HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.101 Founders Pl.0001.2013.ASLU 40
THE CITY OF .ASPEN
City of Aspen Community Development Department
CASE NUMBER 0001.2013.ASLU
PARCEL ID NUMBERS 2273707300040
PROJECTS ADDRESS 101 FOUNDERS PL
PLANNER SARA NADOLNY
CASE DESCRIPTION PUD AMENDMENT
REPRESENTATIVE SCOT LUNDEN STUDIO B 920 9428
DATE OF FINAL ACTION 2.19.14
CLOSED BY DJAMA MARTIN ON: 03/06/2014
i
Regular City Planning &Zoning Meeting — Minutes Maw 05, 2013
Comments 2
Conflicts of Interest 2
Obermeyer Place - 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 2
Other Business — Code Amendments 8
1
Regular CiPlanning & Zoning Meeting —'1inutes March 05, 2013
LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
for March 05, 2013 in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Keith Goode was not
present. Commissioners present were Bert Myrin, Ryan Walterscheid, Stan Gibbs,
Jasmine Tygre, Jim DeFrancia and LJ Erspamer. Cliff Weiss arrived at 4:45 pm.
Staff present were Jim True, City Attorney; Sara Nadolny and Jessica Garrow,
Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
Comments
Bert Myrin thanked Community Development for the update and it gives the big
picture of what is going on down the road. Bert asked if staff has set up any
special meetings and future meetings for what Council handed them to do. Jessica
Garrow said she was to go over the long range agenda; Community Development
is booked with a lot of Growth Management applications. Jessica said if they were
special meetings and staff could not attend those meetings. Jasmine suggested the
4th Tuesday in March which is the 26th for a P&Z meeting without staff so it will be
a work session.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
Public Hearing:
Obermeyer Place - 101 Founders Place, Unit 202
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for Obermeyer Place PU Amendment.
Sara Nadolny submitted the proof of notice and the postings as Exhibit F. Sara
said there were 4 letters from the surrounding area of Obermeyer Place submitted
and were all favorable. Sara introduced Scott Lindenau representing the Clancy's
in this matter.
Sara said the applicant from Founders Place Unit 202 was requesting an
amendment to the Obermeyer Place PUD to permit a section of privacy screen on
the unit's patio. The unit was located on the second floor; you had seen this before
in May of 20.12 for a similar request where the applicant had requested a 30 inch
privacy screen to be erected on the patio and staff requested the screen to the west.
The screen was built through some*&munication of approval and built the length
of the unit's patio. Sara said this time the applicants are requesting an amendment
to the Obermeyer PUD to bring the now approved patio into compliance. Staff is
not in agreement with this request; the request was made for privacy and makes
sense on the western side where it was originally approved. The patio on the north
and eastern sides are raised up at a second story level approximately 13 feet before
the privacy screen from finished grade so we feel that the applicants already enjoy
2
Regular City Planning Zoning Meeting— Minutes Ma?& 05, 2013
a reasonable degree of privacy from their second story patio. Sara said the
materials used for the fence were quality materials and there was no other place in
Obermeyer where these materials are used. Sara said the 30 inch screen adds
height to an already tall area that is along the pedestrian walkway. Staff is
recommending that P&Z deny the request the applicant's request for the PUD
amendment and require the removal of all sections of the screen that was not
approved by Resolution 10 of 2012 within a period of 30 days.
Jim DeFrancia asked if your objections are simply as stated, simply your subjective
view of creating an appearance of height. Sara replied the height, bulk and the-
need to be considered private when it's narratives need to be experiencing a further
degree of privacy and there are a lot of patios in this area but they don't have more
than just a safety railing; they thought that would set a precedent in an overall
change in the PUD. Jessica said that it was inconsistent with the existing PUD.
LJ asked the definition of a screen. Sara replied there was not a formal working
definition of a screen in our code. LJ asked what would you describe that on the
upper left. Sara replied a barrier or shield. Jessica stated that it would fall under a
fence when we are looking at that balcony.
Cliff stated that it was opaque and not transparent which makes it a screen.
Burt asked about the Resolution on page 16 the and fourth WHEREAS mentions a
fence so was that the determination. Sara said that was from Resolution 10, 2012
that mentions the privacy fence as well as the one between the property
(Obermeyer Place) from the parking lot.
Jim said that a wind screen can be transparent; would it be different in your view if
it was less solid, if it was a railing or a screen but if it was less solid. Jessica said
that staff's main issue is that this was inconsistent with anything else in Obermeyer
even if it was more transparent; it was not part of what was originally approved.
Jessica said this does represent a change to the overall PUD and if the HOA
wanted to come in that would be fine but doing this on a piecemeal basis doesn't
make sense and it adds a lot of bulk and mass.
Scott Lindenau, Studio B, asked Sara to go back to the plan on the power point;
this was an inadvertent error on several behalf's so we did not try to do this
intentionally. Cliff asked do what intentionally. Scott replied right now we are
approved to do this and we wrapped the fence further and so these 2 portions we
are hoping to go the five feet. Scott said this was still inconsistent with materials
3
Regular Ciy Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes March 05, 2013
and one thing that we could do to the whole thing is paint it that green color to
marry it more with the architecture and color. Scott said that he realized that the
Exhibit A to Resolution 10, 2012 was not in color but more importantly some of
the images that you show are from below looking up and the client's concern was
that from Main Street you are higher and you look right into the living room and
the terrace.
Scott said that there were letters from Joe Vernier, Michael Sailor, Steve Seyffert
and Steve and Clare Wilson who were all local and have been here for a long time
and they are immediate neighbors.
Jim asked if he had any images of the fence that you should have built and where.
Scott replied if the fence stopped here it would be all the neighbors looking down
and this is probably the most looked into apartment. Jim asked if that portion of
the fence exists legitimately as approved. Sara replied on the west side in red is
legitimate.
Cliff asked who built the fence. Scott replied Craig Woods. Cliff asked if he was
given a set of plans from you. Scott replied yes. Cliff asked if Scott was here in
2012 to present this to us when it was originally approved. Scott said that he was.
Cliff said he didn't understand where the confusion was; he was handed a set of
plans and Cliff was trying to ascertain how he got a set of plans than what were
approved. Scott replied that they were in black and white and it could have been
his error that he didn't realize that it didn't stop at that peak. Cliff asked if he had
nothing to do with supervising him while he was installing this. Scott replied that
he did but he went on vacation and maybe he didn't check on it close enough. Sara
said that when she initially sent over the plans and the resolution it was a black and
white copy but she also forwarded by email a color copy and the resolution said
red equals this and yellow equals this. Cliff asked even if it were in black and
white does the dotted line show anything different. Sara said it does not and she
did send the color one. Cliff said if you only had the black and white one could
you make this mistake. Sara responded that would be hard to do because. U
asked if they were happy with the fence that was approved. Sara replied yes, there
was a legitimate reason. U said you are just asking to remove the new part that
wasn't approved and in order for the applicant to apply for something like that they
have to apply for a PUD amendment. Sara replied they have to go through a PUD
amendment.
Ryan looked at what was approved last year and they extended the fence
considerably down the sidewalk but there must have been some compromise, did
4
Regular City Planning X"Zonin2 Meeting — Minutes Mali 05, 2013
he miss it. Sara responded that what they presented and there wasn't a big
discussion and it wasn't debated.
Bert said the criteria that we are supposed to decide is located from page 19 on.
No public comments.
Commissioner Comments:
Jim said he really didn't have any objection to this; the neighbors have indicated
that they don't have any objection to this. Jim agreed that it might be painted a
more subdued color but that is just a matter of taste; he didn't see that it had any
impact on the public interest.
Bert said he usually agreed with staff on these; it is a significant height increase in
terms of a blank wall; it adds bulk to the building and on page 25 he agreed with
everything; it was not compatible to the surrounding buildings, there is no other
place that this is used.
Jasmine said that Bert has covered most of what she had to say but more
importantly because it is a PUD even though we may not think that this is the most
breathtaking architecture it does have a very mute pallet color. Jasmine urged the
applicant to change that color because when you walk down Main Street it looks
like a crate stuck on that kind of wood. Jasmine said in a PUD there should be a
style unless the PUD is going to change and everyone wanted these beige things on
their balconies then we could consider it as an amendment to the entire PUD.
Cliff said that his biggest concern was how innocent a mistake was this; they came
to us, we approved something specifically and then they built something entirely
different; that is the precedent that he is truly upset by. Cliff said that he couldn't
believe that this wasn't deliberate; that's not what got built.
Ryan said that he had no problem with this; it is an extension of a fence that they
added 10 more feet to. Ryan said if the Homeowners complained then it would be
different and he doesn't see it as an extension of a 15 foot concrete wall.
Stan said he has a hard time since it is a PUD and we had approval for one but then
is applicable to all of the other units. Stan said that he didn't know the other
balconies very well but I think that they are open railings, is that right. So if
someone wanted to put a screen up there they could point to this and say they got
to do it, the PUD has been modified. Stan said they don't even have to ask
5
Regular G Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 05, 2013
permission; he understood the justification for the other approval, it was very well
defined with a walkway right outside their balcony. Stan said that staff can tell me
if there is another place where there is a walkway right outside somebody's
balcony; being the case it was clear that you can walk right there and look into
their balcony. Stan said the rest of it is beyond what we approved and my
understanding is why should we approve all the rest of the units.
Jim said that he followed Stan's reasoning but it speaks to me personally; there has
been a propensity for years for City Council to play architect that are not
appropriate for government. Jim said because it was an existing PUD and people
are there and live there and work there and use it and he doesn't see it having any
impact on the public. Jim said if the owners want to see other balconies blocked in
he didn't see why we should care.
Stan said this would take it out of the hands of the HOA to prevent someone from
fencing in their balcony; because this on the right side is all open to the public
area; there is no difference between that and a balcony about the same height and if
those people want to do it the HOA would have no say. Stan asked what does the
code say, what is the justification for an amendment, what was the justification to
keep that wall on that side of the balcony.
Jim said he followed Stan but the issue of the HOA is a very valid one but the
HOA has not appeared to voice any objection so he has to believe that they are not
particularly concerned. Jim said so all we are talking about is this approval and if
others wanted to enclose their balcony they would have to come back to P&Z to
further propose. Jessica said that they would need to come to a further PUD
amendment.
Jasmine asked if there could be an insignificant PUD amendment that could be
approved by staff. Jessica replied yes. Jasmine said an owner of another unit on a
second floor could put up a fence and be considered an insignificant amendment
and only go to staff. Jessica replied that she didn't think that it would be approved
administratively; the last criteria in the administrative PUD review is a change
which is inconsistent with the original character of the PUD and that is really how
this privacy screen/fence fails and how other ones would fail at the insubstantial
level as well and it is why it is coming to P&Z because it is a deviation from the
original approval.
6
y Regular City Planning &'Zoning Meeting— Minutes Ma?t% 05, 2013
Ryan said that the group already allowed the majority of that fence and already set
a prescient and would have already amended the PUD to some extent; the small
little extension provides more continuity in his opinion.
Jessica said that this first approval was a very site specific within the approval.
Jim said that he shares Cliff's frustration the way this was done but he didn't think
that we should punish them.
Bert said he didn't see what Cliff and Jim has just raised and not basing my
decision on whether it has been built or not been built; he is basing his decision on
the criteria in the code.
LJ asked to go back to the power point picture of the railing and the fence. Sara
clarified that to the west was a different property and the middle part was
unapproved and the part that has been approved is seen only if you are walking up
the stairs or if you are at the neighboring property. LJ asked if you take the wood
down is that fence what was approved with the original design. Sara stated that it
stopped at the concrete wall cap.
Scott said the first letter from Steve Seyffert who was on the HOA Board so he
wrote a letter of support. Scott said the fact that you could potentially approve 3
lengths of the 5 so they would be happy to paint the color.
Jennifer said Community Development does not regulate paint.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution 7 series2013 approving
amendments to the Obermeyer Place SPA with the added condition that the railing
in question to be painted with a subdued color for the HOA to approve; seconded
by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Bert Myrin, no; Ryan Walterscheid, yes; Cliff
Weiss, no; Jasmine Tygre, no, Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJErspamer, no; Stan Gibbs,
no. DENIED 5-2.
Discussion: Stan said the HOA should drive this PUD Amendment. LJ said that
the HOA could come in. Jessica said right now is no action so P&Z should do
another motion to deny.
MOTION: LJErspamer moved to deny the application submitted by Scott
Lindenau for 101 Founders Place Unit 202 PUD Amendment seconded by Cliff
Weiss. Roll call vote: Bert Myrin, yes; Ryan Walterscheid; no; Jim DeFrancia,
7
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes March 05, 2013
no; Stan Gibbs, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; LJErspamer, yes.
APPROVED motion to DENY 5-2.
Other Business:
LJ opened other business. Jessica Garrow stated this was a follow up to the
February Council Work Session and also to the memo; staff has moved forward to
code amendments related to SPA, PUD, ESA as well as Subdivision. Jessica said
the first was to get input from key stakeholders and P&Z is one of the largest
stakeholders related to these kinds of code amendments because you deal with
them at every meeting essentially. Jessica said that staff has met with some
architects and planners to get their feedback on some of the changes that they
would like to see.
Jessica said specifically for PUD and SPA these are code sections that hasn't had
an overhaul in probably 20 years or longer; there is a lot of review criteria in PUD
in particular and staff would like to work with the review sections of other
agencies and departments to make sure the standards meet today. The Engineering
standards don't always match up to what the current Engineering code says; the
same thing with Parks they want to have additional concerns included here. The
same with Environmentally Sensitive Areas and looking at the landscaping and
architecture requirements which are pretty vague so looking to the design standards
or something more specific.
Jessica said they also want to look at the documents that are required for
recordation. Jessica said when you go to the PUD section it requires a utility plan,
drainage and architectural character and things that could be very specific; so what
they are recording doesn't necessarily match up with what was on the ground.
SPA doesn't have a P&Z review it is either administrative or it goes to Council.
Jessica said the most significant plan is how can we make conceptual SPA and
PUD mean more right now it only allows an applicant to apply for final but you
could go through a year maybe a year and half planning process; you meet with
P&Z and City Council but it does not lock you into anything and that is frustrating
for members of the public, for the applicant and staff. Staff would like your input
on is making the conceptual review a more binding review and get the Ordinance
from City Council and final just comes back to P&Z and doesn't go all the way to
Council.
Cliff asked why are you suggesting a two step conceptual but a one step final; why
not a build the whole this into a one step conceptual/final and they are done.
Jessica replied there will be times when you are going to want to have a 4 step
8
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, March 5, 2013
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. Obermeyer Place— 101 Founders Place, PUD Amendment
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Discussion on Code Amendments
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
"For internal Staff use only. Not for publication. Dates subject to Change"
CITY AGENDAS
City Council-2nd and 4th Mon. @ 5:00 PM, (Work sessions for Council @ 5 on Mondays, 4 on
Tuesdays) P/Z-1st and 3rd Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC-2nd & 4th Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4
Week of February 25, 2013
3/5 P&Z (a)- 4.30 (Jessica will cover for Jen)
Notice: 2/11
Obermeyer, PUD Amendment, PH — SN
Discussion of Code Amendments (ESA) - JG
3/19 P&Z(&_4:30
Notice: 2/25
501 W. Hopkins, RDS and setback variance, PH —JB
4/2 P&Z 0_4:30
Notice: 3/11
616 E. Hyman, GulfCo, GMQS/Commercial Design, PH - JP
4/16 P&Z (a-4:30
Notice: 3/25
Boogies, GMQS, PH —JG
Gap Building, GMQS, PH —JB
5/7 P&Z (cry 4.30—CANCELLED — Election
5/14 P&Z 0 4.30 —Special Meeting -tentative
5121 P&Z (& 4.30 (Chris will cover for Jen)
Community Development Update
February 2013
Project: Aspen Valley Hospital Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759
Status: Pending Review by City Council Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The Hospital has applied for approval of Phases 3 and 4. These include the
addition of new medical office space, new hospital space, and a new entry.
Update: P&Z recommended approval of the project on January 8th. Council approved first
reading on February 25th, with second readings to be held in March and April
Next Steps: City Council second readings March 11, 18, April 8, and 22.
Project: 110 W Main - Hotel Aspen Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758
Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes to increase the number of lodge rooms on the property
from 45 to 53, add 4 new free-market residential units, add on-site affordable housing, and create
an underground parking garage. The lodge rooms average less than 300 square feet.
Update: Staff is still reviewing the initial application. The project's conceptual commercial
design review will be conducted by HPC. HPC reviewed the project on January 9 and February
1 3and continued their review to March 13.
Next Steps: Review by HPC on March 13.
Project: 434 E Cooper Ave (Bidwell) Contact: Sara Adams, 429-2778
Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 434 E Cooper,
commonly known as the Bidwell building, with a new commercial building. No residential
space is proposed as part of the redevelopment.
Update: HPC approved the conceptual design on December 12, 2012. City Council did not
call the project up.
Next Steps: The applicant will apply for final commercial design review.
Project: 610 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758
Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined.
Page 1 of 8
Description: The applicant proposes to designate and expand an existing free-market residential
unit and add two-story commercial addition to the property. The building houses the Charles
Cunniffe offices.
Update: Review by Staff. HPC is reviewed the project on May 23, 2012 and recommended a
continuance. The was approved, with conditions regarding work required to in order to qualify
for designation, by HPC on October 10th. City Council approved the designation on January
14th, and gave the applicant 30 days to accept the decision. The applicant accepted the
designation decision.
Next Steps: The applicant will apply for final HPC review.
Project: 601 E Hyman Ave (Victorian Square) Contact: Sara Nadolny, 429-2739
Status: Completed review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes demolishing and replacing the existing building with a mix
of commercial space and one free-market residential unit. The applicant proposes to use an
affordable housing credit for their affordable housing mitigation. The building is commonly
known as the Garfield and Hecht office building.
Update: Review by Staff. P&Z reviewed the project at their June 19th and July 3`d meetings,
and approved the project by 4:2. City Council reviewed the application under Call-Up
procedures and voted to remand the project back to P&Z for further review of the public amenity
space. P&Z reviewed and approved a slightly revised design. P&Z approved a Growth
Management Review for commercial space and free-market residential space on December 4th
Next Steps: Applicant is determining if they will apply for subdivision approval.
Project: 514 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758
Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant received designation approval for their modern building (commonly
known as the Mason Morse building) from City Council earlier in 2012. They have applied for
their final design review with HPC.
Update: HPC will review the final design application on February 27.
Next Steps: HPC review on February 27.
Project: 602 E Hyman Ave Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758
Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined.
Page 2 of 8
Description: The applicant had proposed to remodel the existing building and add a new third
story. The development would have include updated commercial space, a new affordable
housing unit, and an updated free-market residential unit. The applicant has since withdrawn
their application and submitted a request to designate the property under AspenModern. The
new application includes an updated free-market residential unit and updated commercial space.
A small addition in the rear is proposed.
Update: HPC will review the requested designation on February 27.
Next Steps: HPC review on February 27th and then City Council reviews.
Project: 419 E Hyman (Paragon Building ) Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758
Status: Pending review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant is requesting a height variance for roof features and amenities The
variance is required because of the recent changes in the height allowances in the CC zone.
Update: City Council will review the request at their meeting on April 8th
Next Steps: City Council review on April 8th.
Project: 420 E Hyman (CB Paws/Zocalito) Contact: Sara Adams, 429-2778
Status: Pending review by P&Z and Council Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the property at 420 E Hyman with a new
three-story mixed-use building.
Update: HPC approved the project on July 25, 2012 by a 3:2 vote. City Council reviewed the
application under Call-Up procedures and voted to remand the project back to HPC for further
review of the mass and scale. HPC approved the massing on November 14th. The Applicant
applied for subdivision and growth management reviews on February 15th. That application is
being reviewed by staff and has not yet been scheduled for P&Z review.
Next Steps: P&Z review for growth management and subdivision reviews.
Project: 204 S Galena (Gap) Contact: HPC - Amy Guthrie, 429-2758
GMQS - Justin Barker, 429-2797
Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the property with a new one to two story
building comprised of commercial space and a roof-top deck. The building is commonly
referred to as the Gap building.
Page 3 of 8
Update: HPC voted to approve the conceptual design of the project on August 8, 2012. Final
HPC Review was granted on December 12, and notice of call up was provided to City Council.
The applicant received an amendment to their approval on February 13th to change the second
story massing. The applicant has made a growth management application for the changed
second floor space and to utilize the basement for commercial space.
Next Steps: P&Z review for growth management and subdivision reviews. This is tentatively
scheduled for April 16.
Project: 534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) Contact: Jessica Garrow, 429-2780
Status: Pending Review by P&Z and Council Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes to add a third story free-market residential unit, and
convert a second floor deck to commercial space. The building is commonly referred to as the
Boogies Building.
Update: HPC approved conceptual design of the project on July 11, 2012 by a 4:0 vote. City
Council reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and accepted HPC's decision. The
applicant has applied for growth management and subdivision reviews.
Next Steps: P&Z review for growth management and subdivision reviews. This is tentatively
scheduled for April 16.
Project: 616 E Hyman Ave Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759
Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 616 E Hyman,
with a new commercial building. Residential space is proposed as part of the redevelopment.
Update: P&Z approved the conceptual design of the project in November 2012, and City
Council has exercised their call-up authority to review the decision. Council accepted the
decision. The applicant has applied for growth management and subdivision reviews.
Next Steps: P&Z review for growth management and subdivision reviews. This is tentatively
scheduled for April 2.
Project: 420 E Cooper Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758
Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposed to demolish an existing one-story commercial building,
commonly known as the Red Onion Annex (currently houses the poster shop). The applicant
proposes to replace it with a new two—three story mixed use building including commercial
space and one free-market unit.
Page 4 of 8
Update: HPC reviewed the project on September 12, 2012 and approved it on October 24. City
Council has exercised their call-up authority, and remanded the project back to HPC for view
plane review.
Next Steps: HPC reviewed the remanded project, and approved it with no changes. The
applicant will apply for growth management and final design reviews. No application has been
made to date.
