HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Building Envelope Adjustment.0038-04
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
CASE NUMBER
PARCEL ID#
CASE NAME
PROJECT ADDRESS
PLANNER
CASE DESCRIPTION
REPRESENTATIVE
DATE OF FINAL ACTION 6/18/04
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
PZ ACTION
ADMIN ACTION
BOA ACTION
DATE CLOSED
BY
0038.2004.ASLU
N/A
Building Env Adjustment
N/A
James Lindt
Building Envelope Adjustment Policy
06/09/04
D DRISCOLL
)-- , \,., \
! " \ -.....:\ '
POLICIES REGARDING BUILDING ENVELOPE ADJUSTMENT REQUESTS
WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN
Revised March 17, 2004
T. Purpose of Regulations.
The purpose of the policies contained herein is to establish reasonable guidelines and
standard procedures for evaluating building envelope adjustment requests in the Planned
Unit Developments (PUD) that have been annexed into the City of Aspen from Pitkin
County. These regulations shall be read in conjunction with Chapter 26.445.100 of the
Aspen Municipal Land Use Code and are not intended to supercede the regulations for
PUD amendments as are set forth therein.
Many of the properties contained within the planned developments, which the City of
Aspen annexes from Pitkin County contain building envelopes that are intended to
protect and preserve native areas or features before, during, and after the development of
these properties. These policy statements are being adopted in order to:
a) Establish consistent procedural protocol for evaluating building envelope
adjustment requests within the confines of the existing PUD amendment
legislation in the City of Aspen Municipal Land Use Code.
IL Background.
A building envelope adjustment request on a property that is located within a PUD is
typically reviewed as a PUD amendment. Section 26.445.100 of the Aspen Municipal
Land Use Code establishes two (2) different review processes for PUD amendment
requests. One process involves a review by only the Community Development Staff and
Director, and the alternative process involves review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The determination as to which process is applied to a PUD amendment
request is made by the Community Development Staff based on the magnitude of the
request. A minor PUD amendment request may be reviewed administratively if it is
found not to be out of compliance with the following standards:
I. The request may not involve a change in the use or the character of the
development.
2. The request may not increase the overall coverage of structures by greater
than three (3) percent.
3. The request may not substantially increase trip generation rates or the
demand for public facilities of the proposed development.
4. The request may not reduce the amount of approved open space by greater
than three (3) percent.
5. The request may not reduce the amount of approved off-street parking and
loading space by greater than one (I) percent.
--'
6. The request may not reduce the pavement or right-of-way widths or
easements.
7. The request may not increase the approved gross leasable floor area of
commercial buildings by greater than two (2) percent.
8. The request may not increase the approved residential density of the
development by greater than one (I) percent.
9. The request may not be inconsistent with any condition or representation
of the project's original approval or which requires granting a variation
from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements.
IlL Procedural Policy.
In the case of most building envelope adjustment requests, the only review standard
above that is discretionary in nature is Number I. That being the case, the consistency of
a request with the character of the original approvals often determines whether a building
envelope adjustment is reviewed administratively or warrants review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Therefore, the following policy guidelines have been established to
aid the Community Development Staff in determining whether a building envelope
adjustment request is consistent with the character ofthe original development approvals:
I. A building envelope adjustment request should not increase the overall
spatial area of building envelope on the subject property or properties if
the request is to be reviewed administratively; and,
2. The Applicant of a building envelope adjustment request should first
obtain a letter of approval from the respective Homeowner's Association
from which the property is governed by, for the request to be reviewed
administratively; and,
3. A building envelope adjustment request shall be reviewed by the
Community Development Staff in coIljunction with the City of Aspen
Parks Department Staff to determine whether the requested adjustment
would lead to the destruction of significant native vegetation and land
features in which the specific building envelope was established to protect.
The application for a building envelope adjustment shall clearly show that
the request will not disturb significant native vegetation, for it to be
reviewed administratively; and,
4. A building envelope adjustment request shall not affect the allowable
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on the site for the request to be reviewed
administratively.
