HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.814 W Main St.A051-03
CASE NUMBER
PARCELID#
CASE NAME
PROJECT ADDRESS
PLANNER
CASE TYPE
OWNER/APPLICANT
REPRESENTATIVE
DATE OF FINAL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
PZ ACTION
ADMIN ACTION
BOA ACTION
DATE CLOSED
BY
A051-03
2737 -182-02-002
Top of Mill/Bavarian PUD Amendment
814 W Main/821 W Bleeker
James Lindt
PUD Amendment
Four Peaks Development
same
12/08/03
ORD 57-03
APPROVED W/COND
12/10/03
D DRISCOLL
June 17, 2003
Mr. John Galambos, President
Galambos Architects, Inc.
300 AABC Unit D
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear John:
I am responding to your two (2) letters dated June 5, 2003, regarding two different Four
Peaks Development projects in which you are involved and to which you are seeking
minor architectural changes. These projects are the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD,
specifically Parcel 2, known as the Top of Mill Affordable Housing; and the Bavarian Inn
Affordable Housing PUD, specifically the South, West and North buildings. I will
address the projects separately below.
r+ r
Regarding the Aspen Mountain PUD, Top of Mill Affordable Housing project, you are
seeking to change the roof pitch from 16:12 for the four principle gables on the project to
12:12. This change would lower the overall height of the structure and does not
compromise or deviate in any significant way from the approved architecture for this
project. I find this change to be insubstantial in nature, in keeping with the PUD
standards and intent of the original PUD and is hereby approved administratively.
Regarding the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing PUD, you are seeking to make minor
changes to the exterior siding design on Buildings S, W and N. The project was granted
Insubstantial PUD Amendment approval by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
for minor architectural design changes via Resolution No. 33, Series of 2002. 1 have
reviewed the approved architecture for the development and find the now proposed
amendments to be insubstantial in nature and still in keeping with the approved plans.
The changes, including milder color choices, will allow for a more simplified exterior
design that still fulfills the intent of the original PUD and is compatible with the
neighborhood.
This letter shall serve as confirmation from the Community Development Department
that the requested amendments as put forth in your letters dated June 5, 2003 (attached)
are approved. All other conditions and requirements of the original PUD approval will
remain in full force and effect.
I hope this satisfactorily addresses your request. Please let me know if I can be of further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Joy A. Allgaier
Deputy Director of Community Development
:, vt&; f;o qS
~
f'
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
of the
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section
26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights",
of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific
development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein.
The effective date of this Order shan also be the initia.tioI?-dateofa.Jhree-year vested
property right. The vested property right shall expire' on the day after the third
anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved
pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a
revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26..308.010. After Expiration of
vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and, ~ffect, excluding any
growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject
to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date ofthis Order.
This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific
development plan as described below.
Four Peaks Development, 1000 S. Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611
Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number
Parcel 2, Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD and Bavarian Subdivision/PUD
Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property ..
Approval of a PUD Amendment and GMQS Amendment to swap Employee Housing Unit
Categories '
Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan
City Council Ordinance No. 57, Series 0[2003, December 8, 2003
Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions)
December 20, 2003
Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date ofpublicationofll()tice ofappr()val)
December 21,2006
Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration
and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code.)
Issued this 20th day of December, 2003, by the City of Aspen Community
D velopment Director.
J ie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Vl\tc..
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
A PPAOUE~
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council ~ S - 0
Julie Ann Woods, Commu~ity Development Direct~
James Lindt, Planner ~L-- - I
Bavarian Inn and Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD Amendment and
GMQS Amendment- 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 57, Series of 2003
December 8, 2003
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
REQUEST:
CURRENT ZONING:
The Applicant is requesting a pun Amendment to amend the
categories that were assigned to the Bavarian Inn and Top of Mill (Lot
3, Aspen Mountain PUn) Affordable Housing Units.
Bavarian - R/MF pun
Top of Mill- L/TR pun
pun and GMQS Amendments for both development projects.
LAND USE
REQUESTS:
STAFF
RECOMMENDA TION:
Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed request.
P&Z
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission, recommends approval of the
proposed request.
BACKGROUND:
The Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Project was approved as employee housing
mitigation for the redevelopment of Lot 5, of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The Bavarian
Inn was approved to contain nineteen (19) units of for-sale affordable housing.
Additionally, four (4) units of affordable housing were approved to be constructed on
Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill Development on South Galena Street. As part of both the
Top of Mill and the Bavarian Inn approvals, it was required that the mix of affordable
housing units in each development maintain an average of a Category 2 maximum sale
price and that the majority of the units would be sold and distributed through the general
housing lottery. However, the land use approvals allowed for several of the affordable
housing units to be occupied by employees of the developer's choice.
LAND USE ACTIONS REQUESTED:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a PUD Amendment and a GMQS Amendment to
allow for 1) two of the units within the Bavarian Inn affordable housing project to swap
affordable housing categories, and 2) for another of the Bavarian Inn units to swap
affordable housing categories with one of the units located on Parcel 2 of the Top of Mill
Development.
- I -
Review of the proposed GMQS amendment requires that CityCouncil review the swap
of affordable housing categories after considering a recommendation from the Housing
Board. The PUD amendment requires that City Council review the proposed request
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Community Development Director.
STAFF COMMENTS:
In reviewing the first request made by the Applicant to swap the unit categories between
affordable units within the Bavarian Inn development, staff believes that the request is
acceptable in that the development will still have the same mix of categories in
comparison with what was originally approved. Additionally, both units that are to be
affected by the proposed swap contain two (2) bedrooms each. Therefore, this request
would not alter the number of bedrooms in each affordable housing category within the
development., Moreover, the Housing Board has reviewed this request and recommended
that City Council approve the swap.
Similarly, in reviewing the second request made by the Applicant to swap the unit
categories between one ofthe Category 2 units at the Top of Mill and one of the Category
4 units within the Bavarian Inn project, the Housing Board felt that that the units would
still contribute to the overall goal of housing the community's workforce in the upper-
valley. And therefore, the Housing Board has recommended that City Council approve
the proposed request. Conversely, the Planning Staff is somewhat concerned that the
Applicant would like to raise the category of the Top of Mill unit, thereby allowing for a
person with a higher income to live at the base of Aspen Mountain in place of a person
with a lower income. To some, this may appear to be a more desirable location and that
the application would negate, if approved, the opportunity for a lower income person to
have this "luxury". 'However, the Planning Staff does concur with the Housing Board
that the request will not alter either development's ability to house a portion of the
Community's workforce in the upper-valley. Both units would still remain deed
restricted affordable housing units that would be sold to a qualified employee pursuant to
the Affordable Housing Guidelines. Moreover, there is not a change proposed in the
number of bedrooms or sizes of the subject units.
ST AFF RECOMMENDA nON:
Staff believes that the proposed amendments are primarily housing policy decisions.
That being the case, the Aspen/Pitkin County HousiIlg Board has reviewed the
proposal and recommended that City Council approve the requested amendments
finding that the affordable housing units and the number of bedrooms within the
affordable housing units are not being altered as part of the application.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that City Council approve the
proposed requests finding that the overall goal of providing affordable housing as
mitigation for the associated free market developments is still met by the Bavarian
and Top of Mill projects after the proposed category swap.
- 2 -
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 57, Series of 2003, approving a PUD Amendment and
a GMQS Amendment to allow for the swap of affordable housing category designations
between the Bavarian and Top of Mill Planned Unit Developments."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - REVIEW CRITERIA ANDST AFF FINDINGS
EXHIBIT B - ApPLICATION
EXHIBIT C - Top OF MILL pun ApPROVAL ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT n - BAVARIAN INN pun ApPROVAL ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT E - HOUSING BOARD COMMENTS
EXHIBIT F - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
EXHIBIT G - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
- 3 -
EXHIBIT A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
SECTION 26.445.050, REVIEW STANDARDS: pun AMENDMENT
Section 26.445.050 of the Regulations provides that development applications for a PUD
amendment must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen Area
Community Plan. In the original approvals for the Bavarian Inn and the Top of Mill
PUDs, it was found that the affordable housing proposed in each of the respective
developments was consistent with the AACP. That being the case, staff feels that the
request will not alter either development's ability to house a portion of the Community's
workforce in the upper-valley. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The proposal is not requesting a change in the approved land uses for either of the
developments. Staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to application.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development
of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area in any way. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development has either be.en granted GMQS allotments, is
exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate, the
proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final
PUD development plan review.
Staff Finding .'
The Applicant has already obtained GMQS exemptions for all of the units that are subject
to this application. 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. The dimensional requirements of the underlying
- 4 -
~
zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensionsfor
the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility
with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future
land uses in the surrounding area.
b) Natural and man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and
the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian
circulation, parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding
This application does not propose to change the physical characteristics of either
development in anyway. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity
of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of
the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
This application does not propose to amend the dimensional requirements that were
approved for either of the developments. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to
this application.
3, The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations: '
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
This application does not propose to amend the off-street parking requirements that were
established for the respective developments. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable to this application.
- 5 -
1""',
4. The maximum allowable density within a pun 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.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal,
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding ,
This application does not request a reduction in the maximum allowable density of either
development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 {f:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water
pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding
This application is not requesting a reduction in the maximum allowable density of either
development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there
exists a sign{ficant community goal to be achie~ed through such increase
and the development pattern is compatible with its surrou1l;ding
development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically,
the maximum density ofa PUD may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteris.fics of the site, as identified
in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those
characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in.a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics.
- 6 -
Staff Finding
This application is not requesting an increase in the maximum allowable density of either
development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
B. Site Design:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD l!nhances 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.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved site plan of either development. Therefore,
staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve sign~ficant open
spaces and vistas.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved' elevations or placement of structures.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved placement or orientation of the structures
within either development. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this
application.
4, Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency
and service vehicle access.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the on-site location of structures within either
development. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved floor plans within either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
- 7 -
r'\
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical
and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding
properties.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved site drainage or the location of the structures
within either development. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this
application.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
de-signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the
use.
Staff Finding .
This application does not alter the approved location of the structures within either
development. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
C. 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 thesub.ieci property. The proposed
development shall comply with thefollowing:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces,
preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity
and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved landscaping plan for either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved landscaping plan for either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved landscaping plan for either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
- 8 -
r;
D. Architectural Character:
It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety,
character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City
while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based
upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's
use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public
spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may
significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall
be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character
plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The
proposed architecture of the development shall:
1. be compatible with or enhance the visual,. character of the city,
appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property,
represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and
respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved elevations of either development. Therefore,
staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved construction methods utilized in building
either development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3, Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an
appropriate manner that does not require significimt maintenance.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved architectural elevations or the method in
which the shielding of snow is to occur. Additionally, this application does not alter the
snow storage location that was set out in the respective PUDs. Staff finds this criterion
not to be applicable to this application.
E. Lighting:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous
interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site
features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding
Both developments are required to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code as is set forth in
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
- 9 -
2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting
Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD
documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and
lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for
residential development.
Staff Finding
Both developments are required to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code as is set forth in
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Staff finds this criterion to be
III et.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved amount, location, or design of the approved
open space. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the method in which the common park and recreation
areas in each development are owned and maintained. Staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable to this application.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and
shared facilities together with a deed restriction againstIuture residential,
commercial, or industrial development.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the method in which the common park and recreation
areas in each development are owned and maintained. Staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable to this application.
- 10-
H. Utilities and Public Facilities:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any
undue burden on the City's, infrastructure capabilities and that the public does
not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public
facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that sufficient public infrastructure exists to a.mend the ' respective PUDs as
requested in that there is no additional development proposed by this application.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding
This application will not require public infrastructure improvements and will not have
adverse impacts on the public infrastructure of either development. Staff finds this
criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding
This application is not proposing to install nor is being required to install oversized
utilities to swap housing categories. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this
application.
L Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD
applications): .
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible,
does not unduly burden the surrounding ,road network, provides adequate
pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security
gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the
following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access
to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved access within either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the
- 11 -
proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the approved parking arrangement within either 'of the
developments would need to be amended due to the request to swap affordable housing
categories between units because the use of the units is not changing. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan.
The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not
create an unnecessary burden on the public or surroUllding property owners
and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately, Ifphasing of the
development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adoptedfinal
PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a
complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent
practical, occupants of initial ph ases from the construction of later phases.
3. 'The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu,
construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD,
construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation
measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts
associated with the phase.
Staff Finding
Construction of the subject units is nearing completion. This application is not proposing
to amend the approved phasing foJ:' either of the respective developments. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
- 12 -
~
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO GMQS DEVELOPMENT ORDER
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
SECTION 26.470.110, REVIEW STANDARDS: GMQS AMENDMENT
Section 26.470.110 of the Regulations provides that development applications for a
GMQS amendment must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. Exception. The following activities shall be exempt from these amendment
procedures, provided they are reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director prior to construction, except as allowed for during actual
development under (2), below:
1. Any change required to be made to a development order to respond to
conditions imposed upon the proposed development by the Growth Management
Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or the City Council during the
review of other development applications relevant to the proposed development;
and,
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the general affordable housing use of the units subject to this
application will not change. Moreover, staff feels that the affordable housing units that
are subject to this proposal will still contribute the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)
goal of housing the Community's workforce in the upper valley. Thus, staff believes that
the proposed request is consistent with the representations made by the Applicant during
the original review of the respective planned unit developments. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
2. Any insubstantial modification to the development order, which shall
be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual
development that could not reasonably be anticipated during the review process, or
any other minor change that the Community Development Director finds has no
effect on the conditions and representations made during the original project
review.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed request is a minor change to the approved Top of Mill
and Bavarian PUDs in that the affordable housing use of the units subject to this
amendment will not change. ' Staff finds this criterion to be met.
- 13 -
ilty
~{J ,
OJ
k:e.ce,; V~ "t[ 7.A {o 3..w. .. P59
..' 'Exh;[D;f \)JE/I
Four Peaks .Development
1000 South Mill St.
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-2114
, '
July 24, 2003
'City of Aspen ..' "
Depart!i:J.ent of CommUnity Development, c/o Joyce Allgiet
530 R Main Street, 3rd Floof '
, Aspen, CO 81611 .
Dear J ()y~e:
." ." .
'" . .
. .r am writing to request to swap some category designations betWeen units in the 'Bavarian
Inn and Top of Mill-affordabkhoti.smg projects. This has noimpad to the bottom line, , .
nb.mber ofbedrooins, FTE's or any othet quantifiable critena.We ate askiilg fOt this simply
td help us place potential designated buyets in units that they both desire and fot which they
qualify: ' '" . .
, , ,
The foll()Wll table' Surtmlarize'S om n~" uest_
.\~ .' .
" Bavarian and Toppf Mill, AH
Proposed C~ tego:ry Changes
", "
:, ,
PUD ':'.
Beds Bath
,..
3
,3
Current'
;'pun
.&PCBA'
C~tegory
,<.,;' 4,.,.:.-
;,) 2 '/
", ~"
New
New
'tiir~ent 'Proposed
. MaX sales Max sales
,200.3. 2M3
. APC'HA APGHA
.~~:J33,500:$, 133,500
$' ,271,200$ .. 271,200
\, .
::".."
......
..
2 "
2
2
3
3
2
$ 108,700 $. 159,900
$ . 159,900$ 108,700
$' ,,673,300 $ 673,306
AI).CBA staff s1iPphrtecl tll(~ request ~Iid the APCHA Bo~i:d voted unanUrlously to appro.ve
the requ.~st o~ July) 6, 2003.' Pet YOut :request, attached ate plans sho'Wing the unit locations
'm ~ach project."" ", ".', ',' ' '. ' " ,." "
.~yoU""."".,.:,.
. ., .. .
~... .....'",".,',,','/,.;:,,:.
. -.' -- ,",.'.
---
Scott Writer '
F ou.! PeakS
-r
'OJl' .
c
'OJ
- ;:I
o
;:c'
Q)
:a
'~ cO
~ "00'" -
a e
= ~ ~
<t" ."
c
.C
-
C
cO
.c'
cO
'>
'cO
co,
,,).
p..
P60
n
'15
'LS H:U
~()
---r~----.'-'-~---,- ._.;.....~
. \ '
:;,
'"
i J
r ;;
',; ....l
!~
.l1ill... .
. ~~/~....."".. ...
~
~
~
J
.Gi
,~
""
~'
'i@
......"".
- ~-~
i..:j-_..,t
It ____.. -+
_J \{\,
. i
11 I
k
\()
i.,
v' .
~~ .
3
/"
. u/
j.
;r.
~__l
._-.:..._~--
...-.__..-'-_....:.----_._-'-_._-~.;..~
.1'
':'.'.:,"." ;',_.
.5
'~
", ,1.."" ,- - ,r- ",.'
. ~. .
,.'
'". :'.
',' .
eJ
'~
for ---- . .
,/
/
c,
o ""',
-~ J"
'~-L__.~_.
~
Ul
~
"1
'. ~.
!
I
, ,
~g
~.~
',LS HlH
'.IS RIB
,/, .'
'OJ)
c=
"(jj
;:l
o
::c
<il
:a
cC
''''0
....
o
,c...
c...
~
'-
. .~,
P61
8EThP
I ' Y
I
'~
G' C$>
I ,6-,6; i
88
I L
, ; ~
:::::
~
4..i
o
Oi
o
E-;
':'
~
:< '
\--
Z
:::::,
G
D-,fl
8
P62
11lI11II1~,I: Ell I 1111 11I1 111111 ~~;~~~~~ L~
SILVHl DI'WIS PIiKIN COUNTY CO R 35.00 D 0.00
~ ~ j'b,\f ~t y.
ORDINANCE No, 7
SERIES OF 2002
AN ORDIN~4J~CE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE FINAL
PL4J'I"NED TJNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION INCLUDING'
SUBDIVISION, CONDOMINIUMIZATION,MOUNTAlN VIEW PLAJ'I"E,
SPECIAL REVIEW, GROWTH :M....;NAGEl\1ENT QUOTA EXEMPTIONS
(GMQS), 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, AND REZONING FOR THE TOP OF
, 'MiLL SITE TO LODGE / TOURIST RESIDENTL4L PUD AND , '
CONSERVATION, LOT 3 OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION / PUD,
. CITY A1~1:> TO\VNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-182-85-003
. WHEREAS, the' Community Develop.tnent Departmentreteived an application
'from Top of Mill I.nyestors, LLC c/o Four Peaks DevelClpment; LLC (Applicant),
represented by Vann Associates, requesting Firial Planned Unit Development (PUD)
. approval for Lot 3 of the, Aspen Mountain Subdivision / PUD (hereinafter '~AMPUD"); "
and '
.~
'i
.\VHEREAS,Top of Mill Investors, LLC' clo Four Peaks Development, LLC
requested specific land use approvals' as part of the Final PUD, including' Final PUD
Development Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, MOli..l1taln View Plane~ Special
. Review, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning; and
. ,\y'HEREAS, Savanah Limited Partnership, o-wner at 'the time' of Lot' 3 of
. AMPUD,. received Cont.eptual PUD approval from City. Council fOri\MPUD. on
. . December 6, 1999 whicb is memoriaiized through Resolution No. 93, Series of 1999; and
. . . ,
. ".