Project: Jewish Community Center Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759
Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The Jewish Community Center has applied for an Essential Public Facility growth
management review for their project. They propose to amend the site plan to replace the social
hall with a parsonage for the Rabbi.
Update: P&Z recommended approval of the Essential Public Facility growth management
review on December 18th. City Council approved the amended application on February l lcn
Next Steps: The applicant will apply for final design review with HPC.
Project: 233 E Hallam Lot Split Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759
Status: Pending Review by City Council Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes a lot split for the property at 233 E Hallam. They are
requesting removal of a non-historic addition to the historic home.
Update: HPC approved the request for removal of a non-historic addition on the property on
November 14. City Council Lot Split Review is required and will take place in February and
March
Next Steps: City Council first reading on February 25th and second reading on March l lch.
Project: 514 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758
Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant received designation approval for their modern building (commonly
known as the Mason Morse building) from City Council earlier in 2012. They have applied for
their final design review with HPC.
Update: HPC will review the final design application on February 27.
Next Steps: HPC review on February 27.
Page 5 of 8
Project: CC and C-1 Zones Contact: Jessica Garrow 429-2780
Status: Complete Closing Date: Jan 2013
Description: City Council amended the allowed height and free-market residential floor area in
the CC and C-1 zones in April 2012. The allowed height is 28 feet for 2-story buildings, and a
.5:1 FAR for free-market residential in non-historic buildings, only if equal amounts of
affordable housing are provided on-site. Historic properties have a .5:1 free-market residential
FAR by right. At the time, City Council indicated an interest in allowing three-story buildings,
but that the exact height and uses deserved more discussion.
Update: Over 200 individuals participated in the public outreach process on the project. City
Council approved a"Policy Resolution" that provided staff with direction for specific code
amendments. That direction included a ban on free-market residential uses downtown, and the
ability to have 3 story buildings through some kind of review process with City Council. Staff is
working on the amendments and will bring those forward later this fall. Council passed a Policy
Resolution on August 27th, providing general direction to staff for code amendments.
Next Steps: Staff will present proposed code language to City Council at 1St reading on
November 12 and 2nd reading on Nov 26, Dec 10 and Jan 14. City Council approved changes to
the zones at their January 14th meeting.
Project: Lodging Study Contact: Jessica Garrow 429-2780
Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Spring/Summer 2013
Description: One of City Council's Top Ten Goals is to "examine the desirability and
sustainability of preserving existing lodging and producing more lodging in Aspen." As part of
this effort, staff is conducting a lodging study to examine our existing inventory and to
understand the current state of the lodging market. Staff is utilizing a two-phase approach to
Council's Lodging Goal. The first stage includes an overview of the City's role in the lodging
sector, interviews with key players in the lodging industry, and an inventory of lodging in Aspen.
Phase two would begin with a series of facilitated roundtable discussions between lodging
owners, planners, developers, general businesses, ACRA, the Aspen Skiing Company, Stay
Aspen Snowmass, and outside lodging experts. The discussion would focus on three topics: 1)
Is there a problem in the lodging sector as it relates to product diversity? 2) Should the City have
a role is addressing any problems? 3) If so, what can the City do?
Update: The Phase 1 Report is available online-at:- -
http //www aspenpitkin com/Departments/Community-Development/Planninv,-and-
Zoning_/Long-Range-Planning/
Phase 2 consisted of a charrette with Aspen's lodging stakeholders to discuss the issues,
challenges and opportunities in the lodging sector. The group also discussed what rles the City
could or should have in the lodging sector. The charrette was held on October 23`d and included
Page 6 of 8
representatives from Aspen's lodges, ACRA, SS, SkiCo, and the lodging development
community. Two lodging consultants from Denver also attended and are writing a report on
their conclusions from that meeting. Staff with present the findings and a summary of the
meeting at a December work session.
Next Steps: Staff is moving forward on the next steps presented to Council at their December
I Ith work session.
Project: ADUs Code Amendment Contact: Chris Bendon 429-2765
Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Jan/Feb 2013
Description: Council, P&Z, and APHCA have all expressed interest in eliminating ADUs as an
option when mitigating for housing impacts in single-family and duplex development. This code
amendment eliminates the ADU mitigation option, creates a system to remove existing ADUs,
and changes the mitigation trigger to any time new floor area is created in a single-family or
duplex development.
Update: City Council approved policy direction on November 12th, and approved code
language at first reading on November 26th. Second reading on December 10 was continued to
January 28tH
Next Steps: Staff is taking direction from the January 28th council meeting and working on the
proposal. It will come back to City Council at a later date.
Project: Employee Generation Code Amendment Contact: Jessica Garrow, 429-2780
Status: Complete Closing Date: Feb 2013
Description: As part of the implementation of the AACP, City Council asked staff to update the
employee generation study completed 10 years ago. This study has been completed, and there
were a few changes in the employee generation numbers within different zone districts. This
code amendment will update the figures in the code. In addition, Council has previously given
staff Policy Direction to eliminate the provision in the growth management code that allows
multiple mitigation requirements to be satisfied by mitigating for the largest requirement when
on-site housing is provided (also referred to as the "double dip" provision). These two item will
be address in the same code amendment.
Update: Staff requests Policy Direction from City Council on January 28th, with 1" and 2°a
readings in February. Council approved Policy Direction on January 28th, and the code
amendment was approved on February 25tH
Next Steps: The code amendment goes into effect 30 days from approval (March 27).
Project: Sign Code Amendment Contact: Jim Pomeroy, 429-2745
Page 7 of 8
Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Feb/Mar 2013
Description: City Council has asked staff to simplify the sign code.
Update: City Council provided Policy Direction at their December l Otis meeting. First and
second readings will be held this spring, but no dates are currently set.
Next Steps: Council review at 1St and 2nd readings. Dates to be determined.
Project: Business Obstacles Code Amendment Contact: Jim Pomeroy, 429-2745
Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Mar 2013
Description: One of City Council's Top Ten Goals is related to improving City Codes to
eliminate barriers to businesses. As part of this effort, Community Development has identified
some obstacles in the Land Use Code that could be eliminated, including size caps on business
types.
Update: Staff requests Policy Direction from City Council on February l ltn, with 1St and 2nd
readings in February and March. City Council approved policy direction on February l ltn, and
first reading on February 25tH
Next Steps: City Council second reading on March 181H
Page 8 of 8
aA •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician
RE: 101 Founders Place,Unit 202, PUD—Other Amendment
MEETING DATE: March 5, 2013
APPLICANT/OWNER: Anthony SUMMARY: Planning & Zoning Commission
and M. Deborah Clancy- 101 Resolution No. 10, Series of 2012 approved a privacy
Founders PI, Unit 202, Aspen, CO screen to be erected along the western side of the
81611 balcony of Unit 202, intended to extend the length of the
patio as outlined in yellow in Figure C of this memo.
REPRESENTATIVE: Scott What was built was beyond the scope of this approval,
Lindenau, Studio B Architects — 501 and includes the majority of the patio's perimeter.
Rio Grande PI, Suite 104, Aspen CO
81611 The applicants are attempting to bring this privacy
screen
LOCATION: Obermeyer Place, 101 into
Founders Place,Unit 202 compliance
at this time
CURRENT ZONING & USE: by
Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) requesting
Zone District with Specially Planned approval of
Area (SPA) and Planned Unit what was
Development (PUD) overlays; the actually
subject site is used residentially. See built.
Figure B,below, for a location map. + '
PROPOSED LAND USE: The
applicants are requesting .
amendments to the Obermeyer PUD
that will permit a length of existing Figure A:
privacy screen to be maintained on image of
the balcony of the site. subject site
1
Figure B:Vicinity
map indicating -
location of the
subject property.
r•. I ,�
r •
r.
1 � -
h
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The applicants are seeking the following approvals:
• Amendment of PUD development order (Subsection 26.445.100.B, Other Amendment) to
construct a privacy screen for Unit 202. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the
final review authority.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS:
Resolution 10, Series 2012, approved the construction of a fence along the walkway on the
property's western edge, as well as a privacy screen of an approved length (as depicted in Figure
C, following) that would serve to further provide screening for the applicant's second story unit.
The residences at Obermeyer Place were approved as part of the Obermeyer Place COWOP
Project via City Council Ordinance 18, Series 2003, permitting the construction of a mixed use
project containing commercial net leasable, affordable housing, and free market residential units.
2
NOW-
Figure C:Exhibit A to
Resolution 10,Series 2012,
depicting the area where �.
the privacy screen was
approved by the Planning& 11
Zoning Commission.
,.
Yellow depicts the approved ,� .
area of privacy screen;Red
depicts the unapproved area EXISting Patio
of privacy screen
t �
/ 4A �
�X
.M�.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
In May of 2012 the applicants requested to increase the privacy of their residential unit at 101
Founder's Place, Unit 202, by constructing a wooden slatted screen along the perimeter of the
unit's balcony wall. The screen was proposed to sit on top of the existing concrete wall cap of
the unit's second story balcony.
Through Resolution No. 10, Series 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered
staff s recommendation and approved the placement of the privacy screen at the unit, limited to
the majority of the western portion of the balcony wall (as outlined in yellow in Figure C,
above). However, the privacy screen was built beyond the approved scope, encompassing the
nearly the entire length of the unit's patio wall, as depicted in Figure D,below.
3
r.
Figure D:Yellow indicates
approved area of patio,per r
Resolution 10,Series 2012. V
Blue indicates area that was
built beyond the scope
of this approval.
t s. �
.. Existing Patio .f`
el "V
V "'0
au�'4•
PROJECT SUMMARY:
At this time the applicants are requesting approval to maintain the existing wooden slatted
privacy screen that surrounds the second floor balcony of condominium unit 202, amending the
PUD to bring the non-approved portion
of the screen into compliance. The
privacy screen sits on top of the concrete
wall cap that surrounds this second story -
l
unit. The wall cap measures
approximately 127" in height. The
screen provides an additional 30" to the
wall, creating a height of approximately
15'2" as measured from finished grade,
and stretching a total length of 44'9".
lE
Figure E:East facing -
side of Unit 202,as p
viewed from ground
level walkway.
4
0
STAFF COMMENTS:
The privacy screen addition to Unit 202 is proposed within Obermeyer Place, which is subject to
the site specific development plan.approval by the PUD. Any changes to the land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space must undergo review and may be
permitted through an amendment to the final development plan.
The PUD review criteria discusses the compatibility of changes in light of architectural
character, and is concerned with the compatibility and/or enhancement of visual character and
relationships to surroundings.
While staff finds that the the proposed screen does not change the land use, density, landscaping,
or open space of Obermeyer Place, it does create some changes to massing (bulk) that are of
concern. The privacy screen adds
significant height to the existing deck of
Unit 202, particularly along the eastern
side of the unit where the wall is at its
tallest point (see Figure E, above). The
30" privacy screen adds additional f
height to an already large and prominent
wall along the pedestrian way.
Furthermore, the materials that are used,
while seeming of high quality and _
attractive, are not found elsewhere
within Obermeyer Place. To the extent
that they are used around the entire
patio, they become much more
prominent than if they were found only
along the western edge of the unit's
balcony, and do not fit in with the
character of the immediate area.
Lastly, staff fails to recognize the need
for such screening outside of that which Figure F:North facing side of Unit 202
had already been approved by
Resolution 10, Series 2012. Unit 202 is raised at a second story level on its north and east facing
sides, and therefore does not experience the same level of visibility as found on its western side,
which is at grade with the neighboring lot. The addition of the screen at these locations is out of
character with the architecture of the area, and sets a precedent to allow every other unit owner
with a patio to request such a screen purely for aesthetic rather than functional reasons.
5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request to amend the
Obermeyer PUD to allow the extended privacy screen at Unit 202, and require the removal of all
sections not previously approved by Resolution 10, Series 2012 within a period of thirty (30)
days from the date of this hearing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2013, approving amendments to the
Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA, with conditions."
Attachments:
EXHIBIT A—Staff Responses to PUD—Other Amendment Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B—Meeting Minutes from May 15, 2012 hearing
EXHIBIT C—Memo and Resolution No. 10, Series 2012, from May 15, 2012 hearing
EXHIBIT D—Application
6
RESOLUTION No. - - - - - - - -
(SERIES OF 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN,APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT—OTHER
AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, AKA
OBERMEYER PLACE, UNIT 202, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN.
Parcel Identification Number: 2737-073-05-009
WHEREAS, Anthony and M. Deborah Clancy submitted a request for Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Other Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the property is located in the Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) zone
district with PUD overlay; and
WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development approval for the Property was originally
approved by the Aspen City Council via Ordinance No. 18 Series of 2003, and the Obermeyer
Place Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69,
Page 44, Reception No. 498396; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Obermeyer PUD was approved through Resolution
10, Series of 2012, which included the construction and continuation of a privacy fence along the
western edge of the property line, and the erection of a 30" tall privacy screen, limited to a
portion of the western edge of the balcony's concrete wall at Unit 202; and
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended denial of the PUD Amendment; and
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on March 5, 2013, the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets all applicable development standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1
The PUD is hereby amended to allow the addition of a privacy screen for Unit 202, aka
Obermeyer Place Condominium Unit 202, as depicted in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
1
Section 2•
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3•
This resolution shall not 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 resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 5th day of
March, 2013.
LJ Erspamer, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk
Resolution Exhibit A: Site plan
2
Resolution Exhibit A
Site Plan
v3
'OZ
Ile
ng
wall Existing Patin
IA
%�
�#oe
R7°
N.
Green= Privacy screen approved by this resolution
Exhibit A
PUD—Other Amendment
Review Criteria
26.445.100(B) Other Amendment. 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 Subsection 26.445.030.0, Step 3. The action by the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be considered the final action, unless the decision is appealed.
Subsection 26.445.030.C, Step 3: Standards of review— Section 26.445.050
26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor
PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues
associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain
standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the
reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and
procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be compatible with the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture, as well
as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Response: The privacy screen is not found to be compatible with the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity in terms of height, bulk and architecture. The
30"privacy screen, as it is built, surrounds the patio of Unit 202. The subject site is a
second story unit, and reaches to a height of nearly 13' on the unit's east side. The
screen adds another 2.5' to the height of the wall, bringing it to nearly 15.5' in total
height. Staff finds this to be a significant height increase in a pedestrian area that
already contains a tall, blank wall. This height and slight setback of the screen on the
patio perimeter adds a bit of bulk to the building at an area that otherwise contains a
degree of transparency. Lastly, the building materials, while attractive and seemingly
good quality, are not found at any other location throughout the Obermeyer Place
PUD, and are not a good fit when wrapped around the unit's patio wall. Staff finds
this criterion to not be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the surrounding area.
Staff Response: The proposed development is not consistent with the character of the
other residential units found in the immediate vicinity. Those units with balconies do
have safety railings; however they do not have additional screening surrounding any of
the units. Staff believes the applicants are afforded a reasonable degree of privacy by
1
the nature of their residence being an end unit, and it being raised from the pedestrian
walkway to a second story height. Stafffinds this criterion to not be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Response: The proposed privacy screen will not affect the future development of the
surrounding area; however, it does set a precedent for more of these screens to be
requested by neighboring units, thereby changing the character of the PUD. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
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 Response: The proposed development includes maintaining a privacy screen on the
patio of an existing residential unit. This proposal is exempt from GMQS
requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
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.
Staff Response: Staff finds the privacy screen to be incompatible with the existing upper
story units in the surrounding area. Unit 202 is a second story unit, and as such is
removed from the ground level by nearly 13'. Resolution No. 10, Series of 2012
granted the applicants permission to erect the privacy screen along the western edge of
the patio, which was at grade with the neighboring parking lot and is also visible by the
adjacent staircase. However, the unit receives a reasonable degree of privacy from its
second story level. No other upper residential unit in the area has such a screen, they
only have safety railings. Therefore, the requested screen is incompatible with the
other upper level units in Obermeyer Place, and furthermore, sets a precedent to other
unit owners to allow aesthetic changes to their patio units. Staff finds this criterion to
not be met.
b) Natural or man-made hazards.
Staff Responses: The privacy screen is expected to have no contributing effects to natural
or man-made hazards. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep
slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms.
Staff Response: The privacy screen is expected to have no effect on the natural
characteristic of the property, overall, although it may contribute to the shade on the
subject property. This property contains no steep slopes, waterways or significant
vegetation and landforms in the subject area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
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 Response: The privacy screen will have no foreseeable effect on the surrounding
area in terms of contributing or detracting to noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian
circulation, parking, and historical resources in the area. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
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 Response: The PUD sets a height limit for buildings at Obermeyer Pl. not to exceed
35'. The highest point of the privacy screen, when measured from ground level, is
15'5': Although this does not violate the height limitation set by the approvals of the
Obermeyer PUD, Staff believes it does create a concern. At the ground level on the
east side of the unit the wall measures approximately 127". Staff finds this to add
height to an already tall, blank wall along a pedestrian corridor, and to create a scale
that is out of context with a pedestrian environment. Staff finds this criterion to not be
met.
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 nonresidential land uses.
Staff Response: There are no changes to parking associated with this proposal. Staff
finds this criterion to be not applicable.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed.
Staff Response: There are no changes to parking associated with this proposal. Staff
finds this criterion to be not applicable.
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.
Staff Response: There are no changes to public transit or other facilities associated with
this proposal. Public bus transit is available on Main Street, directly adjacent to
Obermeyer Place. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
3
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general
activity centers in the City.
Staff Response: The proposal does not change the proximity to the commercial core or
Aspen's activity centers. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient
infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced
if.
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service
the proposed development.
Staff Response: The proposal involves a patio-mounted privacy screen for a single
residential unit and does not change the water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other
utilities that currently serve the Obermeyer Place PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Response: This proposal is for a second story privacy screen that will surround an
existing unit. There will be no change to the roadways/walkways that will negatively
impact the ability to provide fire protection, snow removal or road maintenance. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural
hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD
may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or
the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
Staff Response: The proposed privacy screen does not affect the suitability of the
Obermeyer Place PUD on the land. The privacy screen is at the second story level and
will not impact ground stability. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due
to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution.
Staff Response: Staff does not find reason to believe the privacy screen will create a
detriment to the natural watershed. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the City.
Staff Response: The privacy screen will have no pernicious effect on the air quality in the
surrounding area and the City. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful
disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
4
Staff Response: This application is to permit a length of privacy screen, not previously
approved, to be maintained on the subject site through an amendment to the
Obermeyer Place PUD. The screen is not incompatible with the natural terrain and
will not cause harmful disturbance to the critical natural features of the site. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development
pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's
physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as
expressed in an applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Response: The applicant is not requesting an increase in the permitted density
within the Obermeyer PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exist no
negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5,
above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated.
Staff Response: The applicant is not requesting an increase in the permitted density
within the Obermeyer PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
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 Response: The applicant is not requesting an increase in the permitted density
within the Obermeyer PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
Notes:
a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate
than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD
conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as
otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD
Development Plan.
b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be
reflected in the final PUD development plans.
C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and
ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual
interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are
preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
5
Staff Response: There are no changes to the overall PUD, including changes to unique
and historic features. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and
vistas.
Staff Response: There are no changes in the structures that will affect the open space or
protected vistas on the site, although it should be noted that the privacy screen does
reduce views through the subject site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural
context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and
pedestrian movement.
Staff Response: There are no changes to the orientation of the structure to the street and
pedestrian walkway. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service
vehicle access.
Staff Response: There are no changes proposed to the position of buildings or access ways
that allow emergency and service vehicle access to the Obermeyer Place PUD. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Response: There are no changes proposed to the existing pedestrian and
handicapped access within the Obermeyer Place PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Staff Response: The privacy screen does not affect the site drainage for the unit or the
Obermeyer PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to
accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Staff Response: This application does not propose any changes to the nonresidential land
uses within the Obermeyer Place PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed
landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves
existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental
plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
6
Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy
screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not
originally approved. A landscape plan is not part of the proposal. Staff finds this
criterion to be not applicable. - - - -
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and
interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy
screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not
originally approved. A landscape plan is not part of the proposal. Staff finds this
criterion to be not applicable.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is
appropriate.
Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy
screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not
originally approved. A landscape plan is not part of the proposal. Staff finds this
criterion to be not applicable.
E. Architectural character.
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.
Staff Response: The privacy fence, as it wraps around the perimeter of the patio of Unit
202, is not compatible with the existing architecture of the surrounding buildings.
Although the materials are attractive and seem to be of high quality, they are unique to
the area, as there is no other place in the vicinity where these materials are used.
Furthermore, they increase the scale of the subject unit, creating a heightened screen
barrier where there previously was none. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of
the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive
mechanical systems.
Staff Response: The proposal is for a privacy screen and does not include any natural
heating or cooling properties, solar access, shade and vegetation, or mechanical
systems. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate
manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Response: This proposal is for a privacy screen that measures just a couple of inches
in width and 30" in height, and will sit on top of the existing concrete wall cap of the
subject unit's patio. It is unlikely that the screen will further contribute to the
7
shedding of snow, ice and water any more than the existing concrete wall cap. Staff
finds this criterion to be met
4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials,
weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency.
Staff Response: The screen does seem to be constructed of quality materials and is
attractive, although it does not compliment the materials used throughout the PUD, or
the character of other patios in the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns.
The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind
to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is
proposed in an appropriate manner.
Staff Response: There is no lighting proposed with this application. Staff finds this
criterion to be not applicable.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless
otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features,
buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is
prohibited for residential development.
Staff Response: There is no lighting proposed with this application. Staff finds this
criterion to be not applicable.
G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a
common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the
proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation
area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and
proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief
to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses
and property users of the PUD.
Staff Response: There is no common park, open space or recreation area proposed as part
of this application. Stafffinds this criterion to be not-applicable.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in
perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD
or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
Staff Response: There is no common park, open space or recreation area proposed as part
of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable.
8
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent
care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with
a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development.
Staff Response: There is no common park, open space or recreation area proposed as part
of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable.