Any building envelope adjustment request not found by the Community Development
Staff to adhere to the above policy statements shall be reviewed at a public hearing by the
Planning and Zoning Commission as is provided for in Section 26.445.100(8) of the City
of Aspen Municipal Land Use Code.
2
It is recognized in developing the building envelope adjustment policy statements
contained herein that during the construction and construction planning processes, slight
variations may occur from the approved plans. And in certain situations, it is recognized
that these variations from the approved plans may carry development outside of the
designated building envelopes. That being the case, it should be noted that the PUD
amendment section of the land use code does not distinguish between PUD amendments
that are requested to legalize proposed improvements and those amendments that are
requested to legalize existing improvements that were made without first obtaining the
appropriate approvals.
Thus, in determining whether a building envelope adjustment request should be reviewed
administratively, it should not make a difference as to whether the request is needed to
legalize a proposed improvement or an existing improvement that was constructed
without first obtaining the appropriate approvals.
However, it should be clear that staff does not condone developing without approval and
that any building envelope adjustment to be approved administratively for an illegally
constructed improvement shall contain a condition of approval requiring that the
Applicant obtain any and all relevant building permits and inspections needed to legalize
the improvement. Also, as a deterrent to develop outside of a building envelope without
first obtaining approval, staff shall impose the double-fee penalty provided for in the
International Building Code for any permits needed to legalize the improvement made
outside of the building envelope.
h:jamesl_ folder _ buildinL envelope _ adj ustmentpoliciesdoc
3
....~.
.......,,'"
Y.~.
",",
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen Planning and ltJeing Commission
Joyce Allgaier, C64munity Development Deputy Director
James Lindt, Planner -\ L-
Building Envelope Adjustment Policies- Work Session
March 16,2004
BACKGROUND:
Staff has recently noticed some inconsistency in the manner in which building envelope
adjustment requests have been processed in the Planned Unit Developments that were
recently annexed from Pitkin County (Moore Family PUD, Highlands Village PUD, and
Maroon Creek Club PUD). This inconsistency stems from the determination that Staff
has to make on every building envelope adjustment request as to whether the adjustment
warrants review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or is minor enough to be
processed administratively. Staff has determined that we have no written policy to follow
in making the above determination.
That being the case, Staff has drafted some policy statements (attached as Exhibit "A") to
aid the Community Development Director in determining whether a building envelope
adjustment request should be reviewed administratively or sent to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for review. Staff feels that it is important for the Planning and
Zoning Commission to review the building envelope adjustment policies that Staff has
developed in order to gain consensus between Staff and the Commission about what
magnitude of building envelope adjustment warrants review by the Commission.
DRAFT POLICY:
The policy statements attached as Exhibit "A" contain a framework from which Staff can
make a determination as to whether to process a building envelope adjustment request
administratively. Staff feels that generally, an envelope adjustment request that meets the
following thresholds should be minor enough to be reviewed administratively as an
insubstantial PUD amendment:
I. A building envelope adjustment request that does not increase the overall
spatial area of building envelope on the subject property or properties; and,
2. A building envelope adjustment request in which the Applicant has obtained a
letter of approval from their respective homeowner's association; and,
3. A building envelope adjustment request in which the Parks Department and
Community Development Staff feel that there would not be significant
destruction of native vegetation as a result of the adjustment.
It is Staffs intent that if Staff feels that these thresholds are not met by a proposal, Staff
would then forward the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review as a
PUD amendment.
- I -
,,",
"",
,-
STAFF COMMENTS:
Representatives from the Maroon Creek Club, Moore, and the Aspen Highlands Village
Homeowners' Associations have reviewed these policy statements. Comments from
these representatives have been attached as Exhibit "8" and adjustments to the policies
were made based on their comments. In reviewing the comments, it appears that the
affected homeowner's associations feel that the draft policies are appropriate. Therefore,
Staff would like the Commission to atlirm the policies if the Commission believes they
are appropriate. Staff does not feel that formal action is required because these policies
are intended to be internal in nature and are not intended to be inserted into the City Land
Use Code.