" \VHEREAS~ Top of MiU Investors, LtC, received an Amended. Conceptual
. : Approval from City Council for Lot 3 AMPUD on May 29,2001 which is memorializ,ed
iliroughResolutionNo. 50, Series 2001; and
<.' , " . . ). " ' .' ", '.' "
' WHE~.AS, th~ Housing Office, the City Zoning Officer, the City Engineer; the
Parks ,Department, Aspen CO~lsolidated Sanita~ian District, the Enyirorunehtal Health
Department, the CitY Fire Department, the CitY' Streets Department, the City Parking
, Depaitrnent, the City Water Department, and the City Electric Department reviewed the
' development proposal for Lot 3 and provided \vritten referral comments as a. result of the
, Development Review Committee meeting; and
, WHEREAS, the Applicant appropriately applied for specific land use approvals
pursuant to the June 1996 reprint of Title 26, Land Use Reguiations,af the 1995 Aspen
Municipal Code fof the Final PUD f6rLot 3 AMPUD including Final PUD Development
Plan, Subdivis'ion, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, Grovvth
,Management Qu'ota Exemptions, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning; and .
"~'
111111 II 11I111111111 fl;lc'~~::~~;; ~ 146'
SILVIA DAVIS PITIGN COUNTY CO R 35.00 D 0.00
Section 1 , ' , .
Pursuant to this Ordinance and 'c'onsistent _ with co~d~tion no. 3 ~ of Resolution 'No. 93',
Series of 1999? the City ,Council approves the. allowable FAR for each Lot'3 parcel and
allocated as shovvn in t.l1e matrix below.
P63
:a~m~(fQ,~a"RJ~..1, ';
,/ 27,000 square feet of FAR
8,000 square feet of FAR
9,000 square' feet 6fFAR
.6,200 square feet of FAR
5,200 square feet ofF AR
5,200 square feet of FAR
6,500 square feet ofF.A...R
6,500 square feet of FAR . j
No FAR shall be allocated to this parcel.
Section 2 . ',' '. ".,., . :
.Pursuant to the procedUres and stahdards set forth in Title 26 of me Aspen Municipal
, . . . ' .. , . \
Code, the requests for the Final PUD including Final PUD Development. Plan,
S\lbdivisibn, C ondominil1mizati on, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, GMQS
Exemption, 8040. Greenline Review, and Rezoning for Lot 3 of A.M:PUD is . hereby
'appro'(ed with the f6Ilovvin.g' conditions:
'-
,
. , . .
, . ,
1. The development. shall comply with the most recent municipal engineeThJ.g practic~ .
, standards and the "Best Managemerit Practices" (BMPs) identified for water qUality ,
control reqllir~ments.' .
2.Riaai-ding:th~ concerns assbciat~cl 'with the type ofunitsQ,fth'e .fbur, (4). d~ed"restricte~ti"}
t..B1Hl~lj'~fuJ1Y"hWiis!iig;:~~L~::~~h fy~~,r:i,,'~h8'~ld It' horb'l~;fii'b 16 ,: fJ-: ~~i~'~~:ttt~~liP1g-tYP:e:::;,: ' ~,
~ ;:f recoIT]:lnen<k j4fAppljcant 'm~e~: with Housing ,Authority' .Staff to_ m'ain:tain:\'tI1-~ " ;t
- .t.::.;;;lI'",:-'\:j.~,......,...-__.... . '--~""Ib",.:.:.tl' - ~"'" _, .' " _.' . .,....;.. ~.' ~\.~ .: _'
'C' ---. e, C~tegory.2, l;lUt to price. on'e-"'ofthe three ,bedroom units b~t\yeefi Ca-'tegojy::"'! ,',', '
-::-......::~:~'..... ",""......,,.,,:,,,-..--.,..-.;. ..........'1- ~""'..""~"'~"".' ,'".', '. ~ ,_ '" --..... ..,;.... ~
'an':'\'~;ari&'t6;'pilce' the-.4~be&Q'()iiCi.lIIit15etween Category 2 and 5, and'market as <3.'
~~~~9.~:~;~'":"; ':""""-'<'",'i:i<;:,:,;:"i:,;;"U'.,;;:j)~.\e_,:,;;::",.,.." ." ',' .. ': '. ":~:'.,,.:: .. ,"- " '.' - ,c.",,'''' .c,'
r
;. ;'
. .
3. Thre~ of-the units on Pa~ceI 2 shall be distributed and sold under thegenenill?ttery'
through the Housing Office. The Applicant shall be able to choose'a buyer for brie.oftbe
~ . units. However, the buyer must be a fuIIy qualified employee under the category for the
. unit chosen by.' the applicant; i.e.; the potential buyer rnust meet income and asset'
requirements, meet rni31imum occupancy, not own any other property in the Roaring 'Fork '
Drainage System, and have worked in Pitkin County 1500 hours per year for the last fout
years.
4. .The Applicant'shalI submit Infrastructure and Removal ofFl11 Material Permits for Lot 3
AJv[PUD within 30 (30) days after recordation of all Final. PUD documents.: The.
Applicant may submit building permit applications at the Applicant's discretion, but no
sooner than the issuance of a building permit for the Bavaiian Inn affordable housing
proj ect. The Applicant shall be eligible for a Certificate of Occupancy for the free market'
P64
II II Ir', rill I II II '111111 466372 ~
. . IUlllllif I . ::;~'I;..k iLL,S'
SILVIi=I Di=lVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO 'R 35. ee De. 00
11. The Applicant shall formally establish the Top of Mill Trail across Lot 3 AMPUD. This
trail shall have a legal description, be shown on the Final Plat, and be dedicated/conveyed
to the crty of Aspen. Further, the Appl~cant shall memorialize in the. Final POO I
Subdivision Agreement for Lot 3 and associated condominium (or planned community)
, documents, the obligation by the master homeowner's association or' Applicant to
- improve the Top of Mill Trail, at such time the connection is realized,pursuant to the
Parks Department's design criteria. If the trail has not been improved to the satisfaction
'of the Parks Department withinS years of the recordation of the Final Plat for A1v1PUD
Lot 3, the master homeowner's association for Lot 3 shall make a cash payment to the
City of Aspen equaIto a sum defined by the Parks Department for the improvement of
the trail. .' .
12. Fire sprinklers and' alann systems shali be instal1ed in 'all the proposed buildings on Lot J
as required by the City of Aspen Fire Marshal. Appropria~e "booster pumps" (if required)
rather than' pressure tanks for the sprinkler system shall be used to gain the necessary
w~ter pressure as required by the City Fire Department. The owner of each parcel shall be
responsible for ensuring that any buildings constructed thereon shall comply with this
condition of approval. In addition, the Applicant shall submit a fire safety plan for the
demolition to, be. preformed by the Applicant of the existing structures and the'
construction of the proposed development of Lot 3 to the Engineering Department at the
time of building p~rmit application.
':'"
-if
. 13. The Applicant shall execute a "Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System
Agreemenf' with Aspen" Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) prior to building
" permit application. In addition, forty percent (40%) of the estimated total connection fees
;must be paid to ACSD by the applicant for service lines that ate to be stubbed .offthe
main line into the specific parcels of this deve1opm_ent.
. . ., .
.14,'.The Applicant shaH be required to show to the ACSD all service 'locations atthe station
, nur:nbers on the. final utility plans for this development prior to, building permit
, applicatio.q, Additionally, the Applicant shall indicate to the ACSD if main line
ea~ements in the RqW are to be dedicatep bY plat or by descripti6n.
.., ,. ,., . - ..
15, The Applicant shall record the approvedcondorhinium (or planned community)
, subdIvision plat for Parcels 1', 2, and' 3 of AMPUD Lot 3 ., in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of its approval by the
, Community Development DirectoL Failure on the part of the Applicant to record the plat
within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by' the Community
Development Director shall rend'er the plat invalid and a new application and approval
\.\(il1 be required: .
16. The Applicant shall record a Pt.),]) Agreement and the Final POO Plans within18CJ days
, of the finai approval by City Council with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder binding
this property to this development approval. .
17. The 'development of the free market singh.family dwellings proposed for Parcels 4 - 8 of "
.AM;PUD Lot 3 shall be subject to a site and design specific 8040 Greenline Review prior
to their development. These Par'cels shall only be required to respond to review standards
p,,, 111111 I 1111 1111 II "L ~~~n~;! ;,46'
SILVIR DRVIS PItKIN COUNTY CO R 35.00 D 0.00
. P65
Section 3
All material representations and commitments made by' the Applicant pursuant to the
, development proposal approval's as herein' awarded, whether in public hearing, or
documentation presented before the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated.in such'
plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,
, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4 _ "., . , . . .
This Ordinance shall not effect any e;osting litigatIon and ,shall not operate as an abatement
, of any idion or proceeding now pending ,under or by virtue of the ordinances- repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and COT,Lchided under such
prior ordinances:
Section 5 , ".
If ,any section, subsection, sentence, cLiuse, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any'
,reason held invalid or Unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, . such portion
shalIbe deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shaH not affect the
, validity .~f the remi;lining portions thereof
f.
Section 6, ' ., ".
A public. hearing ?n this. Ordin~ce .was held on the 11 th, day of Mar~h at 5 :00 pm in th(;
. , COllIicil' Chambers ROOID; Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days p'rior t6 which
,hearing a public notice of the' same was published iri anewspapetof general circulation '. ,
Within the City of Aspen. '
";,. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHEDa.s provided by law, by thb City
't: Cotirlcil of the City of Aspen on this 25th day of February, 2002. " - " ',' ',i: '
.,.~~t:; , .
... ,,,, .'; . _" S J" ~"
'.... u " ,": <":.., "'.
-< .
I
7.:
,
. .'. .._ :F~hJf~ s::. ~ ~.' City Clerk
. ',' '".:\~:_.;, .". '" . ",- .;.~"'.'j, . . ,', " , ' "th " ", .' . '.
::.",::/-;FIN;\LJ-.,Y, ac;iopted, passed and approved this 11 Day of March, 2.002. '.
.. r" " . , .,
" ~~f (jto'ri;:",U\l" ,/
':,,'A!te~t--., .,,"
':.,...
, ~,' \' \ \ \ I \ ~
.,~i:~:;~'\ <:) athryn~. ch, City Clerk
<'}~ff1}.<'. ";>'-":". --.
i ;'T~{SE:' A f :-
.~. : :~.Appr.ove-d..~.s- to form:
. ~va~~eY
....:..., .
~~
^
111/111I IHI IIlfll
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO
l:::::=?O'\ I }::j ,r ,'- LJ'
..,....,.../~
III1 459214 - :
Page: 1 of 8 :
10/01/2001 10:A6~
R 40_00 0 0.'00
.~}.
P66
ORDINANCE NO. 21, SERIES OF 2001
AN O.RDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCI4 OF TEE CITY OF ASPEN,
APPROVING THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMJi,NT. CPUD) FOR THE
BA V ARrAN INN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION
TO CREATE NINETEEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNJTS, REZONING TO ,
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILYWITH A PLANNED U~ITDEVELOPlY.I:ENT '
OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT, A GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM.
EXEMPTION, AND VESTED PROPERTYRlGHTS ON LOTS DTHROtJGHt
AND LOTS K THROUGH P, BLOCK 12, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO,
Parcel No, 273-5.123.08.004
WHEREAS, the' Comlminity Development Department received an application
, from Bavarian Affordable Housin'g LLC, owner, as represented by Vann Associates,
LtC, for a Final Planned Unit Development Plan, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special
Rev'jew, Gro\V1:h M;magement Quota' System Exemption and Vested PropertY Rights
approval of a for-sale, deed-restricted, residential. affotdablehousirtg development of 19 .
. units; 40bedrooms and 31 parking s'paces on two (2) parcels located between W. Main
Street; Seventh Street, Eighth Street, andW: Bleeker Street; and,
.~
.
, .
, ' . WHEREAS, the, 'applicatio'n was submitted, pursuant to Sections 26.52.080,
26_64.040,,26.84.030, 26.88_040, 26.92;030 and 26.102_040 6fthe Aspen Land Use '
Regulations (the June 1996 reprint"of Title 26 of the 1995 Aspen Municipal Code,
including all amendments thereto enacted prior to September'I5, 1998, ahd hereinafter
" , :called the"1995~spen Municipal Code") as was in ~ffec't at the time of submission of
the c?n~:~g~?-lP~'app1icati?n;and
, '." "
, WIiEREAS~' Parcel 1 of th~ SiIbj ect site is located at the southwest comer of the :"
. iI?-tersection of Seventh .street aildWest Bleeker Street, and is legally described as Lots D.
. tDJOUgh I, Block 12, and Parcel 2 of the subject site is located at the northeast corner ofN.
Eighth Street and West Main Street, and is legally described as Lots K through P, Block :
12, both of the CIty and TOwI!-site of Aspen; and
, ';,.
" "WHEREAS;' putsuant to the above-cited sections of Title 26 of the 1995 Aspen
MuriicipalCode, laIld. use applications requesting land use review for Final Planned Unit
Development; Subdivision; RezonIng; Growth Management Quota' System. (GMQS)
Exemption from the scoring and competitiqn for affordable housing development maybe
approved by the City Council ata duly noticed public hearing after'considering
recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning' arid Zoning
Commission made at <3; duly Dotlced public hearing and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Board made at a duly. noticed public hearing, and the appropriate referral
agencies; and,
"
, BavarianFinalPUD Ordinance No. 21, Series bf2001, Page 1
P67
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.100.050 of the 1995 Aspen Municipal Code,
the Housing Board made a recorrtmendation to the City Council to approve the "
affordable housing development, with conditions, and exempt the development from the
scoring and competition process of GMQS, after conducting a public hearing on March 7,
, 2001; and, .' '
'.,WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.04.100 of the 1995 Asp~TIMuriicipa.ltode;..
the Planning and Zoning Corrirnission made a' recomrtlEfndation to the, City Council'
regar~iing the application requests for Final Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Subdivision, Rezoning, arid Growth Managemimt Quota System Exemption approval
after conducting a hearing public hearing on March 6 and March 20, 2001, regarding the
proposal;. and have fomarded their recommendations thro'\,lgh Resolution No. 12; Series
of 2001, by a vote offive (5) to zerO (0); and, . "
WHE~AS, pursuant to Section 26_32 brthe 1995 Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning ahd Zoning Corrtrnissionapproved through Resol\ltion No. 12, Series of 2001, a
request for Sped-al Review to establish thirty-one (31) off-'street parking requirements for
?-ffordable housing; and,
WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District,Jhe City.
Water Department, City Engineering', Parks Department,. EnVironmental Health,
Department, the City Transportation Pla.nrter, the' Q'ity Z6rting Officer, the Roaring Fork
Transit Agency, ,the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority, and the. CorpmuTIity
'Development Department :r:eviewed the, proposal arid recommemded approV~l wit.h
coriditions;and, .
- > '
\VHEREAS,the. City Council has reviewed and considered, the development.
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, 'has
,: revi ewed ,and considered the. recommendation of the CC)I]:mnmi ty Development Director, "
Plafu1ingand Zonmg Commission,. 'Housing Board,' the applicable' refep-al' agencies; and
has taken and considered public cOri:lm;ent at a public hearing; ~d, " " '.,
'. ,
'WHEREAS, . the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or
exceeds all a.pplicable development standards and. that th~' approval of the development
proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the gDalsand elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance 'furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. '
NOvV, THEREFORE, BE IT. ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNciL OF'
, .
THE CITY OFASPEN, COLORADO as follows:
\ \U\\\ \\\1\ \\\l\\ \\\\ \\\~l \\l\ \ \\\\\\\\\ \\\1\ \~ ~l\ }:~~ ~;~.1.:. · w
SILVIA D~VIS PITKIN COUNTY CO '-,
Bavarian Final PUD Ordinance No_ 21, Series 0[2001, Page 2
, P68
1111111I 1Illtlllrm 111I II ~~~~::1:0.46'
SILVIA DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 40.00 D 0.00
Section 1:
Pursuant to. the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the 1995 Aspen
Municipal Code, the Bavarian Inn. Affordable Housing Final ,POO, Subdivision,
Rezoning, and Growth Management Quota System Exemption for the development of a
"for-sale" deed-restricted affordable housing development consisting of 19 housing units; ,
,,40 bedrooms, and 31' parking spaces ahd appurtenant improvements, all as put forth
specifically' in th~ Bavarian Affordable Hbus~ng Final PUD Application dated December
.1, 2000, prepared by vaI1ti Associates, LLC, and as amended and/or' conditioned through
th.ls Ordinance is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of approval described
hereinafter. '
SeCtion 2: .
Conditions of Approval: "
1. A Finar' PUD Plan shall be ~ecbr'ded 'wlthi'n 180 days of the final approval granted by
City Council and shall include:
a) A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer arid showing
easements, encroachment a'greernents and licenses with reception numbers for
physical impro\/ements;and location of utility'pedestals.
, ,
, ,
. ...
b)' An illustrative site plan of the proj ect showing thi proposed improvements,
. landscaping plan; utility plan, grading/drainage plan, parking layout, and the
dirn,ensiomi.lrequirements'as approved. , '
ie) ~ draWing representing -thep:rojed's architecturai character. ' '.
ct)' Within 1,80 'days after finalapptovatby' city Coun~ilahd prior to applying for a
building pe:tmit, the applicantshall record a Subdivision/PUDAgreerherit with the
PitkIn County Clerk and Recorder binding this property to this development
approval. ,.
'~
'i
\,.{.
...., . \..",
..:" .,' ,.:-
:, ~
2 "
The' dlmeTlsion~lre:quirerrients of the ,pUb shall' not be 'in excess of the
ResidentialJ1-Julti-FamilYZone, District's ,dimensional, requirements and, are
established as 'specifically putl fb,rih in the application: 'The Residential Desi~
Standardspfthe City are found to be met through the PUDproyessand no additional
approva]is required. .Theapproved set~acks are as follows: . ," .
a) A 4-foot variance in the i O-foot rear yard s~tback for the existing Bavarian Inn on
Parcel L ,. .
b} A 7- foot variance in the I O-foot rear yard setback for the proposed duplex 'on
Parcell.
c) A 2-f;ot and.4"'foot'varianc~ in the required 10-foot front yard setback of the
proposed Main Street and Eighth Str:eetmulti-family struttures,respectively, on
Parcel 2. ,
d) A 2-:-foot 'variance j~ the 5-foot side yard setback on the west side of the proposed
multi-family st:rUcture along Eighth Street on Parcel 2.
Bavarian Fin~l PUD Ordinance No. 21, Series of2001, Pa~e.3
"~
J
1111111I I'lnn Irn'lI ;~~~:::6L61
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 40.00 D 0.00
e) All buildings will have flat roofs.
i) The Nl/N2 and S I-SS' building complexes will be limited to twenty (20) feet in
height measured to the top oftheroo[
g} The W2- W5 building 'complex will be limited to twenty-five (25) feet in height
measured to the top of the roof.
3: The Applicant shall' implement the cabin relocation plan as put forth ill the
application.
4. Theexistmg Bavarian Inn structure shall be shbject to the requirements of Part VII;
Section 14, Deed Restricting Existing Dwelling Units OfA.PCAA. Existing units must,
be upgraded in accordance with the following criteria and specific provisions:
, ,
, .
a) ,The interior walls of all units mus't be freshly painted.
