Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLanduse Case.ZO.Aspen Grove Sub.Eastwood Sub.Knollwood Sub.1987-ZO-1 , . .""'" ~.-? ( ""--"-. ( -. CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL 10 AND CASE NO_ PROJECT NAME: e Project Address: G.-i}/") C5. ~I ~~~i~~~:Addres(!/i! VT ~;11. REPRESENTATIVE: Representative Address/Phone: TYPE OF APPLICATION: PAID: YES @ AMOUNT: 1 STEP APPLICATION: P&Z MEETING DATE: .. PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: 2 STEP APPLICATION: CC MEETING DATE: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: REFERRALS : city Attorney City Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water City E1ectric Envir. H1th. Aspen Conso1. S.D. Mtn. Be11 Parks Dept. Ho1.y Cross Fire Marsha11 Fire Chief Roaring Fork Transit Schoo1 District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) State Hwy Dept(GJ) B1dg:Zon/Inspect Roaring Fork Energy Center Other FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: Qcf5 -ghNITIAL:"1IJc/: city Atty city Engineer B1dg~ Dept. ~ ,~ ~ ( ( " Caseload dispositon sheet for the initial zoning for the Aspen Grove/Knollwood/Eastwood annexation area Planner Glenn Horn On JUly 13, 1987 city council approved the initial zoning for the annexation area. The area was zoned R-15B which was a new zone district approved on the same night. In addition to zoning the area R15B the area was given 8040 Greenline review approval. .. 1""\ "...... MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Office Building and Zoning Department Environmental Health Department city Engineer County Planning Engineer County Public Works Director County Sheriff Police Chief FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director RE: Aspen Grove/Knollwood/Eastwood Annexation DATE: July 15,1987 ================================================================ On July 13, 1987 the Aspen City Council annexed the Aspen Grove/EastwoodjKno11wood annexation area. The area includes all of the Aspen Grove and Eastwood subdivisions and all of the Kno11wood subdivision with the exception of the block located on the south side of state Highway 82. On Thursday July 23, the described areas will become a part of the city of Aspen. The annexation area will be zoned R-15B which is a new zone district. Building and Zoning should utilize the attached copy of the ordinance which created the R-15B zone district as a guide for zoning questions. I have not attached the ordinance for other departments because you probably are not interested in the zoning. As part of the zoning process the entire annexation area was granted 8040 Greenline review approval. Therefore, although most of the annexation area is aboVe the 8040 elevation line, the developments in the area do not have to go through 8040 Greenline review. r15b1jgh " "~ r-.. LOT SIZE (Single-Family Structures) 0-3,000 3,001-9,000 9,001-15,000 15,001-50,000 50,000+ ..-, EXHIBIT "An EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD 80 s. f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 28 s. f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 7 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 6 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 2 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area ALLOWABLE SQ. FT. .70x(0-2,400) .70x(2,400-4,080) .70x(4,080-4,500) .70X(4,500-6,500) I . f;, ;70x(6,500+) II1M'., .'-'. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director ~ Robert S. Anderson Jr., City Manager te;;L 'F-- Creation of the R-15B Zone District and Initial Zoning for the Aspen Grove/Knollwood/Eastwood Annexation Area FROM: THRU: RE: DATE: July 13, 1987 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval on second reading of Ordinance,9<=, (Series of 1987) and Ordinance cQ.C", (Series of 1987) creating the R-15B zone district and zoning the Aspen Grove/Knollwood/Eastwood annexation area R-15B. BACKGROUND: On June 16, 1987 the City Council approved on first reading an ordinance creating the R-15B zone district and an ordinance zoning the Aspen Grove/Kno11wood/Eastwood annexation .area R-15B. Attached for your information is a copy of the June 16, 1987 memorandum which addresses in detail the issues associated with these two ordinances. The city Council directed the Staff to make two changes to the ordinance creating the R-15B zone district. First, a change was made to the ordinance which provides an interpretation of the definition of a dwelling unit. The new interpretation makes it clear that two level houses in the proposed R-15B zone district will not be viewed as duplex dwelling units. Second, a provision has been placed in the ordinance which exempts all existing residences in the annexation area from the 8040 Greenline review process. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Council also requested that the Staff research the current sizes of houses in the Meadowood and Aspen Highlands Subdivision because these subdivisions will probably be zoned R-15B when they are annexed by the city. The purpose of the research was to determine if the Floor Area Ratio proposed in the R-15B zone district would accommodate the houses in Meadowood and Aspen Highlands Subdivision. Our research has showed that the lots in Meadowood and the Aspen Highlands Subdivisions vary between 15,000 and 17,000 square feet and the existing houses vary in ~. ,-., size between 2,400 and 3,400 square feet in size. few house which are larger than 3,400 square feet. Given the proposed Floor Area Ratio in the R-15B zone district, a 3,150 square foot house could be constructed on a 15,000 