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - DRAFT POLICIES
EXHIBIT B - COMMENTS FROM AFFECTED HOA's
-2 -
.....,,-
Exl: i I~/I
'A'
,-11
. :
"..
-.
POLICIES REGARDING BUILDING ENVELOPE ADJUSTMENT REQUESTS
WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN
March 16,2004
L Purpose of Regulations.
The purpose of the policies contained herein is to establish reasonable guidelines and
standard procedures for evaluating building envelope adjustment requests in the Planned
Unit Developments (PUD) that have been annexed into the City of Aspen from Pitkin
County. These regulations shall be read in conjunction with Chapter 26.445.100 of the
Aspen Municipal Land Use Code and are not intended to supercede the regulations for
PUD amendments as are set forth therein.
Many of the properties contained within the planned developments, which the City of
Aspen annexes from Pitkin County contain building envelopes that are intended to
protect and preserve native areas or features before, during, and after the development of
these properties. These policy statements are being adopted in order to:
a) Establish consistent procedural protocol for evaluating building envelope
adjustment requests within the confines of the existing PUD amendment
legislation in the City of Aspen Municipal Land Use Code.
IL Background.
A building envelope adjustment request on a property that is located within a PUD is
typically reviewed as a PUD amendment. Section 26.445.100 of the Aspen Municipal
Land Use Code establishes two (2) different review processes for PUD amendment
requests. One process involves a review by only the Community Development Staff and
Director, and the alternative process involves review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The determination as to which process is applied to a PUD amendment
request is made by the Community Development Staff based on the magnitude of the
request. A minor PUD amendment request may be reviewed administratively if it is
found not to be out of compliance with the following standards:
I. The request may not involve a change in the use or the character of the
development.
2. The request may not increase the overall coverage of structures by greater
than three (3) percent.
3. The request may not substantially increase trip generation rates or the
demand for public facilities of the proposed development.
4. The request may not reduce the amount of approved open space by greater
than three (3) percent.
5. The request may not reduce the amount of approved off-street parking and
loading space by greater than one (I) percent.
/""
...-
........
6. The request may not reduce the pavement or right-of-way widths or
easements.
7. The request may not increase the approved gross leasable floor area of
commercial buildings by greater than two (2) percent.
8. The request may not increase the approved residential density of the
development by greater than one (I) percent.
9. The request may not be inconsistent with any condition or representation
of the project's original approval or which requires granting a variation
from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements.
IIL Procedural Policy.
In the case of most building envelope adjustment requests, the only review standard
above that is discretionary in nature is Number I. That being the case, the consistency of
a request with the character of the original approvals often determines whether a building
envelope adjustment is reviewed administratively or warrants review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Therefore, the following policy guidelines have been established to
aid the Community Development Staff in determining whether a building envelope
adjustment request is consistent with the character of the original development approvals:
I. A building envelope adjustment request should not increase the overall
spatial area of building envelope on the subject property or properties if
the request is to be reviewed administratively; and,
2. The Applicant of a building envelope adjustment request should first
obtain a letter of approval from the respective Homeowner's Association
from which the property is governed by, for the request to be reviewed
administratively; and,
3.
A building envelope adjustment request shall be reviewed by the
Community Development Staff in conjunction with the City of Aspen
Parks Department Staff to determine whether the requested adjustment
would lead to the destruction of significant native vegetation and land
features in which the specific building envelope was established to protect.
The application for a building envelope adjustment shall clearly show that
the request will not disturb significant native vegetation, for it to be
reviewed administratively. / i
4. 1~\~ ~:\,,_iLJ;\.., (V,I,~ --I'" \(-I\i ": s;. \..\'il, (, C (,1(-1;.( I
Any building envelope adjustment request not found by the Community Development .! 1,: .1.
Staff to adhere to the above policy statements shall be reviewed by the Planning and (/" /" I .
Zoning Commission as is provided for in Section 26.445.100(8) of the City of Aspen" ,.
, '"
Municipal Land Use Code.
I
It is recognized in developing the building envelope adjustment policy statements
contained herein that during the construction and construction planning processes, slight
variations may occur from the approved plans. And in certain situations, it is recognized
:"i\
;.! fJ\
2
/"'-,........