, , b) The interior appliances mUst be purchased within the last five years and be in
, good working condition, , '. " , , ' ,
, c) "Carpet must be less than five years bId aii.d be~n good condition and repair, or be
, .',' replaced. ,
d) The exteriorbliilding walls shallbC!. freshly painted within one year ofcledicatioJ;1: '
An alternative to painting would be the application of a new stucco skim coat to "
the exterior, subj ect f9 approval byA.PCHA , " " .
e)' A gene.rallevel of upgrade to yards and landscaping shall be provided.
:6. ,Windows, heating,' plumbing, eleCtrical systems,fiXh7res, and equipment shall be
'in good and working ordef ',' "
g) The roof must have a remaining i.lsefullife:of at 'least ten (10) years and any
necess'ary repair or replacement shall occur to -ensure the ten (10) year life span.
h) A,11 uIfits shall meet Uniform Bui1diq.g Code'minimum standards, any applicable
" housing code or, in the absence orari adequate code, llie housing code acceptable'
to the MCHA. , '., " " '
i) All units shari be approved by the MCliA and verified by a quaiified Butlding'" "
,',' Inspe9tor accepted arid approved by the A.PCHA. ,,' "','" " ," "
jY 'Applicant 'shall bear the costs and ~xpenses of any 'required upgrades' to meet the'
above standards as well as any structuraJ/engineering reports required by the
APCHA to assess thesuitabiIity for, occupa.ntyand compliance with tht:: A.P.CHA
standards ofthe proposed units.' , , ' . . ,
k) Any broken window glass shall be rc:placed., Windo:;v sills or frames in disrepair
, shall be repa.ired or replaced.
1), Any fascia, soffit and exterior woodwork shall be repaired, replaced arid repainted
" ,as necessary.. "
m) Rain gutters shall be repaired or replaced as necessary: '
n) The property grounds shall be clea.ned of debris materials, be upgraded to a grassy
'condition, and be landscaped in accordance with the Final POO plan ex'cept that '
'additional landscaping shall be installed along the 7th Street iIi the parking lot
island.
"
Bavarian final POO Ordinance No. 21, Series of2001, Page 4
P70
1111111I IIIi ;;;1 flli::1I1 II t:~~~::: ~.."
" SILVIA DAVIS i'ITION,COUI>1TY co R 40.00 D 0.00
, S.
, ' '
.' .' .
The Applicant, ot the: applicant's representative, must meet with the Housing Office
prior to listing the uillts for sale to identify the units that would arnountto 13FTE's.
These units may be used to house fully qualified employees chosen by the' applicant
for the initial sale only of the unit. Any sale after tlie initial sale of these units would
be required to be listed with 'the Housing Office and sold. under the lottery process.
The employees must qualify pursuant to APCHA Guidelines defining a "qualified
employee."
6. .A deed restriction, provided by the Hous'ing Office, shall be placed on all of.the units
prior to building permit application.
7. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the Housing Offite shall have the right to inspect
all units' for compliance. '
8. A construction managernentplan that addresses the preservation of the' existing
landscaping and vegetation on the site and within the public right-of-ways adjacent to
the subject property shall be submitted' and approved by the C~ty Forester prior to
issuance of a building permit. '
9. The landscape plan shall be amended to show'fout (4) Cottonwood trees along Main,
Streetand landscaping within the landscape island. The revised landscape plan must
be. sU1Jmitted" showing' exact. location and spaci.ng, with the official tree removal
pe:i:mitwiththe required amendments in this, approval for the proposed plantings and
approved by the City FcYrestei prior to the issuance of a building perniit.
.~
- ,";. :".<
, . '.,' " .
10'. The Main Street sidewalk design and location shall be amended fa' align the sidewalk
along the property line to anow fOr the ma:ximurn space for trees and a buffer zone
for potential future Main Street improvements. The sidewalk shall curVe around the
'12-inchcottonwoodproposed to be saved on the Main'Street frontage.,
11.AnYirtig~iibri d~sign 'proposed for installation in the public right-of-w~y must be
, ,approv.ed by the Parks Department prior to installation~d should be;, in.cluded as part '
of a right-of-way p:ermit
"'. I '.
.~ . . , :", ,. , .,....J . ,
12. T~ebuilding permit application shall include: ' ,
, , '
, -
. ' . ,
a) A copY'of the final OrdiIlaD.c~ and,-recordecl :Plannlng ,and Zoni.n.g Corri.IDission
, Resolution.' , ,
b}, Theconditions of approval printed on the cover page 'of the building perini t set
c) A Gompleted tap' pefrnit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District
. .. . . . . . .
, ' '
d) A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and documenting
required approvals noted above In Conditions No, I 0 ~d 11 from the City
Forester for mitigation of removed, trees and existing tree preservatiOn.
e) A fugitive dust control plan.
Bavarian Final pun Ordinance No. 21, Series of2001, Page 5
._~
',. .,..-~ ,.,,'.'
1111111I III bill 11111 111111 ;~:~~::1 ::~:,
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 40.00 D 0.00
" ,
, B. The building , permit plans shall' demonstrate, an adequate fire sprinkler system and
alarm system for the development as required by the Aspen Fire MarshaL"
,14. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a) The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development
, " .Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. '
b) 'AIl tap fees~ impacts fees, and building permit .fees shan he paId. Ifan alternative
agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap,andJor Parks Impact fee is finalized,
, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement
15, No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree drip lines or outside
of the approved building envelope and access envelope. .
.' .-.. .;,' ," ,
16. All coristruction veh{c1es, materials,'. and debris shall be maint~ned on-site. and not " '
within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the. Streets .'
Department.
',"
17 . the" applicant shall abide by all noise' ordInances. . Construction activIty is limifed'.to
th.e hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
, 18. The appiicant shall not track II?-ud onto City' sh-e~ts ''during'construttion~' A washed
rock or other style Thud rack must be installed durIng constructioTl.
. '
19. All uses and construction shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System
Stand,ards and "with Title 25 imd applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation
arid Prumbing Advisory Cqde) of the Aspen Muhic.lpal Code as they pertain to
'. utilities> ' , '
~.~.
.~o. The Applicabt or owner shall' mitigate any public imp~cts that this profect causes,
. . .~~fluding butn()t limited t~ utilit~ expense~ and sanit?iY s:wer and water lines.' ,.'
, 2LThe s1t~ plan shallbe amended to show the"duhipste~' (on the' ~ney)relocated from the
" westehd bfthe parking area to east end otthe parking area. !, ." '.' ' .
, 2t The Ho.~e Owner's Association Declarations, Re~trictions, and covenants shall
include a provision disaliowing qogs. Such provision in" the Declarations,'
, Restrictions and Covenants may be amended only with a vote of lOO%unanim()us
approval by the homeowners.
23, the sign plan as' described in th!:,: Final PUD application shall be amended as follows:
a) . Re.. Sign A-strike the word~ .'Affordable" from the sign,
b) Re.Sign F-add the words, "Do Not Enter". ,
c) , Install an additional Sign F at the west end of the parking court.
Bavarian Final PUD Ordinance No. 21, Series of2001, Page 6
P72
1111' 1IIIIII'II"I~ 1'1 ~l 1II1 459214
.. . 111II111 JI~ ~;;:; /~,:: :; '"
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 40.00 D 0.00
24. The Home Owner's Association is advised (not required) to set aside a special reserve
from the Home O\VIler's Association funds for the replacement of landscaping and
vegetation on' the site, including that Which was located on the site prior to
development.
S'ection 3:
The Offici~l Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, and is hereby amended by
the Community Development Director to reflect rezoning of Parcel 2, legally described
as Lots K throughP; Block 12, of the City and Townsite of Aspen, to ResidentiaJJM:ulti-
Family with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overi~y Zone District.
Section 4: " . " , ,
A waiver of the Park Development Impact Fee is hereby granted' in accordance with the
provisions of Section 26.44.060, Affordable HousingtHistoricLandmark; of the 1995
Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 5:
All material representations and ,comrnitriJents 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, Cor'nrnissi6n or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such development approvaJs and the sarneshall be complied with as
, if fully set forth herein, unless ainended by an authorized entity. '
:'1
; ".
Section 6:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
bf any 'action or proc'eeding now pending under or by virtue of th~.ordinances rep~a1ed or,
: amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.', .
"..
SectiDn 7: ,'" ,', , ' .. ' " . , ,
..If any section; subsection, sentence, Clause, phrase, or portion of thi~ Ordinance 'is for any
'reason held inValid or unconstitutional ,in 'a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
, shall be' deemed a separate" dlstmct and independent provision' and shall not affeCt the
validity ofthe rem<':l.ining portions thereof. '
iNTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBISHED as p;ovi~ed by law, by the City
Counell oftbe City of Aspen on this 25th day of June, 2001 and set for public hearing and
Second R~ad~J;l.~ on the 23rd day of July, 2001. ' . ,
~~)~.
(' , ,.'
o Co 'R'i,'\J 'U/
,.'
;:' 'f:' l...~.' ., .~.'...
Bavarian Final PUD Ordinance No. 21 ,Series of 200 l, Page 7
~
P73
FINALLY, 'adopted, passed, arid approved by a vot~ off6ur to 6ne(4 tol), this 23rd day of
July, 200L
Approved as to form:
Approved as to content:
" John
ATTEST:
~. i
, " .
, ~ ':..'
.~" .
C:;hcim~!JoytelS~vFi~aiPUDCouncO~dp "
,.! ;.'
! ..'
!. >,.,
.:-',.-
)" '
. f. . "
1111111I111I1111111111
4'59214
SILVIA DAVIS PIrKIN COUNTY CO
, Page: 8 of 8
10/01/2001 10:4q~
R ,40.00 D 0,00
K~V;1,rian Final PUD Ordinance'No. 21. Series of2001, Page 8
P74
GJu l:J} 'I ~ ~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Housing Board,
I
I
,
i
"
I'
~.~
f
0,
f i
I.:
FROM:
Ci.i1dy Christensen;, Housing Office
TERU:
, . Maureen I)obson,ExeCiJtive Director
DATE:
July 16; 2'003 '..
RE:
REQUEst TOSWAP CATEGORIES BETWEEN lJA VARIAN AND TOP OFMILL
ISSUE: Four Peaks Development is requesting that between, the two properties that, they ,are
,developing for affordable' housing -"- the Bavarian 'site between 800 W~st Main and 800 West,
Bleeker, and the Top of Mill site (behind'the old Grand Aspen) -- they 1;Vould like the ability to
switch the categories between the two properties. ' ' , , ' ' '., '
.J _.
l
f
I-
t
[,
::;j
BACKGROUND: The attached shows the breakdown of what is 'currently app~oved for both
properties and what isbeingproposed. As you can see from the attached, theamount.ofunits per
,category does not change which means that the applicant's bottom line also does not' change.
. ;.;~
~:.:~;
The developer is allowed to place a qualified employee brotheir choIce for a specific number of
.1.mits. The employees that they wollld l.ike to recognize for their serVice to their company and offer'
, ,a unit to does not Hfitll the current approval. The bottbm line does not change. The housing
"program is still getting just as many: lmitS and because they can choose the qualified hOUsehold of'
their choice, the sctmecategory-type Units that :woltld have been ill the lottery prior to this change
would_ still be' the same. ' ,
;
'.,
;
"
I. The, bottoni line remahlS the same. This means that the request has no monetary value to the
applicant. Their only "value" is recognizing the employees wl-iom they would like'to give,the
opportunity to purchase a unit.'
, ,Staff is currently checking with the City Att~rney to .see if this request, 'If appro\red by the Board,
\yould then need to be approved by the City, COlmcil. '
.,., RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recoIi1mending the, Board approve this reqt.lest due to the
fol1bwiIig~
2. The same type of categories and tmit sizes remain the same, they just change between the two'
.properties.
f"'"'\
P75
3; The ,units that they' are requesting to switch will go to qualified households of their choice. Each
qualified household not onfy has to meet :income, assets ami 'occupancy requirements, but also
the four~year priority requirement.
".:.
"
c'
, '
"
1,"
, ;j..
I"
" '
, ,
2 .
fXht'k ~t ir-:'II
RESOLUTION NO. 22
(SERIES OF 2003)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPR()VE PUD AND
GMQS AMENDMENTS TO TlIltTOP ()FMJ:LL(Ldf3~ASPENMODNTA1N
PUD) AND BAVARIAN INN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW
FOR AMENDMENTS TO TlIE APPR.OVED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CATEGORIES WITHIN BOTH DEVELOPMENTS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
ParcelID: 2737-182-02-202
Parcel ID: 2735-123-08-004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Four Peaks Development, represented by Scott Writer, requesting approval of a
PUD amendment and a GMQS amendment to the Bavarian Inn and Top of Mill Planned
Unit Developments to allow for 1) the affordable housing unit at 821 W. Bleeker to
convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 3 affordable housing
unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the former Bavarian Inn building to convert from a
Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit; and to allow
for 2) the affordable housing unit at 814 W. Main Street to convert from a Category 4
affordable housing unit to aCategory 2 affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit D,
Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill PUD to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to
a Category 4 affordable housing unit; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Housing Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 7, 2003, the J?lanning
and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing until October 21,2003; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on October 21, 2003, the Planning
and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and approved this
resolution, by a five to one (5-1) vote; recommending that City Council approve the
proposed amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
"'"
'Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section
26.445, Planned Unit Development; and Section 26.470.110, Amendment of GMQS
Development Order, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City
Council approve the proposed amendments to allow for 1) the affordable housing unit at
821 W. Bleeker to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 3
affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the former Bavarian Inn building to
convert from a Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing
unit, and to allow for 2) the affordable housing unit at 814 W. Main Street to convert
from a Category 4 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit and to
allow for Unit D, Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill POO to convert from a Category 2
affordable housing unit to a Category 4 affordable housing unit.
Section 2:
All materia.l representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, 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 21st
day of October, 2003.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Q-L#
I ~
Ci . AttOrney .
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
JtZ/t-rn~ J:<
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
ATTEST:
~,<> ..~~r/;t/borf\,&/I
ASPEN PLANNING & :'JNING COMMISSION Minm~i October 21.2003
operations of the structure were great but the one issue was still a problem for him,
Kruger agreed with the other commissioners about the appropriateness of this
location in town, the zoning was appropriate and it was not a residential
neighborhood. Knlger had reservations about the queuing but believed that people
would unload at the gondola; she said the applicant should not be penalized for the
deliveries in the neighborhood. Rowland said this project was dubious and
uncertain what was going to happen; they were not even considering some of the
growth potentials in population of Colorado as the third fastest growing st~te in the
country. Rowland gave the growth potential statistics for Pitkin, Eagle, Garfield
and Denver; he said this was a regional problem and the counties needed to get
together to alleviate the problems. Rowland asked if we were encouraging people
to bike, walk, or use public transportation; these were key ingredients to what
makes this town and valley beautiful. Tygre added the concern about the queuing
was a sticking point for many of the commissioners and queuing was not in the
applicant's control. Hoefer clarified that the applicant may go forward to Council
with the negative recommendation from P&Z.
PUBLIC HEARiNG:
TOP OF MILL BA V AIDAN/ PUD and GMQS AMENDMENTS
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Bavarian and Top of Mill PUD
and GlVIQS amendments. David Hoefer stated that the notice was sufficient to
proceed.
J ames Lindt explained this was for a PUD and GMQS amendment to the Bavarian
Inn and Top of Mill PUD; the request has the ability to swap categories. The
Bavarian Inn was to switch one unitfrom a category 3 unit to a category 2 unit and
balance that within the PUD to switch one of the duplex units to the west of the
Bavarian Inn from category 2 to a category 3 unit; there would be no loss in the
number of bedrooms or units in either of the categories. Lindt said that in the five-
plex to convert one unit from a category 4 to a category 2 unit and in order to,
balance it out they proposed the Top of MilIto take one of the category 2
affordable housing units and convert it to a category 4 unit. Staff agreed with the
housing board because no units would be lost in any category and recommended
approval of the proposed resolution. ,
Scott Writer, Four Peaks Development, stated the basis was they were allowed to
select qualified employees to put into certain units and one employee would like a
certain unit, which was a category 2 but doesn't qualify for a 2 but rather a 4 so
they would just switch with the Top of Mill units that were slightly larger with
garages. Writer said housing found it hard to fill larger 3 bedroom category 2
6
r\,..".,
ASPEN PLANNING & LONING COMMISSION
A
lVIiriut'es October 21,2003
units; there was no specific employee in mind for the Top of Mill (they get to place
one at the Top of Mill). The other 3 Top of Mill units will remain category 2.
Bendon said that the specific categories were referenced in the original PUD
ther,efore the PUD amendment must go through P&Z to City Council for housing
policy recommendations. Eric Cohen referenced Section 2 ~ 2 in the ordinance
regarding the 4-bedroom unit. Writer replied that one of 2 units was a 4-bedroom
but that was not the subject of this application. Cohen asked the number of square
feet for the category 2-bedrooms. Writer replied it was a minimum of 800.
Dylan Johns asked if they were still averaging category 2. Lindt answered that
because the PUDs were linked in terms of mitigation requirements the average
category 2 was still maintained.
Johnson asked the number of category 2s and 4s would be at the Top of Mill and
the Bavarian Inn. Lindt replied that there were 3 category 2s and 1 category 4 at
the Top of Mill and Writer and Lindt did not have the exact number for the
Bavarian Inn. ~
No public comments.
MOTI01V: Eric Cohen moved to recommend City Council approve Resolution #22,
2003 recommending City Council approve a PUD amendment and a GMQS
amendment to the Bavarian Inn and Top of Mill Planned Unit Developments to allow
for 1) the affordable housing unit at 821 W. Bleeker to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to
a Category 3 affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the former Bavarian Inn building to
convert from a Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit; and to allow for
2) the affordable housing unit at 814 W. Main Street to convert from a Category 4 affordable housing unit to
a Category 2 affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit D, Parcel?, of the Top of Mill PUD to convert
from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 4 affordable housing unit}. seconded by Dylan
Johns. Roll call vote: Johnson} no; Skadron} yes; Johns, yes,' Rowland} yes; Cohen}
yes; Tygre} yes. APPROVED 5-1.
Discussion: Cohen asked that the housing guideline information be more accessible
for the P&Z cormnission. Johnson said the AACP encolirages a mix in the
affordable housing project and he was reluctant to switch things around because of
loose interpretations from the past; he said that he could entertain support for the
Bavarian Inn switch but not the Top of Mill. Writer answered that replacement
housing as it was originally written in the code was category 2; he said that the mix
that they have is actually better and more diversified.
Tygre asked for a meeting with the Housing Board sometime in the future.
