lot -line Adjustment Once Parcel 2 has been annexed, the
Applicant proposes to adjust the lot line between Parcel 1 and 2 to reflect the
creation of two different homeowner's associations. This would effectively
create Parcel 2 specifically containing the 4 free market units and the main
access road and Parcel 1 containing the two affordable housing structures. In
effect, this allows for a separate homeowner's association to be created for each
parcel.
51
P21
III. Land Use Reviews
In order to achieve the proposed development, the Applicant is required to apply for
the following land use approvals:
A. Subdivision
The Applicant wishes to annex parcel 2 into the City then re -subdivide the
property into Parcel 1 containing the two affordable housing structures, and
Parcel 2 containing the free market structure. The Applicant is proposing to
conduct a lot line adjustment to create this scenario that is exempt from
subdivision. In addition, the Applicant is required to apply for subdivision to
condomiruumize the free market units as well as the for -sale affordable housing .
units.
B. Special Review
The Land Use Code requires. that on -site parking for an affordable housing
project is determine through Special Review. In this case, the. on -site parking
may also be determined as part of the Planned Unit Development process.
C. GMQS Exemptions
The 11 proposed affordable housing units are exempt from the provisions of the
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) as well as the 2 ADUs. In addition,
the free market units proposed as part of this project are also exempt from
GMQS because they are proposed in conjunction with an affordable housing
project in the AH/PUD zone district.
D. 8040 Greenline Review
The subject property and development is .partially located within -150 feet of
elevation of 8,040 feet above sea level-, which requires review under the
provisions of the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas. These regulations
specifically address the environmental and terrain Hazards on the property such
as subsidence, rock fall and avalanche hazards, and contaminated soils issues.
E. Rezonina from Conservation & R-15 to L/TR
The Applicant wishes to annex Parcel 2 into the City, which requires that a
zoning designation be placed on that property. Assuming the property is annexed
into the City, the Applicant requests to rezone -the entire property, Parcels 1 and
2, to Affordable Housing with a Planned Unit Development overlay- (A.PUPUD).
It is this zoning that allows the ability to conduct such a proposal.
IV. Affordable Housing & Rezoning
The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) reinforces the importance affordable
housing plays in the community. The AACP encourages the private sector to
participate in providing housing rather than having -that responsibility rest solely on
the shoulders of the Housing Authority / City of Aspen. Further, the AACP places
importance on evaluating each housing project regarding site location, project
design, unit type, category mix, and proximity to the City's employment base
5
P22
the down town commercial core), to enhance the ability to walk to work or
proximity to mass transit. Moreover, the purpose statement in. the Affordable
Housing / PUD zone . district 'acknowledges the necessity of including a limited
component of free market units to offset the cost of developing , ("subsidizing")
affordable housing costs.
The Land Use Code requires affordable housing projects include a minimum of 70%
of a project's bedrooms to be deed -restricted affordable housing. The remaining 3 0%
may be free market bedrooms, which are exempt from GMQS. However, there is an
exception to the rule; the project may be eligible for a reduction in the minimum
affordable housing bedroom mix (to a level of 60% of the project's total bedrooms)
if the Applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of City Council than the project
meets the requirements for an exceptional project as set forth in the Affordable
Housing Guidelines.
[It should be noted, as part of the Conceptual PUD review process, The Housing
Authority recommended and the City Council approved that the project be deemed
an exceptional project. The Applicant returned to the Housing Authority as part of
this Final PUD review in order to obtain a second recommendation to City Council.]
This project's main focus is affordable housing. As a result of the aforementioned,
the Applicant is proposing this project be approved as an exceptional project. The
project proposes 61 % (22 bedrooms / 11 units) of "for -sale" affordable housing units
and 39% (12 bedrooms / 4 units) free market units. A matrix below illustrates how
the affordable units are configured regarding number of bedrooms, size and
category.
North Building:
J Urat .
No :of BedroomsSize
t
.._.Cae;gory r„
2
3-bedroom
11293-11320
3
2
3-bedroom
11293-17320
4
South Buildinc,:
na
eNtUc
zB.,.,.:
tego77777
2
Studios
612
3
2
1-bedroom
740 & 806
3
2
2-bedroom
888 & 900
3
1
2-bedroom
976
4
AH Totals:
Total"Afli
tal AH Bedrooms
`� ��°
Average AH
Uri.its
,j
' rk , x, t
x , ,
Categorj
�. , ,
11
21
3.27
Rezoning
I
' 7
P23
Currently, Parcel 2 in Pitkin County is zoned R-15 and Parcel 1 in the City is zoned R-15.
Once Parcel 2 has been annexed into the City, the Applicant proposes to rezone both
parcels to Affordable Housing / Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD). The AH/ PUD
zone district's sole purpose is to provide a zoning that fosters the ability to develop
affordable housing projects that are integrated throughout the City of Aspen. In addition,
it is a planning mechanism that is significantly supported -by the goals of the AACP;
which are intended to maintain the balance between Aspen "the Community and Aspen .
"the Resort." As mentioned above, there are primarily only two types of affordable
housing projects the City allows in the AH / PUD zone district: 1) projects that contain
3 0% free market housing and 70% affordable housing and 2). proj ects that contain 40%
free market housing and 60% affordable housing. The Little Ajax project is an example
of the latter which as been deemed as an exceptional project by both the Housing
Authority and the City Council.
Planned Unit Developments are planning mechanisms that allow for projects to
reestablish the dimensional requirements for a site -specific development plan using the
underlying zone district as a guide. However, the AH / PUD allows projects to establish
their dimensional requirements with no underlying guide. This is done in an effort to
afford a development plan more flexibility due to the distinct community benefit (AH
units) provided.
Given this discussion, Staff finds that the proposed rezoning will further the affordable
housing goals of the AACP which supports providing affordable housing within the City
which promotes a more stable /reliable employment base for the local economy which is
vested in the community while reducing the commuter traffic impact to Highway 82.
Staff finds the development is consistent with the surrounding development that includes
large structures that provide local resident housing. as well as tourist accommodations,
and duplex and single-family long term residences. The development is located within
walking distance to downtown and mass transit which reduces reliance on the. automobile
and remains consistent with the affordable housing policies as described in the Infall
Report where free market units are recognized as an integral and necessary component to
making affordable housing financially feasible.,
V. Site Environmental Issues & Hazards
The subject property is located at the base of Shadow Mountain and was the
intense focus of considerable silver mining activity during the late 1800s. As such,
ZD
it is I apparent that the site contains the remains of unprocessed rock (mine waste
rock) from the mining activity as well as a potential abandoned mine shaft under a
portion of the property. In addition, the southerly portion of the property (Parcel 2)
contains steep slopes that are subject to potential rockfall hazards. Lastly, the lower
portion (or most northern portion of Parcel 1 in the City) was the former home to
the "Parlour Car Restaurant" which utilized a septic system that remains buried on
the s ite .
7
P24.
As mentioned above, the project is subject
to the 8040 Greenline Review regulations /
standards. The map to the right illustrates
the subject site and the applicable elevations
that require this review who's purpose is to
examine suitability for development
considering issues such as steep slopes,
ground stability characteristics, including
mine subsidence, mud flow, rock fall, and
avalanche danger. In addition, this review is
the mechanism that requires the Applicant
fully investigate soil content and provide
adequate mitigation measures where
required. The specific environmental issues
regarding this site are discussed in detail,
below:
Lot.:1 :
:,::�,
~:Loft°2:._ - �...•.
Applicable Line
8040 Greenline
r Unprocessed Mine Waste Rock
According to the Environmental Assessment and Geolol is and Geotechnical
Investi; ation (Exhibits D and E provided by the Applicant) conducted by CTL
Thompson, Inc. as well as the On -Site Soils and Sampling Analysis (Exhibit
G) conduced by Waste Engineering, a large portion . of the site contains
unprocessed mine waste rock (or mine tailings). In addition, these studies
indicate that a mineshaft exists on the .east side of the site although its exact
location is unknown which represents -a potential subsidence issue.
In order to. properly mitigate the mine tailings on the site, the consultants
recommend keeping the mine waste rock on -site by covering it with pavement,
where allowed, and in landscaped areas by implementing the performance
standards in Ordinance 25; Series of 1994 which have. been incorporated as
conditions of approval. In addition, mine tailings should be covered by a
minimum 1-foot clean soil in exposed and landscaped areas. If the project has
excess soil and removal . from the site is required, removal of native soils is
recommended, not the removal of fill or mine waste rock. (Please refer to
Exhibit D - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted by,
CTL/Thompson, Inc, Consulting Engineers, page 2.)
Further, the consultants also recommend analysis of the native soils prior to
removal. It is possible that metal concentrations in native soils will also be
elevated and that proper disposal will be necessary. As a result of this and in
keeping with the recommendations of the consultants, Staff shall require the
Applicant to complete a "material handling plan" that incorporates proposed
methods of compliance with the performance standards in Ordinance 25, Series
0
P25
1994 prior to on -site construction to be reviewed by the City Environmental
Health Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
i Mine Shaft / Subsidence
According to the Environmental Assessment and Geologic and Geotechnical
Investigation (Exhibits D and E) conducted by CTL Thompson, Inc. indicate
that a mineshaft exists on the east side of the site although _its exact location is
unknown which represents a potential subsidence issue.