H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development
does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does
not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated
with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
Staff Response: This proposal is to permit a privacy screen to be maintained along the
perimeter of the balcony of Unit 202 requiring no further public infrastructure outside
of that which is already provided to the unit. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the
necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Response: Staff anticipates no adverse impacts on the public infrastructure. Staff
finds this criterion to be not applicable.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and
where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement.
Staff Response: There are no oversized utilities or public facilities associated with this
project. The site improvements include a 30" tall privacy screen that circles the
majority of the second floor balcony of Unit 202. This screen has already been
constructed at the cost of the owner, and no developer will be reimbursed for the
improvements. The screen was constructed beyond the scope that was originally
approved by Resolution No. 10, Series 2012, and is not appropriate as compared with
this approval. Staff finds this criterion to not be met.
I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to minor PUD applications) The
purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly
burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail
facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the
development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street
either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area
dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Response: Unit 202 currently has adequate access to Main Street, a public street, as
well as the pedestrian walkway that is part of the general common element of the
Obermeyer PUD. This proposal involves permitting a privacy screen to be maintained
on the existing patio of the subject unit, and involves no changes that will create
barriers to access. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
9
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not
create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such
surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy
screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not
originally approved. This development will have no impact on the surrounding
roadways. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
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.
Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy
screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not
originally approved No further connections to areas of trails are proposed with this
application. Stafffinds this criterion to be not applicable.
4. The recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans, as applicable,
regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed
to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
Staff Response: There are no recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master
plans regarding any of the above that are part of this application. Staff finds this
criterion to be not applicable.
5. 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.
Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy
screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not
originally approved. No changes to any streets are being proposed as part of this
application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
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 Response: No security gates, guard posts, or entryway expressions are proposed as
part of this application, and will remain unchanged Staff finds this criterion to be not
applicable.
J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The
purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary
burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are
mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be
defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the
following:
10
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete
development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy
screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not
originally approved. Phasing is not a part of this plan. Staff finds this criterion to be
not applicable.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of
initial phases from the construction of later phases.
Staff Response: Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that
will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a
length that was not originally approved. Phasing is not a part of this plan. Staff finds
this criterion to be not applicable.
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 phase.
Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy
screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not
originally approved. Phasing is not a part of this plan. Staff finds this criterion to be
not applicable.
(Ord. No. 12, 2007, §24; Ord. No. 3-2012, §12, 13, 14 & 15))
11
` 8
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes May 15, 2012
Stan Gibbs opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in
Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Jasmine Tygre
Cliff Weiss, Keith Goode and Stan Gibbs. Jim DeFrancia, Bert Myrin and LJ
Erspamer were not in attendance. Staff in attendance were: Debbie Quinn,
Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development
Director; Sara Nadolny, Community Development; Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Assets;
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
Comments
Jasmine Tygre said she had a processing question on PUD Amendments. Jasmine
said that it used to be when you had a PUD or SPA Amendment that there was a
process that you had to support the amendment like changed circumstances and
there is no mention of Section 26.440.080 in the code. Jennifer Phelan said there
was 070 to 090 and wondered what was going on.
Cliff Weiss asked what happened to the request for appreciation for the boards by
providing an ARC Membership. Jennifer Phelan said that she would talk to Chris
tomorrow.
Keith Goode said that the City was waiting on a certificate of occupancy for the
Motherlode. Jennifer responded that it will be issued soon.
Jennifer said that she would do a long range update once,monthly at the beginning
of the month. Jennifer said that they will be booked with current land use cases up
to the 2"d week in August.
Jennifer introduced Sara Nadolny as the Planner Technician and it presenting 2
cases.
Minutes
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes of May I" as amended
on page 6; seconded by Keith Goode. All in favor APPROVED.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated
Public Hearing:
101 Founders Place (Obermeyer Place) PUD Amendment
2
Regular City Planning & Zonin2 Meeting—Minutes May 15, 2012
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for 101 Founders Place. Sara Nadolny stated
that Scott Lindenau was represented by Studio B Architects; the owners of this
property were Anthony and Deborah Clancy.
Sara said the issue at 101 Founders Place Unit 202, the Crescent Building, was a
privacy screen; these were both PUD and SPA as they deal with architectural
elements and character. The applicant wanted to enhance the residential.space; the
west.side of this space overlooks the City of Aspen impoundment lot. The privacy
screen would sit onto of the wall cap surrounding the entire patio on the second
story unit. Second is to continue an existing fence that sits along the property line
between Obermeyer Place and the City of Aspen Parking Enforcement Lot.
Sara said the privacy screen was 3 feet 4 inches on the West side and sits atop the
concrete wall cap and 12 foot 7 inches on the East side of the Unit. The screen will
be constructed of wooden slats and metal and proposed at 44 feet 9 inches in total
length.
Sara said the fence proposal was to continue the fence that already exists on
already a small portion of the northern side of the property line between
Obermeyer and Aspen and figure G gives you an idea of what the fence already
looks like. The fence proposal extension will extend 76 feet to follow the walkway
shown on figure H. Staff is recommending conditional approval of this
application.
Jasmine said the upstairs neighbor did not object to the fence but requested a gate
in the fence; is there a gate planned for this fence. Jennifer replied that walkway
was a limited common area to the Crescent Building so when the applicant submits
a building permit they will need to obtain approval from all the unit owners.
Cliff asked if this fence or screen would have any visual affect on any other unit in
Obermeyer. Sara replied they are both on the property line and unit 202 is the
only unit that would see it on the West end and the West side of Unit 202's patio
faces onto the parking lot.
Scott Lindenau distributed photos similar to the ones in the packet (Exhibit D); his
client's unit was pretty much in the parking lot and photos were all different.
Jennifer stated that Bill Murphy's letter would be (Exhibit C).
No public comments.
3
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes May 15, 2012
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre move to approve Resolution #10, series of 2012
approving an amendment to Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA with the conditions
and the correct diagram; seconded Cliff Weiss seconded. Roll call vote: Keith
Goode, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes. All in favor,
APPROVED 4-0.
Public Hearing: '
0 Doolittle Drive Water lace Affordable Housing) SPA Amen dent
St Gibbs opened the public hearing. Sara Nadolny said represent' g the owner
of th roperty, the City of Aspen, is Jeff Pendarvis, City Assets partment. Sara
said th uilding was part of the essential public facility to be co/verted into an
affordabl ousing unit. Sara said to do this conversion staff i equesting the
Planning & ning Commission an SPA Amendment, Growt Management
Review, Chang in Use Review, 8040 Greenline Review an#f Residential Design
Variances.
Sara said the SPA is a e specific approval and this a plication would be
approved administrative) ue to the change in use o7he originally approved site
plan; tonight staff is see kinproval of the SPA Afnendment to assure
compliance with APC1 A Sta . rds. The applicafit is proposing to convert the
existing emergency response fac it to a deed restricted single family unit; this
building was currently vacant. Th uilding V located on the edge of the Water
Treatment Affordable Housing with , front of the building perpendicular to the
street and 580 square feet of net livable\were.y are proposing a covered 70
square foot.covered entry and an 11 by ort and a 44 square foot storage
closet.Sara said the 2 Residential Design Vari e building does not face the
street and the street orientated enance y` indow will not face the
street. The City is proposing a Categoreve'' 'p APCHA standards read
Category 3 or 4 would be 700-'square feet. APCHA allow 20% reductiomfor a .
studio unit at Category 4 or,.J� wer.
Cliff Weiss asked where'the parking was located. Sara replied th parking is
located directly to the east of the unit on A11. Jeff Pendarvis said t whole area is
paved. Cliff said no more asphalt is going to be.laid for this. Jeff rep no.
Jeff Pendarvis ,introduced himself; his understanding was that it was built back in
the late 199vfwith this in mind, to be converted to affordable housing. Jeff said
the conver fon of the City's water process occurred in 2010 and no longer needed
4 ,
JAP1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician
RE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202,PUD and SPA Amendment
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2012
APPLICANT/OWNER: Anthony and STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff
M. Deborah Clancy,Obermeyer Place HOA recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the PUD/SPA amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Lindenau, Studio B
Architects SUMMARY: The applicant requests of the Planning
and Zoning Commission approval to amend the PUD
LOCATION: Obermeyer Place, 101 Founders and SPA to permit a privacy screen around the
Place,Unit#202 second floor balcony of condominium unit#202.
Applicant further requests approval to continue the
existing fence along the western portion of the
property,to more fully privatize the limited common
�. element walkway between the Obermeyer Place
SPA/PUD and the adjacent City of Aspen Parking
_ Department's impound lot.
? Figure A:Unit#202,
west side: proposed
privacy screen
location
CURRENT ZONING&USE: Service _
Commercial Industrial(SCI)Zone District with
Planned Unit Development(PUD)and Specially
Planned Area(SPA)overlays, residential use.
PROPOSED LAND USE: The owners of Unit existing rent Figure B:West
#202 request approval to construct a privacy side of
property:
screen on the 2"d floor unit's private balcony that proposed
faces an adjacent parking lot, and to continue the continuation of
length of fencing that currently exists along the general
common
western edge of the property on the limited element fence
common element walkway for the Crescent
Building.
P2
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
Planning and Zoning Commission Approvals:
• _Amendment of PUD development order(Subsection 26.445.1003, Other Amendment)to
construct a privacy screen for Unit 202 and add a general common element privacy fence.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
• Amendment of SPA development or (Subsection 26.440.090,Amendment to
development order)to construct a privacy screen for Unit 202 and add a general common
element privacy fence. The Planning Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS:
The residences at Obermeyer Place were approved as part of the Obermeyer Place COWOP
Project via City Council Ordinance 18, Series 2003, permitting the construction of a mixed use
project containing commercial net leasable, affordable housing, and free market residential units.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicants request approval to construct a wooden slatted privacy screen to surround the
second floor balcony of condominium unit#202. The privacy screen is proposed to sit atop the
existing concrete wall cap,which measures approximately 3'4" in height from finished grade on
the west side,and approximately 127" in height from finished grade on the east side. The
privacy screen would provide an additional 30"to these wall measurements,bringing the west
side to approximately 5'9" in height and the east side to approximately 157" in height, as
measured from finished grade,and to a total length of 44'9".
The applicant further requests approval to construct a wooden fence on the western edge of the
property between Obermeyer Place and the City of Aspen Parking Department lot, on the
Crescent Building's limited common element walkway,which will complete an existing fence.
The existing wooden fence measures 4'10" in height. The proposed fence will match the
existing fence in height, color,and material,and continue for approximately 75'6"towards the
southern edge of the Obermeyer Place property. The completion of this fence will serve to
privatize the walkway and screen adjacent the parking lot.
The project is before the Planning and Zoning Commission because Staff found the proposed
privacy screen to be inconsistent with the representations of the project's original approval, and
therefore does not qualify as an administrative insubstantial PUD amendment.
P3
STAFF COMMENTS:
PUD and SPA Reviews
The privacy screen addition to Unit#202 and the limited common element fence are proposed
within Obermeyer Place,which is subject to the site specific development plan approval by the
SPA/PUD. Any changes to the land use,density, height,bulk, architecture, landscaping, and
open space must undergo review and may be permitted through an amendment to the final
development plan.
Both the PUD and SPA review criterion discuss the compatibility of changes in light of
architectural character,and is concerned with compatibility and/or enhancement of visual
character and its relationship to its surroundings. Staff finds the proposed privacy screen to be
compatible in materiality and color with the existing architecture of the Obermeyer SPA/PUD.
Furthermore,the proposed screen will not change the land use, density, bulk, landscaping, or
open space. It will add height to the existing deck of Unit#202,which will be minimal in nature
and serve to create an element of privacy from the adjacent parking lot.
The fence continuation is proposed to be maintained at the same height as that of the existing
fence(410"),and will match the existing fence in color and materials. It will serve to privatize
the Crescent Building's limited common element walkway between Obermeyer Place and the
adjacent parking lot property for users. Staff finds the proposed fence to be compatible with the
existing SPA and PUD.
Given the minor architectural changes that are proposed to occur with this application and the
compatibility with the existing architecture found within the Obermeyer SPA and PUD, Staff
finds the review criterion to be met.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the fence extension,and finds the design to be compatible with the existing land
use, and the materials and design to be consistent with the existing architectural character of
Obermeyer Place. The fence will serve as an extension of the existing general common element
for Obermeyer Place and will further privatize the walkway between this property and the
adjacent parking lot.
Staff recommends approval of the privacy screen at Unit#202,to the extent that it be allowed on
the west side of the unit. The unit's west side directly faces the City of Aspen's Parking
Enforcement lot at grade, and therefore the applicants are currently unable to enjoy use of their
patio with some sense of privacy that one may expect at a private residential unit. The screen, as
proposed,would afford the applicants a degree of privacy. Furthermore, it is found to be
compatible with the visual character of Obermeyer Place, and would not add significant height to
the wall. However, Staff recommends denial of the extension of the privacy screen to the south
and east of the unit. Unit#202 is raised at a second story level on its southern and eastern sides,
P4 00
and therefore does not experience the same level of visibility as found on its western side. A
degree of privacy is further afforded by the tree that is growing on the unit's southern end.
HIP
I
as �
as
--- - - -- --- -
a
ng
i
wall Existing Patio �t
1
i \
Figure C: Proposed privacy screen, plan view.
Yellow,Staff approved. Red,Staff denied.
Figure D: Unit#202, west side of property; staff proposed
limits of the privacy screen
P5
�i
i
Figure E: Unit#202,southwestern view
Figure F: Unit#202, southeastern view
- �-
g ' # AZ)>
F
Figure G: Existing fence,west side I Figure H: Proposed fence extension
of Obermeyer Place property
P6
RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2012,approving an amendment to the
Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA as proposed, with conditions.
Attachments:
EXHIBIT A—SPA and PUD Amendment Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B -Application
RESOLUTION No. 10
(SERIES OF 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN,APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT—OTHER
AMENDMENT AND SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 FOUNDERS PLACE,AKA OBERMEYER PLACE,
UNIT 202,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND ON A LIMITED COMMON
ELEMENT.
Parcel Identification Number: 2737-073-05-009
WHEREAS, Anthony and M. Deborah Clancy submitted a request for Planned Unit
Development(PUD)Amendment and Specially Planned Area(SPA)Amendment to the Planning
and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the property is located in the Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) zone
district with PUD and SPA Overlay; and
WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development approval for the Property was originally
approved by the Aspen City Council via Ordinance No. 18 Series of 2003, and the Obermeyer
Place Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69,
Page 44, Reception No. 498396; and
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended. approval of the PUD and SPA
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 15, 2012, the. Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
herein; and, n
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets 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 Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the pr6motion of public health,safety,and welfare.
i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
The PUD and SPA is her amended to allow the addition of a privacy screen for Unit #202,
aka Obermeyer Place Condominium Unit#202, as depicted in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
Section 2:
The PUD and SPA is hereby amended to allow the addition of a fence along the western portion
of the Obermeyer Place property, on a limited common element walkway, as depicted in Exhibit
B of this Resolution.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4:
This resolution 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 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 15`" day of
May,2012. —j
5 j2�lltO/,2—
Chairman
A ROVED AS TO FORM: '� °� �N V,Ce r
Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
I
2
ATTEST:
f
ackie Lo hian,Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A: Privacy screen plans
Exhibit B: Fence plans on limited common element
J
i
3
Resolution Exhibit A
r � 3
Existing Patio /
Yellow=Approved length of privacy screen
Red = Denied length of privacy screen
Resolution Exhibit B
Proposed Fence location and Length
\ \ existing Existing Patio `��/ Ci' �
ndo wall
terminate new
\ fence at existing
\ • concrete wall
new wood fence to
match existing
` ter:,enate!wnnect q•
_w fence to
JAN 2013
PROJECT:
ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION Ct fY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVE P "` �
Naive: GL/t'+✓G A 1 1./If1F '
Location: I 6i4. 40 L N %sv i ((A"a— O NV
Parcel ID#(REQUIRED) (Indicate street address,lot&block mum er,le al descri tion w ere appropriate)
APPLICANT:
Name: TVW Y t flE W " a&Ab-e--f 13'e S6Wrrr- v I r.�grW.4
Address:':!d ( &19D Rol`D PLk 46 go Sr-C- (.44- S P e&n/
Phone#: 2�
REPRESENTATIVE.
Name:
Address:
Phone#:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:(please check all that apply):
❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use
❑ GMQS Allotment Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment
❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision
❑ Conceptual SPA
❑ ESA-8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Final SPA(&SPA
Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment)
Mountain View Plane
❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other:
❑ Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.)
E K-1.9' "fz— 0 U D G Atf �C
PROPOSAL: (description of ro osed buildings,uses,modifications,etc.)
o" v t-f K2 - Tv T4a eX rro rrr.
V1r IF t Rdvvt I� �/'a/� /E-� >4�e.w► r-+o"r
Havf- ou attached the following? FEES DUE:$ 4
, ,Lv
rP e-Application Conference Summary
[�Attachment#1,Signed Fee Agreement
❑ R onse to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Form
esponse to Attachment#4,Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards
❑ 3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5"X 11"must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text
(Microsoft Word Format)must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
milli
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
Anagreement between the Ci of Aspen("City")and
Property GAMApr 0 M cT Z JCIL&f LA't'Phone No.:
:application))wner("I" : lei Fdt1 J�I-P
Ot (L/ �(rp.—Email:
Address of "ply
GGAV lee Billing
Property: V N %T?.gypZ Address: �� S'l"d A I e� P�
(subject of (send bills here) ��Mp 6 4�-- T6r 1 0¢
��t ►MQ0p1' AP g W
I understand that the City has adopted,via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications
and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand
that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these
flat fees are non-refundable.
M
$ ( ILO, flat fee for M I MAP- Q V D $ flat fee for
$ flat fee for $ flat fee for
For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I
understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is
impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable
legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and 1 understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not
returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30
days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment.
I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment
of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the
processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated.
w
$A—Z,6 O deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at$315 per hour.
$ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time.Additional time above the deposit
amount will be billed at$265 per hour.
City of Aspen: Property Owner:
Chris Bendon — 4A
Community Development Director Name: S Lp'T'r C.t J%/b0 1(*tk
I
City Use: Title: j9W S per,
Fees Due:$ Received:$
1 1 LE 1 !�1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Sara Nadolny, 970.429.2739 DATE: 8/03/2012
PROJECT: Obermeyer PUD
REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Lindenau, Studio B, 920.9428, studio a sopris.net
TYPE OF APPLICATION: PUD Amendment
DESCRIPTION:
On May 24, 2012 the Planning and Zoning Commission, through Resolution No. 10, Series of
2012, approved an extension of the existing fence along the western edge of the Obermeyer
property, and the construction of a 30" privacy screen to sit on top of the existing concrete wall cap
on the portion of the property that directly overlooks the neighboring parking lot. The fence was
constructed to plan expectations, however, the privacy screen was continued to wrap the entire
perimeter of the balcony.
i
Existing Patio
i f
V
r•
Yellow=Approved length of privacy screen
Red=Denied length of privacy screen
The owner is interested in bringing the privacy screen element into compliance. Obermeyer Place
was approved through a PUD process and is zoned SCI PUD, so any change to the design must
receive a PUD Amendment. The proposal requires review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a public hearing.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.445.100.6 PUD—Other Amendment
26.710.0190 SCI Zone District
Follow link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Code
http_//www.aspenpitkin-com/Departments/Community-Deveiot)ment/Planning-and-
Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/
Follow the link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Application
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%2OFees/2011%201and%20u
se%20app%20form.pdf
Review by: Community Development Staff, P&Z
Public Hearing: Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning Fees: $1,260 for a One Step Review. This includes four (4) hours of staff
review time. Additional time over four (4) hours will be billed at $315 per
hour
Total Deposit: $1,260
Fee Note: The typical deposit for this type of land use application is $4,410 for
14 hours of work. Due to the limited nature of this project, the
Community Development Director authorizes the acceptance of a
lower deposit amount of$1,260 for 4 hours of work. Please not that
any time over 4 hours will be billed at the regular rate of$315/hour.
Total Number of Application Copies: 12, 1 sets of full size plans
To apply submit the following information:
Total Deposit for review of application.
[ 'Pre-application Conference Summary.
[Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by
the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative
�a,uthorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
'J Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to
occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney
licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the
property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development
Z Aplication.
site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the
nd and its surroundings.
ompleted Land Use application and signed fee agreement.
An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen.
Q X12 copies of the complete application packet and maps.
, a
�r
.y E S,!.ky� p ��• ..+j4_..A�^� fit`
jt
PAN
JFX
Dr
j � 1
i n C2
io
�h
ti
i \
't :"s
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title,Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that J.
ANTHONY CLANCY AND M. DEBORAH CLANCY are the owner's in fee simple of the following
described property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 202,
CRESCENT BUILDING,
OBERMEYER PLACE CONDOMINIUMS,according to the Condominium Exemption Map of the Obermeyer Place
Condominiums recorded July 26,2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 57 as Reception No. 526898 and First Supplemental
Condominium Exemption Map recorded September 19,2006 in Plat Book 81 at Page 20 as Reception No. 528770 and
Second Supplemental Condominium Exemption Map recorded January 16,2008 in Plat Book 86 at Page 44 as Reception
No. 545903 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for the Obermeyer Place Condominiums
recorded July 26,2006 as Reception No. 526895 and First Amendment recorded September 19,2006 as Reception No.
528769 and Second Amendment recorded January 16,2008 as Reception No. 545904 and Third Amendment recorded
October 6,2010 as Reception No. 574121.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE:
101 Founders Place, Unit 202
Aspen, CO 81611
Encumbrances:
NONE
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE,INC.
BY:
C�
authorized signature
CERTIFIED TO: March 30, 2012 at 8:00 A.M.
Job No. ACCOM2581
a r c h i t e c t s
9 January, 2013
City of Aspen
140 Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Obermeyer PUD Minor amendment, Clancy Residence, 101 Founders
Place, Unit 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611
Scott Lindenau of Studio B Architects is hereby appointed as our representative
and is authorized to serve on our behalf for our minor PUD amendment at our
Unit located at 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 at the Obermeyer Complex.