7
r'\
Aspen Community
Development
Department
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen CO 81611
(970) 920-5090
(970) 920-5439, fax
Fax
To: Scott Writer From: James Lindt
Fax: 925-1036 Pages:
Phone: Date: 12/2103
Re: Bavarian Amendment 2nd Reading CC:
". i..' ,'.., ,,', . .". ,,'
o Urgent
o For Review
o Please Comment 0 Plttastt Reply
o Please Recycle
. Comments:
Hi Scott,
Here is our Staff Memo for 2nd Reading. It will be held this Monday (December 8th) evening at around
5:20 PM or so. Please attend. Also, please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
r'\
130 S.Galena St.
Aspen CO 81611
(970) 920-5090
(970) 920-5439, fax
Fax
To: Scott Writer From: James Lindt
-
Fax: 925-1 036 Pages:
Phone: Date: 11/14/03
Re: Bavarian PUD Amendment Notice cc:
o Urgent
o For Review
o Please Comment 0 Please Reply
o Please Recycle
. Comments:
Hi Scott,
Here is the public notice for mailing to property owners within 300 ft of both the Bavarian and Top of Mill
Properties. Also, I have made up two public notice signs for posting if you would like to have someone
come in and pick them up. You need to have mailing and posting done by November 22nd. Please let
me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
James
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen CO 81611
(970) 920-5090
(970) 920-5439, fax
-----~
Fax
To: Scott Writer From: James Lindt
Fax: 925-1036 Pages:
Phone: Date: 11/4/03
Re: Bavarian Amendment 1 St Reading CC:
o Urgent
o For Review
o Please Comment 0 Please Reply
o Please Recycle
. Comments:
Hi Scott,
Here is the staff memo and ordinance for 1,st Reading of the Bavaiian' Amendment. 1st Reading will be
held this coming Monday evening at around 5 PM. ' Please be therefor first reading if you can.
Thanks,
James
~,
;y
r)
A"
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.~04.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPE~TY . ks",VQ l!; ~ lA,. IT<'?f/:; oPJ,ft'IL A'pen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: .r2/~h'~ ' ' ',200_
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
COU,!:I.!3:: of Pitliin
.'~~",,,~.~ "..":~
I, 5~ '4 t:J f-- { -k;4- ',.' . (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicatlt 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 Aspel1 Land, Use Code in the following manner:
, '
V" Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of atl 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.
V";osting a/notice: By posting of notice, which for~ 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 ofletters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (W days
p~o the public hearing and was continuously ,visible from the1./!.. day of
'. ,.~~, 2003 , to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograp~ of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
I ,
~ailing of notice. By the mailing ofa 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. mailto any federal agency, state, county, municipal government,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi-g'overnmental agency that
owns property within three hundred (300) feet ofthe 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 -!10 more thatl
sixty (60) days prior to the date 'of the public hearing. A copy of the owners 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 enactnlent of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate slli'vey 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 has been available for public
inspection in the planning agen~y during all business holli's for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
~
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this _ day
of, 200_, by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires:
Notai-y Public
A TT ACHMENTS:
COpy OF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF Tl1E POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
,,'"
.
~
.....
n
~
~
,r""'--..
,~
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDA vir OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26,304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY, '. ~\J(\V~ 0sd/lofJ ck}IC!Lpen,co
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE~~ I Zj/g/03 ' ,200_
f
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
County of Pitkin )
r-T- , .,~ ~~
!''''-..\Cl b~A f(J ~ s k~ ILl! d' .... (name, please print)
being or represt:::nting an App icant 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 Aspe:q Land Use Code in the following manner:
4Publication o/notice: By t~le 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.
_, "P~~,S/i~!{.o,~.{no,t,!ce By p9s~n,g?fnotice, which fOrn1 w~so.~~,*,e~frL the
. .IC9t.fii'rp.\i.mty 'Qevelopment Department, whIch was made of sUitable, vr
J'Ti{:~~",'~ ~.' ','. '" _:~~~"<:..,:)\..,~.~".,.-,..,, ""'_m,,,<..w.,.. ':' _ ".~._- .,,,,, _.<, ',_' " ,', _,', ',__ "'..
" ?,-ftaterproof Iuateii,als, wluch was not less than twenty-two (22) lllches wide
.'0) $fud tw~.no/-six(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
f~,~ , ,less ~~:gne iIl~t} :fn height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (,1 ?) days
\~iwrior to the pu1;>\ic;hearing and was continuously visible from the __ day of
:~:r.~(';:.:. ,,::::'?C;Ji, ,200_, to and incl~ldin~he ~ate and time of the public
hea:rthg;:~Aphotograph of the posted notzce (szgn) zs attached hereto.
~""4.,~~~~;'_,"" r
_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing ofa notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described i1JtSection
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) diys prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class pcttage
prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal governinent,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that
owns 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 ta.,'\( records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than
sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy afthe owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
i',
:...:.\:
~,
'~\
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 anaycurate 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 has been available for public
inspection in the plmming agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
The ~or\gOil~g "Affidavit Of, Notice',' was acknowledged bef~11e this~day
of ct----.j(5-.....1 . , 200--'3, by C)~ '\ ~
N that a publi
8, 2003, at a meeting to:
the Aspen City<:o~ncil;
all, 130cS.Calena St..'As="/
pJisationsub!i1itted I;>y'
~ye OPrnentrequesting approval :of a.
arilt~ndljt~ij( t.o>i)-
ing ,units \Vithln
rd"bl~h?lISing
t e appJicationrequest~
a'lle h?~s.ing categorie~
119U:8ing units Icr
"II<I~IIe:of, the Iif'
ocate ill ,tt>e Top of Mill
~ubject t? the1>r?p?~ecr c
~ally d~s.cribed .:,~foll"W's: '
,0,,(, e'AsperiM"i,nt",ht PUD"nd .
""'~A~""",~lL""ll1s.K;!.'.~,I?S~J 2. ,City and.Town~ite
2,',/ ~pen:
f.#:.f?r...~~:!_t^~~r",i.tijf>!lY~,t,~gp::~~mt~~i_:,~:~~s}:~~~dr, ~t
l?e C,ty of AspeIIc;o,nlll1unlty Qevelopment De-'
.~$o95~'j~~~J~~:i~;~0~~~'ASt'en,Cb(970) COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
s elen Kalin, Klanderud. Mayor
Aspen CityCo~ncil
nTimes on Noveml>ei 22, RAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
- \
AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
ATTACHMENTS:
4',
'i
CCCC
::s ::s ::s ::s
;:::;.:;::;: ~;::;:
~ ~ ~ ~
0000
,J:>.WI'0-'-
en en
~CCVJ
0.. 0..
o' o'
-Jt.~~N
1'0
-'-NI'001
N
-'-1'01'001
N -'- -'-
I'0NI'0W
010101
-,-..-.. 0
OCIJ...
-..J or cE'
~ g. S'
-..J (Q !!!.
::rZlXJ
o s:::
"'"
::rOo
G)::l
Q, (C
::s
(Q
CIJ
o
c
--
::l"
'-"
100,..-.. Z
\1'0 N CIJ
f-'- W or g.
I ~ ~ g. ::l"
'I OJ OJ (Q lXJ
, ro ro z 5.
1(1) (1) 0 00
/@@S:S'
..., ..., - (C
G)
o
5'
(Q
CIJ
o
c
--
::l"
(1)
OJ
en
CO
:i,1)~ ~ ~ ~ en ~
,J:>./ en 0.:> 0 N or s:::
<1, < < ;::l. r+
< ~ < < ~ -. ::l"
, ,. . . . ::s
s:l s: s;: s;: s;: <.a lXJ
~.'~. ~. ~. ~. ~ :.
::s ::s ::s ::s ::s (1) 00
!a. S'
Q(C
Q.
::s
(Q
m
III
en
--
"-'
N-'-NW
N-'-NW
WI'0W,J:>.
WI'0W,J:>.
N-'-N
1'0-..JI'0W
010101
-'- -'-
000
N,J:>.en
zzz
0.:> 0.:> 0.:>
g:s:g:
~ IW W W W
WWWW
,J:>.,J:>.,J:>.,J:>.
,J:>.,J:>.,J:>.,J:>.
WWWW
oen:Em
o.:>or~ D)
zar+Q1
0.:> i5 g:' :!.
::rZ D)
o !:: ::s
;::l.::lCIJ
_::l" (C s::
C"
C-
e:'
(jj'
o
::s
G)
o
5'
(Q
CIJ
o
c
--
.2:
Ii ~
II
I ~~
I~
o C OJ
~ ~ ~
g '< 0)
? 'D ::!.
o CD 0)
W D) :;,
::s
c-o)
0:;'
~a.
~ -I
o 0
~"C
>0
::s .....
~ S
en =
(jj' -
)>
~
o
..,
a.
0)
C"
-
CD
:J:
o
c:
en
-.
:;,
co
~
~VI'b
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Mayor and City Council
Julie Ann Woods, co~ty Development Director
James Lindt, Planner c::::lL
Bavarian Inn and Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD Amendment and
GMQS Amendment- 1 st Reading of OrdinanceNo.~ Series of 2003
November 10, 2003
DATE:
REQUEST:
The Applicant is requesting a PUD Amendment to amend the
categories that were assigned to the Bavarian Inn and Top of Mill (Lot
3, Aspen Mountain PUD) Affordable Housing Units.
Bavarian - R/MF PUD
Top of Mill- L/TR PUD
PUD and GMQS Amendments for both development projects.
CURRENT ZONING:
LAND USE
REQUESTS:
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed request.
P&Z
RECOMMENDATION:
Ihe PI~J1ning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
proposed request.
BACKGROUND:
The Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Project was approved as employee housing
mitigation for the redevelopment of Lot 5, of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The Bavarian
Inn was approved to contain nineteen (19) units of for':sale affordable housing.
Additionally, four (4) units of affordable housing were approved to be constructed on
Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill Development on South Galena Street. As part of both the
Top of Mill and the Bavarian Inn approvals, it was required that the mix of affordable
housing units in each development maintain an average of a Category 2 max,jmum sale
price and that the majority ofthe units would be sold and distributed through the general
housing lottery. However, the land use approvals allowed for several of the affordable
housing units to be occupied by employees of the developer's choice.
LAND USE ACTIONS REQUESTED:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a PUD Amendment and a GMQS Amendment to
allow for 1) two of the units within the Bavarian Inn affordable housing proj ect to swap
affordable housing categories, and 2) for another of the Bavarian Inn units to swap
affordable housing categories with one of the units located on Parcel 2 of the Top of Mill
Development.
- 1 -
r\
~
Review of the proposed GMQS amendment requires that City Council review the swap
of affordable housing categories after considering a recommendation from the Housing
Board. The PUD amendment requires that City Council review the proposed request
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Community Development Director.
STAFF COMMENTS:
In reviewing the first request made by the Applicant to swap the unit categories between
affordable units within the Bavarian Inn development, staff believes that the request is
acceptable in that the development will still have the same mix of categories in
comparison with what was originally approved. Additionally, both units that are to be
affected by the proposed swap contain two (2) bedrooms each. Therefore, this request
would not alter the number of bedrooms in each affordable housing category within the
development. Moreover, the Housing Board has reviewed thisrequest and recommended
that City Council approve the swap.
Similarly, in reviewing the second request made by the Applicant to swap the unit
categories between one of the Category 2 units at the Top of Mill and one of the Category
4 units within the Bavarian Inn project, the Housing Board felt that that the units would
still contribute to the overall goal of housing the community's workforce in the upper-
valley. And therefore, the Housing Board has recommended that City Council approve
the proposed request. Conversely, the Planning Staff is somewhat concerned that the
Applicant would like to raise the category of the Top of Mill unit, thereby allowing for a
person with a higher income to live at the base of Aspen Mountain in place of a person
with a lower income. To some, this may appear to be a more desirable location and that
the application would negate, if approved, the opportunity for a lower income person to
have this "luxury". However, the Planning Staff does concur with the Housing Board
that the request will not alter either development's ability to house a portion of the
Community's workforce in the upper-valley. Both units would still remain deed
restricted affordable housing units that would be sold to a qualified employee pursuant to
the Affordable Housing Guidelines. Moreover, there is not a change proposed in the
number of bedrooms or sizes of the subject units.
f
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that the proposed amendments are primarily housing policy decisions.
That being the case, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board has reviewed the
proposal and recommended that City Council approve the requested amendments
finding that the affordable housing units and the number of bedrooms within the
affordable housing units are not being altered as part of the application.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that City Council approve the
proposed requests finding that the overall goal of providing affordable housing as
mitigation for the associated free market developments is still met by the Bavarian
and Top of Mill projects after the proposed category swap.
- 2 -
"'"
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 51; Series of 2003, upon first reading, approving a
PUD Amendment and a GMQS Am~dment to allow for the swap of affordable housing
category designations between the Bavarian and Top of Mill Plarmed Unit Developments."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS
EXHIBIT B - ApPLICATION
EXHIBIT C - Top OF MILL PUD ApPROVAL ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT D - BAVARIAN INN PUD ApPROVAL ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT E - HOUSING BOARD COMMENTS
EXHIBIT F - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
- 3 -
r"\
ORDINANCE NO: JlJ-
(SERIES OF 2003)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVlNGPUD AND
GMQS AMENDMENTS TO THE'I'(}P(lF1\lILJ:~tj':t~;'~~~~~~2'QNI~iN'
,PUD) AND BAVARIAN INN PLANNED UNlT DEVELOpMENTS TO ALLOW
FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED AFFOIIDABLEIJ:OlJ8ING
CATEGORIES WITIllN BOTHDEVEtOPMENTS,CITYOFASPEN:PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
ParcelID: 2737-182-02-202
ParcelID: 2735-123-08-004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Four Peaks Development, represented by Scott Writer, requesting approval of a
PUD amendment and a GMQS amendment to the Bavarian Inn and Top of Mill Planned
Unit Developments to allow for 1) the affordable housing unit at 821 W. Bleeker to
convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 3 affordable housing
unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the former Bavarian Inn building to convert from a
Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit; and to allow
for 2) the affordable housing unit at814 W. Main Street to convert from a Category 4
affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit D,
Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill PUD to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to
a Category 4 affordable housing unit; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit
Development and Section 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, City Council may
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land use requests made by the applicant
during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the
general public, and recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Community Development Dire.ctor, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended approval of the proposed
, amendments; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Housing Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 21, 2003, the
Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 22, Series of2003, by a five
to one (5-1) vote, recommending that City Council approve the PUD Amendment and
GMQS Amendment to swap affordable housing categories as requested; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
~
herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Community Development Director, the AspenlPitkin County Housing
Board, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a
public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal,
with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BYTHE crty COtJNCILoF THE CITy
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section
26.445, Planned Unit Development; and Section 26.470.110, Amendment of GMQS,
Development Order, City Council hereby approves a PUD Amendment and a GMQS
Amendment to allow for 1) the affordable housing unit at 821 W. Bleeker to convert from
a Category 2 affordable housing unit tO'a Category 3 affordable housing unit and to allow
for Unit 204 in the former Bavarian Inn building to convert from a Category 3 affordable
housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit, and to allow for 2) the affordable
housing unit at 814 W. Main Street to convert from a Category 4 affordable housing unit
to a Category 2 affordable housing unit and to allow for UnitD, Parcel 2, of the Top of
Mill PUD to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 4
affordable housing unit.
Section 2:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 8th day of December, 2003, in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
r"'\
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as proVided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the lOth day of November, 2003.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by a vote of _ to _ L -~, this 8th day
of December, 2003.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
~
i"~
~.
~i"'l1
EXHIBIT A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
SECTION 26.445.050, REVIEW STANDARDS: pun AMENDMENT
Section 26.445.050 of the Regulations provides that development applications for a PUD
amendment must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen Area
Community Plan. In the original approvals for the Bavarian Inn and the Top of Mill
PUDs, it was found that the affordable housing proposed in each of the respective
developments was consistent with the AACP. That being the case, staff feels that the
request will not alter either development's ability to house a portion of the Community's
workforce in the upper-valley. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The proposal is not requesting a change in the approved land uses for either of the
developments. Staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to application.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development
of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area in any way. 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 Finding
The Applicant has already obtained GMQS exemptions for all of the units that are subject
to this application. 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. The dimensional requirements of the underlying
- 4 -
~
zone district shall be used as a guide in determininl{ 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.
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with thefollowing influences on the property:
a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future
land uses in the surrounding area.
b) Natural and man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and
the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian.
circulation, parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding
This application does not propose to change the physical characteristics of either
development in anyway. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity
of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of
the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
This application does not propose to amend the dimensional requirements that were
approved for either of the developments. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to
this application.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by tho~e using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed
c) The availability of public transit and other transportationfacilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
This application does not propose to amend the off-street parking requirements that were
established for the respective developments. . Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable to this application.
- 5 -
~
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced ~f there
exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reducedif..
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal,
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding
This application does not request a reduction in the maximum allowable density of either
development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced ~f there
exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the
maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water
pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, Or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to critical naturalfeatures of the site.
Staff Finding
This application is not requesting a reduction in the maximum allowable density of either
. development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased ~f there
exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase
and the development pattern is compatible with. its surrounding
development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically,
. the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified
in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those
characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics.
- 6 -
f"""
Staff Finding
This application is not requesting an increase in the maximum allowable density of either
development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
B. Site Design:
Thepurpose 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.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved site plan of either development. Therefore,
staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open
spaces and vistas.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved elevations or placement of structures.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved placement or orientation of the structures
within either development. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this
application.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency
and service vehicle access.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the on-site location of structures within either
development. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved floor plans within either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
- 7 -
~
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical
and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding
properties.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved site drainage or the location of the structures
within either development. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this
application.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
de-signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the
use.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved location of the structures within either
development. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this. application.
C. 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 designed treatment of exterior spaces,
preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity
and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved landscaping plan for either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved landscaping plan for either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter. the approved landscaping plan for either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
- 8 -
~
D. Architectural Character:
It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety,
character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City
while promoting efficient use. of resources. Architectural character is based
upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, lel{ibility of the building's
use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public
spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may
significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall
be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character
plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The
proposed architecture of the development shall:
1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city,
. appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property,
represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and
respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved elevations of either development. Therefore,
staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved construction methods utilized in building
either development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved architectural elevations or the method in
which the shielding of snow is to occur. Additionally, this application does not alter the
snow storage location that was set out in the respective PUDs. Staff finds this criterion
not to be applicable to this application.
E. Lighting:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considerinl{ both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns. Thefollowing standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous
interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site
features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding
Both developments are required to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code as is set forth in
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
- 9 -
~
f/ ,f~
2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting
Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD
documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and
lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for
residential development.
Staff Finding
Both developments are required to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code as is set forth in
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
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 limd uses
and property users of the PUD.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved amount, location, or design of the approved
open space. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park anti recreation areas
is deeded in perpetuity (not for a nu111ber of years) to each lot or dwelling
unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the method in which the common park and recreation
areas in each development are owned and maintained. Staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable to this application.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and
shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential,
commercial, or industrial development.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the method in which the common park and recreation
areas in each development are owned and maintained. Staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable to this application.
- 10 -
~
H. Utilities and Public Facilities:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any
undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does
not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public
facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that sufficient public infrastructure exists to amend the respective PUDs as
requested in that there is no additional development proposed by this application.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding
This application will not require public infrastructure improvements and will not have
adverse impacts on the public infrastructure of either development. Staff finds this
criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding
This application is not proposing to install nor is being required to install oversized
utilities to swap housing categories. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this
application.
L Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to MinorPUD
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, structllre, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access
to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to pllblic or private llse.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved access within either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads sl1rrounding the
- 11 -
proposed development, or such sl1rrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that. the approved parking arrangement within either of the
developments would need to be amended due to the request to swap affordable housing
categories between units because the use of the units is not changing. Staff finds. this
criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan.