The Geologic and Geotechnical bzvestiganon indicates that while the mineshaft
most likely does not represent an environmental concern, it may represent
subsidence issues. The consultants recommend the Applicant contact a
specialist to perform a geophysical investigation to determine the exact location
of the shaft or other potential voids in the soil. Staff will require the Applicant
to contact a specialist to have this analysis completed for review by the
Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
In addition, Staff will require the Colorado Geologic Survey to conduct a site
analysis for review by the Community. Development Department Engineer prior
to the application of building permits.
During a site visit to the property, Staff found what might appear to be a mine
opening that has been boarded up on the southerly portion of the property
among the mature conifers. Staff shall require as a condition of approval that
the Applicant shall consult with the Colorado Geologic Survey to examine this
potential mine portal and comment on its impact, if any, to the stability of the
slope and the proposed development. The results of:.this analysis shall be
presented in a report from the Colorado Geologic Survey to the Community
Development Department Engineer prior- to the application for building
permits.
Rock Fall & Slope Issues
The Applicant provided Staff with a Rock Fall Hazard Evaluation conducted
by CTL Thompson, Inc. (attached to the Application as Exhibit F), which
indicates southern portions of the site contain "moderate" rock fall hazards.
The report indicates that the hazard can be effectively mitigated with supported
/ reinforced foundations on the free market structure as well as constructing a
"Bruge Netting" barrier (rockfall fence) on the slope above the structure: Staff
shall require the Applicant to comply with the consultant's recommendation to
also provide for an MSE wall that protects the western side of the free market
units where the Bruge fencing terminates.
i Septic System
The lower portion of Parcel 1 on West Hopkins was the former home to the
"Parlour Car Restaurant" which had a septic system that remains buried on the
site. According to the Environmental Assessment prepared by CTL Thompson,
0
Inc. and a Memorandum prepared by the City's Environmental Health
Department, the contents of the septic tank vault, or seepage pit, must be
properly disposed of. The emptied tank, vault, or pit, must be filled with soil or
rock, or the Environmental Health Department may require the tank or vault. to
be removed and disposed of properly. Staff shall require that if any part of the
septic system is. encountered during construction, the Applicant shall contact
the EH Department for proper handling and disposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
While there are environmental issues, associated with the site, Staff finds that they can be
adequately mitigated by following the consultant's recommendations, which have been
incorporated as conditions of approval. This project also benefits the City in that the
private sector will clean up the site from its current status regarding mine tailings. Staff'
supports this project because it provides quality affordable housing by the private sector
in a location that is within easy walking distance to Aspen's downtown core as well as its
close proximity to mass transit, which significantly reduces the reliance on the
automobile. Further, the design quality of the units and their associated category levels
have been deemed an exceptional project by the Housing Authority. The project as a
whole remains very consistent and furthers the affordable housing, transportation, and
design quality goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff recommends the Planning
and Zoning Commission approve this Resolution recommending approval to City
Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: '
"I move to Approve Resolution No. Series 2002, recommending City Council
approve the Little Ajax Affordable Housing Project with the conditions stated
herein."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Staff Findings for Land Use Code Review Standards
Exhibit B: Resolution No. 19, Series 2001 granting Conceptual Approval
Exhibit C: Application
Exhibit D: Exhibit Supplement to the Application
P27
RESOLUTION No. r,,
SERIES OF 2002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A
CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL / FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE LITTLE AJAK AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED ON
THE 600 BLOCK OF HOPKINS AVENUE _
Parcel No. 2735-124-00-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director received an application from
Aspen GK, LLC, owner, represented by Joe Wells, for a Consolidated Conceptual / Final
Planned Unit Development approval for an affordable housing project at the 600 block of
West Hopkins Avenue, City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the owner renamed the project which received Conceptual Planned
Unit development approval from "New West Hopkins Affordable Housing Project" to
"Little .Ajax Affordable Housing Project" for this Consolidated Conceptual and Final
PUD; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the "Little Ajax Affordable Housing Project" requests
additional land use approvals including Subdivision, Rezoning to AH/PUD, 8040 Green
line Review, GMQS Exemptions, waiver of the Residential Design Standards Review, and
Special Review as part of the Planned Unit Development review for this project; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 53;187 sq. ft. is located
partially in the City of Aspen and partially in Pitkin County, and is located in the R-15
zone district for both jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined that this
Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD shall effectively serve as the Final Planned Unit
Development for this project because of a significant community interest which the
project would serve and that the four -step PUD process would be redundant and serve no
public purpose since the development proposal received Conceptual PUD approval from
City Council and has remained virtually unchanged as currently submitted; and .
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning
shall provide a recommendation to City Council for a Consolidated Conceptual / Final
Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public meeting after considering a
recommendation from the Community Development Director, comments from the
general public, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and
WHEREAS, the applicant received Conceptual Planned. Unit Development
approv
al from the Aspen City Council on February 12, 2001 which is memorialized via
Resolution No. 19, Series 2001; and
WHEREAS, during a public hearing held on July _, 2002, the Planning and !I
Zoning
Commission voted, by a to to vote, to recommend City Council
' Ajax Affordable Housing Consolidated Conceptual /Final Planned
approve the Little
Unit Development with the conditions; and
s
S the Cit of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
WHEREA y
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the
development p ro p
approval of the development proposal, with conditions,.is consistent with the goals an ;
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHE
REAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this
Resolut
ion furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and
welfare.
NOW, T
HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THIS 2►,a DAY OF
COMMISSION OF THE CI t
DULY, THAT:
Section 1
' o d Zoning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Little.
The Planning an b
Ajax Affordable Housing Project Consolidated Conceptual / Final Planned. Unit
development including Subdivision, Rezoning to API/PUD, 8040 and S ec al Review
GMQS Exemptions, waiver of Residential Design Standards Review, p
with the following conditions:
_ 1) The Applicant shall
contact the Environmental Health Department in the event that
n art of the septic system is encountered during construction for proper handling
any .
and disposal.
ant shall ly with the consultant's recommendation to also provide for..
r .
2) The Applic comp
s where the Brin
an MSE wall that protects the western side of the free market unit
fencing terminates.
3) The Applicant shall contact a specialist to conduct a geophysical investigation
e�ardino the location of the mineshaft in order to determine the potential or
r� b
ity
subsidence. This report shall be submitted for review by the Comm
Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
4) The Applic
ant shall contact the Colorado Geologic Survey to conduct a site analysis
reyarg po
tential otential rock fall hazard and potential subsidence issues related to n
presence of a mine shaft for review by the Community Development Department
prior to the issuance of building permits.
12
5) The Applicant shall provide a 12' wide public trail easement for the lower trail across
the property as required by the Parks Department. This 12' wide public trail easement
shall be depicted on the Final Plat and recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office prior top the submission of building permits.
6) The Applicant shall complete all the necessary tree removal permits and pay the
applicable tree removal mitigation fees to the City of Aspen Parks Department prior
to the submission for building permits.
7). The Applicant shall file a deed restriction with the Aspen/ Pitkin County Housing
Authority for the two (2) Accessory Dwelling Units prior to the final. inspection for
the four free market units on Parcel 2.
8) Applicant shall consult with the Colorado Geologic Survey to examine the existence
of a potential mine portal on the southerly portion of the site located within , the
mature conifers and comment on its impact, if any, to the stability of the slope and the
proposed development. The results of this analysis shall be presented in .a report from
the Colorado Geologic Survey to the Community Development Department prior to
the application for building permits.
9) The Applicant shall provide the City with a mine waste testing and handling plan that
complies with the following conditions of approval as memorialized in Ordinance No.
25, Series 1994 regarding the handling of any contaminated soils encountered on the
property prior to the application for building permits:
a) Any disturbed soil or material that is to be stored above ground shall be securely
contained on and covered with a non -permeable tarp or -other protective barrier*
approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of
contaminated material onto or into the surface soil. Disturbed soil or . material
need not be removed if the City's Environmental Health Department finds that: 1)
the excavated material contains less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total
lead, or 2) that there exists a satisfactory method of disposal at the excavation site.
Disturbed soil and solid waste may be disposed of outside of the site upon
acceptance of the material at a duly licensed and authorized receiving facility.
b) Non -removal of contaminated material. No contaminated soil or solid waste shall
be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of
the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/ or Federal
transportation and disposal permits.
c) Dust suppression. -All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust
suppression .measures such as the application of water or other soil surfactant to
minimize the creation and release of dust and other particulates into the air.
13
d) Vegetable and flower gardening and cultivation. No vegetables or flowers shall be
planted or cultivated within the boundaries of the site except in garden beds
consisting of not less than twelve (12) inches of soil containing no more than 999-
ppm lead.
e) Landscaping. The planting of trees and shrubs and the creation or installation of
landscaping features requiring the dislocation or disturbance of more than I (1)
cubic yard of soil shall require a permit as provided in Section 7-143 (4).
f) Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on -site shall be placed under
structures or pavement. Soils used in landscaped areas or engineered f111s shall be
covered by a minimum of 1 foot of clean soil that contains less than 1,000 ppm
lead.)
10) The Applicant shall comply with the established Planned Unit. Development
dimensional requirements for the Affordable Housing / Planned Unit development
(AH/PUD) zone district as follows:
,i
bimensional Requirement
Lot ]
= ' f k
Tits)'
Zot 2
�F ree Market 7r
x�
(4H
Minimum Lot Size (square feet)
13,939 sq. ft.
39,204 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Area per
1,267 sq. ft.
9,801_ sq. ft.