Scott Lindenau
Studio B Architects
970 920 9428
501 rio grande place suite 104 aspen co. 81611 970.920.9428 fax 970.920 .7822
w w w .studiobarchitects. net
® I I B
a r c h i t e c t s
9 January, 2013
City of Aspen
130 Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Written Description: Clancy Unit 202, Founders Place at Obermeyer
Complex
The Owners originally requested 2 items from the original submittal dated
4 April, 2012. The first was a continuation/connection of the existing slated
wood fence that separates the Obermeyer Complex from the City of
Aspen Parking Department's open gravel parking area to provide privacy
and the second was the installation of a 30" tall slated horizontal wood
railing at their exterior terrace wall to buffer additional privacy from that
parking area and the public walkway from Main Street to the Obermeyer
Complex which the Clancy Unit terrace directly faces. (See attached
photos).
Both were approved at the P+Z hearing and the resolution was given to
Studio B which was then passed along to the general contractor for
construction. It was later learned, that a constructed portion of the exterior
terrace railing was not approved as it exceeded vertical height limits from
the walking area below in Obermeyer. This work was not performed
intentionally to be out of compliance but was discovered to be an
`unintentional mistake'as the approved resolution sent to the architects
and contractor was delivered in `Black+White" and not in Color. The color
version does show where the exact lengths of railing were approved.
There is some discrepancy on what lengths of the built railing exist which
shall be clarified thru the presentation.
The Clients ask that the City and the P+Z consider allowing these 2
lengths of railing to remain as they offer privacy to this exposed terrace,
there have been no inquiries or complaints from the Obermeyer
community or governing board and that is was a genuine mistake.
Sincerely,
4L'��
Scott Lindenau
Studio B Architects
Owners Representative
501 rio grande place suite 104 aspen co. 81611 970.920.9428 fax 970.920.7822
w w w .studiobarchitects.net
• ! 00
Resolution Exhibit A
� � w
r
1 ` f
Existing Patio
Yellow=Approved length of privacy screen
Red = Denied length of privacy screen
® • O •
;/Wl ;
Resolution Exhibit A
YYa f
b� w
Existing Patio 's
Ile
� f
►
► ►►
Yellow=Approved length of privacy screen
Red=Denied length of privacy screen
a
:r 1
AW
s
e:
r ,
'.
s s �
4.�
si , .3
Ab
-
a
�. o""
,Ifs ,
or
qtr •;t� ,�,t .�':� .� _ �s. � ....
fir
_ Y
b 3
z Y
i
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM EXEMPTION MAP OF:
T
f T 7\\ TTY D T 1, (--"E T 14 li i '% !
in 7, C n 7 T 1i
C,
JI-Al/11 t I il 11 11 1 VjL' I I U I ViL K__/
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF SECTION 7,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.
CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
CIW.ERC1._OVA ffl)RSIOrNC I AND FR MARKET I
TqjS CH.AR7 SETS THE COMMERCIAL UNITS MAPPED IN THIS FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL MAP T�CHANT INCI�MS T!E
cm UNIT FOR KlUSTRA71E PURPOSES,THE
CORRESPONDING STREET ADDRESS AND AU_O`AEO USE FOR EACH COMMER
'AUF.ED RESZENCE ANI FREE MARKE7 CONED UNTS AS�CAN AND DEDICATED ON AF RECORDED UNDER
PE �ESE PRF1401J�Y IMAPPED QUAUnED RES-rENCE AND FREE MARKET
CEPTON NO 626898 ARE INCLUDED IiEREJ�.
JNTS ARE AS FCLLCAS:
a.6"No NF.115 M-o o.
/Cc
2 Flo-#�02 5< 51Z1.';I "--f-mg CHI—
02 ' N.-f-j"M_
COW 1",r rd,`
A Ea�
JIM
'c'. �4- -
Cop� I
i05 COV I
99
ice CON 101 IF- JIM
10I Rio—#107 673�f Sup'-]-
jC7 DOW DT7.1 _"' "Z"/'
C FI W
(501 Rio Grande F1,c'.) 08 CC 10,F_d-P!-.'r ED S-0
Ice Cy 0'FcPicce#IOS 736 Ff. S�pbt
-- ---- - cCtij D,t,l,S�Sh�l 21 22 it k3 RED#5 DEB
20 I'M �01 F-110-Rio-1201 REC fS2 BE
2 2 FN 101 F="P=420C NEC#52C598
21 TV 101 F-d-PIF It=
r 0�0!ook E,Fd;" 10 CO Y, 102 founder Rio-JIM 942 A S�R�t
G -2 ESE
I C' 102 F- P! 101 RED f,
I F
1C2 OR 102 Fd-c P #
,,,.#102 REC 4 2CE98
20 OF 102 F-11-Pill 2 RED 98
I IEC =98
_ .:1 01
2 2 OR 02 P '202
20 3 ON 102 F-116-Pic—0203 RE J52DV98
0
204 OR 102 Foorol Fl_4204 RE #5268998
2 1 F.. J205 rEC J5 6898
FN 10022 rZ. .PFio
11*1 RED F_21ES
302 OR 102 FF P, #302 RED 426898
3C3 ON 102 F-d-PI0303 RED#526898
sp'inq St,-t e0dris !01 FM RED#525E
- t -T�--'- \ O�N:SPris, RED
110 N SP #�0012 f526598
1 FIA rmg St.
'02
0 RED 426B98
\'1
I (A I , Spring 1,01 N So".1, REC#526598
;
05 OR 101 N.Spring SL#105 REC#526898
Of, OR 10 N.Sprmg St. 05 RED#526 98
107 OR O� 0 N.Sp6og sj�'17 RED 1526898
{{ \� ) i\ NE
'Da OR 101 N Si S C f5 689B
09 OR 101 N:sp,;.mg g S' }109 'Z
OR C#526898
201 FM 101 W Sp
St:#201 RED J5268 8
202 Fw 101 N:Si St.V02 RED#526896
203 OR 01 N Spring St.J203 RED#526898
RED#526398
101 N =91 ss"107.1054 RED#526 REI
204 OR
205 0 101 N
301 M '01 N� RED#525 98
302 FM 101 N.Spring S #302 RED J526895
303 FM 1 01 N spring Sit P03 REC 2
01 N:S'q St.PO4 RED 98
L.Its 6�.q '0' ON D"Ob,rPace":' , ic W2 OF 100 Ob. Piero D, il :
103 OR
I- Place'_ -I W RED#526898
V 04 OR 00 Do— Or. RED#5261398
100 Ob�.P;Dr.'101 2-141 1 -W-11 III—CIM!o
S"YAP IDS COM I ce 'I, :I. S .' cog
06 COM 00 Doey�PI..F D,fI f. S1111- Si.. , FmiaU1,,dWR1
107 DOM 100 Obr".M PIF D, #1 D7 969 sJ. Slppi-.t N.ighb,oii-did
PiFid,B,Rdl, 101 I'M. 501 No Gr=dF No,,f 101 REC j526898
A 102 FM 101 R G11111:Pi-1 11.2 REC#526898
03 FM SCI Rio G RED
DO,R Supplement 6
104 DOM Rio G-4.Pif 104 2.274..f.
00 ob�_PE Dri- 1105 CAM SDI Rio 1-Id Pi-#105 1.226-C S-PPI
'06 COM 5M NIP Gd:PI.-f 106 829 J. SvPI_'ZZt W.1
if For coon 0 C 'R'o
OM 5DI Ri.Grande R 107 1,977 Z4PPPIo,,,nt
toils �07 OM .. I ':' t Neighborhood C 531 Rio Gd,RE 08 m
05 C 501 go
9 DM ._d, J 119 784 It. SIPPIt N.ghl,.'.�to
201 FM d, ,e,2_., REC#52609
202 FM 501 Rio Grande Platt f 202 RED f526898
203 FM Dal RI.G-d,%..#203 RED J526898
204 "M 501 Rio Con�P; #204 RED#526398
2D5 I'm 501 RiP G-de PI.F.If 205 RED#526898
206 FM 50I Rio Grande P,f 206 REC 426895
Pwkl.,g Ga' 101 DOM 601 R.Gd,,R.-#101 3,554 .f. Supplement S�
D
102 DOM 60 Ri Gm'd'Pratt fIOZ
0 1
GRAPHIC SCALE 103 CDM DOI'j.Dm' Plo 911
5 , �:P03 Be Supplement Se�'
104 CUM DI i.O.'d Pio_JI04 3" _I,1CriRIA,idIFtr.1
105 COM 631 Ri.Dr., flos 642 FtH.1
5 COM d 1105 346
DO,'i.G_' _ .I. S OR, t S' ol,iWioil
07 DOM d:P1 f107 308 s.f. /C -,,j��,dtriof
(101 F.-de,Place) 6DI RIO G'
I.,U it&CElement D8 COM 601 Rio�,d.Ri-#108 594.I. SJPM d,.tr.A
COM DOI NIP o 6 Supplement S� d'FI,kd
'D 5 z 244 S.PPI--t SIiry /C -,PI avioi
09 -ft PIO.,#10)
20,
.1.S.Sheet of 2� Place#11D 2.40
EN DFW
601 RIC—do
01 R1.Garde Pioc 11 1 575 oJ. SP1I-t 5 oM z.
root, ita ' F Flocs* 2 427,.f. FRI v't
/C R, st'i.
113 COM 6O1 Ri G- �P_11;3 1,433
F 'I S d,
.�f. 1P lial
COM 601 Ri.G-d.PI.-J114 482 f.
1. J115 - 51
I) ALL APZAS EUTS!OE 11,iE WDJ DUAL AN SPACE CONDOMINIUM U'Prs ARE GEN_-RAL COMMON E ENTS(;X)ci,TNE 115' ODI Rio G_ PIF 1116 635 f. S,Supplement Service/Commercial/L,dustrid
I= S
A��D-INJW V-ESS IDEM7IFJ AS A LM;TE)COMMON FLEWENT ILCE)RZSERWD FOR USE BY FEIVER cam 501 R Gl�-jd:R 2BS IJ
E 116 OM I I S:=:;rCr__ bi.1
ED ;;7 COM 63 Nj.Crood.Pi#117 .1,,:_1 od
IHAN ALL THE OWENS OF THE'NOMOVAL AR SP�C jiffTl f� 1,opl:, I �1, rl
2�) Ma-IRANT RESERVES THE R-.,4r TO DEVELOP P-1;3 AREA MTH A M�U`W�T.SrATU�OR SCLqPTURr IN ACCORDANCE 8 COM Sol FUR DP d,PJace 1118 476
i19 IOMI 601 Rio G,M Pi-P19 955 F.f.
" S
M��_DECLARATION. �20 :0M 6'T Ri-G-d-Pi-#120 w&f. SuDPI
3.) ----------INDICATED THE ANTICIRANED CONDOMINIUM UNIT RoUNDAIUES iiFZN rFULLY CONSTRUOTEZ _0 21 COM 611 R!,cr-Id:Pl-#121 &U f� Soppit d
S,
I Ni C,. IN-#122 7�,f "P;--.t
�.E EXTEN THE AS-SULT I OCAii.WS�THE CONDWN -DU DX ZZiM 15y�Rw_ Floo.OPO�'001 35D f
!UW UNIT e,,NDA,,ES ARE 107_DNSISTENT Mj�.�E AFINCPITE�
-ONDWINJU _Oy 501 Rio 1-de #?C'j DOZ 53B -Pi
WIT�JNDARIES DERICTED ItE�ON,DEa4RANT RESER�S�F Ri� .0 SUR kNO VkF�E�INA-
"AS-BUk'a0ONDARIES AND ZECORD A,:DRRE-17ION TO--,IfS W4R IN 1_"CDqDAN-E hf�l �S DoCLARAIID1. PCJ DD3 _OiA 111 117 s
3 Ri, d qpI I
F oo:
DM f: S�
PCU 004 COM 60;Ni Gd:Pi Ppit
4,) A�NON-CONFORMING USES ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITONS FORTH IN ME CITY OF ASPEN OROiNANCE I& PCU 005 C 601 Rio Cd,PZ,JPCU 005 426 sJ. SPP_"
SEWS OF 2003.AS AMENDED. PCIJ ON COM 6 Ri G o,id P JP 006 151 Ff. S�P m
-P i-
PCU Dos COM W,IN.G v!
PCU 009 C 601 r_ ":"' 00,11
o.Ri.c #PDU Clog 323 F.f. SJppit
P_010 DOM, 601 R'.G'��dd,Poc,#RCU 010 352 f S,,ppl,mmt
P 01 COM 601 Ri Gr .RIO':FOU'I ' S.PP
PCCU M COM 601 Ril rrold:PI.. jiRCU 012 3905 11: "P,=11
PCU 013 COM 601 IN,Go,d PI...JPCU 013 213 .f S,,PP1t
P 4 o n
PCU 015 COM 601 R CQ de P'a�c:JP"'014 47A I:f. SupptemuMt
CU 01 COM W Rio C-d'P: JPCJ 015 325 1. SIP,F_t
PC 6
6VERL./)CK f5U1Lj?IN& P'U 0 COM 601.Rio Gmd,PlojrC`j C16 426 J. S,ppl,ment
U 0 7 COM 601 Ri.C7-di,PI.- -
JPCU 017 385�J. S�P,' -
(10Z Found m Prove) PCU 018 CDM 601 ffio c"tle Pio"4' ,t
or RCU 019 COM 641 No Gl:�d Pi.,ffoclU''.11' 3'I'D 11f: Z`iRP1"-'.I
J�it&CEO"o"F Co.S-t 13 ol 23 P 020 DOM &M Fit,G, d,Pi-JPCO 02D 478 �f S,plt
81ILMID PCU P
CU 021 COM DDI Rio Cde Root PCU 021 195 s.f. SuPP4t
CENERAL COMMON neMENT
LCE-LIMITED CWwCiv �n PRIN',�) 5TRff-, f5UUPIN; 528770
MJ-COM�N CIAL CON(DOMINIWT LLC (101 N Spring Stmet)
SOPRIS ENGINEERING
FM-FREE VARQET CVNOOM4N(1JM UNIT FCC Unitd CEit Details CIVIL CONSULTANTS 15,U 17 of 23
OR-OVAURED RESIMN_-CONDOWN11M UNIT 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 SHEET 5 OF 23
T.-.A- _'T COMMON.ANY a- CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 ements Detail
ADIIONVA�D Plaza Level, Common EI
AFTER YOJ FIRIIT Dl�SMN Deli N NO E�T MAY ANY ACIIM (970) 704-0311 oAO_
IN �U"UPON ANY IIEFECT WZ
BASED
�ti�ER sr
27 February, 2013 G; ■ M
ASPEN
Sara Nadolny
Planner Technician
City of Aspen
130 S.Galena St,
Aspen,CO 81611
I
RE: 101 Founders Place,Unit 202
To: Sara Nadolny
I own the Bleeker Street Gym which is located directly across from 101 Founders Place Unit
202. I do not have any issue with the wood and metal railing constructed there and in fact
never really noticed it. If it provides privacy for those owners in this dense neighborhood,it
is fine that it remains as is.
Don't hesitate to call me.
i
Regards,
Joe Vernie
r
i
r
Michael Sailor I.Chartered Financial Consultant p:970.920.9500 1 800.933.3778
pas / + s a i ( o r Obermeyer Place f:970.920:2363
101 Founders Place I Suite 104 e:michaelOsailorinsurance.com
i n S u r a n C @ Aspen,Colorado 81611
HEALTH INSURANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUSINESS AND INDIVIDUALS LIFE DISABILITY LONG TERM CARE RETIREMENT PLANS WEALTH TRANSFER
February 27, 2013
Sara Nadolny
Planner Technician
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202
Sara,
I have my insurance office here at Obermeyer in Unit 104 and feel fortunate to own my space in this locals
complex and I know many of my neighbors both professionally and socially.
I am aware of the wood railing in question in the unit above me at the South end of my building which the
Clancy's own and I did speak to Scott Lindenau as their architect who works across the 'mall' from me. I
visited the patio and I do not have any issue with it or its construction. It gives privacy from both the path
from Main Street and from the surrounding neighbors as that patio is in a very public spot.
Please call me should you have any additional questions.
Sincer ly,
j ichael Sailor
Steve Seyffert
102 Founders Place #201
Aspen, CO 81611
March 1, 2013
Sara Nadoiny
Planner Technician
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 8163.1
RE: Clancy railing, lol Founders Place, Unit 202
Sara,
As a adjacent neighbor(one who's unit most directly faces towards the
Clancy's patio and residence) and board member of the Obermeyer Place
Condominium Association, I have spoken to the Clancy's regarding their
patio railing and the concern the planning department has. I do not feel
this impacts the neighborhood negatively nor has any implications to the
Obermeyer community. It does provide the much-needed privacy for the
Clancy's. I am absolutely fine with it staying as is. To my knowledge none
of my neighbors have a concern about it either.
Please call me with any questions at 544.3344 or 309.9698.
Sin erely,
tev�S ffe
102 Founders Place #201
I
Saturday, March 2,2013 12:21:23 PM Mountain Standard Time
Subject: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202
Date: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:47:30 AM Mountain Standard Time
From: Steve Wilson
To: Scott Lindenau
Dear Sir or Madam:
I understand that the short fence that the Clancy's have installed is in partial violation of city code. My wife
and I live next door to the Clancy's at 101 Founders Place,#201.* We pass by that fence daily and find that it
is esthetically pleasing and provides privacy for the Clancy's as well as for those passing. We like the fence as
it is. To require that they remove part of that fence will actually make it more noticeable. The Clancy's have
done an excellent job, with neighbor anct HGA approval, of keeping the architectural integrity of the
Obermeyer Place with the fence design. We support keeping it as it is.
Regards,
Steve and Clare Wilson
I
i
i�
I
Page 1 of 1
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPE TY: 1
In i F0 Lx l S lGt U2 ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
1, (name, please print)
being or represent ng an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing
and was continuously visible from the_day of , 20_, to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted
notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
:appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the ovi,ners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(Continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 3 day
of 4W , 2013, by 4fA &yG�
PUBLIC NOTICE
107 FOUNDERS PLACE,PUD-OTHER
AM ENDMENT LAND USE REVIEW WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
AM
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday,February 19,2013,at a
meeting to begin at 4 Co before the Aspen My commission expires.
Planning and Zoning Commission,in the Sister
Citie s meeting room,City Hall,130 S.Galena
Street,Aspen,CO,to review the proposal submit-
ted by Anthony and M.Deborah Clancy of 101
Founders Place,Unit 202,Aspen,CO 81611,for
the property commonly known as 101 Founders
Place,and legally described as Condominium Unit
Notary Public
202,Crescent Building,Obermeyer Place Condo-
miniums.Applicant seeks to amend the current
PUD and bring into compliance a section of the 30"
privacy screen addition to an existing concrete wall
cap at south and east facing sides of the patio.
In order to gain approval for the development pro-
posal,Applicant seeks a recommendation of ap-
proval from the Planning and Zoning Commission
for a PUD-Other Amendment for the develop-
ment of the privacy screen,which Is an enhance-
ment of the e originally approved final PUD deveop-
ment plan. 1E PUBLICATION
For further information,contact Sara Nadolny at the
City of Aspen Community Development Depart-
ment, OF POSTED NOTICE 130 S.Galena SL,Aspen,CO, (970) ii THE i U Hill 1� 1 l.l. (SIGN)
429.2739,Sara.Nadolny @ci.aspen.co.us. E OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED
S/LJ Ersoamer,Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times weekly on January C CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
31,2013 [8849457] ,-ED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
r
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
pis &A-g& V N 1T Zo Z ,Aspen, CO
SCHED ED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
�,A%-� 5 ,2017
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, -�'ce.- r c., 1���y � (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
d s prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notate: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice has posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing
on thel_t_ day of t_- , 20)1 , to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photogr h of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
I-**"-
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
co y of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this Z'Zday
of p_,J,4,�` , 20 C), by :5&o 7--Y 1-i 4,
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
CA My commission expires: C� o
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPYOF THEPUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
�. .�
i'
i
Ilk
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE
Date: aoo
Time: ; ti'o Pm d PD
+.°'+fir.#crI F#furttvar
Place. ► IS Gnr".
Purpose.
to 06
:l—i* 4" a
P1F u01 �`i-'e
qn +�- sfma�
at
Ana
t�
- Maw i'
_..:
Fit-
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC
NOTICE
Date: 1; W04 � SPA. Amendment to development
m order. and Amendment of PUD
Time: 4:
p development order. For further
p iace. City Hull, 130 S. Galena information contest the Aspen
St, Aspen CO 81611 Planning Dept. at 970-929-5990.
