Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20021119 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19i 2002 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES MEETING 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. LOT 9, MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD AMENDMENT, Sarah Oates B. LOT 3} ASPEN MOUNTAIN P~ AMENDMENT, Scott Woodford C. INFILL CODE AMENDMENTS, Chris Bendon, continued from 11/12 V. ~BOARD REPORTS VI. ADJOURN Wolf s Mountain View, Inc. November 19, 2002 C/o Charles Wolf 508 East Cooper Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 City Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Regarding: Remodeling Rules for the Commercial Core To all Commission Members: I would like to take this opportunity to commend you for advancing the notion that Aspen should finally encourage development in the downtown commercial core. In general, I believe the Infill plan is a step in the right direction. However, this plan definitely needs refinement if it is to achieve its goal of allowing property owners to rejuvenate our ageing infrastructure. I have done the numbers with Chris Bendon and he will confirm for you that it makes no financial sense for a property owner to tear down an existing 2 story building just to replace it with a 3 story building in which 1 floor is given away to employee housing. The result will be that no buildings currently in existence will be replaced. Specifically, neither the current city code nor the changes advocated under the Infill plan allow property owners to simply demolish older buildings and replace them with what was in existence. This is a very reasonable goal and I believe we all have an interest in seeing to it that the city does not continue to deteriorate. All I am advocating is that the current code be replaced with a simple rule that allows for buildings, at least in the commercial core, to be torn down and replaced with the same configuration in other words the same square footage and the same or more residential units. In the case of Cooper Street for example this would mean 2 floors of commercial space and 1 penthouse floor. This new rule would replace the silly rule we now have that requires contractors to put up expensive braces just to hold up walls filled with crumbling bricks that cannot even be seen from the street. We need to improve the downtown atmosphere by upgrading the amenities we provide to our visitors and I hope you will include the simple rule change I am advocating in the Infill plan. Best regards, Coaj�� Charles Wolf I ��J���ir✓� goo,�, �e�reslt�/o� MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Plamiing and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy DirectoNA FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer RE: Maroon Creek Club PUD Amendment - Public Hearing DATE: November 19, 2002 APPLICANT /OWNER: Pearce Equities Group Il, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Bruce Hazzard, Design Workshop LOCATION: Lot 9, Maroon Creek Club PUD CURRENT ZONING: R-15A PUD PROPOSED LAND USE REQUEST: Amendment to the Lot'9 Designated Building Envelope and Maroon Creek Club PUD Plat SUMMARY: The applicant wishes to obtain an adjustment to the designated building envelope to minimize the square footage of 30% slope or greater within the building envelope and modify a plat note which requires that structures in the Maroon Creek Club PUD not be built on slopes of 30% slope or greater within the designated building envelope. Several lots are exempt from this standard and the application is asking that this lot be included in REVIEW PROCEDURE An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing pursuant to Section 26.445.030(C) Step 3. The action by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered the final action, unless the decision is appealed to City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant, Pearce Equities Group II LLC, represented by Design Workshop, requests an amendment to the Maroon Creek Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) to amend the designated building envelope for Lot 9 and amend the following plat note: 5. Tf7ith respect to single family and tol4)nhome lots shol4m on this Plat, no developzent 1441/ be alloll)ed i4)ithin approved building envelopes on slopes exceeding 30% lvith the exception of Lots 12 and 17 through 40 where any slopes exceeding 30% shall be graded pursuant to the grading sholhn on sheets 15 and 16 of the PUD plan. The applicant would like to amend the plat note to include Lot 9 as an exception and has proposed to modify the building envelope to exclude some portions of slope 30% or greater. As a way to come into greater compliance, staff asked the applicant to further modify the building envelope. The would have moved the entire upper portion of the building envelope in line with the "Ditch and Toe of Slope" on the east side of the property so that the 30% slope or greater can be minimized. The applicant chose to pursue the amendment at Planning and Zoning Commission rather than amend the envelope to that extent, citing impact on the next door neighbor (See Exhibit B for Plat). The adjacent neighbor has written a letter concerning the impact of the proposed change on his lot (See Exhibit C). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the Maroon Creek Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of amending the building envelope for Lot 9 and amending Plat Note 5 to include Lot 9 as an exception. The criteria for evaluating PUD amends of this nature are found in Exhibit A. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 6 1, Series of 2001, approving the proposed amendment to the Maroon Creek Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of amending the building envelope for Lot 9 and amending Plat Note 5 to include Lot 9 as an exception. " ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application and Proposed Amended Plat Exhibit C -- Letter from Jerry Cavaleri 2 EXHIBIT A MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding The proposed amendment is consistent with the AACP. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445. 040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. 3 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 This standard has not been met. By further moving the building envelope to eliminate all of the upper portion of the 30% or greater slopes as suggested by staff existing natural characteristics such as steep slopes would be given greater consideration. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding Staff finds that this criterion does not apply to this application. 