...........
that these variations from the approved plans may carry development outside of the
designated building envelopes. That being the case, it should be noted that the PUD
amendment section of the land use code does not distinguish between PUD amendments
that are requested to legalize proposed improvements and those amendments that are
requested to legalize existing improvements that were made without first obtaining the
appropriate approvals.
Thus, in determining whether a building envelope adjustment request should be reviewed
administratively, it should not make a difference as to whether the request is needed to
legalize a proposed improvement or an existing improvement that was constructed
without first obtaining the appropriate approvals.
However, it should be clear that staff does not condone developing without approval and
that any building envelope adjustment to be approved administratively for an illegally
constructed improvement shall contain a condition of approval requiring that the
Applicant obtain any and all relevant building permits and inspections needed to legalize
the improvement. Also, as a deterrent to develop outside of a building envelope without
first obtaining approval, staff shall impose the double-fee penalty provided for in the
International Building Code for any permits needed to legalize the improvement made
outside of the building envelope.
rr
\ "
, -...... \ .~ ~
" (. L l,,~ (
(~ ( <.
/
I, t ' t I.. :, ,-<. C l.
J) v ,(
,
h:jamcsl_folder _ building_envelope _adjustment_pol iciesdoc
,
",I
II.' :.
. I'. '. I
II) 1 'I ( i ! ;,
( '. ,. (( i I,'j
~. I.
3
William Lukes AlA, II :34 AM 02/20/2004 , Comments on proposed City Policy re: Buil... Page I of 3
.' "', .,' . I
f:~\{1 I l\ I 'J \ /~ //
Reply-To: "William Lukes AlA" <architects@williamlukes.com>
From: "William Lukes AlA" <wcl@williamlukes.com>
To: "Lindt, James" <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Comments on proposed City Policy re: Building Envelope Adjustments
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 II :34:25 -0700
Organization: William Lukes + Associates
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-Processed-By: MX Firewall Rebuild v1.49-1
X-MX-Spam: final=0.1384244488; heur=0.9408485892(4900); stat=O.OIOOOOOOOO; spamtraq-
heur=O .5000000000(200402200 I)
X-MX-MAIL-FROM: <wcl@williamlukes.com>
X-MX-SOURCE-IP: [216.168.230.169]
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
James -
The Maroon Creek Club Master Association Executive Board discussed your proposed Policy yesterday
and thought that it was a good idea to clarify the review criteria for administrative and P&z-reviewed
envelope adjustments. We have two comments for your consideration:
1. MCC has Building Envelopes and, on some lots, Development Envelopes. Usually a request to
change one involves a request to change the other. Perhaps the Policy could state that it covers any
requests to modify envelopes of either type.
2. MCC would like to request that Paragraph 11I.2 of the Policy be deleted. We do not believe that
individual neighbors should be brought into the process of determining whether a review is handled
administratively or sent to P&Z. If a request involves a P&Z review or hearing, then clearly there should
be whatever neighbor notification or posting the City requires, but we would like to request that a letter of
support from the HOA according to 11I.3 be the only letter of approval that is required for an administrative
review determination. The HOA would be responsible for performing any notification, or no notification,
that it deems necessary according to the circumstances, and the applicant would not have to deal with all
surrounding property owners for what may be a technical, necessary, or very minor adjustment. We think
that such decisions should be between the HOA and the City staff. If it's substantial enough that either
the HOA can't support it, or it doesn't meet the other criteria that you are setting forth for an
administrative review, then it's substantial enough for all the neighbors to weigh in.
3. From a practical point of view, it creates a burden on the applicant that does not, to our Association,
seem appropriate. I am enclosing a copy of my memo to our Executive Board that elaborates on those
reasons from our homeowners' point of view. The MCC Board agreed with the rationale.
Please do feel free to call if you would like to discuss or comments any further. In any event, please send
me a copy of the final Policy so that we can put it on our website with other advisory information for
homeowners. Again, thank you for asking for our input.