Purpose:
Teeny & Deborah Clancy. of 101
Founders PI Unit 202, es ewneKs of
this prope_ are proposing an
amendment to the Oberrmeyer SPA &
P'UD to bring into compliance a
section of th p existing privacy screen_
that sits on the nor-th k ea%l fae',.lde
of the patio, & will appear before the
PWn ning & Zoning Commission at
nn
the afnrer�itioned date and time.,.-
f,
and use reviews Will include
Easy Peel®Labels ♦ _� Bend along line to
Use Avery Template 51600 j NO"goer expose Pop-up EdgeTM" j o AVERY® 51600 �
. 1
311 ASPEN LLC 1
2317 PENNSYLVANIA AVE 15495 W ALRDERBROOK CIRT 50 SW 377TH AV
W REV TRUST
WILMINGTON, DE 19806 TIGARD,OR 97224 BEAVERTON, OR 97006
ANDERTON JAMES L ARENELLA BETH&FRANK III ARTIM LLC
100 OBERMEYER PL#4101 101 N SPRING ST#107 PO BOX 30106
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10011
ASPEN BLEEKER ST LIMITED ASPEN LEGACY LLC ASPEN PCU 010 HOLDINGS LLC
520 S MAIN#178 17740 E HINSDALE AVE PO BOX 11600
GROVE, OK 74344 FOXFIELD,CO 80016 ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN RIO LLC ATWOODSTANFORD H JR&PAMELA S gALLINGER ELIZABETH F
520 S MAIN ST#178 LIVING TRUST 205
PO BOX 10
GROVE,OK 74344 16125 GREENWOOD LN ASPEN, 10 81612
MONTE SERENO, CA 95030
BERG KRISTOFOR BIG BOY LLC BOMBA LAURIE A REV TRUST
102 FOUNDERS PL#202 106 S MILL ST#202 5601 HIGH DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 MISSION HILLS, KS 66208
BORCHERTS HOLDE H TRUSTEE BOSELY MARY ANNE REVOCABLE
1555 WASHTENAW TRUST BROUGH STEVE B&DEBORAH A
ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 PO BOX 26 599 TROUT LK DR
WOODY CREEK,CO 81656 SANGER,CA 93657
BULKELEY RICHARD C&JULIE J CALCOTT JOHN R CALHOON THOMAS C
PO BOX 450 7800 LOMAS BLVD NE 3405 CLEARVIEW DR
RED OAK, IA 51566 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87110 AUSTIN,TX 78703
CITY OF ASPEN
ATTN FINANCE DEPT COHEN NANCY C REV TRUST 85% INT CONCEPT 600 LLC
2026 N MOHAWK
130 S GALENA ST CHICAGO, IL 6 K PO BOX 2914
ASPEN,CO 81611 BASALT,CO 81621
COPPOCK RICHARD P CROUSEN GUINN D TRUST CRUMMER KLEIN TITLE TRUST 2008
PO BOX 44 4435 BUENA VISTA ST 1305 N BEVERLY DR
DEXTER, MI 48130 DALLAS,TX 752054118 BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90210
DIXIE DOG VENTURES LLC DML REALTY LLC DODDS ALAINA
1690 HOMESTAKE DR PO BOX 305 101 N SPRING ST#104
ASPEN,CO 81611 CHAVIES, KY 41727 ASPEN,CO 81611
kicluettes faciles a peler ; Repliez la hachure afin de
Utilisez le aabarit AVERY®51600 Sens de i www.averycom
�,.- .. .... reveler le rebord PoD-unmc
Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to
Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper �� expose Pop-up EdgeTM AVERY@ 51600
1
DONAHUE ELIZABETH DORAN RALPH EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPANY
102 FOUNDERS PLACE #2302 2600 WOODWARD WAY 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D
ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30305 PENTHOUSE 11 D
MIAMI, FL 33129
FELDMAN JONATHAN FICKE FAMILY REV TRUST FORTIER TIMOTHY
100 OBERMEYER PLACE DR#102 15 W ARRELLAGA ST#3 601 RIO GRANDE PL#102
ASPEN,CO 81611 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 ASPEN, CO 81611
G&G CORPORATE OFFICES LLC GALANTER YALE&ELYSE GILKERSON LINDA REV TRUST 50%
2520 S GRAND AV#114 525 S ANDREWS AVE 1449 E 56TH ST
GLENWOOD SPGS,CO 81601 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 333012831
CHICAGO, IL 60637
GLATHAR KIMBERLY J GOLDFEIN MICHAEL 85%
PO BOX 12197 GOLDFEIN PAMELA J 15% GRAHAM NARELDA
ASPEN,CO 81612 1724 BRAESIDE LN 101 N SPRING ST#203
NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 ASPEN,CO 81611
GRW RIO GRANDE PROPERTY LLC GWM PROPERTIES LLC HAAG MATTHEW R
PO BOX 4491 PO BOX 4146 PO BOX 4446
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612
HANEY PERRY L&SHEA NOREEN M HAUSER MARY JANE HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE
5455 LANDMARK PL#408 1540 BOHNS POINT RD 2495 ADARE
GREENWOOD VILLAGE,CO 80111 WAYZATA, MN 55391 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104
HICKS GILBERT W&PATSY K HOLLAND AND HART
3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL ATTN:CONTROLLER HORNBECK KIMBERLY E
HONOLULU, HI 96822 PO BOX 8749 102 FOUNDERS PL#2101
DENVER, CO 80201 ASPEN,CO 81611
HUNTER ALEXANDER JENSEN CARLY J OSA LLC
PO BOX 1638 600 E MAIN ST#408 JO BOX 10147
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612
K&J ENTERPRISES LLC KLEIN JAMES J&SALLIE R LAMB DON REV TRUST 50%
601 RIO GRANDE PL#119A PO BOX 12022 1449 E 56TH ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60637
LANE TAMMIE
BRUNSWOLD KIRK LARSON KARL G&MARIA M LAZAR GARY S&CAROLE S
601 RIO GRANDE PL#118 PO BOX 8207 5342 ALDEA AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ENCINO,CA 91316
ttiquettes faciles A peter i Repliez la hachure afin de ' ,
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 Sens de rpliez le re chu e u do wvvw•averycom
chargement P- P 1-800-GO-AVERY !
Easy Peel®Labels A Bend along line to
Use Avery Template 51600 j Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM AVERY®51600
V 1
LEBARRE FAM LLC LEITCH B BRYAN III LEONARD FAMILY TRUST
7518 MIDDLEWOOD ST 2606 STATE ST PO BOX 710
HOUSTON,TX 77063 DALLAS,TX 75204 RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
LIEBOWITZ BRYNA S REV TRUST LINDENAU SCOTT MAESTRANZI ALEXA LEE
601 RIO GRANDE PL#103 501 RIO GRANDE PL#104 1736 PARK RIDGE PT
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 PARK RIDGE, IL 600681311
MANN KATHLEEN A REV TRUST 99% MARASCO BERNARD R 11.0446% MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILYA
PO BOX 1455 320 DAKOTA DR 11.0446%
CARBONDALE, CO 81623 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 21701 FLAMENCO
MISSION VIEJO,CA 92692
MARASCO FAMILY TRUST 33.4331% MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC MCCUTCHIN GENE P
653 26 1/2 RD 1526 FOREST DR 14833 MIDWAY RD
GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81506 GLENVIEW, IL 60025 ADDISON,TX 75001
MCGAFFEY FAMILY&CO NO C LLC MILNE SHEILA MOSCOE THOMAS D
2465 NOB HILL AVE NORTH PO BOX 8286 14700 ROCKSBOROUGH RD
SEATTLE,WA 98109 ASPEN, CO 81612 MINNETONKA, MN 55345
MURPHY GEORGE W NGS LLC NGUYEN MICHAEL TAM
PO BOX 4146 101 FOUNDERS PL#109 DAO OANH KIM
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 430 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611
NIBLACK SCOTT OBERMEYER 102 LLC OBERMEYER 204 LLC
101 N SPRING ST#3109 805 LAKESIDE DR 2727 ALLEN PKWY 14TH FL
ASPEN,CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 HOUSTON,TX 77019
OBERMEYER PLACE RENTAL GRP LLC OBP LLC
OBERMEYER PLACE SALES GRP LLC OLITSKY TAMAR&STEPHEN
115 AABC 101 FOUNDERS PL#104 PO BOX 514
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 GWYNEDD VALLEY, PA 19437
ONE ONE SEVEN LLC OP LLC PARDEE JAMES LEE III REV LIV TRST
PO BOX 7911 424 PARK CIR#6 PO BOX 4153
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816124153
PEARSON DOUG PITKIN COUNTY PITKIN COUNTY CAPITAL LEASING
101 N SPRING ST#3105 530 E MAIN ST#302 CORP
ASPEN,CO 816111518 ASPEN,CO 81611 530 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
Etiquettes faciles A peter A Repliez A la hachure afin de '
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600 Sens de reveler le re hachure
Po u e www.avery.com
l charaement p- p i 1-800-GO-AVERY
Easy Peel®Labels ♦ Bend along line to
Use Avery Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM a AVERY® 51600
1
PR ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC RAMOS WALTHER JR&MARJORIE R RIO GRANDE PARTNERS 88 LLC
PO BOX 1006 133 TALL TREES DR 1008 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81612 BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 ASPEN, CO 81611
RKJR PROPERTIES LTD ROSSI ELAYNE R TRUST SATTLER SANDRA A
5934 ROYAL LN#250 PO BOX 7961 101 NORTH SPRING ST#3204
DALLAS,TX 75230 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
SCHENKELBERG LLC SEGREST DAVID H SEYFFERT STEVEN J
140 VISTA GRANDE 2606 STATE ST 102 FOUNDERS PL#201
GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81507 DALLAS,TX 75204 ASPEN,CO 81611
SHAPIRO FREDERIC M&SUSAN SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY SMITH H W III
101 N SPRING ST#3108 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN PO BOX 10914
ASPEN,CO 81611 PARADISE VALLEY,AZ 85253 ASPEN,CO 81612
SMITH JAMES F&N LINDSAY STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446% TASTERS RESTAURANT INC
600 E MAIN ST#302 12738 W 84TH DR PO BOX 6211
ASPEN,CO 81611 ARVADA,CO 80001 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615
THE KIMPLE 2004 TRUST TREDER CAROLE A TSE HOLDINGS LLC
3505 TURTLE CREEK RD 101 N SPRING ST BOX 3205 601 RIO GRANDE PL#120
DALLAS,TX 75219 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
TUSCANA LLC UNIT 106 OP LLC UNIT 109 OP LLC 90%
501 RIO GRANDE PL STE 105 106 S MILL ST#203 501 RIO GRANDE PL STE 107
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816112497 ASPEN,CO 81611
UNIT 5E OP LLC DBA BIG BOY LLC 1 AN WALRAVEN EDWARD C REV TRUST VECTOR ENTERPRISES LLC
ASPEN,CO 8 8161 1 PO BOX 1455
106 MILL 0490 ASPEN OAK DR
161
CARBONDALE,CO-81623- - - ASPEN, CO 81611
VOORHEES PETER A W STORAGE PLUS LLC WAGAR RICHARD H
PO BOX 4446 4040 NE 2ND AVE#414 C/O RICH WAGAR ASSOC LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612 MIAMI, FL 33137 100 S SPRING ST#3
ASPEN, CO 81611
WASKOW SUSAN A TRUST WELSCH SUSAN FLEET REVOCABLE
PO BOX 4975 TRUST 11/30/1983 WILSON FAMILY TRUST 08/20/1999
ASPEN,CO 81612 101 N SPRING ST#201 13513 RIVERS RD
ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ANGELES,CA 90049
Etiquettes faciles 6 peter A Repliez a la hachure afin de '
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®5160® Sens de vvwvv.averycom '
1 chargement reveler le rebord Pop-upmc ; 1-8on_rn_evFrry i
Easy Peel®Labels ♦ Bend along line to 11 Use Avery Template 51600 Feed Paper �� expose Pop-up EdgeTM I AVERY® 51600
1
WOODSON TOM
101 NORTH SPRING ST#106
ASPEN, CO 81611
Etiquettes faciles A peter A Repliez A la hachure afin de
Utilisez le gabarit AVERT®51600 Sens de i www.averycom
charaement reveler le rebord Pop-uomc
low
�4-
C\J
/ m
0
a4
m
� t
Z�
0
N
� M
s , o
1�4
1
,c
m
0
� t
,
s:r
. J �
1
• 0001 ,017 As"
JAN 4. 1
ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION CITY OF ASPEN
PROJECT:
Name: 6-4-A ✓G 1Z A 1'/Nl
Location: I 03 e%t_ ` N I-art w iris O
(Indicate street address,lot&block numl5er,legal description w ere appropriate)
Parcel ID#(REQUIRED
APPLICANT:
Name: TOWY -t- flE be 1►t L' `"� �'� `t SteO'7"T ` IIJpCifi�
Address: �7 A ( t D �
Phone#:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: DI O
Address:
Phone#:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:(please check all that apply):
❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use
❑ GMQS Allotment Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment
❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA
❑ ESA—8040 Greenline,Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Final SPA(&SPA
Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment)
Mountain View Plane
❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other:
❑ Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.)
EKI5`r714, 0 U P 6e AV LO
PROPOSAL: (description of )roposed buildin s,uses,modifications,etc.)
Av o►► v ,(,-(WZ_ �eTv extfrir �
1 "m' k A r-14-
yy t Rd V`t t<- �
Have you attached the following`' FEES DUE:$ lam.
( P e-Application Conference Summary
,e-Application
#1,Signed Fee Agreement
❑ R onse to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Fonn
esponse to Attachment 94,Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards
❑ 3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5"X 11"must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text
olicrosoft Word Format)must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
MOM**
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
Anagreement between the City of Aspen("City")and
Property WP&P-W d' M tT Z JCft&7LEM'Phone No.:
Owner("I"): IV 1 F:�pv �.1-a6p f lyWp.VKf01*•-Email:
Address of tV rJ L( GL/ PJe,i`r Billing C-1. �'�"V A t p!
Property: Z Address: f cp t P r o Cr4A MQ 6 �L• ( O4
(subject of N T'ZO (send bills here)
application) l0 t ►NQ®P f (=G. A-ce6 -f C1> g` t 4 k
cu- 11
19 rk-q-
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications
and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand
that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these
flat fees are non-refundable.
M
$ ( flat fee for t t+f Q V Q A'M • $ flat fee for
$ flat fee for $ flat fee for
For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I
understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is
impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable
legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not
returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30
days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment.
I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment
of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the
processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated.
w
$ Z&O deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at$315 per hour.
$ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time.Additional time above the deposit
amount will be billed at$265 per hour.
City of Aspen: Property Owner:
Chris Bendon
Name:
Community Development Director S�'T1r
r
Title: ��►`�W�-fP+ I L( � �j
City Use:
Fees Due:$ Received:$
RECEIVED
JAN
CITY OF ASPEN CIT Y OJ , A'O` EN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARMuNIT' DEVELOPMENT
PLANNER: Sara Nadolny, 970.429.2739 DATE: 8/03/2012
PROJECT: Obermeyer PUD
REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Lindenau, Studio B, 920.9428, stqdio@sor)ris.net
TYPE OF APPLICATION: PUD Amendment
DESCRIPTION:
On May 24, 2012 the Planning and Zoning Commission, through Resolution No. 10, Series of
2012, approved an extension of the existing fence along the western edge of the Obermeyer
property, and the construction of a 30 privacy screen to sit on top of the existing concrete wall cap
on the portion of the property that directly overlooks the neighboring parking lot. The fence was
constructed to plan expectations, however, the privacy screen was continued to wrap the entire
perimeter of the balcony.
i
Existing Patio i
i i
i
V�
rrrrrr
Yellow= Approved length of privacy screen
Red=Denied length of privacy screen
The owner is interested in bringing the privacy screen element into compliance. Obermeyer Place
was approved through a PUD process and is zoned SCI PUD, so any change to the design must
receive a PUD Amendment. The proposal requires review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a public hearing.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.445.100.6 PUD—Other Amendment
26.710.0190 SCI Zone District
Follow link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Code
http://www_.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community Develop__ment/Planning-and-
Zoning1Title-26-Land-Use-Code/
Follow the link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Application
httpa/www.aspenpitkin.com/Portalsl0/docs/City/Comdev_/Apps%20and%2OFees/2011__%201and%20u
se%20app%o20form.pdf
Review by: Community Development Staff, P&Z
Public Hearing: Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning Fees: $1,260 for a One Step Review. This includes four (4) hours of staff
review time. Additional time over four (4) hours will be billed at $315 per
hour -
Total Deposit: $1,260
Fee Note: The typical deposit for this type of land use application is $4,410 for
14 hours of work. Due to the limited nature of this project, the
Community Development Director authorizes the acceptance of a
lower deposit amount of$1,260 for 4 hours of work. Please not that
any time over 4 hours will be billed at the regular rate of$3151hour.
Total Number of Application Copies: 12, 1 sets of full size plans
To apply submit the following information:
[ g, Total Deposit for review of application.
Pre-application Conference Summary.
EZ/Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by
the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative
authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to
occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney
licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the
property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development
Z Aplication.
site-plan depicting the-proposed layout and the project's physical_ relationship to the
nd and its surroundings.
7ompleted Land Use application and signed fee agreement.
A'n 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen.
Q ? 2 copies of the complete application packet and maps.
' ter'' _xl?�s v-'�`" '�' `��h•a �t ;jf � ..�� �'� ��.�
, 1
ol
I
!. At L / v
('11 Ilk
j•UI
B
a r c h i t e c t s
9 January, 2013
City of Aspen
140 Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Obermeyer PUD Minor amendment, Clancy Residence, 101 Founders
Place, Unit 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611
Scott Lindenau of Studio B Architects is hereby appointed as our representative
and is authorized to serve on our behalf for our minor PUD amendment at our
Unit located at 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 at the Obermeyer Complex.
Scott Lindenau
Studio B Architects
970 920 9428
501 rio grande place suite 104 aspen co. 81611 970.920.9428 fax 970.920.7822
w w w .studiobarchitects. net
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that J.
ANTHONY CLANCY AND M. DEBORAH CLANCY are the owner's in fee simple of the following
described property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 202,
CRESCENT BUILDING,
OBERMEYER PLACE CONDOMINIUMS,according to the Condominium Exemption Map of the Obermeyer Place
Condominiums recorded July 26,2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 57 as Reception No. 526898 and First Supplemental
Condominium Exemption Map recorded September 19, 2006 in Plat Book 81 at Page 20 as Reception No. 528770 and
Second Supplemental Condominium Exemption Map recorded January 16,2008 in Plat Book 86 at Page 44 as Reception
No. 545903 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for the Obermeyer Place Condominiums
recorded July 26,2006 as Reception No. 526895 and First Amendment recorded September 19,2006 as Reception No.
528769 and Second Amendment recorded January 16,2008 as Reception No. 545904 and Third Amendment recorded
October 6,2010 as Reception No. 574121.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE:
101 Founders Place, Unit 202
Aspen, CO 81611
Encumbrances:
NONE
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE,INC.
BY:
/ G
authorized signature
CERTIFIED TO: March 30, 2012 at 8:00 A.M.
Job No. ACCOM2581
a r c h i t e c t s
9 January, 2013
City of Aspen
130 Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Written Description: Clancy Unit 202, Founders Place at Obermeyer
Complex
The Owners originally requested 2 items from the original submittal dated
4 April, 2012. The first was a continuation/connection of the existing slated
wood fence that separates the Obermeyer Complex from the City of
Aspen Parking Department's open gravel parking area to provide privacy
and the second was the installation of a 30" tall slated horizontal wood
railing at their exterior terrace wall to buffer additional privacy from that
parking area and the public walkway from Main Street to the Obermeyer
Complex which the Clancy Unit terrace directly faces. (See attached
photos).
Both were approved at the P+Z hearing and the resolution was given to
Studio B which was then passed along to the general contractor for
construction. It was later learned, that a constructed portion of the exterior
terrace railing was not approved as it exceeded vertical height limits from
the walking area below in Obermeyer. This work was not performed
intentionally to be out of compliance but was discovered to be an
`unintentional mistake'as the approved resolution sent to the architects
and contractor was delivered in `Black+White" and not in Color. The color
version does show where the exact lengths of railing were approved.
There is some discrepancy on what lengths of the built railing exist which
shall be clarified thru the presentation.
The Clients ask that the City and the P+Z consider allowing these 2
lengths of railing to remain as they offer privacy to this exposed terrace,
there have been no inquiries or complaints from the Obermeyer
community or governing board and that is was a genuine mistake.
Sincerely,
Scott Lindenau
Studio B Architects
Owners Representative
501 rio grande place suite 104 aspen co. 81611 970.920.9428 fax 970.920.7822
w w w .studiobarchitects. net
Resolution Exhibit A
Existing Patio /
f 'r-
ss
Yellow=Approved length of privacy screen
Red = Denied length of privacy screen
�,I v✓ Il'r'L� 0'�
�1 IN ~
Resolution Exhibit A
"f
Existing Patio 'f
Yellow=Approved length of privacy screen
Red =(denied length of privacy screen
f fi
Y, a
f
�k
-ya
t.- � �F � 4 � __ i •gyp � � ; .r .
J,
4,
Vi
Ir
air"
IL
'
rat
4. f.�
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM EXEMPTION MAP OF:
D, A, T T f T T T T T I
V Ti' l1I I �\ � il 11 il j 1��
n 7w 0 ,
S
Ll 41" J- \\1
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF SECTION 7,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.
CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
F-,MARKET UNIT CONDT)VINIUV Qi'SIGNATjoiril CHART
CW FI
�ERCIAJL,QUA'IED RESQ2jCE_ANQ--ER
THIS r ART SETS THE COMMERCIAL UNITS MAPPED IN THIS FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL MAP THIS CHART INCILUDES THE
ICRRE�ONDING STREET ADDRESS ANC ALLOWED USE FOR EACH COMMERCIAL.UNI7. FOR UUSTRANVE PURPOSES,THE
OUAJFiEI)RESIDENCE ANe�E MARKE7 CONDCM!NFUM UNTS AS�"N AND DET)CA70 ON THE V�RECORDEV NDER
RECEPTCNUNO 626898 ARE INCLUDED THESE FRE)40U�Y MAPPED QUALIFIED RESIDENCE AND MEE MARKET
M ONTS ARE AS FOLLOWS
IE Al—c i—
�5z —,-j-
:G2 :c! c; 542 ,.f SW— i
—F dI"F-ole#Iol 2B 51,pp—rt Offi.