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 Staff funds that this criterion does not apply to this application. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum densio) 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 Staff finds that this criterion does not apply to this application. II S. The maximum allowable densio� 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) TI7e 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 harfnful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding Staff finds that by allowing the applicant to amend the PUD documents and exempt Lot 9 from the more stringent limits on developing 30% slopes areas, this criteria would not be met. Development of steep slopes can cause detrimental effects and cause soil erosion, more run-off and water pollution by sediment. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be e increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and S, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding There is no increase in density as part of this application. Staff finds that this criterion does not apply to this application. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public 5 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 identioJ 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. S. 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 designed to accommodate any programmatic fuunctions associated with the use. Staff Finding Staff finds that by amending the building envelope as proposed the plan does not compliment the site's natural features and slope as would an alternative envelope adjustment that would have eliminated more of the 30% or greater slopes from the building envelope. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the cioJ, withh surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well -designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantio� 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. 6 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding Staff finds that this criterion does not apply to this application. More cutting of the steep areas on this site would not be in keeping with the goal of this criterion. Leaving areas alone allows for continuity of the existing landscape which itself becomes a visual and environmental asset to the site. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes, which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final. development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall.: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. In corporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding Staff finds that this criterion does not apply to this application. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 7 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding The applicant must meet the outdoor lighting requirements set forth in the City of Aspen Lighting Ordinance. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 3. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 4. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuioJ (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 5. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding Staff finds that this criterion does not apply to this application. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur all 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. 0 3. Oversized utilities, picblic facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding Staff finds that this criterion does not apply to this application. Utility and other infrastructure are in place and not impacted by this amendment. 1. 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. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding Staff finds that this criterion does not apply to this application. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and 9 impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the developmzent plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in - lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the please. Staff Finding Staff finds that this criterion does not apply to this application. 10 RESOLUTION N0. � r (SERIES OF 2002) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MAROON CREEK CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO AMEND THE BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR LOT 9, MAROON CREEK CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AMEND PLAT NOTE 5 OF THE MAROON CREEK CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. 2735-113-09009 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Pearce Equities Group II LLC, represented by Design Workshop, to adjust the building envelope for Lot 9, Maroon Creek Club PUD and to amend Plat Note 5 of the Maroon Creek Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) plat; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.445, the Plaiming and Zoning Commission may approve an amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Conununity Development Staff, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the request for an amendment to the Maroon Creek Club PUD to adjust the building envelope for Lot 9, Maroon Creek Club PUD and to amend Plat Note 5 of the Maroon Creek Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) plat and recommended denial; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested the plat note be amended to read as follows: 5. With respect to single fainily and townhome lots shown on this Plat, no development will be allowed within approved building envelopes on slopes exceeding 30% with the exception of Lots 9, 12 and 17 through 40 where any slopes exceeding 30% shall be graded pursuant to the grading shown on sheets 15 and 16 of the PUD plan; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Conunission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Department, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public continent at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Plaiuling and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution fiu-thers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 19, 2002, the Plaiuling and Zoning Commission approved, by a _ to _ (- - _) vote, an amendment to the Maroon Creek Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of adjusting the 11 building envelope for Lot 9, Maroon Creek Club PUD and amending Plat Note 5 of the Maroon Creek Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) plat; and, 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 Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the amendment to the Maroon Creek Club Plaluled Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of adjusting the building envelope for Lot 9, Maroon Creek Club PUD and to amending Plat Note 5 of the Maroon Creek Club Plaluled Unit Development (PUD) plat, is approved. Section 2: 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 3: 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 Commission at its regular meeting on November 19, 2002. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair 12 Exk.b't t G Jerry Cavaleri 1151 Tiehack Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 October 29, 2002 ;:IV, FD� Planning '& Zoning Commission r i ' c/o Sarah Oates .� Aspen Community Development ,# sus,, a 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 i Re: Lot 9, Maroon Creek Club Dear Board Members, I am writing you to express my concerns about the building envelope adjustment that you are considering for Lot 9 at the Maroon Creek Club. I live at 1151 Tiehack Road and my lot is directly to the north of Lot 9. 1 have a small deed restricted employee house and my lot is very small as well. Fortunately, the land planners that laid out the lots and established the building envelopes placed Lot 9's building envelope toward the back of the lot so that there would be some separation and privacy between my small house and the 6,000 square foot house to be built next door. Sarah Oates showed me the adjustment that the owner of Lot 9 is proposing. My understanding is that the building envelope would be moved less that 10' to the east which would mean that I would no longer have a clear view corridor to the southwest out of my bedroom windows. While this definitely has a negative impact on my property, I would be willing to go along with it, assuming that the neighbor will do some landscape screening so that we are not staring into each other's windows. What I would not be willing to go along with would be any further movement of the building envelope to the east. If the building envelope were to be pushed out into the open field on the east half of Lot 9, 1 would end up with a huge trophy house perched over the top of my little employee house, blocking all of my views. This would be totally unacceptable, but I can't imagine that the respected members of our Planning and Zoning Commission would ever let this happen. I do plan on attending your meeting November 19. If you would like to speak to me before then, please call me at 925-2593 or 920-1558. ncerely (�lerr) Cavaleri MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Scott Woodford, Plam-ier,9A) RE: Lot 3, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION (TOP OF MILL) / PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND TEXT AMENDMENT DATE: November 19, 2002 PROJECT REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant, Four Peaks Development, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC, requests the Plamling and Zoning Commission grant the following requests: 1) Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residential Multi -Family Replacement Program (RMFRP); 2) PUD Amendment (Top of Mill) to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable housing units presently required for Parcel 2 (Note: this action is dependent upon approval of item #1 above); 3) Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the Accessory Dwelling Unit required for the duplex on Parcel 3 (Note: final decision on this action rests with the Plaluling and Zoning Commission and is not dependent upon approval of item # 1 above); Note on Request: If the text amendment to allow the payment of the fee in lieu is approved, the applicant proposes to replace the affordable housing with a free market duplex. To do so, the applicant would like to transfer reconstruction credits from another site under their ownership; however, that site is non-contiguous to the subject site and such transfers are not presently allowed by the Code. Another text amendment would be required to permit this, but was not part of the public notice for this application, so no discussion, or action may be taken on this request at this time. The applicant will have to submit another application to request the text amendment to permit transfer of reconstruction credits to build the desired free market duplex. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1.) Staff recommends denial of Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residential Multi -Family Replacement Program (RMFRP) . 2.) Staff recommends denial of the PUD Amendment (for Top of Mill) to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable housing units presently required for Parcel 2. 3.) Staff recommends approval of the Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the Accessory Dwelling Unit required for the duplex on Parcel 3 Topics of Discussion Not Part of the Discussion November 193 1.) Discussion of Text Amendment Proposal to replace the 2002 P&Z to allow fee in lieu for RMFRP, 2.) affordable housing on Parcel 2 Meeting: to allow this applicant the right to with free market duplex due to pay fee in lieu for Parcel 2; and 3.) that request not being part of to allow this applicant the right to the legal notice for this pay fee in lieu for the ADU on application. Parcel 2 Potential Future If P&Z and Council approve # 1 N/A Meeting: and #2 above, applicant will submit 1n application to replace the affordable housing on Parcel 3 with a free market duplex BACKGROUND: Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD was originally approved by the City Council on March 11, J 2002 via Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2002. This approval granted Final PUD and Subdivision approval, along with Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning to Lodge/Tourist Residential PUD and Conservation. The specific approval was for the subdividing of Lot 3 into eight (8) development parcels, two open space parcels, and one (1) parcel containing an existing garage. On those newly created eight parcels were to be the following: Parcel Proposed Development Units Bedrooms Per Unit Total FAR (sq. ft. Zone District. Parcel 1 Multi -Family Structure (Fn'1) 6 4 (24) 27,000 L/TR Parcel 2 Multi -Family Structure (AH) 4 4(8) 8,000 L/TR Parcel 3 -Duplex (FM) 2 5(25) 9,000 L/TR Parcel 4 single-Fa►uily Dwelling, (FM) 1 5 6,200 L/TR Parcel Single -Family Dwelling, (FM) 1 5 5,200 L/TR Parcel Single -Family Dwelling (FM) 1 5 5,200 L/TR Parcel 7 Single -Family Dwelling (FM) 1 5 6,500 L/TR Parcel Sin le-Famil Dwelling (FM) 1 5 6,500 L/TR Parcel Garage N/A N/A N/A L/TR - 2 - Parcel "A" Open Space N/A N/A N/A L/TR Parcel "B" Open Space N/A N/A N/A C Totals 17 82 1 73,600 (FM = Free Market; AH = Affordable Housing) As a result of the demolition of several multi -family units throughout the PUD, the Applicant