Cordially,
William Lukes
Architectural Advisor,
Maroon Creek Club Master Association
and Site and Architecture Review Committee
Printed for James Lindt <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us>
02/20/2004
William Lukes AlA, 11 :34 AM 02/20/2004 , Comments on proposed City Policy re: HuH... Page 2 of 3
WILLIAM LUKES + ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTURE + PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Post Office Box 8289, Aspen, Colorado 81612
406 AABC, Suite L,Aspen, Colorado 81611
phone 970.920.6929
fax 970.920.6986
email arc~~!~cts@w_illiamlukes~~_~
Copy of my memo to the MCC Board follows...
Gentlemen -
The City of Aspen has a few PUD type subdivisions originally approved by Pitkin County that have been
annexed into the City, including MCC. As most of you know, we have had several lots that have requested and
received approval for plat amendments to modify building envelopes or development envelopes for various
reasons. including slope instability, owner's preference, site specific problems, and so forth.
MCC lot owners have, so far. generally received approval from MCC and the City for these adjustments as long
as they basically kept the square footage of the envelopes the same and there were no other impacts.
Apparently there have been some recent requests to the City which "crossed the line" as far as the City is
concerned and, in their minds, did not have any tangible or serious need for an envelope adjustment. I am not
sure whether any of these involved MCC, as the City referenced problems with the Moore subdivision across
Maroon Creek and did not mention any MCC lot in particular.
To remove some of the subjectivity involved in these administrative reviews, the City is planning to adopt a
policy which more clearly states which envelope adjustments can be administratively reviewed, and which would
have to go before P&Z for review. This process has always been the same, but they are proposing two measures
which, if not satisfied, would kick the application to P&Z automatically and take it out of the administrative review
process. City staffers have sent me a draft of the policy as a courtesy and asked me to provide any comments
before they finalize a draft and have it reviewed and adopted by the bosses.
Enclosed is a copy of that draft for your review. The only two significant changes or clarifications that I noted
are these:
1. To qualify for an administrative review, the property owner would have to obtain written consents from
immediate neighbors and any other nearby neighbors that City staff regards as impacted. Absent those letters,
the application would go before P&Z.
2. To qualify for an administrative review. the property owner would have to obtain a letter from the
Homeowners Association supporting the request. Absent that letter, the application would go before P&Z
Heretofore, we have generally asked owners to see if they can get City approval for an envelope adjustment
before SARC reviews and consents to such requests.
This policy change would not modify the standards for approving envelope adjustments, but it may result in
more requests going before P&Z rather than bein'flhandled administratively. I do not think that this policy has any
negative impacts to MCC as an Association or community, but while it removes some subjectivity from the
process and clarifies for everyone what the City wants, it could result in MCC landowners having to take such
requests before P&Z if they cannot get neighbor or SARC approval beforehand.
I planned to offer the following comments to the City:
1. Asking homeowners to obtain written consents from neighbors has, in my long experience with HOA's,
proven to be messy and complicated. It pits neighbor against neighbor and neighbors are often 1) unavailable, 2)
Printed for James Lindt <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us>
02/20/2004
William Lukes AlA, II :34 AM ,02(20/2004 , Comments on proposed City Policy re: Sui!... Page 3 of 3
loathe to say no to a neighbor for various reasons even if they think they are going to be impacted, 3) prone to
ask for a consent in return for some unrelated thing, 4) not in a good position to evaluate the larger picture, either
positively or negatively.
2. If the City wants a sign-off from the HOA {in our case, SARC] before they evaluate the application, we could
do that if you have no objection to our having to "take the lead" in evaluating the request; this would probably
require some more effort on our part.
I would suggest, however, that a letter of approval from the HOA to qualify for an administrative review should
replace the language about letters from neighbors; it would then be the HOA's responsibility to do a neighbor
notification, make the phone calls, hold a meeting, whatever process the HOA wanted to use to advise neighbors
about the proposed change. Or not... the Association might decide that there are no impacts or that the
adjustment is a good thing, and not want to involve the neighbors.