square foot lot, a 3,192 square foot house on 16,000 square foot lot and a 3,234 square foot house on a 17,000 square foot lot. Based upon these findings the city council may wish to consider increasing the proposed Floor Area Ratio for the R-15B zone district slightly to .71 or .72 of the sliding scale. There are a Table 1 demonstrates a comparison of various Floor Area Ratios for your consideration: TABLE 1 FLOOR AREA RATIO COMPARISON Lot Area (s.f.) .7x sliding scale FAR Options (s.f.) .71x .72x sliding sliding scale scale .73x sliding scale 15,000 16,000 17,000 3,150 3,192 3,234 3,195 3,237 3,280 3,240 3,283 3,326 3,285 3,328 3,372 Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, July 1987 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval on second reading of Ordinance 025' (Series of 1987) creating the R-15B zone district and Ordinance ~Go (Series of 1987) zoning the Aspen Grove/ KnollwoodjEastwood annexation area R-15B. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to :l"1l!lJ ] approve on second reading Ordinances .;l.s and ~ (Series of 1987). CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: J- ~ ,J cyy~ r15b71387 2 ^ ""'"", MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager ~ Glenn Horn, Planning Office ~ steve Burstein, Planning Office Creation of R-15B Zone District and Zoning of Annexed Areas: Aspen Grove, Eastwood, Starodoj and Knollwood THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: June 16, 1987 ================================================================ SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the City Council approve on first reading Ordi- nance ..25 (Series of 1987) creating the R-15B zone district and Ordinance ~{~ (Series of 1987) zoning the Aspen Grove/Knoll- wood/Eastwood annexation area R-15B. There are minor differences between the Planning and Zoning commission (P&Z) recommendation and the Staff recommendation which are addressed in this memoran- dum. BACKGROUND: The Aspen City Council has initiated annexation proceedings to annex the Aspen Grove, Starodoj and Knollwood Subdivisions (see Map 1). Although City Council has sole author- ity for annexation, the Aspen P&Z is required by the Municipal Code to recommend zoning of the annexed area. The P&Z held a pUblic hearing on June 2,1987 to consider initial zoning for the annexation area. Prior to the P&Z public hearing, a public meeting was held on May 19, 1987 to discuss proposed zoning. The objectives for zoning the area, based on policies presented to City Council are: 1) To not substantially change development rights (either to increase or decrease) from that allowed under the current County zoning regulations; 2) To avoid creating non-conforming uses or structures through the change in jurisdiction and the jurisdiction's regula- tions; 3) To arrive at zoning that satisfies the residents regard- ing problems that were not addressed under County regula- tions, such as through removal of certain non-conformities; 4) To create a zone which may be applicable to other annexa- t"'" """ tion areas; and 5) To insure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. DESCRIPTION OF AREA: The annexation area consists of approxi- mately 79.3 acres, directly east of Aspen's city limits. Most of the area is north of Highway 82 on the rolling mountainous terrain of the south side of Smuggler Mountain, between 8,000' and 8,400' elevation. Block 4 of the Knollwood Subdivision is south of Highway 82 and borders the Roaring Fork River. There are approximately 114 parcels within the four subdivisions. Approximately 27 lots are undeveloped. Buildout of the area consists of some 84 single-family houses and three duplexes. The subdivisions were approved by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners between 1963 and 1971. The Roaring Fork East Neighborhood Master Plan of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of the entire annexation area "Low Density Residential" (LOR), described as follows: "A designation recommended for existing residential subdivisions which may be suitable for additional development based upon an analysis of land use characteristics and the ability of the community to provide services. Principal uses include clustered single-family dwellings. The density of Low Density Residential development will vary from three units per acre to one unit per two acres depending upon the land's unique site characteristics and compatibility with surrounding areas." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The current pitkin County zoning of the entire area is R-15 Residential. When the City staff originally met with residents in the annexation area, the Planning Office staff mentioned that the preliminary zoning recommendation was R- 15A. Within the R-15A zone district, duplex structures are permitted. By comparison, duplex structures are prohibited in the County. Residents at the meeting indicated they were strongly opposed to zoning which would enable new duplex units to be built because the area is a single-family neighborhood and the addition of duplexes would change the character of the area. Other differences between the City and County R-15 zone districts include: floor area ratio calculations, setbacks, height, parking requirements and conditional uses (see Table 1). Dwelling units and basement FAR are defined differently in the City and County Codes. In addition, the 8040 Greenline would apply to some properties in the area in a different way than does the 1041 County environmental hazard review. 