was required to replace fifty percent of the demolished bedrooms and square footage pursuant to the City's Multi -Family Housing Replacement Program. This resulted in a requirement to replace 12.5 bedrooms and approximately 6,125 square feet of net residential area to mitigate the 25 multi -family bedrooms that were demolished throughout the PUD. To meet that requirement, the applicant proposed and were approved to build four affordable housing units on Parcel 2 equaling a replacement of thirteen bedrooms at around 6,200 square feet. Instead of constructing these units as approved, the applicant proposes to pay a fee in lieu instead (which is not currently allowed in the Code and is the subject of the Text Amendment to allow this option). PROCESS AND STAFF ANALYSIS (PRESENTED BY REQUEST TYPE): The following is an in depth explanation of each request and staff s cominents on their merits. (Full Review Criteria and Staff Findings are included in Exhibit A, B & C.) 1. Text amendment to the Land Use Code to add the option of a payment in lieu fee for the Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program (RMFRP). A text* amendment is required to permit the substitution of a payment -in -lieu fee for the four on -site affordable housing units approved for Parcel 2. Currently, the option of a payment of such fees is not provided for in the RMFRP, which now requires that affordable housing be replaced on the site of where it was demolished, or off -site if the City Council feels that the construction of the units on -site would be incompatible with the neighborhood or with the site constraints. The RMFRP is the only form of required affordable housing mitigation in the Land Use Code that presently does not permit payment -in -lieu. It is the applicant's proposal that the option of the fee not be automatic, but that the City Council have the discretion of whether or not to allow the payment in lieu based on a recommendation from the Housing Board. The applicant proposes adding the following, shaded language to the Code to accommodate the change: 26.530.050 Housing replacement requirements. A. Minimum replacement requirement. In the event of the demolition of resident multi family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net residential area demolished or converted. The replacement housing shall be configured in such a away as to replace fifty (50) percent of the bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by demolition. A minimum of fify (50) percent of the replacement housing WIC shall be above natural grade. The replacement housing shall be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 26.530.060, below. B. Location of replacement housing. Multi family replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that replacement of the units on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on -site which the City Council determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off -site, within the Aspen Metropolitan Area. When the owner's housing replacement requirements involves a fi°action of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional requirement a*. The amount of a cash -in -lieu shall be computed ilsh-16­4 e -r— —7- er fh „t c��„t;,, 2� ��n non set / '�'�'n , , pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housin Authority Guidelines, as amended. C. Tuning and quality of replacement unit. Replacement units shall be available for occupancy at the same time as the new unit or units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on -site or off -site, and shall contain fixtures, finish and amenities required by the housing designee's guidelines. When replacement units are proposed to be built off site, the owner shall be required to obtain a development order approving the off -site development prior to or in conjunction with obtaining a development order approving redevelopment on the site on which demolition is proposed to take place. Staff Comments on Text Amendment: Staff does not support the request for a text amendment (and consequently, the proposal to replace the affordable housing on Parcel 2 with a fee in lieu) because it does not comply with certain provisions of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). An in depth analysis of the concern follows: When the Residential Multi -Family Replacement Program (RMFRP) was established back in the 1980's, its intent was to replace locals oriented residential units on the same site on which they were demolished. This accomplished two things: one, it rebuilt the affordable units in locations within the town core. (as that's where the majority of the older apartments are located) and it required that those same units be reconstructed at the same time as the larger development, so that the units were available to the community relatively quickly. The program was also designed to disperse affordable housing throughout the community and not just in enclaves, promote a more socially and -4- economically integrated community, reduce air pollution by not forcing residents to drive long distances to work, and to prevent exclusion of working residents from the city's established neighborhoods (all policies of the AACP). Staff s contention is that by allowing applicants the option of paying the fee in lieu instead of constructing affordable housing units on -site within the RMFRP, would result in less affordable housing units being built where they traditionally have been located and instead more being constructed on the fringe of the community or on less desirable sites. In addition, staff is concerned that by allowing applicants to pay the fee in lieu, the onus is put on the public for finding suitable land for development of equivalent housing, enduring the entitlement process, and constructing the affordable units. This creates more risk to having the units ultimately be built and may subject it to increased costs and delays. A final reason that staff does not support this request is due to the potential increase in application requests to pay the fee in lieu instead of constructing the units on -site concurrent with the free market development. Not only would this increase staff time to process the applications, it may result in far less units being built within the City. 2. Amendment of the PUD Development Order to substitute a payment in lieu fee for. the four (4) affordable housing units presently required for Parcel 2 According to the applicant, the substitution of the fee for the units is requested because they feel that paying the fee and having the housing be constructed on an alternate site would be in the best interest of the project and the community. The applicant maintains that, during the original hearings, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) was not enthusiastic about the three and 4 bedroom unit configurations proposed and that they would have rather preferred one and/or two bedroom units on the site as they address the larger need in the corni-nunity. Due to site constraints, they feel that providing 7 one and/or two bedroom units would not have worked on the site due to the inability to provide enough parking and maneuvering space for the units. By paying APCHA the fee in lieu, the applicant contends that APCHA would be able to use the money to construct the type of units that are most needed on land that they or the City owns. Staff Comments on PUD Amendment: By virtue of not being in support of the Text Amendment to add the fee in lieu option, staff does not support the request to pay the fee in lieu in this specific instance (for additional discussion, see Staff Comments above). 