If the HOA decided that there were no impacts and wanted to take responsibility for any objection from a
neighbor, then the property owner would be insulated from having to obtain letters of consent directly and would
rely on the HOA {SARC] to handle that. I find that homeowners usually prefer that, both in MCC and elsewhere.
Those are my suggestions, but I wanted to provide this draft to SARC in case any of you had comments or
thoughts that we would want to incorporate into our response.
Please send me any feedback no later than next Thursday, February 12th.
Thanks - call or write if questions.
Bill
Printed for James Lindt <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us>
02/20/2004
DRAFT
POLICIES REGARDING BUILDING ENVELOPE ADJUSTMENT REQUESTS
WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN
January 30, 2004
I. Purpose of Regulations.
The purpose of the policies contained herein is to establish reasonable guidelines and
standard procedures for evaluating building envelope adjustment requests in the Planned
Unit Developments (PUD) that have been annexed into the City of Aspen from Pitkin
County. These regulations shall be read in conjunction with Chapter 26.445.100 of the
Aspen Municipal Land Use Code and are not intended to supercede the regulations for
PUD amendments as are set forth therein.
Many of the properties contained within the planned developments, which the City of
Aspen annexes from Pitkin County contain building envelopes that are intended to
protect and preserve native areas or features before, during, and after the development of
these properties. These policy statements are being adopted in order to:
a) Establish consistent procedural protocol for evaluating building envelope
adjustment requests within the confines of the existing PUD amendment
legislation in the City of Aspen Municipal Land Use Code.
II. Background.
A building envelope adjustment request on a property that is located within a PUD is
typically reviewed as a PUD amendment. Section 26.445.100 of the Aspen Municipal
Land Use Code establishes two (2) different review processes for PUD amendment
requests. One process involves a review by only the Community Development Staff and
Director, and the alternative process involves review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The determination as to which process is applied to a PUD amendment
request is made by the Community Development Staff based on the magnitude of the
request. A minor PUD amendment request may be reviewed administratively if it is
found not to be out of compliance with the following standards:
I. The request may not involve a change in the use or the character of the
development.
2. The request may not increase the overall coverage of structures by greater
than three (3) percent.
3. The request may not substantially increase trip generation rates or the
demand for public facilities of the proposed development.
4. The request may not reduce the amount of approved open space by greater
than three (3) percent.
5. The request may not reduce the amount of approved off-street parking and
loading space by greater than one (I) percent.
6. The request may not reduce the pavement or right-of-way widths or
easements.
7. The request may not increase the approved gross leasable floor area of
commercial buildings by greater than two (2) percent.
8. The request may not increase the approved residential density of the
development by greater than one (I) percent.
9. The request may not be inconsistent with any condition or representation
of the project's original approval or which requires granting a variation
from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements.
III. Procedural Policy.
In the case of most building envelope adjustment requests, the only review standard
above that is discretionary in nature is Number I. That being the case, the consistency of
a request with the character of the original approvals often determines whether a building
envelope adjustment is reviewed administratively or warrants review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Therefore, the following policy guidelines have been established to
aid the Community Development Staff in determining whether a building envelope
adjustment request is consistent with the character of the original development approvals:
1. A building envelope adjustment request should not increase the overall
spatial area of building envelope on the subject property or properties if
the request is to be reviewed administratively; and,
2. The Applicant of a building envelope adjustment request should first
obtain letters of approval from all affected property owners (at a minimum
this will constitute the adjacent property owners and may include other
property owners that the Community Development Director determines to
be affected) in order to ensure that their enjoyment of their property would
not be significantly affected by the request, if the request is to be reviewed
administratively; and,
3. The Applicant of a building envelope adjustment request should first
obtain a letter of approval from the respective Homeowner's Association
from which the property is governed by, if the request is to be reviewed
administratively; and,
4. A building envelope adjustment request shall be reviewed by the
Community Development Staff in conjunction with the City of Aspen
Parks Department Staff to determine whether the requested adjustment
would lead to the destruction of significant native vegetation and land
features in which the specific building envelope was established to protect.