Dwelling Unit
(4) 1-bedroom units x 500 sq. ft. / unit
(2) 3-bedroom units x 1,500 sq. ft. / unit
Maximum Allowable Density.
(3) 2-bedroom units x 1,000 �q. ft. / unit
(2) 4-bedroom units x 2,000 sq. ft. / unit
(4) 3-bedroom units x 1,500 sq. ft. / unit
Minimum Lot Width
115 feet
20 feet (at access point)
Minimum Front Yard Setback
5 feet
35 feet
Minimum West Side Yard
5 feet
5 feet -
Setback
Minimum East Side Yard -Setback
0 feet
5 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback
20 feet
40 feet
Maximum Site Coverage
6,723 sq. ft
7,109 sq. ft
North Building: 22 feet
33 feet
Maximum Height
South Building: 28.5 feet'
Minimum Distance b/w Buildings
15 feet
15 feet
Minimum Percent of Open Space
55%
Trash Access Area
On each end of the free market building an at the east end of the south AH building
Allowable Floor Area (FAR)
Total Allowable: 29,994 sq. ft.
Minimum Off Street Parking
15 parking spaces 8 parking spaces
11) The Applicant shall be required to provide the adjacent property to the east with an
access easement via the proposed Little Ajax driveway to access two parking spots on
the west end of the Boomerang property.
12) The Applicant shall be required to provide a sidewalk, curb, and gutter at the time of
this development .as shown on the proposed development plans. These improvements
shall be designed using the City's engineering standards. In addition, the tree species
and landscaping to be provided in the planter strip between the curb and gutter and
the sidewalk shall be approved by the City Parks Department.
14
P31
13) The Applicant shall install the Bruge fence and MSE wall as recommended by CTL
Thompson in their engineering report in order to protect the buildings from potential
rock falls. The Applicant may also propose an acceptable alternative to the above
recommendation to the Community Development Director.
14) The Applicant shall provide the City Community Development Department Engineer
with a drainage. and grading plan in order to determine that storm water runoff
detention for post -development flows do not exceed pre -development flows.
15) The Applicant shall contact the City Community Development Department in order
to determine an appropriate street name for the entrance to the property in order to
assist emergency vehicle response.
16) The Applicant shall calculate the established allowable roof -height from existing
grade, not the grade after the site has been. re -graded.
17) The Applicant shall re-examine the emergency access and confirm with the City Fire
Department that no problems exist. Further, the Applicant. shall install sprinkler
systems and alanns pursuant to the regulations of the City Fire Department. The
Applicant shall inform the City Water Department regarding the sprinkler
requirements prior to the application for building permits.
18) The Applicant shall re -seed disturbed. areas with natural vegetation pursuant to the
recommendation of the City Parks Department. The Applicant may obtain these seed
mixes from the Parks Department.
19) The Applicant shall provide an erosion control plan to the City Parks and Engineering
Departments. Specifically, the Applicant shall install 1) silt fencing and hale bales
across the middle and front of the property below disturbed areas and 2) fencing to
protect existing vegetation
20) The Applicant shall submit a refined landscaping plan to the Parks Department prior
to the application for building permits that indicates the specifications. for the
irrigation system that will be installed in the public ROW.
21) The Applicant shall include appropriate language in the Final PUD Agreement for
Lot 5 and its associated condominium. documentation regarding the homeowner's
association for Lot 5 (to be reviewed and approved- by Staff) that ensures that the 11
AH units shall comply with the representations made in the application, adhere to the
conditions of this Final PUD Approval, and comply with the required deed
restrictions as administered by the Aspen/Pitkin .County Housing Authority so that the
owners of said units shall not be unduly burdened by a disproportionate share of
responsibilities associated with the ownership of these units.
22) The Applicant shall complete and provide the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
with a "Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" for the main
15
P32
line extension. In addition, since all of the units will be condominiumized, the
Applicant shall obtain a Shared Service Agreement for the owner -of each unit.
23) The Applicant shall provide a handling and waste disposal plan that complies with
City Environmental Health Department requirements for the abandonment .of the
existing septic system. This plan shall be provided to and approved by the City
Environmental Health Department prior to the application of building permits.
24) The Applicant shall develop additional "traffic reduction measures" for the project
prior to building permit issuance in order to comply with code requirements. The
Applicant should work with the City Environmental Health Department to determine
whether the measures are sufficient.
25) The Applicant shall consult with an engineering firm about design of the carp.ort
parking ventilation system to ensure that ventilation is adequate to prevent carbon
monoxide from reaching high levels inside the carports or in the units above them.
This is a concern because the carports are under overhanging units with bedrooms
inunediately above .the parking spots, so that fumes might collect beneath sleeping E
F'
areas in areas where air circulation is poor. An engineer who specializes in design of
heating and ventilation systems must certify that the proposed design will prevent
excessive levels of carbon monoxide from concentrating inside the carports or in
buildings above.
26) The Applicant shall pay the required School Land Dedication Fee to the City of
Aspen, which is due and payable at the time of building permit application for the
development. This fee shall be assessed at the rate of the regulations and calculations
in effect at the time of the building permit application.
27) The Applicant shall pay the required Park Development Impact Fee to the City of
Aspen, which is due and payable at the time of building: permit- application for the
development. This fee shall be assessed at the rate of the regulations and calculations
in effect at the time of the building permit application.
28) The Applicant shall include appropriate language in the Final PUD Agreement and
it's associated condominium documentation regarding the homeowner's association
for Parcels 1 and 2 (to be reviewed and approved by Staff) that ensures that the 11
affordable housing units on Parcel 1 shall not be unduly burdened by a
disproportionate share of responsibilities associated with the free market units on
Parcel 2.
29) One of the Category 3 studio units shall be priced between the maximum sales price of
Category 2 and Category 3 and that the Category 4 two -bedroom unit sales price shall be
priced between Category 3 and Category 4.
30) The construction of the affordable housing units shall be built in conjunction with the
free market units. and that the approval of the Certificate of Occupancy for the deed-
16
P83
restricted units be prior to or in conjunction with the Certificate of Occupancy for the
free-market units.
31) The affordable housing units shall be deed -restricted prior to building permit approval or
at the time of Final Plat approval, along with all other required documents; i.e.,
Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Declaration of Covenants, etc., and that these
documents shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for
approval.
32) The affordable housing units shall be listed with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority at the time of Certificate of Occupancy and shall be sold through the lottery
process.
33) The maximum sales prices for the deed -restricted units shall be set at the prices stated in
the Guidelines in effect at the time of Final Plat approval.
34) The accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted prior to building permit approval
for the free market units and abide by the conditions established under Section
26.520.050 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.
35) Prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the free-market units associated with the accessory
dwelling units, a site visit shall be conducted for compliance.
Section 2
,. All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals herein awarded, whether in public meeting 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 authorizing entity.
SPrtion
'This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any section 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 ordinance.
Section 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 shall be deemed. a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Resolution, to record a copy of
this. Resolution in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
17
P344
Section 6
Ap
public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 2nd day of July, at 4:3 0 in the City
Sist
er Cities Room, Aspen City Hall, Aspen ColorP ado, fifteen .(15) days prior to whicn
hearing a ublic notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation
b
within the City of Aspen.
b the Commission at its regular meeting on July 2" d, 2002.
APPROVE y
PLANNING AND ZONING
APPROVED AS TO FORM: COMMISSION:
i AttorneyJasmine Tygze, Chair
City
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
18
C .
R35
Exhibit A: Review Standards.
I. Consolidated Conceptual & Final Planned Unit Development
A. General Requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff finds this project is not only consistent with many of the goals of the AACP, it
furthers them. While there are environmental issues associated with the site, Staff finds
that they can be adequately mitigated by following the consultant's recommendations,
which .have been. incorporated as conditions of approval. This project also benefits the.
City in that the private sector will clean up the site from its current status regarding mine
tailings, which betters Aspen's environment. Staff supports this project because it
provides quality affordable housing by the private sector in a location that is within easy
walking distance to Aspen's downtown core as well as easy access to mass transit, which
significantly reduces the reliance on the automobile. Additionally, the design quality of
the units and their associated category levels have been deemed an exceptional project by
the Housing Authority. The project as a whole remains very consistent and; furthers the
affordable housing, transportation, and design quality goals of the AACP. Staff
recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this Resolution
recommending approval to City Council.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing .
.land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The surrounding area includes a variety of land uses that consist of single-family
dwellings, lodges, duplexes, and multi -family dwellings. As a result, the character of the
surrounding land uses is as varied as the types of structures and their residents. This
projects proposes 61% affordable housing for local working residents and 39% free
market units that will most likely serve as second home / tourist .type units. Both of these.
uses already existing in the immediate neighborhood. For example, the Madsen .
Apartments directly across the street have historically housed and currently continue to
house local working residents. The Boomerang Lodge across the street has long provided
for tourist accommodations. Both examples are consistent with the proposed
development.
Additionally, the surrounding zone districts are primarily long-term residential types of
uses. Clearly, the intent of the affordable housing units is to provide long-term residential
housing for the Pitkin County's locally working residents. Staff finds this project is
consistent with these surrounding uses.
19
we
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future. development of
the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
A large portion of the site proposed to be developed through this project is covered with
residual mine waste in the form of mine tailings and debris form intensive silver mining
activity. This development will clean up much of the waste soils that have been placed on
the site to date. In Staff s view this action / mitigation will make the site more attractive
and clean the site with respect to the soils. As a result, Staff finds the proposed
development will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
4. The proposed develops -rent has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMOS, . 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 11 proposed affordable housing units are exempt from the provisions of. the Growth
Management Quota System (GMQS) as well as the 2 ADUs. In addition, the free market
units . proposed as part of this project are also exempt from GMQS when they are
proposed in the AH zone district.