The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not
create an llnnecessary bllrden on the pllblic or sl1rrounding 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 phasingplan shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, inclllding the initial phase, shall be designed to fllnction as a
complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas inslllating, to the extent
practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-liell,
constmction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD,
construction of any reqllired affordable housing, and any mitigation
measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts
associated with the phase.
Staff Finding
Construction of the subject units is nearing completion. This application is not proposing
to amend the approved phasing for either of the respective developments. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
- 12 -
'"
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO GMQS DEVELOPMENT ORDER
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
SECTION 26.470.110, REVIEW STANDARDS: GMQS AMENDMENT
Section 26.470.110 of the Regulations provides that development applications for a
GMQS amendment must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. Exception. The following activities shall be exempt from these amendment
procedures, provided they are reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director prior to construction, except as allowed for during actual
development under (2), below:
1. Any change required to be made to a development order to respond to
conditions imposed upon the proposed development by the Growth Management
Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or the City Council during the
review of other development applications relevant to the proposed development;
and, .
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the general affordable housing use of the units subject to this
application will not change. Moreover, staff feels that the affordable housing units that
are subject to this proposal will still contribute the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)
goal of housing the Community's workforce in the upper valley. Thus, staff believes that
the proposed request is consistent with the representations made by the Applicant during
the original review of the respective planned unit developments. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
2. Any insubstantial modification tothe ()ev~lopment or()er, which shall
be limited to technical or engineering considerations first dis<<;oy~red during actual
development that could not reas()Ilably be anticipated during the review process, or
any other minor change that the Community Development Director finds has no
effect on the conditions and representations made during the original project
review.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed request is a minor change to the approved Top of Mill
and Bavarian PUDs in that the affordable. housil1g use of the units subject to this
amendment will not change. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
- 13 -
-:,
:r [L4 I 0 ~..JMIc
EXM;bD;-f- \))/jll
Four Peaks Development
1000 South Mill St.
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-2114
n
12~c~ vu;:'
flp
( ~{J
(}2
July 24,2003
City of Aspen
Department of Community Development, c/o Joyce Allgier
530 E. Main Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Joyce:
I am writing to request to swap some category designations between units in the Bavarian
Inn and Top of Mill affordable housing projects. This has no impact to the bottom line,
number of bedrooms, FTE's or any other quantifiable criteria. We are asking for this simply
to help us place potential designated buyers in units that they both desire and for which they
qualify.
The followin table summarizes our re uest.
Bavarian and Top Of Mill AH New
Proposed Category Changes Current New Current Proposed
pun Proposed Max sales Max sales
pun APCHA APCHA 2003 2003
ddresses Beds Bath Category Category APCHA APCHA
BI South Building - 814 W Main 3 3 4 2 $ C 133,500 $ 133,500
TOM Parcel 2 - Unit D - East most unit 3 3 2 4 $ 271,200 $ 271,200
2 2 2 3 $ 108,700 $ 159,900
2 2 3 2 $ 159,900 $ 108,700
Total Gross Sales $ 673,300 $ 673,300
APCHA staff supported the request and the APCHA Board voted unanimously to approve
the request on July 16, 2003. Per your request, attached are plans showing the unit locations
in each project.
Thank you,
~~
_w I'
~-_.__...,-.. .', --_/"
~.---'- -
Scott Writer
Four Peaks
~
f il
J.--- .-._____.J_
'OIl -..-.--.-.
c
.w
:3
o
::r:
~
:a
Ii: et:l
; ]
... "'"
~
I::
I::
-
I::
et:l
....
I-;
et:l
:>
og
,j
~,
~
.1S
..---r------..-. ----.-. - -.-...
. \
\
ULill.
...... -..... i'f1''''ft'.
;
t
.- \0
-~ l
~-&~
.
3
._._..--~--~... -_._.,----'.._~...".. ..' .......,....
.1.-
-. .~.__...._.._-._-._-_._._..~_._----_...
-
...
el
...
-<
...
.~r::r.n ..':-.-::::".;';
- -.----1 n
- .o.u .. ..\
- .
1~
eJ
~
r['--'-".--.- . ///
I "
-~.--L~J
.15 Hl.B
'15 HlL
i()
~
r-l
. J
~ I
."
'"
~
, II
; <
i:;
: ..:J .
'~
--~---:-----
Ii
~
'l;
--
----
. ~
5
~
-.lSfW
/"~
..'
rl
0$
0lV
o ~
o
8
~
'Oll
;:::
....
r:n
::l
o
:I:
<l)
:a
~
"E
o
t:
~
I ! i .5-6, "U"."~~
-:"II;. __ ~;'_""/~ .,. ~.8~ ,'\
...,. ,. y
'.'-.1 I. .1: ~'
z I~ ~ I u
17 C[JI /.~:~: ~ :::;;
I'" L
-..J I ~/1
I - I I> I
lei -.,.,.- JI( I I W
rnSJ - I .~ -
V I t~
;., 7;
1i; ~ -' ~~
($r ""'" l?( I > J ~
c~ I -
'I I I \/ \
I >
8- \. ~ (C!'> I I
~ I~., J 10::
~. ~~ I
~v ~ i\
~-
;., ~,. I il
.:. ../ ~. I
'" ~
. - I ~ .
~ - - W~I~ : - - W'
g~ :
::;: p 7C i'- L~:r:4 :
~ ":'
in n -
f I II
...~l 1n~
I- - 0Th I Y l/ .-
~ I in
~ ~ ...----- ---..-- I l. ~~
I- - C1V :> - - ~
I
~ '-' '-' C7\;::I ~
8- ":' / ~ I I
in 1
I
~ ~ == 51rl 1 I -W~
::s:: I 1 -
-J <:i
~ .~~~ ~ I
I
~ W'
I-, 7 1 [Q
~ rl
($r - - ;:"" X I ;> I ~ - -W-
I I IX
I ;> I
G . I I
c::,
~~X I 1
I > -
I I
> I -
I ;;;;;;;
I
;., ~ "I
:::. [Z ~
~ 7 I KJ
~
~;~l I - ~ '"
1I\j I ;> : -
-M I
D LlT'" ~ : > I
I G
.., ;><J r
I I I
I
1,'1//-'" , '1i5-.sz 1)..8
G .5-.5; ( v8
- '" ~ ( ~ 8
~
~
~~
(o ~
l- :::)
.~
'"
~
~
-
-
~
~
o
0-
o
E-<
'"
'"
'"
C])
~
~
f:J
\-
Z
::)
\..)
\-
Z
::)
O.
~
"..
".
"
~
~
"
"-
v
I:Cl
\-
~
::J
-<(
\-
Z
::)
.'
filii ~ III" n 11111I1 III ~~;~~~D46'
5ILVI~ D~VI5 PITKIN COUNTY CO R 35.00 D 0,00
Ex~;b1\f \tF
,;
ORDINANCE No.7
SERIES OF 2002
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCI~ APPROVING THE FINAL
PLM'NED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION INCLUDING
SUBDIVISION, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE,
SPECIAL REVIEW, GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA EXEMPTIONS
(GMQS), 8040 9REENLINEREVIE\V,~]) RE?9:NIN<:;FOR THE TOP OF
MILL SITE TO LODGE / TOURIST RESIDENTIAL PUD AND
CONSERVATION, LOT 3 OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION / PUD,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-182-85-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Top of Mill Investors, LLC c/o Four Peaks Development, LLC (Applicant),
represented by Vann Associates, requesting Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
approval for Lot 3 'of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision / PUD (hereinafter "AMPUD");
and
WHEREAS, Top of Mill Investors, LLC c/o Four Peaks Development, LLC
requested specific land use approvals as part of the Final PUD including Pinal PUD
Development Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special
Review, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning; and
WHEREAS, Savanah Limited Partnership, owner at the time of Lot 3 of
AMPUD, received Conceptual PUD approval from City Council for AMPUD on
December 6, 1999 which is memorialized through Resolution No. 93, Series of 1999; and
WHEREAS, Top of Mill Investors, LLC, received an Amended Conceptual
Approval from City Council for Lot 3 AMPUD on May 29,2001 which is memorialized
through Resolution No. 50, Series 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Office, the City Zoning Officer, the City Engineer, the
Parks Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Envirorunental Health
Department, the City Fin~ Department, the City Streets Department, the City Parking
Department, the City Water Department, and the City Electric Department reviewed the
development proposal for Lot 3 and provided written referral comments as a result of the
Development Review Committee meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant appropriately applied for specific land use approvals
pursuant to the 1une 1996 reprint of TitIe 26, Land Use Regulations, of the 1995 Aspen
Municipal Code for the Final PUD for Lot 3 AMPUD including Pinal PUD Development
Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, Growth
Management Quota Exemptions, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning; and
r-,
11...lr~n....]IIrII.III]IU. ..1111 ~~~~~::~ i '.46'
SILVIA DAVI~ PITKIN COUNTY to R 35.00 0 0.00
Section 1
Pursuant to this Ordinance and consistent with condition no. 3, of Resolution No. 93,
Series of 1999, the City Council approves the allowable FAR for each Lot 3 parcel and
allocated as shown in the matrix below.
Parcell
Parcel 2
Parcel 3
Parcel 4
Parcel 5
Parcel 6
Parcel 7
Parcel 8
Parcel 9
27,000 square feet ofF AR
8,000 square feet of FAR
9,000 square feet of PAR
6,200 square feet of PAR
5,200 square feet of FAR
5,200 square feet of PAR
6,500 square feet of PAR
6,500 square feet ofP AR i
No FAR shall be allocated to this parce1.
Section 2
.Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the requests for the Pinal PUD including Pinal PUD Development Plan,
Subdivision, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, GMQS
Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning for Lot 3 of AMPUD is . hereby
approved with the following conditions:
1. The development shall comply with the most recent municipal engineerillg practice
standards and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) identified for water quality
control requirements.. .
2. ~.~~.~rsUp~;.Sh~,99nS~rw~~~q9i~.t.~4..)yi~~Jh~... ~pepf~gi!~.,9f!he ,fgJl! (4}P7~9:~~~tri91yg
>m9Iti,:.f~fujlY pOusifig:'J:lgiFtqn :p_~rc:~J .2,.~ho.4Id it. not be j:iossib Ie. .to' ch~nge .the)ipjt~7pe.,.
'~i~ffr!?.9,2m.I!1~ng$ ~tlj~. Applicant.m7et.""iwHousing Authority. Staff to, ITI'aint~iIljhe<' ;~
'~y~~"'~' ;t;;the"Category2; but to pdce.one 'otthe' three bedroom units between Ca'tSgbI')7'<'
"-~r,;;;:.~:/. 11t:':;i:~":~~";',~,:,.<p,i:'.::.:~: '_-"c(:7t\~.,,:,; \.:>:~;'.,-'~"i_~:"",~:fj:',{:. ':;::,,,i:',<~~;}::._:, ;;.;.'\,:,~;-: .-': ',' ',,"}.._:,' ~ ~~ /~:"' '." ',"., :,_.. /"',' ' " " , "'" ' ,<".~> "'" -,,"~, :-,_~,~,',:. ,/ ." "'" .
Lan .;:an:dtoi PrIce the 4~b~9roQl11 umt.betw~en Category 2 and 3, and market as a .
~~i~i9~;';~~i~..'.'.. . ...."....',,,,'o",.ce,e,'.:;.',.J..::....i.,h,...;,.>'t.,...i'.... j.. .. . . ...., ,.,.",.,,:..: .. " .. ..: ....,., 'Ji.
3. Three of the units on Parcel 2 shall be distributed and sold under the general lottery
through the Housing Office. The Applicant shall be able to choose a buyer for one of the
units. However, the buyer must be a fully qualified employee under the category for the
. unit chosen by. the applicant; i.e.; the potential buyer must meet income and asset
requirements, meet minimum occupancy, not own any other property in the Roaring Fork
Drainage System, and have worked in Pitkin County 1500 hours per year for the last four
years.
4. The Applicant shall submit Infrastructure and Removal ofFill Material Permits for Lot 3
AMPOO within 30 (30) days after recordation of all Final POO documents.. The
Applicant may submit building permit applications at the Applicant's discretion, but no
sooner than the issuance of a building permit for the Bavarian Inn affordable housing
proj ect. The Applicant shall be eligible for a Certificate of Occupancy for the free market
1I111~1 11I11111111111 ~~~~D'46'
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 35.00 D 0.00
11. The Applicant shall formally establish the Top of Mill Trail across Lot 3 AMPUD. This
trail shall have a legal description, be shown on the Final Plat, and be dedicated/conveyed
to the City of Aspen. Further, the Applicant shall memorialize in the Final PUD I
Subdivision Agreement for Lot 3 and associated condominium (or planned community)
documents, the obligation by the master homeowner's association or Applicant to
improve the Top of Mill Trail, at such time the connection is realized, pursuant to the
Parks Department's design criteria. If the trail has not been improved to the satisfaction
of the Parks Department within 5 years of the recordation of the Final Plat for AMPUD
Lot 3, the master homeowner's aS$ocia.ti()I1f()LLot 3shallITIa~e a. sash payment to the
City of Aspen equal to a sum defined by the Parks Department for the improvement of
the trail.
12. Fire sprinklers and alarm systems shall be installed in all the proposed buildings on Lot 3
as required by the City of Aspen Fire Marshal. Appropriate "booster pumps" (if required)
rather than pressure tanks for the sprinkler system shall be used to gain the necessary
water pressure as required by the City Fire Department. The owner of each parcel shall be
responsible for ensuring that any buildings constructed thereon shall comply with this
condition of approval. In addition, the Applicant shall submit a fire safety plan for the
demolition to be preformed by the Applicant of the existing structures and the
c0I1~tructio110fth~proposed development of Lot 3 to the Engineering Department at the
time of building permit application.
13. The Applicant shall execute a "Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System
Agreement" with Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) prior to building
permit application. In addition, forty percent (40%) of the estimated total connection fees
must be paid to ACSD by the applicant for service lines that are to be stubbed off the
main line into the specific parcels of this developm.ent.
14. The Applicant shall be required to show to the ACSD all service locations at the station
numbers on the final utility plans for this development prior to building permit
application. Additionally, the Applicant shall indicate to the ACSD if main line
easements in the ROW are to be dedicated by plat or by description.
15. The Applicant shall record the approved condominium (or planned community)
subdivision plat for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of AMPUD Lot 3 in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (I 80) days of its approval by the
Community Development Director. Failure on the part of the Applicant to record the plat
within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the Community
Development Director shall render the plat invalid and a new application and approval
will be required:
16. The Applicant shall record a PUD Agreement and the Final PUD Plans within 180 days
of the final approval by City Council with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder binding
this property to this development approval.
17. The de"elopment ofthe free market single-family dwellings proposed for Parcels 4 - 8 of
AMPUD Lot 3 shall be subject to a site and design specific 8040 Greenline Review prior
to their development. These Parcels shall only be required to respond to review standards
r"
1IIIIUlIIIJJlIIIIIIllII ~:~~~~:~ ;,46'
SILVIA DAVIS "ItKIN COUNty CO R 35.00 0 0.00
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 Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such
plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,
unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
. prior ordinances.
Section 5
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason field invalid or unconstitutional in a court ofc.ompetent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 6
A public hearing on this. Ordinance was held on the 11th day of March at 5:00 pm in the
Council Chambers Room, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same was published in. a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen:
.. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHEJ) as provided by law, by the City
.r;~.S?up.cil of the City of Aspen on this 25th day of February, 2002. .
}{0:~~~'~>.
'-~'~~~#~;'~i~
. ,,\ '<( L'\fP .4 .
",\' '" S./'. ;,
.... 'U .,' . . . . <":~. .....
. ~~hJi~_S~ '.. ~~, City Clerk . de ud, Mayor
:,.;::.\.ji~~.~Y:.~dbpted, passed and approved this 11th Day of March, 2002.
" . ('(II. .... '"
./ Ofi,;..,1J" ,/
A.tte~(:..., .'"
~ ~ I \
,.'~..\....:.~, ,...\"" '\: ." .
. .::~.~,~' . <... atliryn ~, ch, CIty Clerk
'-.!:(cr;:~' '. .,.... \
: <;.:... Sf;' A { :
"f ." ..
~:. ..:... Appr~ve'a.~s to form:
~~
v'C': .,.' . :;4 ~
, n
on, ' 'drcestor, City Attorney
-.5....
".
1""':1
F\ ..... ..... ...... ~D}
n..",."".<;<,
'11~II"mTl1mlrrlr""i'~"~~~8: .... ....
SILVIA "VIS mm-"""",'<>r .1 J JI.. ., ~2:~~.'. . 46'
+)
ORDINANCE NO. 21, SERIES OF 2001
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY GOlJl'{GJ~.Qf I!!.:E:.~!IY..9.J3'.~.~.~:E:N
APPROVING THE FINAL PLANN:E:!?,YNJI!?E.Y:E:~.QgM:E:N'I' (.p. U...D...)...F.....O...R.....T...H.............E
BA VARIAN INN AFFORDABLE: lIQlJSINGj):i3:YF:,L. Q!,M. E.'......)~T,StrBl)IVISJ:ON
.. .... .. ,'_...._...........,.._...,........'........".'....'.',.....L,.,...,...... ........ .... '.' .. ," ...', ...0 .. ....
TO CREATE NINETEEN AFFQRDAB1E. lIQY~lNQYNJ'I'~' ~ZONING TO
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY WITH A PLANNEDlJNIT DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY ZONE I>ISTIliCT, AGROWTHMANAG.EMENT'QUOTA"SYSTEM
EXEMPTION, AND VESTED PROPERTYIliGIJ:I~QN1QT~J2I!J:E9YQ!J:l
AND LOTS K THROUGH P, BLOCK 12, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735.123.08.004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Bavarian Affordable Housing LLC, owner, as represented by Vann Associates,
LLC, for a Final Planned Unit Development Plan, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special
Review, Growth Management Quota System Exemption and Vested Property Rights
approval of a for-sale, deed-restricted, residential affordable housing development of 19 .
units, 40 bedrooms and 31 parking spaces on two (2) parcels located between W. Main
Street, Seventh Street, Eighth Street, and W. Bleeker Street; and,
WHEREAS, the application was submitted pursuant to Sections 26.52.080,
26.64.040, 26.84.030, 26.88.040, 26.92.030 and 26.102.040 of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations (the June 1996 reprint of Title 26 of the 1995 Aspen Municipal Code,
including all amendments thereto enact(;:d prior to September 15, 1998, and hereinafter
called the "1995 Aspen Municipal Code") as was in effect at the time of submission of
the conceptual PUD application; and
WHEREAS, Parcel 1 of the subject site is located at the sOllthwest cQmer ofth~
intersection of Seventh Street and W est I3Ieel<:~r Street, and is legally described as Lots D
through I, Block 12, and Parcel 2 of the subject site is locateq at the northeast comer ofN.