3. Insubstantial PUD Amendment to allow substitution of the payment in lieu for the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) approved with the free market duplex on Parcel 3 The applicant requests the ability to pay the fee in lieu for the ADU that was originally approved to be constructed in conjunction with a free market duplex on Parcel 3. -s- Approved prior to current affordable housing guidelines, the ADU is to be located sub - grade. It is preferred (and now required) that the finished floor height of the ADU be constructed above grade. The reason that this change is being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and not administratively, is that the design of the ADU on Parcel 3 was incorporated into the architectural design for the duplex. According to Section 26.445.100.13, any change to a project found to be consistent with, or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but not within the thresholds for an insubstantial, amendment must be reviewed the Planning and Zoning Conunission and may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. Staff Comments on ADU PUD Amendment: Since the ADU was designed to be sub - grade, it is not an ideal affordable housing solution. In this instance, staff supports this portion of the request. Based on current APCHA Guidelines, the amount of the payment in lieu fee would be approximately $549,990, calculated as follows: 9,000 square feet (the FAR of the duplex) x $61.11/square foot = $549,990 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (APCHA) RECOMMENDATION: The proposal was reviewed by the APCHA on March 6, 2002, prior to the applicant submitting this development application. Because the request has not changed since then, the Board has chosen not to re -review the proposal and maintains its earlier position. Their position is to support the text amendment allowing for the payment in lieu fee option for the RMFRP as long as there is discretion to review each proposal on a case by case basis. In the case of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Parcel 2, they support the use of the payment in lieu fee because of the difficulty the site presents in accommodating the lower priced one -bedroom units, which they say is the greater need. According to their calculations, the applicant would be required to pay $2,3 5 8,300 as their fee in lieu. 3-3 Bedroom Units cr 3 Employees/Unit = 9 Employees 1-4 Bedroom Unit @ 3.5 Employees/Unit = 3.5 Employees 12.5 Employees x $188,664.00 / Category 2 Employee = $2,358,300.00 Including the payment of the fee in lieu for the ADU on Parcel 3 for $549,990, the total payment to the City would be $2,908,290. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1.) Staff recommends denial of Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residential Multi -Family Replacement Program (RMFRP) . -6- 2.) Staff recommends denial of the PUD Amendment (for Top of Mill) to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable housing units presently required for Parcel 2. 3.) Staff recommends approval of the Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the Accessory Dwelling. Unit required for the duplex on Parcel 3 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2002, for a PUD Amendment of the Aspen Mountain PUD which requests 1.) A Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow a payment in lieu fee option to the Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program; and 2.) To substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable housing units presently required for Parcel 2; and 3.) a PUD Amendment to allow the payment in lieu fee for the Accessory Dwelling Unit required for the duplex on Parcel 3" Note: Should the Planning and Zoning Commission choose to recommend denial on items 1.) and 2.) above, but approve item 3.), then the motion should be separated into two motions: one for the denial and one for approval. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Al: Site Plan Exhibit A: Findings -Amendments To The Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map Findings Exhibit B: Findings -Planned Unit Development Standards Findings RE: PUD Amendment to pay the fee in lieu for the four affordable housing units on Parcel 2 ExhibitC: Findings -Planned Unit Development Standards Findings RE: PUD Amendment to pay the fee in lieu for the ADU on Parcel 3 Exhibit D: Resolution Series of 2002 Exhibit E: Application -7- to w r T< N J w U 5 a_ CL �s�-+,,fir����}.�f '�" �S"� �.,,ss�� `ten _julFitr'� i ri�..��,�'� ">°050` p•�'�#�:� � Ell .L�+ hi" i �.,a+ f C.2? r�-k ram•+-i •�y)r- � " "C S^ aCSyi s- "L3w OR, n'(t•�t� /� Limy�.P .�^4J� A ��s Si�.•t�� t,�T IR•ai�••�l�y�- 0 E- '15 H'JziyNOW tui 1d r L1 u. CY � i N uj �O — IL N _ zW � W J 0 _ Q Z J �z z � � w ►� J W N oaJ N -� m< Zz o T •mo I w d� Q� o wr w O � < • EXHIBIT A FINDINGS: AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP 26.310.040 Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Yes Comments: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable requirements of this Title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? No Comments: It is our opinion that this proposal will be in conflict with certain provisions of the Housing section, specifically relating to having affordable housing be integrated into the traditional town core and to be mixed with other social and economic classes. With payment of a fee in lieu, the onus would be on the City to construct the units, which would most likely be constructed on sites on the edge of the community in affordable housing enclaves. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) . Comments: None. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to -s- transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. 