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 a uide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the
PER During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with
surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
Staff Finding
The PUD provides a mechanism to adjust the underlying zoning's dimensional
requirements for .particular developments, which is appropriate for a site that is 27,000
square feet or larger. Indeed that is the case for the Little Ajax site. The Applicant
proposes to rezone the property to Affordable Housing / PUD which requires the
Applicant to establish the dimensional requirements through a Final PUD Development
Plan pursuant to the list provided in Section 26.710.110(D) in the land use code. Staff
provides the following matrix below to illustrate the proposed dimensional requirements
for this project.
Dlmenslonal 5
Lo t 1
!L M 9
Lot
R e u -em ent
tetTnitsJ
f
ee Marke
Minimum Lot Size (square
9
feet)
13,939 sq. ft.
39,204.sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Area per
Dwelling Unit
1,267 sq. ft.
9,801 sq. ft.
Maximum Allowable
(4) 1-bedroom units x 500 sq. ft. / unit
(2) 3-bedroom units x 1,500 sq. ft. / unit
20
1
P37
Density
(3) 2-bedroom units x 1,000 sq. ft. / unit
(2) 4-bedroom units x 2,000 sq. ft. / unit
(4) 3-bedroom units x 1,500 sq. ft. / unit
Minimum Lot Width
115 feet
20 feet (at access point)
Minimum Front Yard
5- feet
3 5 feet
Setback
Minimum West Side Yard
5 feet
5 feet
Setback
Minimum East Side Yard
0 feet
5 feet
Setback
Minimum Rear Yard
20 feet
40 feet
Setback
Maximum Site Coverage
6,723 sq. ft
7,109 sq. ft
Maximum f3eight
North Building; 22 feet
33 feet
South Building: 28.5 feet
Minimum Distance b/w
15 feet
15 feet
Buildings
Minimum Percent of Open
o
5 5 /o
Space
Trash Access Area
On each end of the free market building an at the east end of the south AH building
Allowable Floor Area
Total Allowable: 23,238 sq. ft.
(FAR)
Total Allowable: 29,994 sq. ft.
Minimum Off Street
15 parking spaces
8 parking spaces
Parking
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 and man-made hazards.
.c) Existing; natural characteristics of the property .and surrounding area such
as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and sign cant 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 proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate and compatible with the
surrounding area. More specifically, the proposed heights of the three buildings are
consistent with the requirements of the surrounding R-6, R-15, and R/MF zone districts
of 25 feet with the exception of the free market at the rear of the site. Regarding scale and
massing, there already exist structures that are compatible in size and relationship to West
Hopkins Avenue such the Madsen Apartments and the Boomerang Lodge.
The. proposed dimensional requirements dictate to some degree where structures will be
placed on the site. Due to the existing mine tailings on the site the three structures and
associated impervious asphalt surfaces will cover a portion of the site that will effectively
contain these mine tailings as recommended by the report provided by CTL Thompson.
21
Due to an apparent mine shaft on the property that could cause subsidence, Staff has
required the Applicant to contact a specialist to conduct a geophysical investigation
regarding the location of the mineshaft in order to determine the potential for subsidence.
This report shall be submitted for review by the Community Development Department
prior to the issuance of building permits.
There are steep slopes on the southern portion *of the site (Parcel 2). Due to potential rock
fall hazards, Staff has required the Applicant to comply with the CTL. Thompson's
recommendations that the hazard can be effectively mitigated with supported / reinforced
foundations on the free market structure as well as constructing a .."Bruge Netting" barrier
(rockfall fence) on the slope above the structure. Staff shall require the Applicant to
comply with the consultant's recommendation to also provide for an MSE wall that
protects the western side of the free market units where the. Bruge fencing terminates.
According to the Environmental Health Department, the proposed .development will
generate approximately 129 vehicle trips per day. However, these trips will most
certainly be reduced due to the project's location to mass transit and the downtown core.
The Applicant is also required to construct sidewalks in front of the entire property along
West Hopkins Avenue, which will add to the pedestrian experience along West Hopkins
as it will connect and be similar to the approved Boomerang project to the east. Further,
the Applicant is required to dedicate a public trail easement to the City of Aspen for both
the upper and lower trails that cross the property. Staff finds this project is not a
significant traffic impact to the area due to the likely limited vehicle use of residents of
the affordable housing units. Staff .finds that the proposal and the required conditions of
approval satisfy this standard.
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
There presently exist structures of similar scare and massing to the _structures that are
proposed as part of this development such as the Madsen Apartments and the Boomerang
Lodge. The site is over 50,000 sq. ft. (slightly over an acre) in area, of which; only a
small portion of the site is proposed for development. The adjacent properties to the
north, east, and west are presently developed by multi -family structures, single-family
dwellings and a proposed lodge expansion of the Boomerang Lodge.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based
on the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development
including any non-residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
The proposal provides the required number of parking spaces for the free market
structures and 15 spaces for 11 affordable housing units as well as the required space
for each of the ADUs. More particularly, the development provides affordable housing
within the City which .promotes a more stable / reliable employment base for the local
economy which is vested in the community while reducing the commuter traffic impact
to Highway 82. The development is located within walking distance to downtown and
mass transit, which reduces reliance on the automobile.
4. The maximum allowable density within, a PUD may be reduced if there gists
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 proposal address the issues of water pressure, drainage, other utilities as well as
sufficient access for fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance.
5. 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 mudflow, 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 proposal outlines the use of a Bruge fence to mitigate the dangers of rock falls as
outlined in the application. The proposed development is taking into account the
issues of natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and water pollution.
Further, the proposal does not have a pernicious effect on air quality and the design
and location of the project is located away from the natural features of the site.
23
RV
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. Spec fcally, 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
subparagraphs 4 and 5, 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 Findinb
The proposed project is within. the allowable density requirements as outlined in the
A.H/PUD zone district.
B. Site Design:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent
public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed
development shall comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique,
provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, -or contribute to
the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate
manner.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open
spaces and vistas.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the
urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and
engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency
and service vehicle access.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical
and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding
properties.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
de -sinned to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the
use.
STAFF FINDING
The project is clustered so that natural features the site and open space are preserved.
The structures are appropriately oriented to West Hopkins Avenue and contribute to the
urban context. The Applicant complies with the requirements for emergency and service
vehicle access, is proposing units that comply various entities for handicap access and
24
Ni
there is a proposed trail running through the middle of the project for pedestrian access to
the property. The Applicant will comply with the site drainage requirements of the.
Community Development Engineer and the City Engineering Department to ensure
adequate drainage. Standard 7 is .not applicable as there are no non-residential uses
proposed.
C. Landscape Plan:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure corn
patibilith of the proposed
landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and
with existing and proposed features of the subject property. Th,e proposed
development shall comply with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment* of exterior spaces,
preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity
and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protectin; existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
STAFF FINDING
The City of Aspen Parks Department has reviewed the proposal for issues that relate
to tree removal, revegetation and erosion control. The Parks Department, through
several conditions of approval, believes the landscape plan satisfies the above three
standards.
D. Architectural Character:
It is the purpose of this standard 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 and architectural character
plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The
proposed architecture of the development shall:
1. be compatible with or enhance . the' visual character of the city;
appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property,
represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and
respect the scale and massing of nearby, historical and cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use
of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems.
2. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
STAFF FINDING
As previously mentioned, this proposed multi -family project is located adjacent to a
the Boomerang Lodge, which operates as a short term tourist accommodation, and the
Madsen Apartments, which is a multi -family complex. Therefore, the project
25
P42
respects scale and massing of nearby resources. The proposed materials for the L
' ct are neutral in color, allowing the buildings to sit on the site. Due to the �
prof e
the use of solar access would
ert 's location in proximity to Shadow Mountain,
prop y
be
difficult to accomplish. The Applicant is proposing highly efficient radiant heat k
and boilers and large windows will allow for the use of natural light.
E. .Lighting: will be
The urpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development general
P
lighted in all appropriate manner considering bothpublic safety
aesthetic conceriis. The following standards shall be accoevent direct mplished. or hazardous
l . All lightinCY
g is proposed so as to Pr streets or landslar Lighting of site
interference of any king to adJO1l11t1, s
features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
?, ting
All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with thmOutdoor
ilteoo na1�IPUD
Standards unless otherwise approved and noted f
me
documents. Up -lighting of site features, buildings, landscape eohib'ted and
lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is p f
residential development.
STAFF FINDING
' th Section required to comply wi26.575.150 of the Aspen Municipal
The Applicant is re q
wn-directional
The Applicant is proposing shielded, dofixtures for the trails
Code. PP
and sidewalks.
F. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area:
ace, or
If the proposed development includes a commoners inkthepropoen � d PUD,
recreation area for the mutual benefit of all develop P
the following criteria shall be met:
The pro osed amount, location, and design of the common park, proposed
open
1. P P p
space, or recreation area enhances the character Structures 1 and natural
development, considering existing and propos
landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the PQndeuses
built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various
and property users of the PUD. are
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common paro eadh lot-recreation
or n ll ias
is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years)
unit owner within the PUD or ownership is prolar manner.
uoj1 lein
al inlntrument for the
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance thro b a
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation residential
shared facilities together with a deed restriction against ut
ure
commercial, or industrial development.