Eighth Street and West Main Street, and is legally described as Lots K through P, Block
12, both of the City and Townsite of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-cited sections of Title 26 of the 1995 Aspen
Municipal Code, land use applications requesting land use review for Final Planned Unit
Development, Subdivision, Rezoning, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS)
Exemption from the scoring and cQmpetition for affordable hClUsing development may be
approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning
Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Board made at a duly noticed public hearing, and the appropriate referral
agencies; and,
Bavarian Final PUD Ordinance No. 21, Series of2001, Page 1
^
,_ __. d~
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.100.050 of the 1995Aspen Municipal Code,
the Housing Board made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the
affordable housing development, with conditions, and exempt the development from the
scoring and competition process of GMQS, after conducting a public hearing on March 7,
2001; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.04.1 00 of the 1995 Aspen Municipal Code,
the Planning and Zoning Commission made a recol11menda.ti()I1.. to. . the . City Council
regar,ding the application requests for Final Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Subdivision, Rezoning, and Growth Management Quota System Exemption approval
after conducting a hearing public hearing on March 6 and March 20, 2001, regarding the
proposal; and have forwarded their recommendation~ thI"Q,ugh Resolution No. 12, Series
of2001, by a vote of five (5) to zero (0); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.32 of the 1995 Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission approved through Resolution No. 12, Series of2001, a
request for Special Review to establish thirty-one (31) off-street parking requirements for
affordable housing; and,
WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City
Water Department, City Engineering, Parks Department, Environmental Health
Department, the City Transportation Planner, the City Zoning Officer, the Roaring Fork
Transit Agency, the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority, and the Community
Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with
conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommenda.tion of the CC>IllII11lI1ity Development Director,
Planning and Zoning Commission, Housing Board, the applicable referral agencies, and .
has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or
exceeds all applicable development standards and that the. approval of the development
proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is nec~ssary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows:
\ \,,\\\ "III "1111 \\\\ \\\111 \\1\1 \\\\l\ III \llll \~\ ~)\ .J:~~ }~~. ~.. 4~
SILVIA DAVIS pITKIN COUNTY CO .
Bavarian Final PUD Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001, Page 2
Illrlll~II~III.....111111 ~111\11 )111111\ III . ~:~~ ~:~ . ~. ,46'
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO ... R 40.00 0 0.00
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the 1995 Aspen
Municipal Code, the Bavarian Inn AffOr<:lable HOllsing Final PUD, Subdivision,
Rezoning, and Growth Management Quota System Exemption for the development of a
"for-sale" deed-restricted affordagleh()llsing development consisting of 19 housing units,
40 bedrooms, and 31 parking spaces and appurtenant improvements, all as put forth
specifically in the Bavarian Affordable Housing Final PUD Application dated December
1,2000, prepared by Vann Associates, LLC, and as amended and/or conditioned through
this Ordinance is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of approval described
hereinafter.
Section 2:
Conditions of Approval:
1. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by
City Council and shall include:
a) A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing
easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for
physical improvements, and location of utility pedestals.
b) An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements,
landscaping plan, utility plan, grading/drainage plan, parking layout, and the
dimensional requirements as approved.
c) A drawing representjng the project's architectural character.
d) Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a
building permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision/PlJD Agreement with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder binding this property to this development
approval.
2. The dimensional requirements of the PUD shall not be in excess of the
ResidentiallMulti-Family Zone District'~. ..d5mYIlSi()Il<.lL requirements and are
established as specifically put forth in the application. The Residential Design
Standards of the City are found to be met through the PUD process and no additional
approval is required. The approved setbacks arc.<l.S follows:
a) A 4- foot variance in the 10- foot rear yard setback for the existing Bavarian Inn on
Parcel 1.
b) A 7-foot variance in the 10-foot rear yard setback for the proposed duplex .on
Parcell.
c) A 2-foot and 4-foot variance in thy required 10-foot front yard setback of the
proposed Main Street and Eighth Street multi-family structures, respectively, on
Parcel 2.
d) A 2-foot variance in the 5-foot side yard setback on the west side ofthe proposed
multi-family structure along Eighth Street on Parcel 2.
Bavarian Final PUD Ordinance No. 21, Series of 200 1, Page 3
~
1.111 rll\~ .1I\1111~\llIWl. 1\11\ III 11\\\111\ \11\ ~~~~::: ~., 4~
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 40.00 0 0.00
e) All buildings will have flat roofs.
f) The Nl/N2 and S 1-S5 building complexes will be limited to twenty (20) feet in
height measured to the top of the roof.
g) The W2-W5 building complex will be limited to twenty-five (25) feet in height
measured to the top of the roof.
3. The Applicant shall implement the cabin relocation plan as put forth III the
application.
4. The existing Bavarian Inn structure shall be subject to the requirements of Part VII,
Section 14, Deed Restricting Existing Dwelling Units of APCHA. Existing units must
be upgraded in accordance with the following criteria and specific provisions:
a) The interior walls of all units must be freshly painted.
b) The interior appliances must be purchased within the last five years and be in
good working condition.
c) Carpet must be less than five years old and be in good condition and repair, or be
replaced.
d) The exterior building walls shall be freshly painted within one year of dedication.
An alternative to painting would be the application of a new stucco skim coat to
the exterior, subject to approval by APCHA.
e) A general level of upgrade to yards and landscaping shall be provided.
f) Windows, heating, plumbing, electrical systems, fixtures, and equipment shall be
in good and working order.
g) The roof must have a remaining useful life of at least t~n (10) years and any
necessary repair or replacement shall occur to "ensure the ten (10) year life span.
h) All units shall meet Uniform Building Code minimum standards, any applicable
housing code or, in the absence of an adequate code, the housing code acceptable
to the APCHA.
i) All units shall be approved by the APCHA and verified by a qualified Building
Inspector accepted and approved by the APCHA.
j) Applicant shall bear the costs and expenses of any required upgrades to meet the
above standards as well as any structural/engineering reports required by the
APCHA to assess the suitability for occupancy and compliance with the APCHA
standards of the proposed units.
k) Any broken window glass shall be r~placed. Window sills or frames in disrepair
shall be repaired or replaced.
I) Any fascia, soffit and exterior woodwork shall be repaired, replaced and repainted
as necessary .
m) Rain gutters shall be repaired or replaced as necessary.
n) The property grounds shall be cleaned of debris materials, be upgraded to a grassy
condition, and be landscaped in accordance with the Final PUD plan except that
additional landscaping shall be installed along the ih Street in the parking lot
island.
Bavarian Final PUD Ordinance No. 21, Series of2001, Page 4
1IIIIIIIIni~~111I UI ~~~~::~ ~"4~
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 40.00 0 0.00
5. The Applicant, or the applicant's representative, must meet with the Housing Office
prior to listing the units for sale to identify the units that would amount to 13 FTE' s.
These units may be used to house fully qualified employees chosen by the applicant
for the initial sale only of the unit. Any sale after the initial sale of these units would
be required to be listed with the Housing Office and sold under the lottery process.
The employees must qualify pursuant to APCHA Guidelines defining a "qualified
employee."
6. A deed restriction, provided by the Housing Office, shall be placed on all of the units
prior to building permit application.
7. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the Housing Office shall have the right to inspect
all units for compliance.
8. A construction management plan that addresses the preservation of the existing
landscaping and vegetation on the site and within the public right-of-ways adjacent to
the subject property shall be submitted and approved by the City Forester prior to
issuance of a building permit.
9. The landscape plan shall be amended to show four (4) Cottonwood trees along Main
Street and landscaping within the landscape island. The revised landscape plan must
be submitted, showing exact location and spacing, with the official tree removal
permit with the required amendments in this approval for the proposed plantings and
approved by the City Forester prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10. The Main Street sidewalk design and location shall be amended to align the sidewalk
along the property line to allow for the maximum space for trees and a buffer zone
for potential future Main Street improvements. The sidewalk shall curve around the
12-inch cottonwood proposed to be saved on the Main Street frontage.
11. Any irrigation design proposed for installation in the public right-of-way must be
approved by the Parks Department prior to installation and should be included as part
of a right-of-way permit.
12. The building permit application shall include:
a) A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution. .
b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District.
d) A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and documenting
required approvals noted above in Conditions No. 10 and 11 from the City
Forester for mitigation of removed trees and existing tree preservation.
e) A fugitive dust control plan.
Bavarian Final PUD Ordinance No. 21, Series of200l, Page 5
1111 Jill Jmlll~lllllll ~:~~~::: ~.,..,
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN'NC<>UNrV to ....... R 40.00 0 0.00
13. The building permit plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire sprinkler system and
alarm system for the development as required by the Aspen Fire Marshal.
14. Prior to issuance of a buil<iing permit:
a) The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development
Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read andun<ierst()od~ .
b) All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative
agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is fmalized,
those fees shall be payable according to the agreement.
15. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree drip lines or outside
of the approved building envelope and access envelope.
16. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maint(iined .on-!;He aI1d not
within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets
Department.
17. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to
the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
18. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed
rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
19. All uses and construction !;hall. c;()mply with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation
and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to
utilities.
20. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes,
including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines.
21. The site plan shall be amended to show the dllmpster (on the alley) relocated from the
west end of the parking area to east end of the parking area.
22. The Home Owner's Associatiol1 Dec;l(lIatiol1s, Restrictions and covenants shall
include a provision disallowing dogs. Such provision in the Dech,rrations,
Restrictions and Covenants may be amended only with a vote of 100% unanimous
approval by the homeowners.
23. The sign plan as described in tbe FiI1(ilXVP application shall be amendedas follows:
a) Re. Sign A-strike the word, "Affordable" frOm the sign,
b) Re. Sign F-add the words, "Do Not Enter".
c) Install an additional Sign F at the west end of the parking court.
Bavarian Final PUD Ordinance No. 21, Series of2001, Page 6
~
1I111111lll \1\ll1\1;;;;~ II It nlll\ ~:~~~~1 ~.,..,
SIlVI~ D~VIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 40.00 0 0.00
24. The Home Owner's Associ(ltiQni~(l<iyi~ed (not required) to set aside a special reserve
from the Home Owner's A~sociatiQn.fuIl<is.forth~ replacement of landscaping and
vegetation on the site, including that which was located on the site prior to
development.
Section 3:
The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, and is hereby amended by
the Community Development Director to reflect rezoning of Parcel 2, legally described
as Lots K through P, Block 12, of the City and Townsite of Aspen, to ResidentiallMulti-
Family with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay Zone District.
Section 4:
A waiver of the Park Development Impact Fee is hereby granted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 26.44.060, Affordable HousinglHistoric Landmark, of the 1995
Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 5:
All material representations and, commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such development approvals and the same shall be complied with as
if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 6:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the. ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 7:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORI>EREPPU13ISII:E:I> as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on this 25th day of June, 2001 and set for public hearing and
Second Readi,p,g on the 23rd day of July, 2001.
CO(oi>\',,'~'~ .....
,."
..,
" I~l~~~ .,
Bavarian Final PUD Ordinance No. 21,Series of2001, Page 7
~~
FINALLY, adopted, passed, and approved by a vote of four to one (4 tol), this 23rd day of
July, 2001.
Approved as to form:
Approved as to content:
John
ATTEST:
C:homelJoyce/BavFinalPUDCouncOrdIl
1111111111111111111111 ~:~~~::: ~.4.'
SILVIA DAVIS PIi'KINCC>UNTY CO R 40.00 0 0.00
Bavarian Final PUD Ordinance No. 21, Series of2001, Page 8
i;;x!v k J 'f ~~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Housing Board
FROM:
Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
THRU:
Maureen Dobson, Executive Director
DATE:
July 16, 2003
RE:
REQUEST TO SWAP CATEGORIES BETWEEN B4 VARL4lYAlYP TQPOFMILL
ISSUE: Four Peaks Development is requesting that between the two properties that they are
developing for affordable housing -- the Bavarian site between 800 West Main and 800 West
Bleeker, and the Top of Mill site (behind the old Grand Aspen) -- they would like the ability to
switch the categories between the two properties.
BACKGROUND: The attached shows the breakdown of what iscUlTently approved for both
properties and what is being proposed. As you can see from the attached, the amount of units per
category does not change which means that the applicant's bottom line also does not change.
The developer is allowed to place a qualified employee of their choice for a specific number of
units. The employees that they would like to recognize for their service to their company and offer
a unit to does not "fit" the current approval. The bottom line does not change. The housing
program is still getting just as many units and because they can choose the qualified household of
their choice, the same category-type units that would have been in the lottery prior to this change
would still be the same.
Staff is currently checking with the City Attorney to see if this request, if approved by the Board,
would then need to be approved by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending the Board approve this request due to the
following:
1. The bottom line remains the same. This means that the request has no monetary value to the
applicant. Their only "value" is recognizing the employees whom they would like to give the
opportunity to purchase a unit.
2. The same type of categories and unit sizes remain the same, they just change between the two
properties.
~
3. . The units that they are requesting to switch will go to qualified households of their choice. Each
qualified household not only has to meet income, assets and occupancy requirements, but also
the four-year priority requirement.
2 .
""'"
~X.~ 160 /1 IlFI;
RESOLUTION NO. 22
(SERIES OF 2003)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONlNG
COMMISSIONRECOMMENDINGTHATCITYCOU~(:'IL ApPROVE PUD ANn
GMQS AMENDMENTS TO THE TOP OFIVllLL (LOT3,~~Pl!2~l\t[<?UN!A.IN
PUD) AND BAVARIAN INN PLANNED UNITDEVELUPMENTSTO ALLOW
FOR AMENDMENTS TO THEAPPROVEnAFFO:RJ)ABLEHOUSlNG
CATEGORIES WITHIN BOllI DEVELQPMENTS; CITVOFASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
ParcelID: 2737-182-02-202
ParcelID: 2735-123-08-004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Four Peaks Development, represented by Scott Writer, requesting approval of a
PUD amendment and a GMQS amendment to the Bavarian Inn and Top of Mill Planned
Unit Developments ,to allow.for 1) the affordable housing unit at 821 W. Bleeker to
convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 3 affordable housing
unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the former Bavarian Inn building to convertfroma
Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit; and to allow
for 2) the affordable housing unit at 814 W. Main Strt;et to convert from a Category 4
affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit D,
Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill PUD to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to
a Category 4 affordable housing unit; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Housing Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 7,2003, the Planning
and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing until October 21,2003; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on October 21, 2003, the Planning
and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein arid approved this
resolution, by a five to one (5-1) vote; recommending that City' Council approve the
proposed amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and.. Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the 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:
r'\
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section
26.445, Planned Unit Development; and Section 26.470.110, Amendment of GMQS
Development Order, the Planning aild Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City
Council approve the proposed amendments to allow for 1) the affordable housing unit at
821 W. Bleeker to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 3
affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the former Bavarian Inn building to
convert from a Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing
unit, and to allow for 2) the affordable housing unit at 814 W. Main Street to convert
from a Category 4 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit and to
allow for Unit D, Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill PUD to convert from a Category 2
affordable housing unit to a Category 4 affordable housing unit.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether. in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. .
Section 3:
This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, 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 21st
day of October, 2003.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
....0--.
1i: "B ,
..
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORANDUM ~ y ~ N
Aspen Plan~ing an~Zon~ng Commission .1~ ___-
Joyce AllgaIer~~mUIllty Development Depnty Dlfectortl \ I I / ~
James Lindt, Planner'..:::fL ~U1 U1 t'~t:S
Bavarian Inn and Lot 3, Aspen MountainPUD Amendlllent;nd .lJ C\~
GMQS Amendment- Continued Public Hearing II ~;+-~d COt{~
October 21,2003
DATE:
CURRENT ZONING:
The Applicant is requesting a pun Amendment to amend the
categories that were assigned to the Bavarian Inn and Top of Mill (Lot
3, Aspen Mountain pun) Affordable Housing Units.
Bavarian - R/MF PUD
Top of MiIl- L/TR PUD
PUD and GMQS Amendments for both development projects.
LAND USE
REQUESTS:
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve
the proposed resolution, recommending that City Council approve the
proposed request.
BACKGROUND:
The Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Project was approved as employee housing
mitigation for the redevelopment of Lot 5, of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The Bavarian
Inn was approved to contain nineteen (19) units of for-sale affordable housing.
Additionally, four (4) units of affordable housing were approved to be constructed on
Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill Development on South Galena Street. As part of both the
Top of Mill and the Bavarian Inn approvals, it was required that the mix of affordable
housing units in each development maintain an average of a Category 2 maximum sale
price and that the majority of the units would be sold and distributed through the general
housing lottery. However, the land use approvals allowed for several of the affordable
housing units to be occupied by employees of the developer's choice.
LAND USE ACTIONS REQUESTED:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a PUD Amendment .and a GMQS Amendment to
allow for I) two of the units within the Bavarian Inn affordable housing project to swap
affordable housing categories, and 2) for another of the Bavarian Inn units to swap
affordable housing categories with one of the units located on Parcel 2 of the Top of Mill
Development.
Review of the proposed GMQS amendment requires that City Council review the swap
of affordable housing categories after considering a recommendation from the Housing
- 1 -
r\
Board. The PUD amendment requires that City Council review the proposed request
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Community Development Director.
STAFF COMMENTS:
In reviewing the first request made by the Applicant to swap the unit categories between
affordable units within the Bavarian Inn development, staff believes that the request is
acceptable in. that the development will still have the same mix of categories in
comparison with what was originally approved. Additionally, both units that are to be
affected by the proposed swap contain two (2) bedrooms each. Therefore, this request
would not alter the number of bedrooms in each affordable housing category within the
development. Moreover, the Housing Board has reviewed this request and recommended
that City Council approve the swap.
Similarly, in reviewing the second request made by the Applicant to swap the unit
categories between one of the Category 2 units at the Top of Mill and one of the Category
4 units within the Bavarian Inn project, the Housing Board felt that that the units would
still contribute to the overall goal of housing the community's workforce in the upper-
valley. And therefore, the Housing Board has recommended that City Council approve
the proposed request. Conversely, the Planning Staff is somewhat concerned that the
Applicant would like to raise the category of the Top of Mill unit, thereby allowing for a
person with a higher income to live at the base of Aspen Mountain in place of a person
with a lower income. To some, this may appear to be a more desirable location and that
the application would negate, if approved, the opportunity for a lower income person to
have this "luxury". However, the Planning Staff does concur with the Housing Board
that the request will not alter either development's ability to house a portion of the
Community's workforce in the upper-valley. Both units. would still remain deed
restricted affordable housing units that would be sold to a qualified employee pursuant to
the Affordable Housing Guidelines. Moreover, there is not a change proposed in the
number of bedrooms or sizes of the subject units.
STAFF RECOMMENDA nON:
Staff believes that the proposed amendments are primarily housing policy decisions.
That being the case, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board has reviewed the
proposal and recommended that City Council approve the requested amendments
finding that the affordable housing units and the number of bedrooms within the
affordable housing units are not being altered as part of the application.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. 22, Series of 2003, recommending that City Council
approve a PUD Amendment and a GMQS Amendment to allow for the swap of affordable
housing category designations between the Bavarian and Top of Mill Planned Unit
Developments. "
- 2 -
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FI~DINGS
EXHIBIT B - ApPLICATION
EXHIBIT C - Top OF MILL PUD ApPROVAL ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT D - BAVARIAN INN PUD ApPROVAL ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT E - HOUSING BOARD COMMENTS
- 3 -
~
RESOLUTION NO. 22
(SERIES OF 2003)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASp'EN P~ANNJ:NG i\,NDZ,()NING
COMMISSION RECOM. )VlENI)ING T.. ..H.. .A.T. CITY COUN.CIL APPROVE PUD..A....N. D
.. .... .. .. ...... ".. .." .. .. .' ',.;._..._........... ':..... '", ,OJ' ,,,,,,,,,,_.. ',_'__ ,_ -""'-',1 ....._.."<>....<.....'..).:._ .._....,.~....u".._.,..__."::;.:.,,.::_:...:_:'...,...:..:...., :0, .'....._.,..._:._u.......'........ ...' ....