CA cow 'Cl F —px..#1 CA
In
AN I.i S"LPP-,t=t1 s`—egh' 1.11z"
5 COY 'ot Fou—'s illo-#lo-
ic
ic cou 01 Founders Plo-#106 '99, Sppl.—nt N-norf—ing CMr.
lo7 coy 101 F.Innd—Roc.#107 7�It SI.Ip;I -I
(501 Rio G-nd, Race) - ob cov. 1 o r—.4—P.—rce E77 1 5vpp=t
CCU
C,n riM D,t,ij,S�Sheet 21&22 Il'2,!, c REC 152
201 FM lei nd—Flo-4 on
M `V lei Foo—'.P, 4202 REC#52Utq
P RE
31 FV 101 F—dor. t— c IE2689B
L s42 1, 5,W.—t
O�,!—k 8.111dinq 10o cow 102 F—ftn,Rd.0100 Se vice/CO /m d
lC1 OR ,02 Four d-i Place#'0' REC 1526696
102 CA 102 F—dw,Pi..j102 REC J526E98
Ice#22012 RE
2C OR �02 F-d—Plata I c RECc##!522 89%
2 1 oR lV2 F—d�F!, rc#52 9a
202
2C3 OR 102 F-F.—F.—#203 EC#5 68E8
OF '.2 1---%-42c4 RE
c�5 GR G2 F.F'WrI F
2 REC#526898
I f3ci REC r-26eg
In -w 02 roo-omr,I Pi 2 1% 3C2 OR 102 F—&r.Pi W REC#52659
OR �112 F-nd,g PI iW1 E #526898
FV ol K.Spfln 51. "2 REC J5 6598
Spring Street EA&S io I
02 FM ol k Spri,, St. REC J525W8
103 FM 101 N Spring St.J103
04 OR 101 N:Sp ing St.f104 RE #5 898
C
105 oR I01 N.Spring St.#105 REC#326598
1 II
06 OR 10 N.Spring St,Jim REC 92268 8
t07 QR 101 N.Spring St.J107 C#526898
101 N
108 OR 101 N.Sprin St.#108 REc 15
o9 QR .Sprang St.flog REC 152':M
RE #5268 9-8
201 Fu IM N�Spring St.
202 Fm N�spring REC#526898
ry lol St#202
20 DR 101 N.Spring St.#203 REC#326B98
204 QR jol N Spring St.f204 REC 998
2m QR 101 N Spring St,#205 REC V9898
301 FM tot N.Spring St.#= REC#526898
302 TIM lot N SP-9 St.f302 REC#526898
303 FMI 101 N Spring St. 303 REC 05263
304 N 101 W Sprig St:I304 #5265911
152 aia
n�ots flu.j
QR ob.
o op. too Obenrerer P
o'
102
3 DR 100 Os—y,PI.-Dr.#103 REC#526898
104 QR ;oo ob-y`IP!D' #ID4
"EC
#526898"
m cDm Do merrewr PI.D.I'm 2-348 . vnet Nonconforing Fit—Clu
I x CON! I M m—YK Place D,#106 41,.1. 7,t
I07 COM 100 Ob—yer P on Or 1107 g sppl -t
Neighborhood commercial
P-Wd.B.11din, lot IM OM Rio Coodl Piece 101 We J526898
1,10, 1 1 Ml;r
'02 FM 5111 Rio 0—d:r 102 REci#52689t;
o3 FM 501 R Grande 103 REC f5268I98
51 Foo I R- 04 Ill I]' --I sin —/eommeRml/nepatra
P.
CE m com 501 Rio oron't poi toot
04 coin
I d' Sd
Oberlinottet,Place Dri— 06 S'Pol""n, S
com 501 Ri.G— FI.-1 TD6 829 J. = c ==trw!
on., =
Ii F, g I .tail. A �07 COM 501 Rio Grondt PI...#107 1,97]1 J. SuW—A g
0 COM 501 Rio Grande Supplement Neighborhood-.rcioI
Mk
SII, I 1 105 com 50I R, Grande Pi-:1 I09 76, 1
209 - d pjoc I 201 ftEc'5� Id—id
V� 1 FM 501 Rio Grande
2D2 JIM 501 Rio Grande P;.-#202 REC f5268 9B
203 FM 501 Rlo Grande P1:4- #ZD3 REC#526898
204 FM 501 R1.Grande Place, . 'EC#526698
2m FM 501 ffiI G,ond,F).o.f 205 REC#526998
206 FM 5DI Rio Grande P—.1 206 REC#526895
Po,k!.,g Garage 101 CDM 601 Rio G,ond,Pi—j10I 3,56II I.f. Supplement S-A-z
102 COM 601 Rio Grand,Pl—#1 DZ 7D7"I:
GRAPHIC SCALE m COM 6
31"or-1: ""11.3
104 com EDT R.Gonda
Im COM 661 Rio Gonda PI...#105 �2 ,f Slllp�=211
116 IDM 6 Rio 11-1,Fl—Ilm 346 J.
6DI
;07 COM DI Rio Grand.Plow fIG7 308:-ff �11
(101 pound—Place) P112ont�S
E,III nt
m com 601 Rio G..,d. #i Comm
5,-
i ft Ploo 0109 6 A f S`AoPionnelt Sl�*G nmi&./Ind-Ukd
f.,Unit&Coro—Element "g,
Oot.11.S.Sheet!1 of 23 :tO COM Dom 601 Rio Q-Ind,p1-:J11D 2�".,t S�PM—t S-1/-Z
Sol Rio G
5 ""tril
.1h11-,"EE21D I -DM act Rio G—it,PaC,,jIII Itnoi
"12 C-- 57 R;I G-o—11
j"Z 27.1 So— o'
A 1,113 S
f
-OM 50i on,Ganda Pl—#113 �t:
;11 COM Ill Rio G—dI,P11.1114 482 Sryplement S— iw t1lof
I - SIPI—It Stom--/Corr—McdAnd-briol
ALL AREAS OUTSIDE THE INDIADUAL AiR�kCE CD%DOMLNIUW UYT5,ARE GENERA-CONVOY ELEMENTS Ld 5
ACE COqDDMIqjUtfS UNI-ESS IDENTIFIED AS A LIMITED COVMDN EEVENT ILCE)RESERVED FOR USE SY FEWER COM 5DI Rn,Ganda PI.- 2B6 I
;16 OM 501 Rio Grande N—1116 655 f ,nt
a tpi,12.
THAN ALL THE OPENERS OF THE'No!ADUAL�AIR--L 11 17 COM wl Rio Conde Pi--,il 17 1.5 PPI 't a C=n, I/Ldl IV
t ct
d. n,
2.) DECLARANT RESERVES THE Ri3HT To DEVELOP�;S AREA WITH A MONUMENT.STATUE DR SMPTL)Rr IN ACCORDANCE a CoM &DI Rio Gon I. S,
I fug 935 f, 5
9 10M 6DI Rio G—d'Pi'"
2o COW 601 Rio G—d.Pl—4120 537.f- SUPM--t
12 t S /C_.. drld
NSTRjCTED �O 1212 COM 601 Rio G—d.Plam f121 B54',I, S Ze-
3.) INDICATES THE ANtIOPATED CONOWIMUM UVT 3XICIAFUES WHEN CO. '01 Rio�—d.Pin—f122 746 51 _�t Sainte/W.-
�. E EIiTEN THE AS-RU�T I XA701NS OF'HE NDDMVUV UNIT BOUNDARIES ARE NOT CDNV.S.NT WIT4,�E ANT.;�A 1—
5),Rl� ......I-.#1DU Do! 350:f
kNo WAjo S I R�.1—do 4?W D02 535
coNODujN)U UN'T BOUNDARIES DEPICTED HEREON,DEC11-4RANT RESERVES THE R.�T TO SURVEY
'AS-EIUIIr ROUNDARIES,AND RECORD A:DQRECTI�TO 74IS VNP:IN ICCDRCANCE A-1 tL 3ECLARATOr,. 231 R,3 "T IPI-111 003 OM
PCu oo� CO" 6DI R,. . "PI-1
4) ALL NON-CONFORMING USES ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF ASPEN ORDINANCE 13. PCU 005 COM 601 Ric G—d,Pi...CCU 005 426 tf stFi—1
SERIES OF 2003.AS AMENDED. PCU EcM !T R G—-de.P1. 0"556 1, S.Ppl.—t
PC6
PCU 00309 cCoOm M 6D'RR io n Ganda MPlo—n #JPPU 009 e-1f SS,III p'pi—t t
i
PCU
On a COM 601 Rio Grande P:...JPCU 010 352 sf. S,,Pof—t
CU 0;1 C ON ED I Rio Grande Place=.;1 210
:
Supplement
PCU 02 CON 601 Rio C—d P.� 02 �g, f
Supplement
013 CON 601 Rio GI Ind.Pin-jPou 013 213 It SIPVI—t
PCU 014 CON! 601 R.Grande'I.I.(PCU 014 475 s.f- Supplement
PCU 0;5 COM 601 Rij.Grande PI...fPCJ 015 323,.f. S,,PPI
P I.4P D16 4 6 J. �ppll;rt
CU 016 C 6 R G Z.PI I, nt
WERLOOK 15L)L-PINC, PCU O�7 COkI 60mi Rio G� d.III,,. -017 .3Z55,
in #PCU Ki
�f. SIIP—t
PCu 018 com 6D1 Rn G,,nd*P CII Oil 121 1. S�Pll I'll
(ID2 Found— Place) PCU 019 com 501 Rio Grand.Z;:I*Pp CLI e" .D "pl--t
6UtLDMG TABLE or unit&CElt D,,t.;f,soe Sn-t 13 11 23 PCU D120 CON 601 Rio G—d.Plot.jPVJ o2o 5,opl—t
=RI.G—d.P—61CU 021 SaPPA—t
PCU D21 COM 195
-RAL COMMON ELEMENT
LCE LIMITED Co-ON EEUENT SFRINE, 3TREFT t,IJLPIN8; �11]11 Ill j[11111�jjjj 528770
LLC (101 N Spring St—t) 1.1 23
MA CAL COND—NFUM UNIT 1EERING V I I i 1 i 'I 1 —11 R 2a1 SOPRIS ENGIN Unit and C.—,D—t D,t,i,
FM-FREE MARKET CONOWNIUM UNIT CML CONSULTANTS 15.U 17 of V
OR-OiJAUFIED RESIDEN—M CONDOMLNIUW UNIT 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 SHEET 5 OF 23
Common Elements Detail
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 Plaza Level,
M flAiFin, .1 D !IUR—.-N
NPIER—I T 01�ikI eEfEcT. IN NO EIENT—ANY AC— (970) 704-0311 2MI12n --d-ZEMn"
w ,2 CT TIE__=M�THAN BASED ON VD
w new 30" tall privacy Q Q
O
screen at patio Z Q U
perimeter O x,73
Id
cwn o1 Ea. / I
i
E�. - ---`C---- ------ - ------ - - -- ------------ - r - --- ------ ---- - ------- --
Q
,o
� / •
existing
\ condo wall Existing Patio
Wass
IL
1
i
U ♦ \ ,•' \ terminate new
•' fence at existing �' \
.000,
�� / ♦ n I / �� \ concrete wall `�
sue: �`� ♦ 1 �.
,� I ,. ,� ♦ /J'' .' new wood fence to \
♦ _ ♦♦ Q \�t��• \ match existing
r; m
v �
terminate / connect \ 1
new fence to
existing fence
( 9 1
clancy _ obermeyer place privacy fence + screen 11 .28.2011 g
a r c h i t e c t s
Regular City PlanninLy & Zoning Meeting— Minutes May 15, 2012
Comments 2
Minutes 2
Conflicts of Interest 2
101 Founders Place (Obermeyer Place) PUD Amendment 2
480 Doolittle Dr (Waternlace Affordable Housing) SPA Amendment 4
1
Regular City Plannin & Zoning Meeting—Minutes May 15 2012
Stan Gibbs opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in
Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Jasmine Tygre
Cliff Weiss, Keith Goode and Stan Gibbs. Jim DeFrancia, Bert Myrin and LJ
Erspamer were not in attendance. Staff in attendance were: Debbie Quinn,
Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development
Director; Sara Nadolny, Community Development; Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Assets;
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
Comments
Jasmine Tygre said she had a processing question on PUD Amendments. Jasmine
said that it used to be when you had a PUD or SPA Amendment that there was a
process that you had to support the amendment like changed circumstances and
there is no mention of Section 26.440.080 in the code. Jennifer Phelan said there
was 070 to 090 and wondered what was going on.
Cliff Weiss asked what happened to the request for appreciation for the boards by-
providing an ARC Membership. Jennifer Phelan said that she would talk to Chris
tomorrow.
Keith Goode said that the City was waiting on a certificate of occupancy for the
Motherlode. Jennifer responded that it will be issued soon.
Jennifer said.that she would do a long range update once,monthly at the beginning
of the month. Jennifer said that they will be booked with current land use cases up
to the 2"d week in August.
Jennifer introduced Sara Nadolny as the Planner Technician and it presenting 2
cases.
Minutes
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes of May I"as amended
on page 6; seconded by Keith Goode. All in favor APPROVED.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated
Public Hearing:
101 Founders Place (Obermeyer Place) PUD Amendment
2
Regular City Planning & Zonine Meeting—Minutes May 15, 2012
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for 101 Founders Place. Sara Nadolny stated
that Scott Lindenau was represented by Studio B Architects; the owners of this
property were Anthony and Deborah Clancy.
Sara said the issue at 101 Founders Place Unit 202, the Crescent Building, was a
privacy screen; these were both PUD and SPA as they deal with architectural
\ elements and character. The applicant wanted to enhance the residential space; the
west.side of this space overlooks the City of Aspen impoundment lot. The privacy
screen would sit onto of the wall cap surrounding the entire patio on the second
story unit. Second is to continue an existing fence,that sits along the property line
between Obermeyer Place and the City of Aspen arking Enforcement Lot.
Sara said the privacy screen was 3 feet 4 inches on the West side and sits atop the
concrete wall cap and 12 foot 7 inches on the East side of the Unit. The screen will
be constructed of wooden slats and metal and proposed at 44 feet 9 inches in total
length.
Sara said the fence proposal was to continue the fence that already exists on
already a small portion of the northern side of the property line between
Obermeyer and Aspen and figure G gives you an-idea of what the fence already
looks like. The fence proposal extension will extend 76 feet to follow the walkway
shown on figure H. Staff is recommending conditional approval of this
application.
Jasmine said the upstairs neighbor did not object to the fence but requested a gate
in the fence; is there a gate planned for this fence. Jennifer replied that walkway
was a limited common area to the Crescent Building so when the applicant submits
a building permit they will need to obtain approval from all the unit owners.
Cliff asked if this fence or screen would have any visual affect on any other unit in
Obermeyer. Sara replied they are both on the property line and unit 202 is the
only unit that would see it on the West end and the West side of Unit 202's patio
faces onto the parking lot.
Scott Lindenau distributed photos similar to the ones in the packet (Exhibit D); his
client's unit was pretty much in the parking lot and photos were all different.
Jennifer stated that Bill Murphy's letter would be (Exhibit C).
No public comments.
3
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meetinij— Minutes May 15, 2012
MOTION.- Jasmine Tygre move to approve Resolution #10, series of 2012
approving an amendment to Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA with the conditions
and.the correct diagram; seconded Cliff Weiss seconded. Roll call vote: Keith
Goode, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes. All in favor,
APPROVED 4-0.
Public Hearing:
480 Doolittle Drive (Watemlace Affordable Housing) SPA Amendment
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Sara Nadolny said representing the owner
of the property, the City of Aspen, is Jeff Pendarvis, City Assets Department. Sara
said the building was part of the essential public facility to be converted into an
affordable housing unit. Sara said to do this conversion staff is requesting the
Planning &.Zoning Commission an SPA Amendment, Growth Management
Review, Change in Use Review, 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design
Variances.
Sara said the SPA is a site specific approval and this application would be
approved administratively due to the change in use of the originally approved site
plan; tonight staff is seeking approval of the SPA Amendment to assure
compliance with APCHA Standards. The applicant is proposing to convert the
existing emergency response facility to a deed restricted single family unit; this
building was currently vacant. The building is located on the edge of the Water
Treatment Affordable Housing with the front of the building perpendicular to the
street and 580 square feet of net livable space. They are proposing a covered 70
square foot,covered entry and an 11 by 22 foot carport and a 44 square foot storage
closet.
Sara said the 2 Residential Design Variances were the building does not face the
street and the street orientated entrance and principal window will not face the
street. The City is proposing a Category 3 or 4 however in APCHA standards read
Category 3 or 4 would be 700 square feet. APCHA allows a 20% reductiomfor a .
studio unit at Category 4 or lower.
Cliff Weiss asked where the parking was located. Sara replied that parking is
located directly to the east of the unit on All. Jeff Pendarvis said the whole area is
paved. Cliff said no more asphalt is going to be laid for this. Jeff replied no.
Jeff Pendarvis introduced himself; his understanding was that it was built back in
the late 1990s with this in mind, to be converted to affordable housing. Jeff said
the conversion of the City's water process occurred in 2010 and no longer needed
4
r
Regular City Planning & Zonin2Meeting— Minutes May 15, 2012
i
the facility and has been transferred to the 505 Employee Housing Fund, owned by
the City and have first responders as owners. Jeff said they will call it a studio but
-will live like a 1 bedroom.
Stan said that Section 2 of the resolution should say recorded not recoded. Debbie
Quinn said the deed restriction for Water Place and not as a Category. Jennifer
said Section 8 got cut off and needs to say calculated by Community Development
using this calculated fee schedule in effect at the time the applicant submits a
building permit.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve Resolution 11, series 2012 as amended
for Waterplace Housing; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Keith
Goode, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes. All in favor,
APPROVED 4-0.
Ad'ourned a :45 pm.
cz-v
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
5
r 1
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, May 15, 2012
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. 101 Founders Place (Obermeyer Place)- PUD Amendment
B. 480 Doolittle Drive (Waterplace Affordable Housing) — SPA
Amendment
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 10
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, May 15, 2012
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. 101 Founders Place (Obermeyer Place)- PUD Amendment
B. 480 Doolittle Drive (Waterplace Affordable Housing) — SPA
Amendment
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 10
0 3. A P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician
RE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202,PUD and SPA Amendment
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2012
APPLICANT/OWNER: Anthony and STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff
M. Deborah Clancy, Obermeyer Place HOA recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the PUD/SPA amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Lindenau, Studio B
Architects SUMMARY: The applicant requests of the Planning
and Zoning Commission approval to amend the PUD
LOCATION: Obermeyer Place, 101 Founders and SPA to permit a privacy screen around the
Place,Unit#202 second floor balcony of condominium unit#202.
Applicant further requests approval to continue the
1 existing fence along the western portion of the
property,to more fully privatize the limited common
element walkway between the Obermeyer Place
SPA/PUD and the adjacent City of Aspen Parking
` — Department's impound lot.
I t Figure A:Unit#202,
1 7
L west side: proposed
privacy screen
location
CURRENT ZONING&USE: Service „
Commercial Industrial(SCI)Zone District with i
Planned Unit Development(PUD)and Specially )
Planned Area(SPA)overlays,residential use.
PROPOSED LAND USE: The owners of Unit existing fence Figure B:West
side of
#202 request approval to construct a privacy 1 property:
screen on the 2nd floor unit's private balcony that , v proposed
faces an adjacent parking lot, and to continue the I� ,y continuation of
length of fencing that currently exists along the general
common
western edge of the property on the limited element fence
common element walkway for the Crescent
Building.
P2
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
Planning and Zoning Commission Approvals:
• Amendment of PUD development order(Subsection 26.445.100.B, Other Amendment)to
construct a privacy screen for Unit 202 and add a general common element privacy fence.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
• Amendment of SPA development order(Subsection 26.440.090,Amendment to
development order) to construct a privacy screen for Unit 202 and add a general common
element privacy fence. The Planning Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS:
The residences at Obermeyer Place were approved as part of the Obermeyer Place COWOP
Project via City Council Ordinance 18, Series 2003,permitting the construction of a mixed use
project containing commercial net leasable, affordable housing, and free market residential units.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicants request approval to construct a wooden slatted privacy screen to surround the
second floor balcony of condominium unit#202. The privacy screen is proposed to sit atop the
existing concrete wall cap, which measures approximately 3'4" in height from finished grade on
the west side, and approximately 127" in height from finished grade on the east side. The
privacy screen would provide an additional 30"to these wall measurements, bringing the west
side to approximately 5'9"in height and the east side to approximately 15'2"in height, as
measured from finished grade, and to a total length of 44'9".
The applicant further requests approval to construct a wooden fence on the western edge of the
property between Obermeyer Place and the City of Aspen Parking Department lot, on the
Crescent Building's limited common element walkway, which will complete an existing fence.
The existing wooden fence measures 4'10" in height. The proposed fence will match the
existing fence in height, color, and material, and continue for approximately 75'6"towards the
southern edge of the Obermeyer Place property. The completion of this fence will serve to
privatize the walkway and screen adjacent the parking lot.
The project is before the Planning and Zoning Commission because Staff found the proposed
privacy screen to be inconsistent with the representations of the project's original approval, and
therefore does not qualify as an administrative insubstantial PUD amendment.
0 P3
STAFF COMMENTS:
PUD and SPA Reviews
The privacy screen addition to Unit#202 and the limited common element fence are proposed
within Obermeyer Place, which is subject to the site specific development plan approval by the
SPA/PUD. Any changes to the land use, density,height,bulk, architecture, landscaping, and
open space must undergo review and may be permitted through an amendment to the final
development plan.
Both the PUD and SPA review criterion discuss the compatibility of changes in light of
architectural character, and is concerned with compatibility and/or enhancement of visual
character and its relationship to its surroundings. Staff finds the proposed privacy screen to be
compatible in materiality and color with the existing architecture of the Obermeyer SPA/PUD.
Furthermore,the proposed screen will not change the land use, density,bulk, landscaping, or
open space. It will add height to the existing deck of Unit#202,which will be minimal in nature
and serve to create an element of privacy from the adjacent parking lot.
The fence continuation is proposed to be maintained at the same height as that of the existing
fence (4'10"), and will match the existing fence in color and materials. It will serve to privatize
the Crescent Building's limited common element walkway between Obermeyer Place and the
adjacent parking lot property for users. Staff finds the proposed fence to be compatible with the
existing SPA and PUD.
Given the minor architectural changes that are proposed to occur with this application and the
compatibility with the existing architecture found within the Obermeyer SPA and PUD, Staff
finds the review criterion to be met.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the fence extension, and finds the design to be compatible with the existing land
use, and the materials and design to be consistent with the existing architectural character of
Obermeyer Place. The fence will serve as an extension of the existing general common element
for Obermeyer Place and will further privatize the walkway between this property an d the
adjacent parking lot.