STAFF FINDING
5% of the site will be open space at the completion of the project. The
As proposed, 5 through the homeowners coven
maintenance of the open space will be s anrdasde deeded in perpetuity to the unit
A proportionate interest in the common propertywould require a PUD
owners. Any additional development on eel thetake ad additional measures through
amendment and the Applicant has agreed
is to assure the permanent care and maintenance of the open spaces and other
covenants
shared facilities.
26.
� E-
P43
G. Utilities and Public -Facilities:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any
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.
.2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of.the developer.
4. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
STAFF FINDING
The Applicant has been working with Schmueser Gordon Meyer, as well as the
necessary parties in the. City of Aspen to insure that adequate infrastructure facilities
will be installed to accommodate this development. The Applicant will make any
necessary improvements to mitigate adverse impacts on the public infrastructure and
are willing to install oversized facilities if that is deemed necessary by the City of
Aspen._
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.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not. create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the
proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
3. .Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access
to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated
public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and
maintenance.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted
specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle. paths,
and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate
manner.
S. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained
under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to
ensure appropriate public and emergency access.
27
P44°l
6. Security o ates, a card posts, .or other entryway expressions for the PUD,
or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
STAFF FINDING
The proposed development has adequate access via West Hopkins Avenue and
through proposed private driveways within the project. Based on the location of the
project, composition, of the residents and staff analysis, the development will not
create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the development to such an.extent
that improvements will need to be made to the road. The applicant is proposing two
trails within the project that will serve both the residents of the project and the public.
The proposal is consistent with the AACP and adopted plans regarding trails,
pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation.. The final PUD documents will allow
for limited public use of the streets for emergency access and there are no security
gates or guard posts being proposed.. Other entryway expressions will be minimized.
H. Phasing of Development Plan.
1. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent
practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
2. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate.
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu,
construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD,
construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation
measures are realised concurrent or prior to the respective impacts
associated with the phase.
�. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu,
construction of an_y facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD,
construction of -any required affordable ---housing, and any .mitigation
measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts
associated with the phase.
STAFF FINDING
The Applicant is planning on completing the project in one phase and will mitigate any
necessary impacts as required with each step in the project
28.
w
P45
TT_ %nninQ to ATE / PTTD
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this Title.
Staff Finding
The Applicant wishes to annex Parcel 2 into the City, which requires that a zoning
designation be placed on that property. Assuming the property is annexed into the
City, the Applicant requests to rezone ,the entire property, Parcels 1 and 2, to
Affordable Housing with a Planned Unit Development overlay (AH/PUD). It is this
zoning that allows the ability to conduct such a proposal. Staff finds the very nature
and purpose of the proposed zone district of AH/ PUD is not in conflict with any
portions of this title.
Currently, Parcel 2 in Pitkin County is zoned R-1. and Parcel 1 in the City is zoned
R-15. Once Parcel 2 has been annexed into the City, the Applicant proposes to rezone
both parcels to Affordable Housing / Planned Unit Development. (AH/PUD). The AH/
PUD zone district's sole purpose is to provide a zoning that fosters the ability to
develop affordable housing projects that are integrated throughout the City of Aspen.
In addition, it is a planning mechanism that is significantly supported by the goals of
the AACP, which are intended to maintain the balance between Aspen "the
29
P46
Community" and Aspen "the Resort." As mentioned above, there are primarily only
two types of affordable housing .projects the City allows in the AH / PUD zone
district: 1) projects that contain 30% free market housing and 70% affordable housing
and 2) projects that contain 40% free market housing and 60% affordable housing.
The Little Ajax project is an example of the latter which as been deemed as an
exceptional proj ect by both the Housing Authority and the City. Council.
Planned Unit Developments, are planning mechanisms that allow for projects to
reestablish the dimensional requirements for a site -specific development plan using
the underlying zone district as a guide. However, the AH /PUD allows projects to
establish their dimensional requirements with no underlying guide. This is done in an
effort to afford a development plan more flexibility due to the distinct community
benefit (AH units) provided.
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning will further the affordable housing goals of the
AACP which supports providing affordable housing within the City which promotes
a more stable / reliable employment base for the local economy which is vested in the
community while reducing the commuter traffic impact to Highway 82. Staff finds
the development is consistent with the surrounding development that includes large
structures that provide local resident housing as well as tourist accommodations, and
duplex and single-family long term residences. The development is located within
walking distance to downtown and mass transit which reduces reliance on the
automobile and remains consistent .with the affordable housing policies as described
in the Infill Report where free market units are recognized as an integral and
necessary component to making affordable housing financially feasible.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding
The project as a whole remains very consistent and furthers the affordable housing,
transportation, and design quality goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan
(AACP). More specifically, the AACP reinforces the importance affordable housing
plays in the community. The AACP encourages the private sector to participate in
providing housing rather than having that responsibility rest solely on the shoulders of
the Housing Authority / City of Aspen. Further, .the AACP places importance on
evaluating each housing project regarding site location, project design, unit type,
category mix, and proximity to the City's employment base (i.e. the down town
commercial core), to enhance the ability to walk to work or proximity to mass transit.
Moreover, the purpose statement in the Affordable Housing / PUD zone district
acknowledges the necessity of including a limited component of free market units to
offset the cost of developing ("subsidizing") affordable housing costs.
C. R'hether the proposed amendment is compatible with scirroundina zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
30
11
Staff Finding
The surrounding area includes a variety of land uses that consist of single-family
dwellings, lodges,. duplexes, and multi -family dwellings. As a result, the character
of the surrounding land uses . is as varied as the types of structures and their
residents. This projects proposes 61 % affordable housing for local working
residents and 39 % free market units that will most likely serve as second home /
tourist type units. Both of these uses already existing in the immediate
neighborhood. For example, the Madsen .Apartments directly across the street have
historically housed and currently continue to house local working residents. The
Boomerang Lodge across the street has long provided for tourist accommodations.
Both examples are consistent with the proposed development.
Additionally., the surrounding zone districts are primarily long-term residential types
of uses. Clearly, the intent of the affordable housing units is to provide long-term
residential housing for the Pitkin County's locally working residents. Staff finds this
project is consistent with these surrounding uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic aeneration and road safety.
Staff Findinz
The applicant calculated a trip generation figure of 5.86 trips per day based on the
standards of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). This figure is a relatively high
estimate due to the close proximity of the site to the commercial core and due to the
fact that this figure takes into account the free-market townhomes, which will most
likely not be occupied year round. Even with this over -estimation, the increase will
have a minor impact on the surrounding streets.
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, includin;r but
not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding
A project of this size will not result in the over -capacity of such public facilities as _
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, school and
emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding
The structures on this lot will be limited to the lower, flatter portions of the site,
therefore limiting the amount of excavation and alteration of the lower part of
31
Ma� s
41
Shadow Mountain. Further, the applicants are taking steps to assure the fill located
on site is properly handled and utilized.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible . with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding
The applicant is proposing quality, livable affordable housing in a mixed -use
neighborhood. The City of Aspen Municipal Code provides incentives for such
projects and therefore this project is consistent and compatible with the community
character of the City.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding
A development on the adjacent property has been approved for a combined lodge and
affordable housing use. The rest -of the neighborhood is mixed -use with a variety of
lodge and multi -family complexes. The proposed use and rezoning ,to AH/PUD is
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and other proposed developments.
I. 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.
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment is consistent with the guidelines outlined in the Aspen Area
Community Plan as well as the Aspen Municipal_ Code, which provides incentives
and exemptions for AH/PUD projects.
III. 8040 Greenline Review
This provision of the code requires all development located at, above, or within 150 feet
below the 8,040-foot elevation in the city limits of Aspen to be reviewed by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred
fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set
forth below. The development is proposed to take place within the 150-foot elevation
below the 8040 Greenline as depicted on the following map (next page):
32
Y' i
r >J
P49
1) The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is
suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability
characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud
flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain
hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the
soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a
location acceptable to the city. .
Staff Finding
The lower benches of the proposed development are suitable for development once the
issues of the septic system and the mine rock waste are handled. The applicant is
complying with the suggestions of their consultants, CTL/Thompson, related to both
these matters and there are conditions of approval in the proposed resolution which
require addressing these two issues. As for the rockfall hazard, the applicants are
installing a Bruge fence to protect the residential units.
2) The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affeci on
the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, and soil erosion or have
consequent effects on water pollution.
Staff Finding
The proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage and soil erosion nor will it have consequent effects on water
pollution. Drainage on site will be , designed to comply with City standards and areas
disturbed during construction will be revegetated following the completion of the project.
3) The proposed development does not have.a significant adverse affect on
the air quality in the city.
Staff Finding
The development'will not have a significant adverse impact on the air quality in the City.
Through using the 'ITE standards, it was determined traffic generation will be minimal
and the applicants will only install gas appliances in the project.
4) The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is
compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed
development is to be located.
Staff Finding
The road will be limited to providing access the proposed units on the property. The
utilities will be extended underground to the unit and the lower pedestrian trail will be
designed to go through the proposed development. The upper trail will generally follow
an existing game trail.
S) Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the
terrain, vegetation and natural land features.
