Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Planned Unit Development.A095-99 ,.-., CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY ,-, A095-99 Code (Text) Amendment- Planned Unit Development-Ston Chris Bendon Code Amendment City of Aspen 12/6/99 Ord. 52-99 3/6/00 Chris Bendon ('-.. .~ " " P~RqEL '10: I , riA TE,RcVO:j ;:: 20 no' i;;OPIES:,"'CASE NqIAC;)~,-[l;.; CAS"E"NA' 'M'E' '"c.,. Ili:lix" !i.r'l.,-':'~'r."l. pl~n"':IoC1 u.... .....rr.. al~l.....=.-I_~-"'''c'!.' :"\a '.s PLNR, ',lc.~",- B--....'.'." , . . _ . _ . " .~".. _ ...l,:l . ""'.' .. '''~ .. ~.U.. "LI ~. 0.: PROJADDR'l CAS~ Typ'lc'.." .',,,.(.,,.....,.., ,", . 'w....., . ....._. " . oWHIAPP:IC-'y :; Aspee REP:l , . 'F:Ee;S.DUE;j R.EfERRALSf ':~:l . CISIZ:.l C/S/i:j FE.ES RCVD1 STEPSf 2.- .PHN:j PHN~ STAT: r- DATE OHINAL ~CTION:I rU, .~,~ " CITY COUNCILr3>..\ <02.., '1L . ,.pz:l , BOA:l . DRAC: 'ADMIN:l 'REF:l 'Byl . MTG DATE. . REV BODY PH ,NOTICED . '~. ",;',~rn--rvl '< ' 17 r;.;"" . u-r-- I" ~ .,.,..l...'.r~ REMA,RKSf . . , !:LOSED:j3.r,. 00 . B.Y, m~ .PLATSUBMITD:I ' . , PLATCBK,PG1:! DUE:I \(.\~'~4 \t.~~ I I !i~ 1]( Ij 'Pub ~~ II H II ill CJt- I bJt Ju c4- T-t, ~ Ii I~~V - Vtf~ rJ~ wi ~(~ r~1: . Iii ii iii Iii c{-(), /:1 li!,i if 'I Iii IIWJAfil ~;~: OJ. ,*01. Iii d ii .' _ _ I r ih ;l., L rill ~ 0 MA.l trf\\tJ ~t\ Is 'il vv V,IIt[ll-v Lr "'I 0< NKP i,lutJD ~~~ (f)v)tdz; N ~ l,^~ ~JzR;Cr1' 0 T\Ir) r~ce~s ;Jl U d ] ~ (/ i ., best 'BiYJ,-G LVI. i-et,vd- ~ lADY ~J VittvJh Ir ve~ ~rNt. -Ht... """M""'le, II ., !~l WV N f"ll, il 11 'I !, 1,I{vv~lft'?rlttUt . :1 b 1/ ! I I'-' i ..---. I 101M. II 11,1\( Iii \ iJ i~ - 0 il !I II II Iii Iii iili ,.-., ~ L ~cb ~+- . ~ \lAo'l"7. :leJcr N '" . TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: ~. "-,, MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director Christopher Bendon, Planner Code Amendment - Planned Unit Development Second Reading of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1999 - Public Hearing December 6, 1999 ~~,o. SUMMARY: The City of Aspen recently revised the regulations for Planned Unit Development (PUD) reviews. This is the most flexible land use tool the City has and the one used for the majority of large projects. The regulations allow all properties of more than 27,000 square feet (one half block) to go through this procj8s. In addition, any property within a zone district which either requires allows dimensions to be established through a PUD may also go through this rocess. These zone districts are Affordable Housing, Lodge Preservation, Public, an Park. However, there are parcels in town where there m y be a significant public benefit to be gained by allowing the project to be considerethrough the PUD process and which do not fall into one of these PUD categories. n fact, one such property has recently come to the attention of City officials: the Community Banks parcel and the area directly east of the building. This vacant area could well be used to promote the goals expressed in the AACP, but does not currently have the ability to be reviewed as a PUD due to the property size. This is only one example of small, infill opportunities that may exist throughout town. This code amendment proposes that the flexibility of PUD be extended to these smaller properties if, prior to the process being initiated, it is determined that the PUD process would best serve the interests of the community. This caveat will ensure that the Community Development Department is not inundated with PUD requests. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this code amendment and recommended approval by a four to zero vote. Subsequent to the Commission's review, staffhas amended the recommendation so that the provision is extended to multi-family residential (as opposed to all residential such as single-family lots) that furthers the goals of the AACP (as opposed to one or more goals of the AACP). Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1999. ApPLICANT: Community Development Department, City of Aspen. I /,-, 3-? .. -, > .r'\ ~ REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council. City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the code amendment at a public hearing. STAFF COMMENTS: Under this proposed system, a developer would first bring an idea to the Community Development Department to gain staff input. The goals of the AACP could be discussed and the project could be allowed to proceed under the PUD regulations if there existed the opportunity to further the community goals stated in the AACP. This determination would be made by the Community Development Director. At that point, an application could be submitted under the POO standards, subject to the full review. If the Community Development Director did not foresee a furthering of community goals by virtue of the extended process, the property owner could either develop according to current zoning or appeal the decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It should be noted that the City Planning Department will be proposing code amendments to create an Infill Program encouraging greater densities and increased development downtown as part ofthe 2000 Community Development Department Work Program. Staff s preference for this Infill Program is to closely define the parameters of acceptable development rather than allowing each project to be reviewed under a PUD. Once an Infill Program is defined, projects may come forward as either "by-right" projects or with lesser review requirements. In this manner, the development parameters may be intimately reviewed once rather than with each project - saving significant amounts of staff time and providing a more predictable outcome for applicants. An Infill Program, however, will not be initiated until the Spring of 2000 and may take 6 months to gain adoption. This PUD code amendment would allow projects to go forward on an individual basis and may also serve as good test cases for a broader program. Staffs evaluation of the proposed text amendment against the criteria set forth in Section 26.310.040 is attached as Exhibit A. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1999. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1999." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A .. Review Criteria and Staff Comments C:\home\CHRlSB\CASES\PUD-27k\cc _ second. doc 2 '- ~ 1""""\ . MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner RE: Code Amendment - Planned Unit Development First Reading of Ordinance No. _, Series of 1999 6'2.... DATE: November 22, 1999 SUMMARY: The City of Aspen recently revised the regulations for Planned Unit Development (POO) reviews. This is the most flexible land use tool the City has and the one used for the majority oflarge projects. The regulations allow all properties of more than 27,000 square feet (one half block) to go through this process. In addition, any property within a zone district which either requires or allows dimensions to be established through a PUD may also go through this process. These zone districts are Affordable Housing, Lodge Preservation, Public, and Park. However, there may be parcels in town where there may actually be a significant public benefit to be gained by allowing the project to be considered through the PUD process and which do not fall into one of these PUD categories. In fact, one such property has recently come to the attention of City officials: the Community Banks parcel and the area directly east of the building. This vacant area could well be used to promote the goals expressed in the AACP, but does not currently have the ability to be reviewed as a PUD due to the property size. This is only one example of small, infill opportunities that may exist throughout town. This code amendment proposes that the flexibility ofPUD be extended to these smaller properties if, prior to the process being initiated, it is determined that the PUD process would best serve the interests of the community. This caveat will ensure that the Community Development Department is not inundated with PUD requests. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this code amendment and recommended approval by a four to zero vote. Subsequent to the Commission's review, staff has amended the recommendation so that the provision is extended to multi-family residential (as opposed to all residential) that furthers the goals of the AACP (as opposed to one or more goals of the AACP). Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. _' Series of 1999, upon first reading and schedule the second reading and public hearing for December 6, 1999. 1 ~\ 1"""\ -.1".,:'-. ApPLICANT: Community Development Department, City of Aspen. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council. City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the code amendment at a public hearing. STAFF COMMENTS: Under this system, a developer would first bring an idea to the Community Development Department to gain staff input. The goals of the AACP could be discussed and the project could be allowed to proceed under the PUD regulations if there existed the opportunity to further the community goals stated in this document. At that point, an application could be submitted under the PUD standards, subject to the full review. If the Community Development Director did not foresee a furthering of community goals by virtue of the extended process, the property owner could either develop according to current zoning or appeal the decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It should be noted that the City Planning Department will be proposing code amendments to create an Infill Program encouraging greater densities and increased development downtown as part of the 2000 Community Development Department Work Program. Staff s preference for this Infill Program is to closely define the parameters of acceptable development rather than allowing each project to be reviewed under a PUD. Once an Infill Program is defined, projects may come forward as either "by-right" projects or with lesser review requirements. In this manner, the development parameters may be intimately reviewed once rather than with each project - saving significant amounts of stafftime and providing a more predictable outcome for applicants. An Infill Program, however, will not be initiated until the Spring of2000 and may take 6 months to gain adoption. This PUD code amendment would allow projects to go forward on an individual basis and may also serve as good test cases for a broader program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council adopt this Ordinance, upon first reading. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move adopt Ordinance No. --' Series of 1999, upon first reading." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -. Review Criteria and Staff Comments C:\home\CHRISB\CASESIPUD-27k\cc ]rrst.doc 2 '~.' ,-. ,~ ~ ORDINANCE NO. 52 (SERIES OF 1999) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO AMEND THE APPLICABILITY PROVISION OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SECTION 26.445.020 OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.304.040, the City Council may initiate text amendments to the Land Use Code and did so initiate this text amendment to the Land Use Code after considering a recorrnnendation by the Corrnnunity Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the City Council may approve Amendments to the text of the Land Use Code after taking and considering recommendations from the Corrnnunity Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, and taking and considering public testimony at a duly noticed public hearing in conformance with the review criteria set forth in Section 26.310; and, WHEREAS, the Corrnnunity Development Department analyzed the amendment, pursuant to Section 26.310, and recommended the applicability provisions of the Planned Unit Development regulations be amendment to allow parcels ofless than 27,000 square feet in size to proceed through a Planned Unit Development as provided herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November ,16, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Corrnnission considered a recorrnnendation made by the Corrnnunity Development Director, took and considered public testimony, and recorrnnended, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, City Council amend the applicability provisions of the Planned Unit Development regulations, as provided herein; and, WHEREAS, City Council reviewed and considered the recorrnnendations of the Corrnnunity Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Corrnnission, and members of the public during a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council fmds that the text amendment to the applicability provisions of the Planned Unit Development regulations, Section 26.445.020 the Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code, as described herein, meets or exceeds all applicable standards for a text amendment and that the approval is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Corrnnunity Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: ;- ~~ t"""'" ,-., Section 1: Section 26.445.020, Applicability, which section defines the applicability of the Planned Unit Development regulations of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Before any development shall occur on land designated Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the official zone district map or before development can occur as a PUD, it shall receive final PUD approval pursuant to the terms of this Chapter. However, in no event shall adoption of a final development plan be required for the construction of a single detached or duplex residential dwelling on a separate lot, in conformance with the General Provisions of this Chapter, Section 26,445.040. All land with a PUD designation shall also be designated with an underlying zone district designation most appropriate for that land. A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of any proposed development in the City of Aspen that is on a parcel ofland equal to or greater than twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes. A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of any proposed development in the City of Aspen that is on a parcel of land less than twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for multi-family residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes if, prior to application, the Community Development Director determines the development of the property may have the ability to further the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. By virtue of this determination, the application shall not be granted any special rights or privileges and shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable portions of this chapter. If the Community Development Director determines the proposed development is not suitable to be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development, the property owner may appeal the decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission, by Resolution, may determine that the Planned Unit Development review process is most advantageous in promoting the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan for the particular property after considering a recommendation made by the Community Development Director. A development application for a Minor Planned Unit Development (Minor PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of a parcel of land located within the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District intended for development consistent with the purpose of the LP Overlay Zone District. Section 2: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. .' .....-"" 1""', i~ Section 3: This Ordinance shall not affect 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 Ordinance 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: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 6th day of December, 1999 at5:0b in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 22m! day of November, 1999. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Rachel E. Richards, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _day of Attest: ,1999. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Rachel E. Richards, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney C:lhomeICHRISBICASESIPUD-27kIOrdinance.doc ,.-, ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director-.\.4:0 Christopher Bendon, Planner~VV} Cod. Am.....m. - Pb~d U"'''''''.'p_' - Po,", ~-, - \ _",J, . sm;""A45 ~~ I~~\) November 16, 1999 FROM: RE: DATE: SUMMARY: The City of Aspen recently revised the regulations for Planned Unit Development (PUD) reviews. This is the most flexible land use tool the City has and the one used for the majority oflarge projects. The regulations allow all properties of more than 27,000 square feet (one half block) to go through this process. In addition, any property within a zone district which either requires or allows dimensions to be established through a PUD may also go through this process. These zone districts are Affordable Housing, Lodge Preservation, Public, and Park. However, there may be parcels in town where there may actually be a significant public benefit to be gained by allowing the project to be considered through the PUD process and which do not fall into one of these PUD categories. In fact, one such property has recently come to the attention of City officials: the Community Banks parcel and the area directly east of the building. This vacant area could well be used to promote the goals expressed in the AACP, but does not currently have the ability to be reviewed as a PUD. This is only one example of small, infill opportunities that may exist throughout town. This code amendment proposes that the flexibility of PUD be extended to these smaller properties if, prior to the process being initiated, it is determined that the PUD process would best serve the interests of the community. This caveat will ensure that the Community Development Department is not inundated with a PUD request on every parcel in town without at least a "heads-up" and the ability to make a recommendation on the appropriate review process. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forwl!.rd a recommendation of approval to City Council for this text amendment concerning the allowance of small parcels to be reviewed under the PUD regulations. ApPLICANT: Community Development Department, City of Aspen. I ,r-,. ,-" REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a public hearing and re<:ommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: Under this system, a developer would first bring an idea to the Community Development Department to gain staff input. The idea could then be presented to City Council with the opportunity for staffto discuss the project's relation to the AACP and the merit of allowing the project to proceed through a PUD process. City Council could decide to allow the project to be reviewed under the PUD standards with no guarantees of its success as a PUD. At that point, an application could be submitted under the PUD standards, subject to the full review. It should be noted that the City Planning Department will be proposing code