Staff recommends approval of the privacy screen at Unit#202,to the extent that it be allowed on
the west side of the unit. The unit's west side directly faces the City of Aspen's Parking
Enforcement lot at grade, and therefore the applicants are currently unable to enjoy use of their
patio with some sense of privacy that one may expect at a private residential unit. The screen, as
proposed, would afford the applicants a degree of privacy. Furthermore, it is found to be
compatible with the visual character of Obermeyer Place, and would not add significant height to
the wall. However, Staff recommends denial of the extension of the privacy screen to the south
and east of the unit. Unit#202 is raised at a second story level on its southern and eastern sides,
P4 O
and therefore does not experience the same level of visibility as found on its western side. A
degree of privacy is further afforded by the tree that is growing on the unit's southern end.
i
\ ' \ _.4
J \
yyl.Y�
ng / ..
wail Existing Patios /
/' ,r• is
/..
G
4 ��
G �,�,�►.
Figure C: Proposed privacy screen, plan view.
Yellow, Staff approved. Red, Staff denied.
Ak
._
.r
°k
Figure D: Unit#202, west side of property; staff proposed
limits of the privacy screen
U.1 _
a CC 'LU
AIL
3
a�
c
L
L fO N
- o v
v � �
N
N + �
O
O0
� a
431 n-
�y v
hA
LL
1•
a�
i •� , r
L +
w
C
ON — � t10 �
•C +.. �,.r��YGKiilkxr�J+.raoh,':w....,-..�r�e � Ql
W N
LJJ �^.r i Rt•�:9:s`"f�tA'�{fS`5J�6`t'�d1M�:�,..�,...�.m�+..�.e.•.
00
LL
P6 ,
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2012, approving an amendment to the
Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA as proposed,with conditions.
Attachments:
EXHIBIT A—SPA and PUD Amendment Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B - Application
P7
RESOLUTION No._
(SERIES OF 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN,APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT—OTHER
AMENDMENT AND SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, AKA OBERMEYER PLACE,
UNIT 202, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND ON A LIMITED COMMON
ELEMENT.
Parcel Identification Number: 2737-073-05-009
WHEREAS, Anthony and M. Deborah Clancy submitted a request for Planned Unit
Development(PUD) Amendment and Specially Planned Area(SPA) Amendment to the Planning
and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the property is located in the Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) zone
district with PUD and SPA Overlay; and
WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development approval for the Property was originally
approved by the Aspen City Council via Ordinance No. 18 Series of 2003, and the Obermeyer
Place Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69,
Page 44, Reception No. 498396; and
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval of the PUD and SPA
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 15, 2012, the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets 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 Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
i
P8
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The PUD and SPA is hereby amended to allow the addition of a privacy screen for Unit #202,
aka Obermeyer Place Condominium Unit#202, as depicted in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
Section 2•
The PUD.and SPA is hereby amended to allow the addition of a fence along the western portion
of the Obermeyer Place property, on a limited common element walkway, as depicted in Exhibit
B of this Resolution.
Section 3•
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4•
This resolution 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 5•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 15th day of
May, 2012.
LJ Erspamer,Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
2
P9
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A: Privacy screen plans
Exhibit B: Fence plans on limited common element
3
P10
Resolution Exhibit A
�d
EA /
F
ng Existing Patio r .'.
o Wall
r• � ;per
Yellow=Staff recommended length of approval of privacy screen
Red =Staff recommended denial of length of privacy screen
P11
Resolution Exhibit B
Proposed Fence location and Length
\ /
\ / condo wall ` Existing Patio �t i�1
;eta
T a
. rr
N
terminate new
"3f' +'• `f fence at existing 9
concrete wall
1 •. ,
a Oe ,: — new wood fence to
Z match existing'
of
4r to tin: te/cmnneZ69 «a d~
w fence to •�
P12
Exhibit A
Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA)
A. General. In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and
a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider
the following:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Staff Response: The building already exists at 480 Doolittle Drive. The proposed use is
compatible with the mix of development in the vicinity, in that it is proposed to become an
affordable housing unit, and will be within the Water Place Affordable Housing area. The
structure's change in use will not alter the existing land use, height, bulk, architecture,
landscaping, or open space, as relatively little exterior changes will occur to the building. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development.
Staff Response: The project is presently served by existing roads and public facilities. Stafffinds
the criterion to be met.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development,
considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls,
avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Staff Response: The building already exists on this parcel. There will be no changes that will
affect the possibility of mudflows, rockfalls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff finds
the criterion to be met.
` 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to
preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open
space,trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large.
Staff Response: There will be no change in the height and mass of the existing building that will
cause impacts to significant view planes, have adverse environmental impacts, or change the
way the area's open space, trails, and similar amenities are used Staff finds the criterion to be
met.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Response: The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan supports the development of affordable
housing. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
P13
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds
to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Response: The project will not require any expenditure of excessive public funds to provide
public facilities for the parcel or surrounding neighborhood. Public facilities such as roads and
infrastructure already serve the building. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the
slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2.
Staff Response: There are no slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) below the area of
development. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Staff Response: There are no limits to the growth of affordable housing within the City of Aspen.
Staff finds this criterion to be non-applicable.
P14
Exhibit B
Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Response: The proposed change in use does comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin
Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is
included in Appendix E, Department Responses. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly
built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits.
Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a
cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation
requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council
approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community
Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of
the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these
methods. (Ord. No. 6—2010, §4)
Staff Response: The proposed unit is a deed-restricted affordable housing unit, and requires no
further mitigation. Stafffinds the criterion to be non-applicable.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special
Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. (Ord. No. 14 —2011, §3)
Staff Response: The proposed unit is entirely a one story, at grade building, which requires no
dimensional variances. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned
qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The
deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to
P15
own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by
an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with
the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to
this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Staff Response: The proposed unit will be deed restricted as a for-sale unit and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Staff
finds the criterion to be met.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for
mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such
non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. (Ord. No. 6—2010, §4)
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion to be non-applicable.
P16
Exhibit C
Change in Use. A change in use of an existing property, structure or portions of an existing
structure between the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020 (irrespective of
direction), for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and
which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section
26.470.050. No more than one (1) free-market residential unit may be created through the
change-in-use.
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet
this standard.
Staff Response: The proposal is for an affordable housing unit, and no growth management
allotments are placed on this type of development. Staff finds this criterion to be non-applicable.
2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Response: Affordable housing is an important component of the Aspen Area Community
Plan. This proposal will add a one-bedroom unit to the housing stock. Staff finds the criterion
to be met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Response: The zoning for this development is Public with a Specially Planned Area overlay,
which would require a site specific approval. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion to be non-applicable.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated
by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A,
Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The
employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate
shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate. (Ord. No. 6—2010, §2)
P17
Staff Response: This proposal is for a voluntary affordable housing unit. No employee
mitigation is necessary in this event. Staff finds this criterion to be non-applicable.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural
or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least
thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the
finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall
be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment
of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square
Footage Conversion. (Ord. No. 6—2010, §2)
Staff Response: The proposal is for a voluntary affordable housing unit and not as mitigation for
free market residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be non-applicable.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy
and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste
disposal, parking and road and transit services. (Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1)
Staff Response: As a one-bedroom unit, the project represents minimal additional demand on
public infrastructure. There will be no need for additional roads, fire and police protection
utilities, drainage control, solid waste disposal, or parking and road and transit services. Staff
finds the criterion to be met.
P18
Exhibit D
8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred
fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine
subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the
parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and
revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a
location acceptable to the City.
Staff Response: The parcel on which the development already exists is a flat site, suitable for this
existing development. No stabilization, revegetation, or mitigation of toxic soils is necessary.
Staff finds the criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution.
Staff Response: The development already exists. The proposed minor changes (carport with
storage and covered front entry) are expected to have no adverse affects as they will be
constructed on the existing asphalt base, and no new disturbance is expected to occur. Staff
finds the criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in
the City.
Staff Response: The proposed change in use will have no significant adverse affect on the air
quality in the City. Stafffinds the criterion to be met.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with
the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
Staff Response: The primary building already exists and is found to be compatible with the
parcel's terrain. The proposed minor development (carport with storage and covered front
entry) is also compatible with the parcel's terrain, as it will be located on the existing flat
asphalt surface. No new roads or trails are proposed for this change in use project. Staff finds
the criterion to be met.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural land features.
Staff Response: No grading is proposed with this application. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
P19
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting
and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Staff Response: The structure is pre-existing and will undergo minimal development and a
change in use. There is no need for additional roads or cutting and grading, and open space and
preservation will not be changed by this proposal. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend
into the open character of the mountain.
Staff Response: The structure is a single story, and smaller in mass and height than the adjacent
two story affordable housing units and storage units. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
Staff Response: Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service this project.
Staff finds the criterion to be met.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be
properly maintained.
Staff Response: Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, which are
properly maintained by the City of Aspen. No additional roads or maintenance needs are
proposed for this development. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure
. adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Staff Response: Adequate ingress and egress is currently available for this project for fire
protection and snow removal equipment. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan
are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. (Ord. No.
55-2000, § 7)
Staff Response: This proposal is located adjacent to a neighborhood park, the Waite/Robinson
Park, Water Place trail system, and Twin Ridge Open Space. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
P20
Exhibit E
Residential Design Standards. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section
26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is
subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other
requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or
the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the
board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a
variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall
find that the variance, if granted would:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in
which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In
evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider
the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate
neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine
if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific
constraints. (Ord. No. 52-2003, § 5; Ord. No. 20-2005, § 1)
Staff Response:
This unit is proposed within a pre-existing affordable housing SPA, and the building proposed
for the change in use is also pre-existing. The surrounding pattern of development is a
horseshoe grouping of affordable housing buildings and storage units for these buildings. As
this building was formerly used as an emergency response center for the water treatment plant, it
is situated on the southern portion of the grouping,
Due to the fact that this building already exists, there will be limited exterior development
necessary to complete the change in use. The applicant is proposing to maintain the exterior
materials and massing. The exterior changes that will occur are minor, and include the addition
of a carport with storage unit and a covered front entryway. The building as proposed will meet
the Residential Design Guidelines in the Code in all ways but one. As it exists, the building's
front fagade is perpendicular to the street. The Code requires the following:
• According to Section 26.410.040 (A) (1.) Building orientation of the Land Use
Code, the front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street.
In this instance, the existing building's front fagade faces south, and Doolittle
Drive runs north/south. Therefore the front fagade does not face the street. Due
to the pre-existing nature of this building, and the applicant's desire to limit the
amount of exterior renovation performed on this building, the applicant requests
a variance from this section of the Code.
P21
• According to Section 26.410.040 (D) (1.) Street oriented entrance and principal
window of the Land Use Code, the unit, as a single-family home, should have a
street oriented entrance and principal window. Due to the pre-existing nature of
the building and applicant's desire to use the building as it exists to the extent
possible, the unit will not have a street oriented entrance and principal window.
The applicant requests a variance from this section of the Code.
a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet
back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be
taller than eight (8) feet.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Staff Response: The applicant requests a variance from the
requirement of a street facing entry door.
b. A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or
group or windows face street.
Staff Response: This project requests a variance from the requirement
of a street facing principal window, and from the requirement that a
significant window or group of window face the street.
The applicant is requesting from Planning and Zoning Commission the approval of the above
residential design variances that are necessary due to the site specific constraints that are
created by the adaptive reuse of an existing building, causing it to not meet residential design
code standards that would be possible if the building were demolished and rebuilt. Stafffinds the
criterion to be met for the approval for these residential design variances.
4
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician
RE: Water Place Affordable Housing Project, 480 Doolittle Dr- SPA Amendment,
Growth Management Review, Change in Use Review, 8040 Greenline Review,
and Residential Design Standards Variances
MEETING DATE: May 15,2012
APPLICANT/OWNER: City of Aspen STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends
the Planning and Zoning Commission approve
REPRESENTATIVE: Jeff Pendarvis, City the SPA amendment.
Asset Management
1'tf lV'j
LOCATION: Water Place Housing,480
Doolittle Dr.
r
_r
i -. - :.Fry„ . Z _^` ✓
„s5
CURRENT ZONING&USE: Public SUMMARY: The applicant requests of the
(PUB)zone district with a Specially Planning and Zoning Commission approval to
Planned Area(SPA) overlay. This amend the Aspen Water Place Treatment Plant
building is currently vacant; however, it and Affordable Housing SPA to change the use
has served as an emergency response of a vacant emergency response facility to an
facility for the Water Treatment Plant in affordable housing unit. This request will require
the past and is considered to be an an SPA Amendment, Growth Management
Essential Public Facility review, Change in Use review, 8040 Greenline
review, and variances of existing Residential
PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant Design Standards.
requests approval to change the use of
the building to a for-sale deed restricted
housing unit.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting four (4) land use approvals requiring a review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission(P&Z). i
• SPA Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.440.090, the P&Z shall issue a
decision to grant or deny the change in use that is being requested by this application.
• Growth Management Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070 (4), the
P&Z shall issue a decision regarding the approval to develop a deed-restricted affordable
housing unit at this site.
• Change in Use Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070 (2), the P&Z shall
issue a decision regarding the approval to change the use of an Essential Public Facility
to a deed-restricted affordable housing unit at this site.
• 8040 Greenline Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030 (C), the P&Z
shall issue a decision regarding the impact of any new development (carport, exterior
storage space, covered front entry).
• Residential Design Standards Variance pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.040
(A)(1) and (D)(1)(a, b, & c), the P&Z shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
request for residential design variances, which include building street orientation, primary
window facing street, and a covered entry porch as part of the front fagade.
BACKGROUND:
480 Doolittle Drive is part of the larger Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing
Project at 500 Doolittle Dr. The property's underlying zone district designation is Public with an
SPA overlay. The SPA was created via City Council Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2009. 480
Doolittle Dr. was historically used as an emergency response center for the water treatment plant.
All equipment stored in the building was non-chemical in nature. Due to changes in technology,
the emergency response center is no longer necessary to the operation of the water treatment
plant, and therefore the building is current vacant and unused.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant is proposing a change in use to 480 Doolittle Dr, from its current unused state to a
deed-restricted for-sale affordable housing unit. The one-story unit is proposed to be 572 square
foot in size, with 508.1 square feet of net livable space. The unit's exterior will largely remain
unchanged, save for the following. The applicant proposes a 70 square foot covered entry to the
building's front face, and a carport to the immediate east that will contain a 44 square foot
storage closet.
Due to its location 480 Doolittle Drive is subject to the heightened level of review associated
with the 8040 Greenline. Although the development has previously undergone this review when
first constructed as part of the Water Place Affordable Housing SPA, the additional structure
being proposed causes this review to be revisited.
STAFF COMMENTS:
SPA Amendment
The building that is proposed for a change in use exists within the Water Place Affordable
Housing SPA, and therefore must undergo review to change the Final Development Plan. The
purpose of this review is to determine whether the proposed changes are consistent with the final
developme nt plan.
�
2
P3
Staff Comment: The building is pre-existing, and there are minor plans for development on the
site (a carport with outdoor storage unit and covered front entry). The proposed use for the
building is compatible with the mix of development in the vicinity, the majority of which is
affordable housing units. No new roads or infrastructure is necessary for the change in use of
this building, and it in no way will impact the area's open space, trails, view planes, or
surrounding environment. The parcel is stable and there will be no need to stabilize or regrade.
Staff feels this proposal meets the requirements of SPA Amendment review, and recommends a
change to the Water Place Affordable Housing SPA.
Growth Management
The proposal is to turn an existing underutilized building into an affordable housing unit. The
applicant is proposing it as a Category 3 or 4 deed-restricted housing unit. The purpose of this
review is to ensure the proposal is in compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to deed-restrict the for-sale unit at a Category 3 or 4
level. According to APCHA guidelines, a Category 3 or 4 one-bedroom unit should contain a
minimum net livable area of 700 square feet. APCHA does allow for a twenty percent reduction
in net livable area,provided certain conditions are met. These include:
• Additional storage outside the unit;
• Additional window for natural light;
• Efficient and flexible layout;
• Site amenities;
• Location within the project; and
• Achievement of higher density deed-restricted units with variance.
The application does meet each of these conditions with the following:
• The applicant is proposing to provide an additional 44 sf of storage space within the
outdoor carport;
• Additional windows will be added for enhanced natural light and southern exposure;
• The interior layout is efficient, without hallways and staircases;
• The site is located adjacent to a neighborhood park, the Waite/Robinson Park, Water
Place trail system, and Twin Ridge Open Space;
• The project is single-story ground level unit; and
• A higher density of deed-restricted units will be achieved with this project.
However, even with a twenty percent reduction the applicant is below the minimum net livable
area for a Category 3 or 4 one-bedroom unit. The minimum net livable area for a Category 3 or
4 designation is 700 sf, which may be reduced to 560 sf by taking the 20% reduction as stated
above. The net livable area for this unit is 508.1 sf. However, the minimum net livable area for
a Category 3-4 studio unit is 500 sf, which this application meets. Categorizing this unit as a
studio rather than a one-bedroom unit will decrease the allowable for-sale price; however, this
designation more accurately fits the square footage of the unit. Staff recommends approval of
the Growth Management Review, with the condition that the unit be deed-restricted as a studio
for-sale unit at Category 4 or lower.
3
P4
Change in Use
The proposal involves a change in use of an essential public facility to a for-sale one-bedroom
deed-restricted residential housing unit. The purpose of this review is to ensure the proposed
change in use is appropriate.
Staff Response: The essential public facility is currently unused and vacant. The addition of one-
bedroom deed restricted unit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing stock is desirable,
and approved by the Housing Department. Staff finds the proposed Change in Use to be an
appropriate use of this building.
8040 Greenline Review
The proposal involves a building that is located above the 8040 Greenline. The purpose of this
review is to ensure reduced impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air
pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rockfall and mudslide, aid in the
transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban uses, and ensure the availability of
utilities and access to development that exists above 8040 feet mean sea level.
Staff Comment: This building is largely pre-existing and has previously undergone this
heightened level of review upon the initial development of the Water Place Affordable Housing
SPA. The changes that are proposed include a 70 sf covered front entryway and a carport with a
44 sf storage closet. These additions will not require additional excavation of land, regrading,
or stabilization. The change in use will have no significant adverse affects on air quality and no
new roads or utilities will be required to service this unit. The structure is smaller in bulk and
height as compared to adjacent buildings. It is located adjacent to a park, trail system, and open
space. Staff feels this proposal meets the requirements for an 8040 Greenline Review.
Residential Design Standards Variances
The applicant is requesting several Residential Design Standards variances with regard to
building orientation and street facing windows, as noted in Exhibit D. The purpose of this
review is to ensure the preservation of established neighborhood scale and character and to
ensure street and neighborhood walkability.
Staff Comment: The building is pre-existing is proposed as an affordable housing unit. The
variances that are requested deal primarily with the building's orientation. The front of the
building is not street facing, which also affects the ability to have a street facing window
standard. These standards will be met with having a primary window and front covered entry
way,just not to the letter of the Code. The issue is to allow these standards to be met with a non-
street facing orientation.
Due to the efforts of the applicant to use an existing building and to minimize any new
development, as well as the intent to change the use to affordable housing, Staff supports the
recommendation for the granting of residential design variances.
REFERRALS:
Staff solicited the opinions of several City departments regarding this project, including the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA), Engineering, Water Treatment, and Parks.
Following is a summary of the comments received from these departments.
4
P5
• Water Treatment—
• The Emergency Response Center has never housed, stored, filled, spilled,
cleanup, remediated or decontaminated anything having to do with hazardous
chemicals.
• The building was staff as a training/staging area for emergency responders.
• Engineering—
o The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan
requirements, and a compliant drainage plan must be submitted prior to final plat.
• A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the
building permit application.
• This major project is subject to the Fee in Lieu per Sec. 2.12.140 of the Municipal
Code.
• APCHA—
o The remodel would provide needed employee housing.
• Although the size of this unit would typically fall into a Category 1 or 2, Water
Place housing does not specify categories for any of its 22 available units;
• The affordable housing category will be determined based on the City employee
purchasing the unit.
• APCHA is recommending approval of this project with deed-restriction similar to
the Water Place housing project.
• Parks—
o Any tree removal will require a tree permit to be approved prior to the approval of
building permits. Mitigation for removal will be in accordance with Municipal
Code 13.20.
• A vegetation protection fence must be erected at the drip line of each tree
remaining on the site, which will be inspected by the City forester or his designee
prior to any construction.
• A formal plan indicating the location of tree protection is required for the building
permit set.
RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the applicable review
standards in the City Land Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the project.
RECOMMENDED MOTION ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No._, Series of 2012, approving SPA Amendment, Growth
Management Review, 8040 Greenline Review, Change in Use, and Residential Design Variances
for Building Orientation and Street Facing Principal Windows."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A—SPA Amendment Review Criteria
Exhibit B—Growth Management Review Criteria
Exhibit C—Change in Use Review Criteria
Exhibit D— 8040 Greenline Exemption Review Criteria
Exhibit E—Residential Design Variance Review Criteria
Exhibit F—Application
Exhibit G—DRC Comments
5
P6
RESOLUTION No._
(SERIES OF 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN,APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, CHANGON USE REVIEW, 8040 GREENLINE
REVIEW,AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 480 DOOLITTLE DR,AKA THE WATER PLACE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING SPA, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
Parcel Identification Number: 2735-132-04-024, 2735-132-04-825
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has submitted a request for Specially Planned Area
(SPA) Amendment, Growth Management Review, Change in Use Review, 8040 Greenline
Review, and Residential Design Variances to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS,the property is located in the Public (PUB) zone district with SPA Overlay;
and
WHEREAS, the Specially Planned Area approval for the Property was originally
approved by the Aspen City Council via Ordinance No. 23 Series of 1996; and
WHEREAS,upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval of the SPA Amendment, Growth
Management Review, Change in Use Review, 8040 Greenline Review, and Residential Design
Variances; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 15, 2012, the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets 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 Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
i
P7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: SPA Amendment
The SPA is hereby amended to allow the change in use from an essential public facility to a for-
sale deed-restricted affordable housing unit.
Section 2: Growth Management Review
The Growth Management Review has been satisfied to deed restrict this unit at a studio Category
4 or lower affordable housing unit in compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority standards. Deed restriction shall be recoded prior to granting a Certificate of
Occupancy.