GMQS AMENDMENTS TO THE TOP OF MI~L (LOT 3, ASPEN MOUNTAIN
PUD) AND BAVARIAN INN PLANNEDPNIII)EYE:L,Q:PMENI~TOA~~OW
FOR AMENDMENTS TO THEAPPRQYEI>AFFO...JIDAllLE IIOPS.ING
.. .... ,.,...........'..............-.'".'.--..,'..,.--,.--...'..........'.-.''.-...-...,.,'......'...:.'.,..,..''''...
CATEGORIES WITHIN BOTH DEYELOP1VIENTS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
ParcelID: 2737-182-02-202
ParcelID: 2735-123-08-004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Four Peaks Development, represented by Scott Writer, requesting approval of a
PUD amendment and a GMQS amendment to the Bavarian Inn and Top of Mill Planned
Unit Developments to allow for I) the affordable housing unit at 821 W. Bleeker to
convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 3 aff9rdable housing
unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the .former Bavaria!l IIll) bllilciing to convert from a
Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit; and to allow
for 2) the affordable housing unit at 814 W. Main Street to convert from a Category 4
affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit D,
Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill PUD to cOIlveJi from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to
a Category 4 affordable housing unit; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Housing Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 7, 2003, the Planning
and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing until October 21,2003; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on October 21,2003, the Planning
and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the deyelopment proposal under the
applicable provisions of the Mllllicipal Code as identifi~d herein and approved this
resolution, by a _ to L-~ vote; recommending that City Council approve the
proposed amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the 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:
r"\
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section
26.445, Planned. Unit Development; and Section 26.470.110, Amendment of GMQS
Development Order, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City
Council approve the proposed amendments to allow for 1) the affordable housing unit at
821 W. Bleeker to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 3
affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the former Bavariatl InnblJilding to
convert from a Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing
unit, and to allow for 2) the affordable housing unit at 814 W. Main Street to conv~rt
from a Category 4 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit and to
allow for Unit D, Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill PUD to convert from a Category 2
affordable housing unit to a Category 4 affordable housing unit.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shalll10t 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 conduct.edatld 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 cOllrt ()f 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 ih day
of October, 2003.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING ANDZQ:NING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
"'"
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
~
EXHIBIT A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
SECTION 26.445.050, REVIEW STANDARDS: PUD AMENDM~NT
Section 26.445.050 ofthe Regulations provides that development applications for a PUD
amendment must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Reqllirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Commllnity Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen Area
Community Plan. In the original approvals for the Bavarian Inn and the Top of Mill
PUDs, it was found that the affordable housing proposed in each of the respective
developments was consistent. with the AACP. That being the case, staff feels that the
request will not alter either development's ability to house a portion of the Community's
workforce in the upper-valley. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing
land llses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The proposal is not requesting a change in the approved land uses for either of the
developments. Staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to application.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development
of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area in any way. 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 Finding
The Applicant has already obtained GMQS exemptions for all of the units that are subject
to this application. 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. The dimensional requirements of the underlying
- 4 -
r".
zone district shall be llsed as a gl1ide in determining the appropriate dimensions for
the PUD. l)uring review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility
with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
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 llses in the S11rrounding area.
b) Natural and man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and
the surrollnding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian
circlllation, parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding
This application does not propose to change the physical characteristics of either
development in anyway. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. The proposed dimensional reqllirements 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 sl1rrollnding area.
Staff Finding
This application does not propose to amend the dimensional requirements that were
approved for either of the developments. Staff finds this criterion nqt to be applicable to
this application.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations:
a) The probable nllmber of cars llsed by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of llse, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed
c) The availability of pllblic transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to lltilize
alltomobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
This application does not propose to amend the off-street parking requirements that were
established for the respective developments. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable to this application.
- 5 -
~
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there
exists insufficient infrastructllre capabilities. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) There is not sl1fficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other
lltilities to service the proposed development.
b) There are not adeqllate roads to ensllrefire protection, snow removal,
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding
This application does not request a reduction in the maximum allowable density of either
development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUDmay 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 suitablefor the proposed development becallse of ground
instability or the possibility of mudjlow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and conseqllent water
polllltion.
c) The proposed development will have a perniciolls effect on air quality in
the sl1rrollnding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmfll1 distllrbance to critical natllralfeatures of the site.
Staff Finding
This application is not requesting a reduction in the maximum allowable density of either
development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
6. The maximum a.llowa1Jle.4e.lJslty 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 goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is sl1bject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified
in sl1bparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those
characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maxim 11m density results ina development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the sl1rrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land llses, and characteristics.
- 6 -
Staff Finding
This application is not requesting an increase in the maximum allowable density of either
development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
B. Site Design:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enh.ances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adJacent
public spaces, and ensures the pllblic's health and safety. The proposed
development shall comply with the following:
1. Existing natllral 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.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved site plan of either development. Therefore,
staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open
spaces and vistas.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved elevations or placement of structures.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. Stmctures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the
urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and
engagement ofvehiclllar and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved placement or orientation of the structures
within either development. Therefore, staff finds this criterign not to be applicable to this
application.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency
and service vehicle access.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the on-site location of structures within either
development. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved floor plans within either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
- 7 -
r"\,
f"... "'7
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical
and reasonable manner anti shall not .nf!gatively impact surrounding
properties.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved site drainage or the location of the structures
within either development. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this
application.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between bllildlngs are appropriately
de-signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the
use.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved location of the structures within either
development. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
C. 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 designed treatment of exterior spaces,
preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity
and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved landscaping plan for either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved landscaping plan for either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved landscaping plan for either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
- 8 -
D. Architectural Character:
It is the purpose of this standard to encourage arch'itectural interest, variety,
character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City
while promoting efficient use of resources. Archite{:tl1Tal character is 1J(1~(!d
llpon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's
use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public
spaces and other bllildings, llse of materials, and other attriblltes which may
sign~ficantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall
be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character
plan, which adeqllately depicts the character of the proposed development. The
proposed architecture of the development shall:
1. be compatible with or enhance the visllal character of the city,
appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property,
represent a character sl1itable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and
respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved elevations of either development. Therefore,
staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved construction methods utilized in building
either development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved architectural, elevations or the method in
which the shielding of snow is to occur. Additionally, this application does not alter the
snow storage location that was set out in the respective PUDs. Staff finds this criterion
not to be applicable to this application.
E. Lighting:
The purpose of this standard is to enSllre 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 hazardolls
interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site
features, strllctures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding
Both developments are required to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code as is set forth in
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
- 9 -
2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting
Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD
documents. Up-lighting of site features, bllildings, landscape elements, and
lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for
residential development.
Staff Finding
Both developments are required to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code as is set forth in
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
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,
thefollowing 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 featllres 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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved amount, location, or design of the approved
open space. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation. areas
is deeded in perpetuity (not for a nllmber of years) to each lot or dwelling
unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the method in which the common park and recreation
areas in each development are owned and maintained. Staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable to this application.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and
shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential,
commercial, or industrial development.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the method in which the common park and recreation
areas in each development are owned and maintained. Staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable to this application.
- 10-
~
H. Utilities and Pllblic Facilities:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any
undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does
not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public
facilities associated with the development shall comply with thefollowing:
1. Adequate public infrastrllctllre facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that sufficient public infrastructure exists to amend the respective PUDs as
requested in that there is no additional development proposed by this application.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding
This application will not require public infrastructure improvements and will not have
adverse impacts on the public infrastructure of either development. Staff finds this
criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. Oversized utilities, pllblic facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding
This application is not proposing to install nor is being required to install oversized
utilities to swap housing categories. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this
application.
L Access and Circlllation (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 and approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved access within either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the
- 11 -
proposed development, or such s11rr0111zding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the approved parking arrangement within either of the
developments would need to be amended due to the request to swap affordable housing
categories between units because the use of the units is not changing. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan.
The pllrpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not
create an unnecessary bllrden on the public or surrounding property owners
and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequatelY.fr 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 thefollowing:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a
complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas {nsulating, to the extent
practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan enSllres the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu,
construction of any facilities to be used .iointly by residents of the PUD,
construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation
meaSllres are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts
associated with the phase.
Staff Finding
Construction of the subject units is nearing completion. This application is not proposing
to amend the approved phasing for either of the respective developments. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
- 12 -
l-' r J
J. '"
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO GMQS DEVELOPMENT ORDER
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
SECTION 26.470.110, REvIEw STANDARDS: GMQS AMENDMENT
Section 26.470.110 of the Regulations provides that development applications for a
GMQS amendment must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. Exception. The following activities shall be exempt from these amendment
procedures, provided they are reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director prior to construction, except as allowed for during actual
development under (2), below:
1. Any change required to be made to a development order to respond to
conditions imposed upon the proposed development by the Growth Management
Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or the City Council during the
review of other development applications relevant to the proposed development;
and,
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the general affordable housing use of the units subject to this
application will not change. Moreover, staff feels that the affordable housing units that
are subject to this proposal will still contribute the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)
goal of housing the Community's workforce in the upper valley. Thus, staff believes that
the proposed request is consistent with the representations made by the Applicant during
the original review of the respective planned unit developments. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
2. Any insubstantial modification to the development order, which shall
be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual
development that could not reasonably be anticipated during the review process, or
any other minor change that the Community Development Director finds has no
effect on the conditions and representations made d\lring the original project
review.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed request is a minor change to the approved Top of Mill
and Bavarian PUDs in that the affordable housing use of the units subject to this
amendment will not change. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
- 13 -
,~
~
,
RESOLUTION NO. 22
(SERIES OF 2003)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PUD AND
GMQS AMENDMENTS TO THE TOP OF MILL (LOT 3, ASPEN MOUNTAIN
PUD) AND BA V ARlAN INN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW
FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CATEGORIES WITHIN BOTH DEVELOPMENTS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
ParcelID: 2737-182-02-202
Parcel ID: 2735-123-08-004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Four Peaks Development, represented by Scott Writer, requesting approval of a
PUD amendment and a GMQS amendment to the Bavarian Inn and Top of Mill Planned
Unit Developments to allow for 1) the affordable housing unit at 821 W. Bleeker to
convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 3 affordable housing
unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the former Bavarian Inn building to convert from a
Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit; and to allow
for 2) the affordable housing unit at 814 W. Main Street to convert from a Category4
affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit D,
Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill PUD to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to
a Category 4 affordable housing unit; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Housing Board recommended approval ofthe proposed amendments; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 7, 2003, the Planning
and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing until October 21, 2003; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on October 21,2003, the Planning
and Zoning Commis~ion reviewed and considered the development proposal under the
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and approved this
resolution, by a five to one (5-1) vote; recommending that City Council approve the
proposed amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval ofthe
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
\
.
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section
26.445, PI31med Unit Development; and Section 26.470.110, Amendment of GMQS
Development Order, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City
Council approve the proposed amendments to allow for 1) the affordable housing unit at
821 W. Bleeker to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 3
affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the former Bavarian Inn building to
convert from a Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing
unit, and to allow for 2) the affordable housing unit at 814 W. Main Street to convert
from a Category 4 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit and to
allow for Unit D, Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill PUD to convert from a Category 2
affordable housing unit to a Category 4 affordable housing unit.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall b~ complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
. Section 3:
This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, 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 21st
day of October, 2003.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CiQC/ JJf
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Jt?b-n ivu:- 7:<
Jasmine Tygre,Chair
ATTEST:
~
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen CO 81611
(970) 920-5090
(970) 920-5439, fax
Aspen Community
Development
Department
Fax
To: Scott Writer From: James Lindt
Fax: 925-1036 Pages:
Phone: Date: 10/16/03
Re: Reminder of Meeting cc:
o Urgent
o For Review
o Please Comment 0 Pleas~ Reply
o Please Recycle
'-
. Comments:
HiScott,
I just wanted to remind you that the continued Bavarian/Top of Mill Amendment Hearing before the
Planning and Zoning Commission will take place this coming Tuesday evening in the basement of City
Hall. The meeting begins at 4:30 PM, but you are second on the agenda. Please let me know if you
have any questions.
Thanks,
James
lr.:t>.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission lAA
"J::::.,t~.
Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director
James Lindt, Planner'TL
Bavarian Inn and Lot 3, Aspen Mountain pun Amendment and
GMQS Amendment- Public Hearing
October 7, 2003
DATE:
REQUEST:
CURRENT ZONING:
The Applicant is requesting a PUD Amendment to amend the
categories that were assigned to the Bavarian Inn and Top of Mill (Lot
3, Aspen Mountain PUD) Affordable Housing Units.
Bavarian - R/MF PUD
Top of MiIl- L/TR PUD
PUD and GMQS Amendments for both development projects.
LAND USE
REQUESTS:
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve
the proposed resolution, recommending that City Council approve the
proposed request.
BACKGROUND:
The Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Project was approved as employee housing
mitigation for the redevelopment of Lot 5, of the Aspen Mountain PUD. i0llf~t.J?,]Y:a:fi1;1
~ n"'~.'". ".'eteen. .
'7... .... "_~.. ... .-_ ."< ............. .......... .......... ................. ..... ........... ..... ...... ......... .... ...id~st"!!l~~~'.:~zr:l~,~;~,,~<W,~~l$l
~i!ri~~~~~~!:~l1f~!~;~~;~~1;}!uT!~'~~,,~~~5f~~tl~~~f
housing units to be occupied by employees of the developer's choice.
LAND USE ACTIONS REQUESTED:
'fh A'R;::1;7.~-t.""'S.~~dT'..-r.- arf--DuTVA~r1~'m'i1m"v-GM0SA.ffl' d
''--~S_...;}.JjJ.bkcan:lS..J:I.'1lt.~..~liJn,g,:~:ep..JJ~_,..i:Q:..lt!;;.~~bM,~M.~4~~~P. ia:. .. a. .... ~ ...',,~~1!J..JW~Uo
allow for ~1)-"1:W( .. -~ ~. 'thin the ....
~:(ci-. . . '~d"2Y
][:(6r a e OU 1
Development.
Review of the proposed GMQS amendment requires that City Council review the swap
of affordable housing categories after considering a recommendation from the Housing
- 1 -
f"'\,
Board. The PUD amendment requires that City Council review the proposed request
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Community Development Director.
STAFF COMMENTS:
In reviewing the first request made by the Applicant to swap the unit categories between
affordable units within the Bavarilll1 I11l:l develqpment, staff believes that the request is
acceptable in that the development will still have the same mix of categories in
comparison with what was originally approved. Additionally, both units that are to be
affected by the proposed swap contain two (2) bedrooms each. Therefore, this request
would not alter the number of bedrooms in eaGh affordable. hollsing category within the
development. Moreover, the Housing Board has reviewed this request and recommended
that City Council approve the swap.
Similarly, in reviewing the second request made by the Applicant to swap the unit
categories between one of the Category 2 units at the Top of Mill and one of the Category
4 units within the Bavarian Inn project, the Housing Board felt that that the units would
still contribute to the overall goal of housing the community's workforce in the upper-
valley. And therefore, the Housing Board has recommended that City Council approve
the proposed request. Conversely, the Planning Staff is somewhat concerned that the
Applicant would like to raise the category of the Top of Mill unit, thereby allowing for a
person with a higher income to live at the base of Aspen Mountain in place of a person
with a lower income. To some, this may appear to be a more desirable location and that
the application would negate, if approved, the opportunity for a lower income person to
have this "luxury". However, the Planning Staff does concur with the Housing Board
that the request will not alter either development's ability to house a portion of the
Community's workforce in the upper-valley. Both units would still remain deed
restricted affordable hpusing units that would be sold to a qualified employee pursuant to
the Affordable Housing Guidelines. Moreover, there is not a change proposed in the
number of bedrooms or sizes of the sllbject units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that the proposed amendments are primarily housing policy decisions.
That being the case, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board has reviewed the
proposal and recommended that City Council approve the requested amendments
finding that the affordable housing units and the numb~r of bedrooms withjn the
affordable housing units are not being altered as part of the application.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No~, Series of 2003, recommending that City Council
approve a PUD Amendment and a GMQS Amendment to allow for the swap of affordable
housing category designations between the Bavarian and Top of Mill Planned Unit
Developments. "
- 2 -
A
f .
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - REVIEW CRI.TERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS
EXHIBIT B - ApPLICATION
EXHIBIT C - Top OF MILL PUD ApPROVAL ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT D - BAVARIAN INN PUD ApPROVAL ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT E - HOUSING BOARD COMMENTS
- 3 -
~
RESOLUTION NO. ~
(SERIES OF 2003)
A RESOLUTION OF Tm:: CITY O:fA~g~Ng~ANN!~QANR?-,QNJNQ
COMMISSION RECOMM~N])ING TI!.AI<::IIX~Ql..fN<::!1.AffBQY~fl..fI.lA~D
GMQS AMENDMENTS TO THE TOP O:fMILL (LOT 3, ASPEN MOUNTAIN
PUD) AND BAVARIAN INNPLANN~D UNIT ])~yJ:I"OPMENTS TO ALL.....O..W
FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE APPR.OyJ:DAJfFQIijjABj:~II:QP~tNG .
CATEGORIES wrrIIINBOT.fI])~yJ:1QfMJ3:NIS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
ParcelID: 2737-182-02-202
ParcelID: 2735-123-08-004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Four Peaks Development, represented by Scott Writer, requesting approval of a
PUD amendment and a GMQS amendment to the Bavarian Inn and Top of Mill Planned
Unit Developments to allow for 1) the affordable housing unit at 821 W.Bleeker to
convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 3 affordable housing
unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the former Bavarian Inn building to convert from a
Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit; and to allow
for 2) the affordable housing unit at 814 W. Main Street t9 cQnyert from a. Ga.1egory 4
affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit D,
Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill PUD to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to
a Category 4 affordable housing unit; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Housing Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 7, 2003, the Planning
and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the deyelopment proposal under the
applicable provisions of the Municipal . Code as identified herein and approved this
resolution, by a _ to L ---.J vote; recommending that City Councilapprove the
proposed amendment; and, .
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the 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 ASP.EN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMl\flSSION AS FOLLOWS:
~
'C... . .<~
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth.in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section
26.445, Planned Unit Development; and Section 26.470.110, Amendment of GMQS
Development Order, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City
Council approve the proposed amendments to allow for 1) the affordable housing unit at
821 W. Bleeker to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 3
affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the former Bavarian Inn building to
convert from a Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing
unit, and to allow for 2) the affordable housing unit at 814 W. Main Street to convert
from a Category 4 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit and to
allow for Unit D, Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill PUD to convert from a Category 2
affordable housing unit to a Category 4 affordable housing unit.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made. by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
. documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as iffully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection~ sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 7th day
of October, 2003.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
COMMISSION:
PLANNING AND ZONING
City Attorney
JaSllliIleTygre, Chair.
r'\
EXHIBIT A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT .
Review Criteria &, Staff Findings
SECTION 26.445.050, REVIEW STANDARDS: PUD AMENDMENT
Section 26.445.050 ofthe Regulations provides that development applications for a PUD
amendment must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Req llirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen Area
Community Plan. In the original approvals for the Bavarian Inn and the Top of Mill
PUDs, it was found that the affordable housing proposed in each of the respective
developments was consistent with the AACP. That being the case, staff feels that the
request will not alter either development's ability to house a portion of the Community's
workforce in the upper-valley. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing
land llses in the sl1rrounding area.