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: Does it Comp1 ? I No Comments: Given the goals of trying to integrate affordable housing with market rate housing of the Community Plan, which is a document representing public interest, this amendment would present a conflict. -9- EXHIBIT B FINDINGS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (TO PAY THE FEE IN LIEU FOR THE FOUR AFFORDABLE DOUSING UNITS ON PARCEL 2) The Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD was approved by the City Council on March 11, 2002 via Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2002. The proposed amendment to the approved PUD is addressed against the applicable criteria in the PUD standards below. Specifically, there is no increase in density. A. General Requirements: .1) The proposed development shall. be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? No Comments: It is our opinion that this proposal will be in conflict with certain provisions of the Housing section, specifically relating to having affordable housing be integrated into the traditional town core and to be mixed with other social and economic classes. With payment of a fee in lieu, the onus would be on the City to construct the units, which would most likely be constructed on sites on the edge of the coinlnunity in affordable housing enclaves. 2) The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Yes Comments: None. 3) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Yes Comments: None. 4) Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the Applicant. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? See below Comments: The applicant is processing a text amendment to allow for the transfer of reconstruction credits from one non-contiguous PUD to another held under same ownership. If the amendment is approved, then the applicant will be able to secure GMQS allotments. - lo- B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? I Yes Comments: The free market duplex that is proposed to replace the four unit multi -family affordable housing will have roughly the same setbacks as what were proposed with the affordable housing. C. Site Design: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? I Yes Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Site Design and find the amendment to be in compliance. D. Landscape Plan: Staff Finding: Does it Com 1 ? Yes tn Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Landscape Plan and find the amendment to be in compliance. E. Architectural Character: Staff Finding: Does it Com 1 ? Yes Comments: Architectural character of duplex will be reviewed with building permit. F. Lighting: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? I Yes Comments: Outdoor lighting will be reviewed prior to building permit. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: Staff Finding: Does it Comply I Yes Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area and find the amendment to be in compliance. H. Utilities and Public Facilities: Staff Finding: Does it Comply?-7Yes Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Utilities and Public Facilities and find the amendment to be in compliance. I. Access and Circulation: Staff Find in6: Does it Comply? I Yes Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Access and Circulation and find the amendment to be in compliance. J. Phasing of Development Plan: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? I Yes Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Phasing of Development Plan and find the amendment to be in compliance. - 12- EXHIBIT C FINDINGS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (TO PAY THE FEE IN LIEU FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON PARCEL 3) The Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD was approved by the City Council on March 11, 2002 via Ordinance No. 7 (Series 2002). The proposed amendment to the approved PUD is addressed against the applicable criteria in the PUD standards below. Specifically, there is no increase in density. K. General Requirements: 5) The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findina: Does it Comply? Yes Comments: Despite policies in the AACP encouraging integration of affordable housing with free market housing, which the inclusion of the ADU on this site would accomplish, It is our opinion that that the design of the ADU does not further this goal. The AACP also encourages "quality of design" in all new affordable housing. Given that the proposed ADU for Parcel 3 would be mostly sub -grade, without reasonable access to natural light and the ability for occupants to see outside, staff would submit that this is not the kind of quality design contemplated in the AACP. Therefore, the money for the unit would be better served built in an alternative location 6) The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Yes Comments: This minor change of removal of the ADU will not change the character of the existing land uses in the area as the character has already been established and this overall project will still conform. 7) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Yes Comments: Staff finds that this change will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. - 13 - 8) Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the Applicant. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? N/A Comments: None. L. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Yes Comments: The loss of the ADU will not affect the establishment of the approved dimensional requirements. M. Site Design: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? I Yes Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Site Design and find the amendment to be in compliance. N. Landscape Plan: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Yes Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Landscape Plan and find the amendment to be in compliance. O. Architectural Character: Staff Finding: Does it Comply I Yes Comments: Architectural character of duplex will be reviewed with building permit for compliance to approved plans. P. Lighting: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Yes Comments: Outdoor lighting will be reviewed prior to building permit for compliance with approved plans. Q. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Yes Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area and find the amendment to be in compliance. - 14- R. Utilities and Public Facilities: Staff Finding: Does it Com 1 ? Yes Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Utilities and Public Facilities and find the amendment to be in compliance. S. Access and Circulation: Staff Finding: Does it Com 1 ? Yes Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Access and Circulation and find the amendment to be in compliance. T. Phasing of Development Plan: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? I Yes Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Phasing .of Development Plan and find the amendment to be in compliance. EXHIBIT D RESOLUTION NO.�SERIES OF 2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE OF l.) A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE TO AMEND SECTION 26.530.050, HOUSING REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS, TO ALLOW FOR A PAYMENT IN LIEU OPTION IN THE MULTI -FAMILY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM; AND 2.) A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE APPROVED ON -SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON PARCEL 2; AND 3.) APPROVING OF THE SUBSTITUION OF PAYMENT IN LIEU OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROVED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON PARCEL 3 OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION / PUD FOR LOT 3 OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION / PUD, CITY OF ASPEN. Parcel ID: WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Applicant, Four Peaks Development, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission grant the following: 1) Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the payment in lieu fee option in the Residential Multi -Family Replacement Program instead of constructing on - site affordable housing units; 2) PUD Amendment to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable housing units presently approval for Parcel 2; 3) An Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the Accessory Dwelling Unit approved for the duplex on Parcel 3; WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Board, has reviewed and considered the proposal and has recommended approval with conditions, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to the City Council approval, by a vote of to - J for. a Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the payment in lieu fee option in the Residential Multi -Family Replacement Program instead of constructing on -site affordable housing touts; a PUD Amendment to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable housing units -16- presently required for Parcel 2; and an Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the Accessory Dwelling Unit approved for the duplex on Parcel 3; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution fiirthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2002, THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for an Amendment to the Land Use Code, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment and Growth Management Quota System Exemptions for Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain PUD is recommended for approval with the following conditions stated herein (Note: the following includes the previously approved conditions of approval for Lot 3 Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD, but amended to address the current proposal). 1. The following conditions of approval shall supersede the conditions of approval that were originally approved by the City Council on March 11, 2002 via Ordinance No. 7, Series 2002. 2. The development shall comply with the most recent municipal engineering practice standards and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) identified for water quality control requirements. _: . . .. .- : : .• �.. . .• . .. .. . . - - - • • • w •amp • • • : ■ • -AP - 17- VB • — - • .' VIA'• - pq - : : — _- WIM WM 9• • WANFRE•4 WA WIRIEN. - t • WAR WM.J ELVA • • 5. The Applicant shall submit Infrastructure and Removal of Fill Material Permits for Lot 3 AMPUD within 30 (30) days after recordation of all Final PUD documents. The Applicant may submit building permit applications at the Applicant's discretion, but no sooner than the issuance of a building permit for the Bavarian Inn affordable housing project. The Applieant shall be eligible beeft issued for- the affordable housing units on PaFeel 2. The Applicant shall be eligible for a Certificate of Occupancy for the Free Market Duplexes on Parcels 2 ' an-d 3 and the single-family units to be constructed on Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 no sooner than the receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for an on -site accessory dwelling unit or upon the full payment of the applicable affordable housing impact fee. 6. The accessory dwelling units (for Parcels 4 — 8) shall abide by the regulations in the Land Use Code in effect at the time of building permit application and further defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. Should an accessory dwelling unit not be provided on Parcels 4 through 8, a payment -in -lieu fee shall be provided in the amount required in the Guidelines at the time of building permit approval. 7. At the time of Certificate of Occupancy, a site visit shall be conducted on the deed - restricted units. - G - - - - • - : - - :. Mo.- . . - . • . . Gen "IMP -Mr. . . • - • - . . • • t . : . . . • - - . .M PIM I ErIVIRM. . . M G . . . E ► • . G ! . . . . A . . . . _ 10. The Applicant .shall submit erosion control plans including potential natural resource protection structures and a detailed plan for irrigation systems and other plantings with in the City of Aspen right of way to the Parks Department for approval prior to the application of building permits. 11. The Applicant shall construct the "Aspen Mountain Trail" which traverses the adjacent Open Space Parcel "B" according to City of Aspen standards during the completion of this project. This trail improvement shall meet engineering specifications as defined by the City of Aspen Parks Department including a crusher fines trail surface, a width of four feet, a trail sign located at the entrance of each trail identifying trail name and public access, and the sign shall be designed and built to match the character of the neighborhood. The Applicant shall submit a detailed plan for trail design and drainage. Parks Department requests the applicant field stake the trail. The Applicant shall be required to have the trail improvement completed and inspected to the satisfaction of the Parks Department prior to the receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for the free market triplexes on Parcel 1. 