The application for a building envelope adjustment shall clearly show that
the request will not disturb significant native vegetation, if it is to be
reviewed administratively.
2
,.'
'" .~
Any building envelope adjustment request not found by the Community Development
Staff to adhere to the above policy statements shall be reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission as is provided for in Section 26.445.l00(B) of the City of Aspen
Municipal Land Use Code.
It is recognized in developing the building envelope adjustment policy statements
contained herein that during the construction and construction planning processes, slight
variations may occur from the approved plans. And in certain situations, it is recognized
that these variations from the approved plans may carry development outside of the
designated building envelopes. That being the case, it should be noted that the PUD
amendment section of the land use code does not distinguish between PUD amendments
that are requested to legalize proposed improvements and those amendments that are
requested to legalize existing improvements that were made without first obtaining the
appropriate approvals.
Thus, in determining whether a building envelope adjustment request should be reviewed
administratively, it should not make a difference as to whether the request is needed to
legalize a proposed improvement or an existing improvement that was constructed
without first obtaining the appropriate approvals.
However, it should be clear that staff does not condone developing without approval and
that any building envelope adjustment to be approved administratively for an illegally
constructed improvement shall contain a condition of approval requiring that the
Applicant obtain any and all relevant building permits and inspections needed to legalize
the improvement. Also, as a deterrent to develop outside of a building envelope without
first obtaining approval, staff shall impose the double-fee penalty provided for in the
International Building Code for any permits needed to legalize the improvement made
outside of the building envelope.
h :jamesl_ folder _ buildinL envelope _ adjustment_policiesdoc
3
130 5 Galena 51.
AspenC081611
(970) 920-5090
(970) 920-5439, fax
Aspen Community
Development
Department
Fax
To: Gary Beach From: James Lindt
Fax: 925-4754 Pages:
Phone: Date: 215/04
Re: Building Envelope Adjustment Policy CC:
o Urgent
o For Review
o Please Comment 0 Please Reply
o Please Recycle
. Comments:
Hi Gary.
Here is the draft building envelope adjustment policy that we discussed. We intend to have
representatives from Highlands. Moore, and the Maroon Creek Club review and comment on the policy
and then check in with the Planning and Zoning Commission to make sure they are comfortable with
what we have developed. Please review and retum comments or concerns that you may have related
to the draft policy.
Thanks.
/
~}l
, r(hv
J ' v
/"...,
130 5. Galena 51.
Aspen CO 81611
(970) 920-5090
(970) 920-5439, fax
Aspen Community
Development
Department
-
Fax
To: Bill Lukes From: James Lindt
Fax: 920-6986 Pages:
Phone: Date: 2/5104
Re: Building Envelope Adjustment Policy CC:
o Urgent
o For Review
o Please Comment 0 Please Reply
o Please Recycle
. Comments:
Let me know what you think.
Thanks.
'#-".
~
Ale Edit Record ~o Form Reports
M""
?
~
PennitType
C',.
'PellYlidnformalio';:--
M~lerPerrnit r--
Project!
O-:;:CI;( "ii'LTILDIHG> ENVELOPE ADJUSTMENT
-jQADDRESS,NO PAACEllD
St<lie r---:::J
z;,
""
13
~
Addreu
~
A
..:.;;j
~
R......Q.....j"'"
5'....1_
~lOOiomoor.r.;l
^"",ovedj .r.;l
lswed
FMI LJ
E",... rciiiii2i2iii5".r.;l
....
ri1I
l!i!
I;
rn
SOOmi""," 'jAMmfi:;~--
r- VlSibleOl'llheweb?
ClockIR.......... O"",ro
P.",.IO, I ))913
Owner
La:! tL~H.' ciTY OF ASPEN
PhOi",'l970l9Z(l.~
~ DW~I
"Applicant
lat! Nan-f' cny OF ASPEN
F'hOl'" '(970J921J~
L_,
.J FwNMltl
IJ: 5GALENA5T
PEN CO 91611
.21 ''''N_I
eu.'I=
130 5 GALENA 51
, ASPEN CO 81611
J
..::J
;j_c~,..
_i
Record 1 of 1