Staff Finding
The proposal is not requesting a change in the approved land uses for either of the
developments. Staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to application.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development
of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area in any way. 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 ~o accol1unodate the
proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final
PUD development plan review.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has already obtained GMQS exemptions for all of the units that are subject
to this application. Staff finds this. criterion to be met.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Reqllirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for
all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying
- 4 -
~.
zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for
the PUD. Dllring review of the proposed dimensional reqllirements, compatibility
with surrounding land llses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following inflllences on the property:
a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future
land uses in the surrounding area.
b) Natural and man-made hazards.
c) Existing natllral characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the properly and
the sl1rrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian
circlllation, parking, and historical reSOllrces.
Staff Finding
This application does not propose to change the physical characteristics of either
development in anyway. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 surrollnding area.
Staff Finding
This application does not propose to amend the dimensional requirements that were
approved for either of the developments. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to
this application.
3. The appropriate number of o,ff-street parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations:
a) The probable nllmber of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential (and llses.
b) The varying time periods of llse, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed
c) The availability ofpllblic transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to . utilize
alltomobile disincentive techniqlles in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
This application does not propose to amend the off-street parking requirements that were
established for the respective developments. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable to this application.
- 5 -
~
4. The maximllm allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there
exists insllfficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if: . .
a) There is not sl1fficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other
lltilities to service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal,
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding
This application does not request a reduction in the maximum allowable density of either
development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 becallse of grollnd
instability or the possibility of mlldflow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, dlle to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and conseqllent water
pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air qllality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structllre, road, driveway, or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
callses harmful distllrbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding
This application is not requesting a reduction in the maximum allowable density of either
development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
6. The maxim 11m allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there
exists a significant commllnity 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 maxim 11m density of a PUDmay be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the commllnity as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AA CP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site,.as identified
in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those
characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density reslllts in a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land llses, and characteristics.
- 6 -
Staff Finding
This application is not requesting an increase in the maximum allowable density of either
development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
B. Site Design:
The pllrpose of this standard is to enSllre the PUD. enhances pllblic spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-1J1ade features and the adJacent
pllblic spaces, and enSllres the public's health and safety. The proposed
development shall comply with thefollowing:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are llnique,
provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribllte to
the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced lit an appropriate
manner.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved site plan of either development. Therefore,
staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. Str11ctures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open
spaces and vistas.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved elevations. or placement of structures.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to pllblicstreets, contribllte to the
urban or rural context where. appropriate, and provide visllalinterest and
engagement of vehiclllar and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved placement or orientation of the structures
within either development. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this
application.
4. Bllildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency
and service vehicle access.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the on-site location ,of structures within either
development. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding
This application does- not alter the approved floor plans within either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
- 7 -
~
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical
and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrollnding
properties.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved site drainage or the location of the structures
within either development. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this
application.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
de-signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the
use.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved location of the structures within either
development. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be appli<.)able to this application.
C. Landscape Plan:
The pllrpose 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 featllres of the suhjectproperty. The proposed
development shall comply with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces,
preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity
and variety of ornamental plant species sl1itable for theAspen area climate.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved landscaping plan for either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved landscaping plan for either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved landscaping plan for either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
- 8 -
~
D. Architectllral Character:
It is the pllrpose of this standard to encollrage architectural intt;rest,variety,
character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City
while promoting efficient use of reSOllrces. Architectllral character is based
upon the suitability of a building for its pllrposes, legibility of the building's
use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation. to public
spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may
significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall
be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character
plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The
proposed architecture of the development shall:
1. be compatible with or enhance the visllal character of the city,
appropriately relate to existing and proposed architectllre of the property,
represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and
respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cllltllral reSOllrces.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved elevations of either development. Therefore,
staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved construction methods utilized in building
either development. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow! ice, and water in a safe an
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved architectural elevations or the method in
which the shielding of snow is to occur. Additionally, this application does not alter the
snow storage location that was set out in the respective PUDs. Staff finds this criterion
not to be applicable to this application.
E. Lighting:
The pllrpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety. and general
aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous
interference of any king to adjoining streets or landiLightingof site
features, strllctures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding
Both developments are required to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code as is set forth in .
Land Use Code Section 26,575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
- 9-
r"\
2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting
Standards llnless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD
documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and
lighting. to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for
residential development.
Staff Finding
Both developments are required to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code as is set forth in
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, OutdoorLTghting. S.ta.fffinds this criterion to be
met.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area:
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or
recreation area for the mlltual 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 structllres and natllral
landscape featllres of the property, provides visllal 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 Finding
This application does not alter the approved amount, location, or design of the approved
open space. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
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 Finding
This application does not alter the method in which the common park and recreation
areas in each development are owned and maintained. Staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable to this application.
3. There is proposed an adequate aSSllrance through legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and
shared facilities together with a deed restriction against futllre residential,
commercial, or industrial development.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the method in which the common park and recreation
areas in each development are owned and maintained. Staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable to this application.
- 10 -
c,.,'jo;~~;';;';,'",..;"d_4'l:1&k1'11'~
~
H. Utilities and Public Facilities:
The pllrpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any
llndlle burden on the City's infrastructllre capabilities and that the public does
not incur an lln}ustified financial bllrden. The proposed utilities and public
facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate pllblic infrastrllcture facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that sufficient public infrastructure exists to amend the respective PUDs as
requested in that there is no additional development proposed by this application.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
.2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding
This application will not require public infrastructure improvements and will not have
adverse impacts on the public infrastructure of either development. Staff finds this
criterion not to be applicable to this application.
3. Oversized utilities, pllblic facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additionalilnprovelnent
Staff Finding
This application is not proposing to install nor is being required to install oversized
utilities to swap housing categories. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this
application.
L Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD
applications):
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible,
does not unduly bllrden the sl1rrounding road network, provides adequate
pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security
gates. The proposed access and circlllation of the development shall meet the
following criteria:
1. Each lot, stmcture, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access
to a pllblic street either directly or throllgh and approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to pllblic or private use.
Staff Finding
This application does not alter the approved access within either development.
Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the
- 11 -
proposed development, or sl1ch sl1rrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the approved parking arrangement within either of the
developments would need to be amended due to the request to swap affordable housing
categories between units because the use of the units is not changing. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan.
The purpose of these 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 adoptedfinal
PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with thefollowing:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a
complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas inslllating, to the extent
practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu,
construction of any facilities to be llsed jointly by residents of the PUD,
construction of any required affordable hOllsing, and any mitigation
meaSllres are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts
associated with the phase.
Staff Finding
Construction of the subject units is nearing completion. This application is not proposing
to amend the approved phasing for either of the respective developments. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
- 12 -
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT ToGMQS DEVELOPMENT ORDER
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
SECTION 26.470.110,REVIEW STANDARDS:GMQS AMENDMENT
Section 16.470.110 ofthe R.egulations provides thai development applications for a
GMQS amendment must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. Exception. The following activities shall be exempt from these amendment
procedures, provided they are reviewed and approved by the Commun.ity
Development Director prior to construction, except as allowed for during actual
development under (2), below:
1. Any change required to be made to a development order to respond to
conditions imposed upon the proposed development by the Growth Management
Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or the City Council during the
review of. other development applications relevant to the proposed development;
and,
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the general affordable housing use of the units subject to this
application will not change. Moreover, staff feels that the affordable housing units that
are subject to this proposal will still contribute the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)
goal of housing the Community's workforce in the upper valley. Thus, staff believes that
the proposed request is consistent with the representations made by the Applicant during
the original review of the respective planned unit developments. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
2. Any insubstantial modification to the development order, which shall
be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual
development that could not reasonably be anticipated during the review process, or
any other minor change that the Community Development Director finds has no
effect on the conditions and representations made during the original project
review.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed request is a minor change to the approved Top of Mill
and Bavarian PUDs in that the affordable housing use of the units subject to this
amendment will not change. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
- 13 ~
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen CO 81611
(970) 920-5090
(970) 920-5439, fax
Aspen Community
Development
Department
Fax
To: Scott Writer From: James Lindt
Fax: 925-1036 Pages:
Phone: Date: 9/30/03
."
Re: Staff Memo on Amendment cc:
o Urgent
o For Review
o Please. Comment 0 Please Reply
o Please Recycle
. Comments:
HiScott,
Here is our staff memo on the proposed category swap between Bavarian and the Top of Mill. Please
contact Joyce or myself if you have any questions. Joyce will be handling the public hearing because I
will be on vacation. You are first on the agenda and the meeting begins at 4:30 PM. Also, please bring
your affidavit of notice that includes a picture of the postings.
,.
Thanks,
Jame
...
A TTACHMENT7
AFFIOAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED. BY SECTION~6.~04:060 (E),ASPEN.LAND
ADDRESSOFPR(;"~ER,n;, . (ff! .. . .
SCHEDULED pDBLICHEARIN~DA;E:~IJ!~6( c.02tf1
,200~
County of Pitkin
"~:,,,:',:.:.:...,, ""","
;',.{ti:.i{.i:~,,:;.
g..b-" '~_.:,~,'~,~,.,:"<' - ,.....d "-;, "'" ."<:;5;~;{~:;';;';~;0-::::':'C. '.;)t:,
I, .J);t1l1lJ//l~ ." (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 requiremellts of Sectio,n26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code illth~ fo119wing 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 Ie tfifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication .' -"-eto.
...... ........ . '........
>>>.....> . ................>~.~...T~
Posting ofn()tice:'By'postiIlg 'oticiiice, which form "'va, !!;vtmned frO!n
Commtl11ity Development DePartp.}ent, which was ma~~i3fsuitable,
waterproofmaterials, which Vias not less than twenty-tW;2.:~2f\incheA~
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composea7Y:(,le~rt~
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at leasffi1t.(~~ ays
prior to the public.hearing and was continuously visiqle from tll~~;;r.~il~~~~~
, 200_, 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 notice obtained from the COITI.ll1unity
Develop.ment Department, which .contains the inforrrlation described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice \Vas haIld deliv~r.edor p.}~iled by ~r~tclass postage
prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal govemment,
school, service district or other governnlentalor qUaSi-govermnental agency that
owns property within three hundred (300) feet ofthe property subject to the .
development application. The names and addresses 6fproperty owners shall be
those on the current tax recorqs of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than
sixty (60) days prior to thedate.oftlle public hearing. A. copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on nextp~ge)
....
~
..
1,
....'
.,
~
--~.. "".'.......,...".."-,,
~
r
~
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OFPROPERTY, & va V'}' a lA ~V\ V\ r~rEn:€ ~~ I J
SCHEDULED PUBLrCIfEARING DATE, (C) /7)6'>
,200
. -
STATE OF COLORADO )
) 55.
County of Pitkin ) ,
I, -,.j ~ YYl--tL5 L-t '(/\J + (name, please print)
being or. repres~nting an Applicant to the City of Aspell, Colol'ado, hereby personally
ceIiify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Sectio]126.304.060
(E) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code inthe following manner:
-Wublication of notice: 'By tile 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 for~ was obtained from the'
SQIPJ11111uty De'ielopment Department, which was made of suitable, . . . .. ... )
~{{:~a1~rp~~ofn:aterial~, which .was not les~ than tWenty-two (22)iIl~heswide
. ,4'i'" '9\.). and twenty-sIx (26) lllches hIgh, and whIch was composed of letters not
;,t;;!(5?/ less thall' qne~illch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
: prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of
, 200_, to and including the date alld time 9fthe public
hearing. Aphotograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Commllility
Development Depmiment, which contains the information de~cribed in Section
26.304.~60(E)\2) ofth~ Aspen Land U~e:;;:ode. At :east fifteen (15) day,pdo~to
the publIc hearlllg, notIce was halld dehvered or malled by first class postage
prepaidU.S. mail to any federal agency, state, COllilty, mllilicipal governn}ent, .
school, service district or other govermnental or quasi-govermnental agency that
owns p1'OpeIiy within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the..
development application. The nalnes alld addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared ~10 more thall
sixty (60) days prior to .the date.ofthe public heal'ing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
i.
""S',c;
~,
~.,-
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 ofthis Title istobeamended,\vhether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate SlU"vey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses .of owners of real propeliy in the area pf the proposed change shall
be waived: However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the plmming agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such mnendments.
~~d~
- q-tl..
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me t:hi~ day
of ~eiYJ . ,2003 by 0~S J-'\.~
WIrnESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
~r=~~~tti~~;~~~!1~~~';;;~~~
NOTICElS~~R.EBY~ IVEN t?~lapub.lis?~~ring
wiII be helaonOcto er .7, 2003: at ';'.ne~ii;;g to
begm at 4:30 P.M. before the Aspen Planning, and
Zoning_ C,()PJ_",l,~~~~()~:,~S.i~.~~r,Gi~~~~."g()()ll1' City HaU~ ---'~
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an applica-
tion submitted by Four Peaks ])evelopment reo'.
"!uesting appr"val,ofa pllD amendment and a
GMQS amendment to allow!or two of the afforda-
:~I~i_~<?Y$_ing units:wit,~Jrl t~e__Bayar~a.n.~nnPtJD_ tq
swap affordabl.e housing categories. Additio""l.
Iy. the application requests approval to swap'lf-.
fordable hc)Using categories _ between on~9f the
aff9rdable - housing u[lits .Ioc~t~d i~:~he- B~varian
Inn PUD and one of the~(ford~bie?()~sing units
located in the Topol Milj'PUD.Tlie' properties
subject to .the proposed amel11lOents are legally
describ~d as. follows: Parcel. 2, Lot 3, .01 the fJi'
pen Mountain PUDand. L"tsi)..I and Lois . K~il"
BI"ck 12, Citya",~J")oV",~iie,,fAspen.
:.:~~l~~~:;~: GRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
~'::~,i, "",.._,,~,.,~~,~P,~1.l,~~~,~!3_~I1_~t~!:,e?~E)i.f,1gC:(}rI}m;i,~,s~~n
PuDfished in rfie Aspen Times on September 20
2b03. (0198r'~ .... ..'.~.~".' ,
My commission expires;'lf)l .;;;;;;...3) O=r
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
5 AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
~-- - - ---- ~
{
Cindy Christensen, 03:33 PM .../03, Swapping Categories between Top of Mill and Bavaria Page 1 of 1
~
X-Sender: cindyc@commons
X-Mailer: .QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:33:31 -0600
To: joycea@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Cindy Christensen <cindyc@cLaspen.co.us>
Subject: Swapping Categories between Top of Mill and Bavarian
X-MaiIScanner-lnformation: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MaiIScanner: Found to be clean
Joyce: The developer for both of these projects approached the H6using Office on
switching the categories between the two properties. In other words, instead of having all
Category 2 three-bedrooms at Top of Mill, one of the units will be a higher category and the
higher category unit at the Bavarian will be a lower category. The Housing Board approved
this request, but I was told that this needs to go to Council for approval. Maureen asked
Steve Barwick to schedule this with City Council but he said to check with. .com. Dev. first to
see if you would determine that it needs to go to Council or if an administrative decision
would take care of this.
I have attached the memo that I put together for the Board. If you have questions, please
let me know.
Cindy
~;r~ brdmem tom bav swap.doc
Cindy Christensen
Operations Manager, Housing Office
Printed for Joyce Allgaier <joycea@ci.aspen.co.us>
7/29/03
"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Housing Board
FROM:
Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
THRU:
Maureen Dobson, Executive Director
DATE:
July 16, 2003
RE:
REQUEST TO SWAP CATEGORIES BETWEENBAVARIAN AND TOP OFMILL
ISSUE: F our Peaks Development is requesting that between the two properties that they are
developing for affordable housing -- the Bavarian site between 800 West Main and 800 West
Bleeker, and the Top of Mill site (behind the old Grand Aspen) -- they would like the ability to
switch the categories between the two properties.
BACKGROUND: The attached shows the breakdown of what is currently approved for both
properties and what is being proposed. As you can see from the attached, the amount of units per
category does not change which means that the applicant's bottom line also does not change.
The developer is allowed to place a qualified employee of their choice for a specific number of
units. The employees that they would like to recognize for their service to their company and offer
a unit to does not "fit" the current approval. The bottom line does not change. The housing
program is still getting just as many units and because they can choose the qualified household of
their choice, the same category-type units that would have been in the lottery prior to this change
would still be the same.
Staff is currently checking with the City Attorney to see if this request, if approved by the Board,
would then need to be approved by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending the Board approve this request due to the
following:
1. The bottom line remains the same. This means that the request has no monetary value to the
applicant. Their only "value" is recognizing the employees whom they would like to give the
opportunity to purchase a unit.
2. The same type of categories and unit sizes remain the same, they just change between the two
properties.
I .
'III
~
"
3. The units thatthey are requesting to switch will go to qualified households of their choice. Each
qualified household not only has to meet income, assets and occupancy requirements, but also
the four-year priority requirement.
2
Cindy Christensen, 12:27 PM 8/11/03, Item tor City Council
~
Page 1 of 1
X-Sender: cindyc@commons
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:27:04 -0600
To: joycea@cLaspen.co.us
From: Cindy Christensen <cindyc@cLaspen.co.us>
Subject: Item for City Council
X-MaiIScanner-lnformation: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MaiIScanner: Found to be clean
Joyce: The owners of the Top of Mill and Bavarian approached the Housing Board to
switch category units between the projects. The Board approved this. I spoke with John
Worcester and he thought that City Council might need to approve this because of their
interest with the two properties. I wasn't sure how to proceed on this and John said I
should check with Community Development. Do you need to take this through to them?
Do I? Do they even need to see this? John asked me to check with Com. Dev. on this.
The sooner the better. THANKS!!
Cindy Christensen
Operations Manager, Housing Office
Printed for Joyce Allgaier <joycea@ci.aspen.co.us>
8/11/03
~
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen CO 81611
(970) 920-5090
(970) 920-5439, fax
Aspen Community
Development
Department
Fax
To: SCott Writer From: James Lindt
Fax: 925-1 036 Pages:
Phone: Date: 9/11/03
Notice for PUD Amendment-Swap
Re: Categories CC:
o Urgent
o For Review
o Please Comment 0 Please Reply
o Please Recycle
. Comments:
Hi Scott,
Here is the notice to mail out to property owners within 300 feet of both the Bavarian PUD and the Top
of Mill Property. Please mail notice out and post notice on the site at least 15 days prior to October 7 th.
Also, please let me know if October 7th will not work for you. The amendment will require a
recommendation from P & Z to City Council and Council's approval of an ordinance.
Thanks,
James
~
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen CO 81611
(970) 920-5090
(970) 920-5439, fax
City of Aspen
Community
Development
Department
Fax
To: Scott Writer - Four Peaks From: Denise Driscoll
Fax: 925-1 036 Pages: 4
.
Phone: 925-2114 Date: September 11 , 2003
Re: CC:
Urgent
o For Review
o Please Comment 0 Please Reply
o Please Recycle
. Comments:
Please complete and sign the Fee Agreement form. You may fax or mail it back to us.
Thank you,