12. The Applicant shall formally establish the Top of Mill Trail across Lot 3 AMPUD. This trail shall have a legal description, be shown on the Final Plat, and be dedicated/conveyed to the City of Aspen. Further, the Applicant shall memorialize in the Final PUD / Subdivision Agreement for Lot 3 and associated condominium documentations, the obligation by the master homeowner's association or Applicant to improve the eastern portion of the Top of Mill Trail, at such time the connection is realized, pursuant to the Parks Department's design criteria. If the trail has not been improved to the satisfaction of the Parks Department within 5 years of the recordation of the Final Plat for AMPUD Lot 3, the master homeowner's association for Lot 3 shall make a cash payment to the City of Aspen equal to a sum defined by the Parks Department for the improvement of the trail. 13. The Applicant shall install fire sprinklers and alarm systems in all the proposed buildings on Lot 3 as required by the City of Aspen Fire Marshal. The Applicant shall use appropriate "booster pumps" (if required) rather than pressure tanks for the sprii-Acler system to gain the necessary water pressure as required by the City Fire Department. In addition, the Applicant shall submit a fire safety plan for the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of the proposed development of Lot 3to the Engineering Department at the time of building permit application. 14. The Applicant shall execute a "Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" with ASCD prior to building permit application. In addition, forty percent (40%) of the estimated total connection fees must be paid to ACSD by the applicant for service linen that are to be stubbed off the main line into the specific parcels of this development. -19- 15. The Applicant shall be required to show to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District all service locations at the station numbers on the final utility plans for this development. Prior to building permit application. Additionally, the Applicant shall indicate to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District if main line easements in the ROW are to be dedicated by plat or by description. 16. The Applicant shall record the approved condominium subdivision plat for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of AMPUD Lot 3 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of its approval by the Community Development Director. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the Community Development Director shall render the plat invalid and a new application and approval will be required. 17. The Applicant shall record a PUD Agreement and the Final PUD Plans within 180 days of the final approval by City Council with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder binding this property to this development approval. 18. The development of the free market single-family dwellings proposed for Parcels 2 and 4 � - 8 of AMPUD Lot 3 shall be subject to a site and design specific 8 040 Greenline Review prior to their development. These Parcels shall only be required to respond to review standards 26.68.030 (C)(3) and 26.68.030 (C)(7); this resolution recommends approval for Parcels 4- 8 regarding 8040 Greenline Review Standards 26.68.030 (C)(1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11) thereby precluding any further review of the same standards as indicated. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. The Applicant shall record the appropriate deed restrictions for Parcel 9, containing the six -space enclosed parking garage, requiring that the lot remain for parking purposes only as part of the Summit Place Condominiums project. 22. It is understood that upon approval of this Final PUD, all remaining residential credits associated with the Aspen Mountain PUD are hereby extinguished. 23. The Applicant shall be required to submit detailed "cut sheets" for the proposed lights on Lot 3 AMPUD indicating the correct lumens on the lighting plan as part of the . detailed building set to be examined during building permit review. -20- 24. The Applicant shall work closely with the City of Aspen Engineering Department to ensure the access point from Parcel 1 on Lot 3 adequately provides for a left turn onto South Mill Street. 25. While the development proposal meets virtually all of the proposed underlying L/TR and Conservation zone districts' dimensional requirements, this resolution recommends approval for varying the following dimensional requirements: a. Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 3 is 15,598 sq. ft. b. Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 4 is 125182 sq. ft. c. Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 5 is 10,416 sq. ft. d. Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 6 is 10,232 sq. ft. e. Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 7 is 17,914 sq. ft. f. Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 8 is 19,048 sq. ft. g. Minimum Lot Size for Parcel 9 is 2,794 sq. ft. h. Minimum Lot Size for Open Space Parcel B is 49,219 sq. ft. i. Minimum Front Yard Setback for Parcel 9 is 8 feet j. Minimum East Side Yard Setback for Parcel 9 is 3 feet k. Minimum West Side Yard Setback for Parcel 9 is 3 feet 1. Minimum Rear Yard Setback for Parcel 9 is 3 feet 26. The applicant shall pay fee in lieu of $2,908,290 to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for the required affordable housing mitigation for Parcels 2 and 3 prior to issuance of building permit. Section 2 All material representations and conumtments 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 Corrunission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fi..illy 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, 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. -21- Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 19, 2002. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND COMMISSION: John Worcester, City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair ZONING -22- 11C MEMORANDUM TO: Plaiming and Zoning Commission FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range Planner RE: City of Aspen Infill Program — Continued Public Hearing DATE: November 19, 2002 SUMMARY: This meeting is the tenth substantive review meeting to consider amendments to the Land Use Code related to the Infill Report. Included, by reference, to the previous memorandum are exhibits for revised and new sections of the Land Use Code contained in a 3-ring binder. Tonight's focus will be on: Dimensions for Commercial Zone Districts (recap on previous discussions) Dimensions for Lodge Zone District (recap on previous discussions) Dimensions for Multi -Family Zone District (recap on previous discussions) REFERENCE MATERIALS: Proposed and Existing legislation, 3-Ring Binder (distributed 9.17.02) Infill Report (distributed 9.3.02) 1