Section 3: Change in Use Review
The Change in Use Review has been satisfied and the changing of an essential public facility to a
for-sale deed-restricted affordable housing unit has been found to be an appropriate use of this
property.
Section 4: 8040 Greenline Review
The 8040 Greenline Review has been completed and found to meet the criteria for an 8040
Greenline exemption. See Exhibit A for the approved site plan.
Section 5: Residential Design Standards Variances
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves variances for Residential Design Standards
listed in Section 26.410.040 D, Building Elements, (1) (a), (c) and (3) (a) for single family
residences as represented in the application.
Section 6: Engineering
The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code,
Title 21, Title 28 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering
Department. A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the
building permit application. A completed drainage report/plan as outlined in the Urban Runoff
Management Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to Building Permit issuance. This
major project is subject to the fee in lieu requirement of Section 2.12.140 of the Aspen Municipal
Code.
Section 7: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting.
Section 8: School Lands Dedication
Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land
dedication pursuant to Chapter 26.620, School Lands Dedication. The amount of the fee shall be
2
P8
Section 9: Impact Fees
Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development
fee and a TDM/Air Quality fee pursuant to Chapter 26.610, Impact Fees. The amount of the fees
shall be calculated by the Community Development Department using the calculation method
and fee schedule in effect at the time the Applicant submits a Building Permit.
Section 10:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 11:Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan and a
vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the
Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said
property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any
approved amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for three
(3) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set
forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted
or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as
specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result
in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within
the meaning of Section 26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site-
specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of this Resolution, the City Clerk shall
cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of
the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested
Property Rights. Pursuant to Section 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such notice shall be
substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of
three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24,
Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described
property: 233 East Cooper Avenue, Monarch on the Park Condominiums Unit P-3,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review.
The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate
this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of
3
P9
vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development
approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than
those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 12-
This resolution 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 13:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 15th day of
May, 2012.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: LJ Erspamer, Chairman
Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A: Site plan
4
ARCHITECTS
29GREY TALGNCT.
Q ASPEN,COLORA00
E 1 StevanBuettow I
➢v y, r 444666 —I
I AFTELLEL. 1
AFTER ALL:
Nom► UHi � � � 16
t � W
11 �
I m
AU
w
5 ¢
�. � -�` _ � •> \. � � � •� � Site Plan I
z
&SOIWRVA : Eyk 6('t
P11
Exhibit A
Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA)
A. General. In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and
a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider
the following:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Staff Response: The building already exists at 480 Doolittle Drive. The proposed use is
compatible with the mix of development in the vicinity, in that it is proposed to become an
affordable housing unit, and will be within the Water Place Affordable Housing area. The
structure's change in use will not alter the existing land use, height, bulk, architecture,
landscaping, or open space, as relatively little exterior changes will occur to the building. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development.
Staff Response: The project is presently served by existing roads and public facilities. Staff finds
the criterion to be met.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development,
considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls,
avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Staff Response: The building already exists on this parcel. There will be no changes that will
affect the possibility of mudflows, rockfalls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff finds
the criterion to be met.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to
preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open
space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large.
Staff Response: There will be no change in the height and mass of the existing building that will
cause impacts to significant view planes, have adverse environmental impacts, or change the
way the area's open space, trails, and similar amenities are used Staff finds the criterion to be
met.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Response: The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan supports the development of affordable
housing. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
P12
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds
to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Response: The project will not require any expenditure of excessive public funds to provide
public facilities for the parcel or surrounding neighborhood. Public facilities such as roads and
infrastructure already serve the building. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the
slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2.
Staff Response: There are no slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) below the area of
development. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Staff Response: There are no limits to the growth of affordable housing within the City of Aspen.
Staff finds this criterion to be non-applicable.
r
P13
Exhibit B
Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Response: The proposed change in use does comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin
Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is
included in Appendix E, Department Responses. However, due to the size of the unit, which is
proposed net livable at 508.1 square feet, Staff recommends the unit be deed-restricted to a for-
sale studio, rather than a one-bedroom unit, which will affect the potential for-sale price of the
unit. Even with the allowed 20%floor area reduction due per APCHA standards, the unit does
not meet the size standards for a one-bedroom Category 3-4 unit. According to APCHA
guidelines, Category 3-4 one-bedroom units must be a minimum of 700 sf. With the 20%
allowable reduction, the unit must be a minimum size of 560 sf. However, a Category 4 or lower
studio may be a minimum of 500 sf, which this application meets. Therefore, Staff recommends
that the Applicant pursue a for-sale, deed restricted Category 4 or lower studio designation.
Staff finds the criterion to be met, with this condition.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly
built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits.
Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a
cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation
requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council
approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community
Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of
the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these
methods. (Ord. No. 6—2010, §4)
Staff Response: The proposed unit is a deed-restricted affordable housing unit, and requires no
further mitigation. Staff finds the criterion to be non-applicable.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special
Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. (Ord. No. 14—2011, §3)
P14
Staff Response: The proposed unit is entirely a one story, at grade building, which requires no
dimensional variances. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned
qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The
deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to
own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by
an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with
the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to
this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Staff Response: The proposed unit will be deed restricted as a for-sale unit and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Staff
finds the criterion to be met.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for
mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section ble to 26.470.070.4(a-d).
eceo Oe7 a• Certificate oowner ffordable
non-mitigation affordable housing g
Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. (Ord.No. 6—2010, §4)
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion to be non-applicable.
P15
Exhibit C
Change in Use. A change in use of an existing property, structure or portions of an existing
structure between the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020 (irrespective of
direction), for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and
which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section
26.470.050. No more than one (1) free-market residential unit may be created through the
change-in-use.
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet
this standard.
Staff Response: The proposal is for an affordable housing unit, and no growth management
allotments are placed on this type of development. Staff finds this criterion to be non-applicable.
2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Response: Affordable housing is an important component of the Aspen Area Community
Plan. This proposal will add a one-bedroom unit to the housing stock. Staff finds the criterion
to be met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Response: The zoning for this development is Public with a Specially Planned Area overlay,
which would require a site specific approval. Stafffinds the criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable.
Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion to be non-applicable.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated
by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A,
Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The
employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation,pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate
shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate. (Ord. No. 6—2010, §2)
P16
Staff Response: This proposal is for a voluntary affordable housing unit. No employee
mitigation is necessary in this event. Staff finds this criterion to be non-applicable.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural
or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least
thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the
finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall
be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment
of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square
Footage Conversion. (Ord.No. 6—2010, §2)
Staff Response: The proposal is for a voluntary affordable housing unit and not as mitigation for
free market residential development. Stafffinds this criterion to be non-applicable.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy
and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste
disposal, parking and road and transit services. (Ord.No. 14, 2007, §1)
Staff Response: As a one-bedroom unit, the project represents minimal additional demand on
public infrastructure. There will be no need for additional roads, fire and police protection
utilities, drainage control, solid waste disposal, or parking and road and transit services. Staff
finds the criterion to be met.
P17
Exhibit D
8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred
fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine
subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the
parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and
revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a
location acceptable to the City.
Staff Response: The parcel on which the development already exists is a flat site, suitable for this
existing development. No stabilization, revegetation, or mitigation of toxic soils is necessary.
Stafffinds the criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution.
Staff Response: The development already exists. The proposed minor changes (carport with
storage and covered front entry) are expected to have no adverse affects as they will be
constructed on the existing asphalt base, and no new disturbance is expected to occur. Staff
finds the criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in
the City.
Staff Response: The proposed change in use will have no significant adverse affect on the air
quality in the City. Stafffinds the criterion to be met.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with
the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
Staff Response: The primary building already exists and is found to be compatible with the
parcel's terrain. The proposed minor development (carport with storage and covered front
entry) is also compatible with the parcel's terrain, as it will be located on the existing flat
asphalt surface. No new roads or trails are proposed for this change in use project. Stafffinds
the criterion to be met.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural land features.
Staff Response: No grading is proposed with this application. Stafffinds the criterion to be met.
P18
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting
and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Staff Response: The structure is pre-existing roads will undergo minimal development
and grading, and open space change in use. There is no need for additional e and
preservation will not be changed by this proposal. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend
into the open character of the mountain.
Staff Response: The structure is a single story, and smaller in mass and height than the adjacent
two story affordable housing units and storage units. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
Staff Response: Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service this project.
Staff finds the criterion to be met.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be
properly maintained.
Staff Response: Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, which are
properly maintained by the City of Aspen. No additional roads or maintenance needs are
proposed for this development. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure
adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Staff Response: Adequate ingress and egress is currently available for this project for fire
protection and snow removal equipment. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan
are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. (Ord. No.
55-2000, § 7)
Staff Response: This proposal is located adjacent to a neighborhood park, the Waite/Robinson
Park, Water Place trail system, and Twin Ridge Open Space. Staff finds the criterion to be met.
P19
Exhibit E
Residential Design Standards. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section
26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is
subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other
requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or
the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the
board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a
variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall
find that the variance, if granted would:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in
which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In
evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider
the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate
neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine
if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific
constraints. (Ord. No. 52-2003, § 5; Ord. No. 20-2005, § 1)
Staff Response:
This unit is proposed within a pre-existing affordable housing SPA, and the building proposed
for the change in use is also pre-existing. The surrounding pattern of development is a
horseshoe grouping of affordable housing buildings and storage units for these buildings. As
this building was formerly used as an emergency response center for the water treatment plant, it
is situated on the southern portion of the grouping,
Due to the fact that this building already exists, there will be limited exterior development
necessary to complete the change in use. The applicant is proposing to maintain the exterior
materials and massing. The exterior changes that will occur are minor, and include the addition
of a carport with storage unit and a covered front entryway. The building as proposed will meet
the Residential Design Guidelines in the Code in all ways but one. As it exists, the building's
front fagade is perpendicular to the street. The Code requires the following:
• According to Section 26.410.040 (A) (1.) Building orientation of the Land Use
Code, the front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street.
In this instance, the existing building's front facade faces south, and Doolittle
Drive runs north/south. Therefore the front facade does not face the street. Due
to the pre-existing nature of this building, and the applicant's desire to limit the
amount of exterior renovation performed on this building, the applicant requests
a variance from this section of the Code.
P20
• According to Section 26.410.040 (D) (1.) Street oriented entrance and principal
window of the Land Use Code, the unit, as a single-family home, should have a
street oriented entrance and principal window. Due to the pre-existing nature of
the building and applicant's desire to use the building as it exists to the extent
possible, the unit will not have a street oriented entrance and principal window.
The applicant requests a variance from this section of the Code.
a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet
back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be
taller than eight(8) feet.
Staff Response: The applicant requests a variance from the
requirement of a street facing entry door.
b. A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or
group or windows face street.
Staff Response: This project requests a variance from the requirement
of a street facing principal window, and from the requirement that a
significant window or group of window face the street.
The applicant is requesting from Planning and Zoning Commission the approval of the above
residential design variances that are necessary due to the site specific constraints that are
created by the adaptive reuse of an existing building, causing it to not meet residential design
code standards that would be possible if the building were demolished and rebuilt. Staff finds the
criterion to be met for the approval for these residential design variances.
P21
April 27, 2012 THE CITY OF ASPEN
WATER DEPARTMENT
To whom it may concern;
The property located at 480 Doolittle Drive, what the Water department has referred to as the Emergency
Response Center(ERC) since it's construction,has never housed, stored, filled, spilled, cleaned up? remediated,
nor decontaminated anything having to do with any Hazardous Chemicals what so ever. I have personally
managed this facility since its construction and it was staffed as a training, staging area for emergency
responders only. Please contact me if I may be further assistance.
Charles O. Bailey
Treatment Supervisor
City of Aspen Water Dept.
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
970-920-5110
chuckb&i.aspen.co.us
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN,COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5110 • FAx 970.920.5117
Printed on Recycled Paper
P22
Date: May 9, 2012
Project: Doolittle Affordable
Housing
City of Aspen
Engineering Department DRC Comments
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project
packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
General
A compliant and accurate survey, must be submitted. We are unable to determine
(among other things) utility easements and access easements needed for the site.
Drainage:
General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan
Requirements. Staff was not able to determine whether or not the site will meet these
requirements. A full review will be completed when there is enough information to
review.
A compliant drainage plan must be submitted prior to final plat.
Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet the Drainage
Principals:
1.Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process
2.Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment.
3.Avoid unnecessary impervious area.
4.Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions.
5.Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control.
6.Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the
environment.
7.Use a treatment train approach.
8.Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained.
9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind.
Construction Management—A construction management plan must be submitted in
conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned
sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The
plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments,truck traffic,
noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution.
Fee in Lieu—This project is considered a Major project and is subject to the Fee in Lieu P23
please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code.
P24
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sara Nadolny
FROM: Cindy Christensen, APCHA Operations Manager
DATE: May 2, 2012
RE: CHEMICAL TREATMENT BUILDING REMODEL
Parcel ID No.
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to remodel a structure into a deed-restricted affordable housing
unit.
BACKGROUND: The structure was used for chlorine disaster preparedness. At no name were
harmful chemicals get in the structure. The structure has been unused for years and the remodel
would provide needed employee housing.
The cost of the remodel is to be from the fund that is supported by the City departments and not
from the 150 affordable housing development fund that is provided with taxpayer money. The City
plans to utilize the remodeled structure for a City employee similar to the Water Place housing
project. Although the application is proposing the unit be a Category 3 or Category 4 ownership
unit, it has been the City's objective to provide housing for any City employee. The unit is
proposed at 572 square feet, which is a Category 1 or 2 for a one-bedroom unit stated in the
Guidelines. Water Place housing does not specify categories for any of the 22 available units. The
category is based on the employee purchasing the unit.
RECOMMENDATION: Due to the fact that one-bedroom units are the most sought-after type of
unit, based on the location of the proposed affordable housing unit, and in conjunction with the
funding of the remodel through the City of Aspen employee fund, APCHA staff is recommending
approval of the remodel, as it provides an additional affordable housing unit into the program. The
deed restriction should be similar to the Water Place housing project.
1
P25
Memorandum
Date: April 30, 2012
To: Sara Nadolny
From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department
Re: DRC comments for 500 Doolittle Drive Housing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per City Code 13.20 an approved tree permit is required for the removal of any tree or the
excavation under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be
approved prior to approval of building permits. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash
in lieu or on site per City Code 13.20.
A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or
groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines.A formal plan
indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No
excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment,foot
or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site.This fence must
be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction
activities are to commence. As referenced in Chapter 13.20
� �.
IM � n .
r
�_
��
.�. �� �„
,`+ems ,` -•r',•;.
,. r`
k'f..
t T 41/
.., .,.
�P,_ in.
�=i�
...' r,=y � I
.l
... _. �.
.. t
er' _..._ _ _ _ -. ..
�'
1
���!
��
',y. �
.P
. M
; G �
� �.� 4
b..�..� �7ik'•��
f�!�[�
, i
.. � � ��
�. J
�.�� it 's
e_y 111 � e7 `�rtiq.
: , .
,� �
��
� -
�;; � - �,,
� .� � �� ��
y " _�, `
r.�,
'�,.� �'
� ti F7 �`
c
., �'� �
� �`_ n
R
j
yy �
Z .dam•AN
w
f d
p.
y
M
- a ,
a�
482691
II Page: 8 of 22
II
IIII
I
III
I
II
I
III
I
I
II 05/14/2003 11:46A
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 311.00 D 0.00
-------------
Minimum percent open SP ace No re uirement
Maximum height 35 feet measured from existing grade depicted on Final PUD
Plans with the following noted exceptions:
Elevator enclosures and roof access hatches may extend up to
5 feet above 35 feet if they are at least ten feet back from the
main building face.
Chimneys, exhaust flues, etc. may extend up to 10 feet above
35 feet if they are at least 10 feet back from the main building
face.
Skylights, solar panels, water towers and mechanical
equipment may extend up to 5'above 35' if they are at least 10
feet back from the main building face.
Stair enclosures required by code to access roofs may extend
up to 10 feet above 35 feet if they are at least10 feet back from
the main building face.
Trash access area As shown on Final PUD Plans
Minimum off-street parking spaces
(allocated by use, includes spaces
designated for loading):
SCI and NC commercial uses 1.5 spaces/1 000 s uare feet net leasable=60
Medical Offices 3 spaces/1000 square feet net leasable=27
Affordable Residential 1 per unit=21
Free-Market Residential - , 1 per unit=21
City of Aspen 20 spaces
Extra(unallocated) 36 +/- 5 spaces according to final design of
parking garage as depicted on Final PUD
Plans. Also see Section#4
Total Gross Enclosed Square Footage Not to exceed 265,000 square feet.
(includes all parking, storage, mechanical,
commercial,residential,circulations,etc.):
Service Commercial Industrial Net Minimum of 38,977 square feet.
Leasable Square , Footage (includes
nonconforming and conditional uses
Neighborhood Commercial Net Leasable Not to exceed 900 square feet.
Square Footage:
Medical Office Net Leasable Square Not to exceed 9,000 square feet plus 5%.
Footage:
Affordable Residential Units 21
Affordable Residential Bedrooms 25 minimum to 42 maximum.
Affordable Residential Square Footage 14,950 square feet, which may be increased
(measured as net livable) by 10%. Plus associated garage-level storage
and decks as shown on the Final PUD Plans.
Free-Market Residential Units 21
Free-Market Residential Bedrooms Not to exceed 70.
Free-Market Residential Square Footage Not to exceed 57,750 square feet. Plus
(measured as net livable) associated garage-level storage and decks as
shown on the Final PUD Plans
c
Ordinance No. 18,
Series of 2003. Page 8
482691
IPage: 7 of 22
05/14/2003 11:46A
SILVIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 111.00 D 0.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCI,L, OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO as follows:
The Obermeyer Place COWOP Project is hereby granted a development order for a site
specific development plan and granted all necessary land use approvals including Final
approval of a COWOP Land Use Review,Rezoning of Rio Crrande Subdivision tots 6,7,
8, and 9 to the Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) Zone District, Rezoning of all lands
within the Project to a Planned Unit bevelopinent (PUD) Overlay and a Specially
Planned Area (SPA) Overlay, Final PUD'.P an and Final SPA Plan approval, In use
code Text Amendment, Replacement of Multi-Family I Housing, Temporary Use,
replacement of Nonconforming Uses, replacement of Conditional Uses, Subdivision,
Condominiumization, Stream Margin Review, Residential Design Review,Final Growth
Management approval for exemption, Vested Rights, and vacation of right-of way subject
to conditions of approval as described herein.
Section 1:Rezoning
The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, upon filing of the
Subdivision plat and Final PUD Plans, amended by the Community Development
Director to reflect the following property as included in the Service Commercial
Industrial(SCI)Zone District,to reflect a Planned Unit Development(PUD)Overlay,and
to reflect a Specially Planned Area(SPA)Overlay on all portions of said land:
Gignoux-Lynch Subdivision Lots 1 and 2; Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 20, East
Aspen Addition; Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 Rio Grande Subdivision, a tract of land
identified as Parcel No. 2737.073:00.040 according to the Pitkin County Assessor
and known as 600 East Bleeker Street, a tract of land identified as Parcel No.
2737.073.00.041 according to the Pitkin County Assessor and known as 530 East
Bleeker Street, and all portions of East Bleeker Street right-of-way vacated
between Spring Street and Rio Grande Place described and depicted on the Final
Subdivision/Vacation plat of the Obermeyer Place Subdivision.
Section 2:Vacation of East Bleeker Street
East Bleeker Street right-of-way b6t�veen Spring Street to the east and"sheriff's alley"to
the west shall be and is hereby vacated and the fee simple ownership of the lands
underlying such vacated rights-of-way shall be and are hereby combined with and
incorporated into the respective adjacent parcels as depicted and described on the
Obermeyer Place Subdivision/Vacation plat.
Section 3: Approved Proiect Dimensions
The following approved` dimensions of the vroiect shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans:
Minimum Lot Size
Minimum lot width
Minimum front yard As represented on the Final PUD Plans
Minimum side yard
Minimum rear yard
Maximum site coverage j
Minimum distance between buildings j
Ordinance No. 18,
Series of 2003. Page 7
37 -o� ., _aoo -040
Fo_Ea �,4* Pom Roo Wml Tab > a
�. .; ........
_. _._ ...._.._ ..,,
p
nF?maI(pp� sls ?s�Lsediis,__
1101 F010.1;�RL
Y
ph sPth! ROLI 4 tl1F.,
Femmf in`�^aU�
q' Pdasz w� 22:1
Frond S2M psnaag pm .
m ztp All lF ROFER;fYER Cfd LzUhl 2;'@11 UN3UAE i�t
�esed Find{ �
Su 1�d ISCOT UNDE1,S-UDO S P(4'28 tla _uf EsP es c291�
tas a x��tl Y Hr a x:65 Ht R, '071 RIO rtd9 PL
.:924 nodes 4ecEh!MIN
i
P�n�isa�isanf? Cor�Aedo�isapplimoli
a4 e sT{tG6nk H rT5 Fe�naw', 9 RI , DE PL
r
1>T �
.;9M42E iui a.32 --AMP
LeraJer
P^n x' fi2drn L�
li
f
E
=f
area
j
i'
— 4eaGol flsep+ei)Tge�s
THE CITY of ASPEN
Land Use Application
Determination of Completeness
Date: January 16, 2012
Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant,
We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number
and name assigned to this property is 0001.2013.ASLU — PUD Amendment. The planner
assigned to this case is Sara Nadolny.
Cl Your Land Use Application is incomplete:
Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing
your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed
above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the
land use application.
Your Land Use Application is complete:
If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete
to begin the land use review process.
Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by
the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any
questions.
T You,
Jennifer P el n, Deputy Director.
City of Aspen, Community Development Department
For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications:
Mineral Rights Notice Required New SPA New PUD
Yes No Subdivision, SPA,or PUD(creating more than 1 additional
7- lot)
GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing
Yes No Commercial E.P.F.