Staff Finding
Grading will be minimized to the lower benches of the property. The applicant must re -
grade the existing mine waste on site and cap the material, therefore grading on the lower
benches will be significant. The proposed site plan does not call for any grading on the
steeper and more vegetated portions of the property...
6) T. placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for
roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the.
mountain as a scenic resource.
Staff Finding
The clustering of all three buildings is at the lower portion of the, property. Due to the,
design of the freemarket building, the driveway access will be able to remain at near
natural grade and the upper portion of the property will remain undisturbed.
7) Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be
designed to blend into the open character of the mountain.
34
P51'
Staff Finding
The buildings gradually step up in height going up the hill. The highest structure, the
freemarket building, will be built into the hill and the design will utilize proposed and
eaistincy trees the screen the building from West Hopkins Avenue.
S) Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are. available to service the
proposed development.
Staff Finding
All utilities are on -site. There is sufficient water pressure for domestic use and a fire
sprinkler system, which must be provided.
9) Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development,. and
said roads can be properly maintained.
Staff Finding
The applicants are proposing a private road, accessed off of West Hopkins Avenue,
which will be maintain by the owners in the Subdivision. The road. will be required to
meet City standards.
1 D) Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so
as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal
equipment.
Staff Finding.
Adequate ingress and egress are proposed for the development. .The applicant will be
required to meet the City's standards -as established --by the City Engineering Department
and Fire Marshal. Snow storage is designated on site.
11) Any trail on the parcel designated on the AACP: Parks / Open Space /
Trails map is dedicated for public use.
Staff Finding;
The applicant is proposing to pedestrian trails which will be designated on the final plat.
The upper trail will be a rough trail occasionally used by Nordic skiers. The lower trail
across Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 will run through the project between the freemarket and
affordable housing buildings.
IV. Special Review
PARKING
A. All zone districts. In all -Zone districts where the off-street parking
requirements are subject to establishment andlor mitig dtioii by special
review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the
residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met,
taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic
35
EN
generation'of the project, the projected impacts onto the on -street
parkin,; of.the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the
downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for
residents, guests and e»lployees.
In determining whether to accept the mitigation or whether to require
that the parking be provided on -site, the.Plannin� and Zoning
Commission shall take into consideration the practical ability.of the
applicant to place parking on -site, whether the parking needs of the
development have been adequately met on -site and whether the city has
plans for a parkin, facility which would better meet the needs of the
development and the community than would location of the parkin; on -
site.
Staff Finding
The applicant is providing 25 parking spaces for 15 units and 2 Accessory Dwelling
Units. Per the Aspen Municipal Code, based on the number and size of the units being
proposed, the required parking spaces shall be 30 spaces. The requirement for the
AH/PUD zone district is that the parking be set per the PUD. This project is near mass
transit routes and the commercial core, therefore the proposed parking should be
adequate for the proposed density.
B. Multi family dwelling units. Off-street parking provided for multi family
dwelling touts which do not share a common parkin; area is not required to
have unobstructed access to a street or alley, but may consist -of garage area,
parking strip or apron provided that the applicant demonstrates that adequate
landscaping will be installed to.reduce the parking`s visual impact.
Developments consisting of three or more dwelling units shall install one (1)
planter buffer per three parking spaces. Planter buffers shall be a minimum of
'ten (IO) feet long by two and one-half (2-112) feet wide by two (2) feet high
unless otherwise varied by the Commission. The location and dimensions of the
planters may also be varied by the Commission based on site specific
circumstances provided that no fewer than one (1) planter buffer is provided per
three (3) off-street parking spaces. Multi family projects using this provision
shall access parking from the alley, if available.
Staff Finding
The applicant is primarily proposing carport/garage access, therefore planter buffers are
not necessary.
C. Cash -in -lieu
Staff Finding
The applicant is not proposing to mitigate by paying cash -in -lieu.
6
D53
P53
A CCESSOR Y D WELLING UNIT
1. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose
of the ADUprogram, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which
it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability.
Staff Finding
The units are partially sub grade but are consistent with the AH/PUD zone district by
providing additional housing.
2. The proposed AD U is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate
in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site
confij uration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the
property.
Staff Finding
The ADUs are compatible with and subordinate in character to the primary residence.
3. 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 Finding
The ADUs are compatible with the neighborhood, parking spaces are provided and the
units are within walking distance of employment and recreational opportunities.
V. G.MQS Exemptions (26-470.070)
Staff Finding
The Applicant proposes that they are eligible for GMQS .exemptions as it relates to the
development of the four (4) deed -restricted affordable housing units proposed for Parcel 2
on Lot 3. Currently, these units .will be deed -restricted to a Category 2 income and
occupancy ' levels. These units are, pursuant to section 26.470.070(J), exempted from
GMQS.
37
RESOLUTION NO. 19
(SERIES OF 2001)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROV7NG' OF THE NEW
NEST HOPhTTNS CONCEPTUAL, PLANNED -UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF
ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, C OL ORA.D O.
Parcel No. 2735-124-00-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Aspen OK, LLC, owner, represented by Joe Wells, for Conceptual Planned Unit
Development approval for an affordable housing project at the 600 block of West
Hopkins Avenue, City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 53,187 square feet, is located
partially in the City of Aspen and partially in Pitkin County, and is located in the R-15
Zone District in both jurisdictions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a
Conceptual Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public meeting after
considering a recommendation . from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a
duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from
the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral
agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a -public meeting on January 2, 2001, the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted, by a six to zero (6-0) vote, to recommend City Council
approve the New West Hopkins Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD-,- and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission also voted by a six to zero (6-
0) vote to recommend the Applicant pursue the possibility for shared access to this site
with the Boomerang Lodge along the east property boundary; 'and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority voted unanimously on
December 6, 2000, to find that the project meets the requirements for an exceptional
project as set forth in the 2000 Affordable Housing Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the project meets the requirements for an
exceptional project as set forth in the 2000 Affordable Housing Guidelines; and,
NYHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has revie-Wcd and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Community Development Director, the applicable
referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
P55
Vi=REAS, the Aspen City Council 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,
YY EREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution Ru-thers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
. NOW, TBEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TIIE CITY OF ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL as follows:
Section 1
The New West Hopkins Affordable Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development is
approved, with the following conditions:
1. The Final Application shall include detailed descriptions of two (2) trails across the
property to be dedicated public trail easements. One trail shall be across the lower
portion of the property connecting the existing trail to West Hopkins Avenue and the
other across the upper portion of the property. The Parks Department shall approve
the trail easements.
2. The Final Application shall show a shared access along the east property, boundary
between this property at the Boomerang Lodge expansion property.
?` 3. The Final Application shall demonstrate how the project will implement Green
Development Strategies as required by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
a. Use of gas log appliances. Pollution reduction and energy conservation.
b. Occupant recycling. Areas for glass, metal, plastic arid newspaper.
c: Waste management. Identify ways to recycle materials where possible, and
minimize trips to the landfill, including separate dump containers for wood and
other potential recyclables.
d. Destratification fan systems. Fans recycle hot air at roof and recirculate to living
areas to decrease heating loads.
e. Attic fan systems. Naturally ventilate building, reducing the need for air
conditioning from solar gain.
f. Comply or exceed energy code requirements.
g. Landscaping. Utilize native vegetation to reduce water use.
h. Bike storage areas.
i. Trail. To be made permanent fixture of town system by way of easement.
J. Erosion control. Measured specified by licensed geotechnical engineer to
minimize damage to vegetation and ground stability.
k. Site preservation and restoration. Topsoil to be preserved for re -use in areas of
disturbance. Site disturbance limited. Intensive restoration plan to ensure proper
re -growth and stabilization of disturbed areas.
P56
4. The Final Application shall address the Housing Authority's requirement to
investigate additional Green Development Strategies, including:
a. Building Commissioning.
b. Asbestos -free building.
c. CFC-free building products, including refrigeration systems and carpeting.
d. Recycled materials.
e. Building materials.
f. Water conservation.
g. Certified wood products.
h. Human comfort.
i. Energy efficient lighting.
J. Light pollution.
k. Indoor air quality.
1. Construction air quality plan.
5. The Final Application shall include a long-term hazard mitigation and containment
plan to protect the development from rock falls, snow slides; and .other natural
hazards. The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
6. The site contains an old abandoned septic system. The Applicant shall comply with
Pitkin County Environmental Health Department requirements for abandonment of
the system and properly disposing of waste material..
7. The Applicant shall develop traffic reduction measures for the project prior' to final
submission in order to comply with the City's Municipal Code requirements.. The
traf c reduction measures shall be approved by -the City's Environmental Health
Department.
B. The landscape plan shall indicate that the native areas will be treated with the Parks
Department'srecommended seed mix.
9. A 5-foot buffer to accommodate snow storage and removal on each side of sidewalks
and trails shall be indicated on the, final site plan.
10. The final site plan shall show the areas of the dedicated public trail easements,
approved by the Parks Department.
11. The buildings shall include an adequate fire sprinkler system and alarm system,
approved by the Aspen Fire Marshall.
12. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines or outside of
the approved building envelope and access envelope.
13. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall .be maintained on -site and not
within public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets
Department.
14. The, applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to
the hours between '7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
1.5. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed
rock or other style mud rack must be installed during .construction.
P57
16. All uses and construction 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 they pertain to
utilities.
17. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes,
including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 4:
'If any section, subsection, sentence, clduse, 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. ;
Attest: -
Kathryn S. h, dity Clerk
hel.Richards, Mayor
,1UL-19-2002 FR I 11:40 AN FAX NO, P. 02
P59
July 19, 2002
Peter L. Gluck and Partners, Architects
19 Union Square West
New York, NY 10003
Attention: Mr. Charlie Kaplan
Subject: Response Letter to
Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS)
Review of
Little Ajax Housing Project
Aspen, Colorado
Job No, GS-3409
This letter is our respon i 0"tP �� , N h�, r view of the planned Little Ajax
CGS rovides �, o nib r Ming the issues of rockfall, slope
I-jousing Project. C p ,, .�, ,�N
stability and undermining. Our res`'ns� t comments and recommendations
are below.
Rockfail
CGS correctly states that several types of Brugge fence are available f sufficient
strengthprovide protection from rockfall, and that it is important tochose a fence We understand the fence
strength for the potential energy from rock impacts,
supplierwill be provided our rockfall analysis resultswhich include potcnti l impact arty
GS and su
energy to judge the appropriate force, CGS also s t a
be designated to maintain the fence. We agreewith gge-st a maintenance
schedule and responsible party be designated.
Slope —taWrltv
CGS is correct that without proper retainage a slope failure during the
temporary construction condition would likely -,occur. We understand Yr reports
Companies, an experienced shoring contractor, has viewed the site an our tepa
at the required excavations and the hillside above can be safely
and opined th
retained during construction condition. if additional slope stability analysis is
required we would he happy to perform the analysis.
CTL/THOMPSON, INC.
CC�NSlJLT1NG F_NGINEERS
234 c;ENTLR DRIVE: a UI ENW000 �PI�INGS, COLORADC�'1G01 v (0'70) 0�15-�BaJ
JUL-19-2002 FRI 11:40 AN FAX NO, P, 03
P60
undf rninninq
We understand the owner will retain a firm specializing in applying
geophysical and/or resistivity methods to locate below ground voids to perform an
investigation after initial grading. We would anticipate the consultant would provide
recommendations for appropriate mitigation action if voids are found.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have
questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
CTL/THOMPSON, INC,
John Mechling, P.E.
Branch Manager
JM:cd
(5 copies sent) It ,IRIM1111411Is
J�IImuAI I� P
II1,11slI �I�V II�'la�lu I�
PI TF:R L. GLUCK & PARTNERS, ARCHITECTS
LITTLE' AJAX HOU$ING PROJECT
JOB NO, GS-9409
2
.d
July 11, 2002
Joyce Ohlson
Aspen - Pitkin Community Development Legal description:
130 South Galena Street Located in Section 12, T10S, R85W
Aspen, CO 81611 of the Wh P.M.
Subject: Review of Little Ajax Housing Project
Pitkin County, CO; CGS Unique No. PI-02-0006
Dear Ms. Ohlson:
Colorado Geological Survey has completed its site visit and review of the above -referenced 1.2-
acre parcel. A site visit was made on July 1, 2002. From referral material it appears that the
applicant plans to construct three multi -family dwellings on this property. Several reports were
submitted with this referral, including,.a Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation by
CTL/Thompson, Inc. (March 7, 2001 with letter updates dated August 3, 2001 and September 25,
2001), and a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (CTL/Thompson, February 21, 2001).
These reports provide a very thorough explanation of existing conditions, geology and geological
hazards present at this site, and CTL/Thompson makes appropriate preliminary recommendations
for hazard mitigation, earthwork, design and construction of proposed structures.
Rockfall. Rockfall hazard exists at the site based on visual observation and conversation with
longtime residents. CTL/Thompson has run CRSP analyses at the site to obtain preliminary
parameters for mitigation design. Currently, a Brugge fence is being considered to be located
upslope of the buildings. In addition, a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall is planned
along the west side of the buildings. There are two caveats related to the proposed fence. Brugge
makes a number of fences and it is important to select one that can withstand the impacts that
might be expected. Secondly, unlike an MSE wall, the fence might require repair after impact.
Maintenance of the fence must be designated to a responsible party.
Slope stability. CTL/T ran a slope stability analysis across the site. Under developed conditions,
the factor of safety of the slope decreased to 0.86, which is well below the 1.5 factor of safety
recommended for long-term stability. CTL/T discusses different options for mitigation without
demonstrating the feasibility of these methods. For example, if soil nails are the mitigation of
choice, but the nails must be 40 ft long to be effective, this could alter the economics of the
project. We do not recommend approval of the project without a slope stability analysis that
incorporates the proposed mitigation.
Undermining. The CTL/T reports state that available mine maps show no mining activity
between the base of Shadow Mountain and Hopkins Avenue, although a prospect tunnel is
present on the hillside. They recommend a geophysical investigation to determine the locations
and extent of shafts or other voids in the soil due to mining. However, there is no contingency
plan that discusses what should occur if voids are found. At what point do voids become a
problem? What are possible mitigations? We recommend that this issue be clarified before
approval of the project. t
P62
Little Ajax, p.2
In summary, we believe that this site is developable, but the risks are significant and prudent
development of this site will depend on accurate characterization of subsurface conditions and
careful engineering and construction of rockfall mitigation and slope stabilization measures. We
recommend that more information, as discussed above, be provided on slope stability mitigation
before approval of the plan. The mitigation designs should be prepared by a geotechnical
engineer experienced in these problems; later in the development process, this person should
confirm that the designs have been implemented as intended. A certificate of occupancy should
not be issued until the work is completed satisfactorily. Also, we recommend that more
information be provided on the subsidence investigation.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or
need clarification of issues identified during this review, please call me at (303) 894-2173, or e-
mail jill.carlson@state.co.us.
Sincerely,
Jill Carlson, C.E.G.
Engineering Geologist
MEMORANDUM -
TO: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Sarah Oates, City Zoning Officer'<'-:�:>
DATE: July 1, 2002
SUBJECT: Little Ajax PUD—Colorado Geologic Survey Referral
Community Development Department staff forwarded pertinent parts of the Little Ajax
PUD application to the Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) in June. The applicant was
required to obtain an independent review from the CGS due to a referral request by Pitkin
County and this request has been incorporated as a conditional of approval for the
combined Conceptual/Final PUD review.
Per the request of Joe Wells, the applicant's representative, staff forwarded .the
application to CGS mid -June of 2002. Staff conferred with Jill Carlson of CGS on July
11 2002, after visit to the site by her, and she stated there were concerns related to the site
plan and location of the upper free market units due to the rock outcroppings above on
Shadow Mountain. She felt the location of the upper units created a serious hazard and
that the site plan would need to be altered to move the free market units further north on
the lot. Jill will be forwarding written comments regarding the proposed project in the
next several days.
P64
Donna S. Fisher
1 July, 2002
Re: Little Ajax Affordable Housing/Free Market Development
600 Block of West Hopkins
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a 30-year Aspen resident and moved into the above -mentioned area just a year ago
from the East End. I was not aware of the conceptual approval given to this project so
spent an hour today going over the plans/approvals, etc. at City Hall. I am unable to
attend the meeting scheduled July 2nd and want my thoughts to be of record by issue of
this letter.
I think the approval being given for 11 affordable units and 4 free market units is more
than enough density. I do not agree with 2 ADU units being added. The parking seems
inadequate for a project with mostly 2 and 3 bedroom units. This size unit will generate
more than one car per unit, regardless of the distance to the city center. You will note
how many cars are parked on the streets down at 7th and West Hopkins, where 2
affordable housing developments exist. They have parking carports and/or garages but,
in spite of the fact that they are within walking distance and have close access to public
transportation, there are many "overflow" cars that park on the streets. Living in the
neighborhood, I see how that affects street maintenance/snow plowing, etc. Two and
three bedroom units will.usually have 2 cars. Please do not approve adding any more
units to this project.
I know that the issue of the existing trail has been addressed. I hope that you will make
sure the public has the right (by way of easements) to use the trail as it now exists. By
this I mean the path going up from 51h St. to the trail as well as the trail that then goes
east/west to and from Koch Park. In the plan I could not tell if the existing dirt path
(extension of 51h Street) is being left intact and I know it is used by many walkers, bikers
and skiers, myself included.
I appreciate your consideration of my concerns.
Yours truly,
Donna Fisher
60S W. Main St. Penthouse B Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 92S-2786
we
Z , P67
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: James Lindt, Planner 3 L
RE: Rezoning of Outlot B, Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA- Public Hearing -
Continued from June 18, 2002
DATE: August 6, 2002
APPLICANT /OWNER: Charles Marqusee
REPRESENTATIVE: Joseph Wells, Joseph Wells
Land Planning
LOCATION: Outlot B, Aspen Meadows
Subdivision/SPA
PARCEL ID NUMBER: 2735-121-13-008
CURRENT ZONING: Academic/SPA
PROPOSED ZONING: R-15 (Moderate -Density
Residential)
SUMNLA,RY: The Applicant requests to rezone Outlot
B of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA from the
Academic Zone District with an SPA Overlay to the
R-15 (Moderate- Density Residential) Zone District.
Outlot B was conveyed to the Applicant as
consideration for his giving of land for the
construction of the New Meadows Road in
conjunction with the Aspen Meadows SPA.
APPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: Outlot B is
currently vacant and is intended to be incorporated
into the residential lots directly to the south through a
lot line adjustment that may be approved
administratively.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting to rezone
Outlot B (see attachment "B" for
location), of the Aspen Meadows
Subdivision from the Academic Zone
District with an SPA Overlay to the
R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential)
Zone District. Outlot B was
conveyed to the Applicant in
consideration for land that ahe gave for
the construction of the New Meadows
Road.