amendments to create an Infill Program encouraging greater densities and increased development downtown. Staff s preference for this Infill Program is to closely define the parameters of acceptable development rather than allowing each project to be reviewed under a PUD. Once an Infill Program is defined, projects may come forward as either "by-right" projects or with lesser review requirements. In this manner, the development parameters may be intimately reviewed once rather than with each project - saving significant amounts of stafftime. In that light, this code amendment may seem to contradict staff s preference for an effective Infill Program. An Infill Program, however, will not be initiated until the Spring of 2000 and may take 6 months to' gain adoption. This code amendment would allow projects to go forward on an individual basis and may also serve as good test cases for a broader program'. In addition, staff has intentionally inserted an additional "check" that requires the developer seek the status to be reviewed as a PUD. With this extra step, staff does not expect an overwhelming rush of applications. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council ,a recommendation of approval to amend the Planned Unit Development applicability provisions, Section 26.445.020, to allow properties smaller than 27,000 square feet to be reviewed as PUD's ' RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend City Council amend the Planned Unit Development applicability provisions to allow properties of less than27,000 square feet to be reviewed as PUD's, as provided in Resolution 99-Jt." 11/ A/.1IJII}Q, '""L- CN"'-. ?/' 1- ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Exhibit A .- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B .. Proposed P&Z Res,olution . 2 r"-. ...".'\ EXHIBIT A STAFF COMMENTS: Code Amendment Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed code amendment would allow these smaller properties to be reviewed under the provision of Planned Unit Development. This PUD process ensures compatibility with all portions of the Land Use Code through a heightened review process involving many referral agencies, input from elected and appointed Boards and Commissions, input from the general public. Staff believes this criteria has been met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The amendment would allow these smaller properties to be reviewed as PUD if, prior to application, there is a determination that the parcel has the ability to promote goals of the AACP. This determination does not bind the hands of reviewing agencies or approval bodies when the project comes back as a PUD. The PUD criteria also require that the project demonstrate the manner in which it conforms or promotes the goals of the Community Plan. Staff believes the ability to demonstrate how a small parcel can promote the goals ofthe AACP is consistent with the Community Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect ofthe proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text amendment. The PUD provision require that the proposed development demonstrate how these concerns are addressed and adequately mitigated. Staff Comments 1 /""", ,-, , . E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity ,of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: This text amendment will not, itself, introduce additional demands on public services. In fact, the PUD process itself has several criteria addressing the provision of infrastructure and the project's ability to be served. The PUD process may, in fact, ensure to a greater degree that these concerns are appropriately considered. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The PUD process, in part, is intended to ensure the proposed development does not have a significant negative effect upon the natural environment or that those impacts are realized and mitigated to the extend practicable. Allowing additional projects to be reviewed under these standards, therefore, would further protect the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. ' Staff Finding: The ability for smaller parcels to be reviewed through the PUD provisions may actually ensure a higher compatibility with the character oftms community with the additional public hearing requirements and criteria of the PUD review. Staff believes this criteria is met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: This criteria applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to, this text amendment. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: The PUD process ensures the project's compatibility with the public interest. The caveat statement that requires the parcel first be deemed a parcel that may contribute to the community interest prior to initiating the process will prevent a "flood" of applications for every small parcel in town. Staff believes this statement is in the public interest. C:lhomeICHRISBlCASES\PUD-27kIPZ_EX_Adoc Staff Comments 2 ~.~, ~ 1hA4S- ~0.\,~1k4~(Pc[)) Considering the Stoney Davis Affordable Housing proposal, staff has reviewed the yarious code provisions and is suggesting a code amendment be processes that would (~w properties of less than 27,000 square feet in size to be reviewed under the PUD provisio~if, prior to application, the City Council determines the PUD process would best serve the interests of the community. A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of any proposed development in the City of Aspen that is on a parcel of land greater than twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes. A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of any proposed development in the City of Aspen that is on a parcel of land less than twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes if, prior to the application being submitted, the City Council determines the development of the property will serve one or more goals expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan and the provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use process will best serve the interests of the community. A development application for a Minor Planned Unit Development (Minor PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of a parcel of land located within the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District intended for development consistent with the purpose of the LP Overlay Zone District. f}It " 1W M\- " ~ff