The Applicant is requesting rezoning
approval in order to allow for the
merger of Outlot B with the two
properties located directly to the
south. The merger would
subsequently occur through the
administration of a lot line adjustment
by the Community Development
Director. Additionally, an
insubstantial SPA amendment to be
administered by the Community
Development Director is required and
has been requested to remove Outlot
B from the Meadows SPA.
LAND USE REQUESTS
The Applicant is requesting approval of the following land use requests:
1) Rezoning Outlot B from Academic with an SPA Overlay to R-15 (Moderate -Density
Residential) Zone District; and,
isles,
2) Insubstantial SPA Amendment to remove Outlot B from the Meadows SPA (to be
reviewed by the Community Development Director if rezoning application is
approved); and,
3) Lot Line Adjustment to merge Outlot B with the two lots located directly south of
Outlot B (to be reviewed by the Community Development Director pursuant to Land
Use Code Section 26.480.040(A), Lot Line Adjustment). (Please see draft plat
attached at the end of Exhibit "B").
REVIEW PROCEDURE
Rezoning (Two Step Review). City Council may approve or deny an application for
rezoning, after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a
recommendation from the Community Development Director, and after considering public
comment.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Rezoning:
Staff believes that the proposal to rezone Outlot B from the Academic Zone District with an
SPA Overlay to R-15, and to merge it with the residential parcels to the south will benefit
the City by cleaning up the zoning in this area. The proposed rezoning application and
subsequent lot line adjustment and SPA amendment would rezone the narrow strip of land
south of Meadows Road (Outlot B) to match the zoning of the other parcels on the south
side of the road. The current zoning (Academic Zone District with an SPA Overlay) of
Outlot B is no longer logical because the land is no longer under the ownership of the
Aspen Institute which would utilize it for educational and cultural purposes as the
Academic Zone District intends. Outlot B was given to the Applicant to provide a land
buffer as consideration for providing land for the construction of the new Meadows Road.
The proposed rezoning application will not provide additional development rights on Outlot
B. If the proposed rezoning is approved, the Applicant plans to merge Outlot B with the
two residential parcels located directly to the south. The associated lot line adjustment will
not allow for additional development rights to -be gained by any of the parcels involved
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.030(A)(1)(d), Lot Line Adjustments.
Therefore, no additional FAR or development rights would be provided to Outlot B or the
two parcels to the south by granting the proposed rezoning and subsequent lot line
adjustment.
Additionally, the single-family residence located on the parcel to the southeast of Outlot B
is currently non -conforming in regards to it's north setback. Rezoning and merging a
portion of Outlot B with the aforementioned parcel will lessen the setback non -conformity
by extending the parcel's lot line to the north. Therefore, the proposed rezoning will also
allow for the residential parcel to the south to be brought more into conformance with it's
current zoning (R-15) by allowing for the lot line adjustment to be completed. As
previously explained, the lot line adjustment cannot be approved unless the proposed
rezoning is approved.
0
ITeW
In addition, as previously mentioned, Staff believes that the proposed insubstantial SPA
amendment to remove Outlot B from the Meadows Specially Planned Area cleans up the
erratic zoning boundaries that were left behind as a result of the construction of New
Meadows Road. The proposed SPA amendment would allow for a sliver of land (Outlot B)
that is zoned Academic to be converted to the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone
District to match the zoning of the surrounding parcels of land. The Applicant has also
received a letter of consent from Aspen Institute to allow the Applicant to apply for the
SPA amendment.
As mentioned earlier in the memo, Outlot B is no longer under the ownership of the non-
profit entities that would utilize the parcel in a manner that is consistent with the uses in the
Meadows SPA and the underlying Academic Zone District. The Applicant has expressed
no intention at this time of selling Outlot B back to the Aspen Institute that would utilize it
for academic or cultural purposes. Staff believes that the proposed insubstantial SPA
amendment meets - the applicable review criteria for approval by the Community
Development Director pursuant to land use code section 26.440.090, amendment to SPA
development order..
STAFF ANALYSIS SUMMARY:
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set
forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, to approve an amendment to the official zone
district map. Staff recommends. that the Planning and Zoning Commission, forward a
recommendation of approval to City Council on the proposed rezoning application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed
resolution recommending that City Council approve the proposed rezoning application.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2002, recommending that City Council
approve the proposed rezoning application to allow Outlot B, of the Aspen Meadows
Subdivision to be rezoned to the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District."
Attachments:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Land Use Application
Exhibit C -- Aspen Institute Insubstantial SPA Amendment Application Letter of Consent
3
. '
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2002)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE OUTLOT B,
OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION TO THE R-15 (MODERATE —DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-121-13-008
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
H & C Marqusee Inc., represented by Joseph Wells, requesting approval to rezone Outlot B,
of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA from Academic with an SPA Overlay to the R-15
(Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning
application; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the rezoning under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that rezoning meets or
exceeds all applicable rezoning standards and that the approval of the rezoning application is
consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the 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 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land
Use Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that City Council approve the
application to rezone Outlot B, Aspen Meadows Subdivision from the Academic Zone District
with an SPA Overlay to the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District.
Section 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.
4
Section 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.
Section 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 shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6th day of
August, 2002.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
5
P72
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
REZONING FROM ACADEMIC WITH AN SPA OVERLAY TO THE R-15 (MODERATE -DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, 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 does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of
the Land Use Code. The proposed amendment to the official zone district map to change the
subject property's zoning designation from Academic with an SPA Overlay to R-15 is not in
conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. Actually, the proposed rezoning in
conjunction with the proposed insubstantial SPA amendment will allow for portions of
Outlot B, of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision to be merged with the two residential parcels to
the south through a Lot Line Adjustment to be reviewed by the Community Development
Director. By allowing for the Lot Line Adjustment to occur, the convergence of the narrow
Outlot B and the residential parcel to the southeast will correct an existing setback non-
conformity in relation to the existing single-family residence located on the residential
parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan. The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan's fiiture land use composite map
earmarks Outlot B, of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision for residential use. The proposed
rezoning to R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) is in keeping with this vision set forth in
the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zone districts
and land uses. Both of the parcels directly south of Outlot B are zoned R-15 and contain
single-family. residences. Additionally, the parcels located directly across the street are also
zoned R-15 with an SPA Overlay. The proposed rezoning will not increase the development
rights on Outlot B. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
no
P73
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning will have an effect on traffic generation nor
road safety. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities,
including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding
The proposed rezoning application will not increase the allowable development rights of
Outlot B. Therefore, Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for
public facilities. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in adverse impacts
on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application will not affect the Community
Character within the City of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the construction of the New Meadows Road changed the conditions
affecting the subject parcel which support the proposed rezoning application. The Applicant
was given Outlot B as consideration for giving land for the construction of the New
Meadows Road. Staff believes that the Academic zoning which is currently applied to Outlot
B is no longer appropriate for the parcel in that it is no longer owned by the Aspen Institute
and incorporated into the development plan of the Meadows SPA. The surrounding lots are
all zoned R-15 or R-15 with an SPA Overlay for the mostpart, and Staff believes that the
proposed rezoning application is appropriate to clean up the zoning on Outlot B. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
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.
7
P74
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the
purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. The proposed rezoning
application would make the zoning of Outlot B consistent with the surrounding parcels. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
0
07-22-02 11:10 COLDWELL BANKER ASPEN ID=9709204378 P02/02
P75
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE
ANfl' IYL^,ItC;; tIM
Executive 'Vitt President,
Adrniui,wacion and Finance
1000 North Third StrCct
agpcn. Co 81611
PH 970.544.7905
FX 970.544.7908
arnymiaaspeninvitutc.org
www.aspcnin:stimce.org
W.
July 16, 2002
Julie Ann Woods
Planning Director
City of Aspen
1"0 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms, Woods:
I am writing to you on behalf of The Aspen Institute, owner
of Lot I and Lot IA, Aspen Meadows Specially planned Area. My
letter is to confirm that the Institute consents to the 1-equest filed by
Charles Marqusee, Helga Marqusee, and H. and C. Marq.usee Inc. to
Merge Outlot B, Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area with other
parcels owned by these parties. Please contact me if you have any
questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Amy araerurrl
Seni ice_President of Administration
. A
26 July 2002
Letter to the Editor:
Aspen is one of the most unique and beautiful cities in the world. So, WHY IN THE WORLD would our
city want to go into a partnership with any individual (in this case Klaus Obermeyer) who wants to change
the height limit of structures, along with the laws of the stream margin review? This would cause grave
damage to those who have abided by the laws that are in place!
The plan of closing off RioGrande Place and bringing the structures forward towards the river would make
them seem even taller down in Oklahoma Flats where I live, and the view of the mountains would disappear
from sight. Since the buildings would cut the sunlight, it would become colder and darker in the winter.
But I'm not just talking about my neighborhood. What about those who walk the Rio Grande Trail or enjoy
using, or strolling by the Rio Grande Park? Would they rather look at a massive commercial development
instead of Aspen Mountain? Is this the first step that leads to Aspen becoming ordinary instead of
distinctive?
Ed Van Deusen
Aspen
cc: Mayor Helen Klanderud
All Aspen City Council Members
All members of Planing and Zoning
All Pitkin County Commissioners
City Attorney John Worster
All members of COWOP
All Oklahoma Flats homeowners
Klaus Obermeyer