2 ^ Table 1 ^ A Comparison of Area & Bulk Requirements in Pitkin County's R-15 Zone with the City of Aspen's R-15A Zone Area & Bulk Reauirements Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Dwell ings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Minimum Side Yard Dwellings & Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Minimum Rear Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Maximum Height Minimum Distance Between Principal Building & Accessory Building Percent of Open Space for Building site External Floor Area Ratio Internal Floor Area Ratio Off-Street Parking Residential Uses Other Uses City of Aspen Pitkin County R-15A Zone R-15 Zone 15,000 15,000 10,000 15,000 75' 75' 25' 30' 30' 30' 30' 3D' 5' 5' 10' 5' 10' 10' 5' 5' 20' 10' 25' 28' 10' No Requirement No Requirement No Requirement Sliding Scale .16 No Requirement No Requirement One per bedroom 2 Conditional Special Review Use Review Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May 1987 3 .--.. .--.. Based upon comments from residents, staff proposes enactment of a new zone district entitled R-15B. As you begin to address the issues analyzed in this memorandum it will become evident to you as it has become evident to the Staff that the City Council needs to provide the Staff and property owners in annexation areas some basic policy direction regarding the following questions. o To what extent should the City of Aspen create zoning changes which are custom made for individual annexation areas? o Should code amendments which are designed to address specific problems of annexation areas be initiated now are addressed as part of the City code rewrite? Based upon our work session last week, it is the staff recom- mendation that you utilize the following guidelines relating to "Development Potential within Existing, Subdivided, Generally, Built Out Areas" to assist you during the zoning process. ~ 1) Guideline Apply zoning to annexed areas which generally maitains the same development rights within the City as within unincorporated areas. 2) Guideline Strive to avoid zoning designations which make conform- ing land ukses and structures non-conforming. 3) Guideline Consider, when appropriate, creating new land use zone districts or special code amendments which may also be applied on a City-wide bases to addresss specific problems but avoid creating custom land use legislation to address isolated, special interest problems. 4) Guideline When creating new land use legislation for annexation areas, the city should consider the effects of the new legislation on the remainder of the City of Aspen. With these overriding policy considerations in mind, issues relating to the differences between the County district and the proposed R-15B zone district are below. specific R-15 zone addressed 4 """" ,,~ 1. Floor Area Ratio Calculations: Maximum FAR in the County R- 15 zone districts is .16, while the City uses a sliding scale. For the purpose of comparison, a house on a 15,000 square foot lot may not exceed 2,400 square feet in the County. In the City a house on a 15,000 square foot lot may not exceed 4,500 square feet. Numerous residents expressed concern that the City FAR allowance is too great for this mountainous suburban area, and the character of the area would be negatively affected if the city FAR limitations were used. Residents have suggested several options, including to use: (a) County .16 FAR, (b) .20 FAR, (c) .21 FAR, (d) .21 FAR for lots up to 17,000 square feet and the sliding scale for lot area above 17,000 sq. ft. and (e) .7 of the sliding scale. Table 1 presents FAR's using suggested methods of calculati- on: Table 2 Floor Area Ratio Comparison Lot Area(s.f.) FAR Calculations (s. f.) .7x City City Sliding Sliding .16 .20 .21 .21* Scale Scale 15,000 2,400 3,000 3,150 3,150 4,500 3,150 17,000 2,720 3,400 3,570 3,570 4,620 3,234 20,000 3,200 4,000 4,200 3,975 4,800 3,360 40,000 6,400 8,000 8,400 4,950 6,000 4,200 * .21 FAR up to 17,000 sq.ft., 6 sq.ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May 1987 5 ,......... ,/"'\ It has been noted that the current .16 FAR may be too restrictive because some houses built prior to County bulk regulations are non-conforming and it may be desirable to remove their non-conforming status. In addition, owners may wish to add on to their small conforming structures slightly exceeding the current FAR limitation. As you can see, there is a minor difference between the maximum floor area under .20 FAR and .21 FAR when building on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. Both allow for a moderate sized expansion from the existing .16 FAR (600 to 750 square feet) while under the City's sliding scale a much larger structure can be built. The residents and P&Z should determine whether .20 or .21 FAR is better suited for the area. The concept of a sliding scale calculation for lots over 17,000 sq. ft. in area seems to have merit, as it would preclude the building of houses much greater in size than existing houses in the neighborhood which would be conse- quently be out of scale. We note that most subdivision lots are around 17,000 sq. ft., however, there are a few unsub- divided parcels, very large lots and contiguous undeveloped lots where much larger houses could be built. The FAR established by multiplying .7 by the City sliding scale accomplishes a similar calculation as alternative (d). It may be easier to administer. staff supports the .7 multi- plier sliding scale measurement. The P&Z also supported this approach, but felt that perhaps a .72 or a .73 multi- plier might be more acceptable to the property owners in the annexation area. 2. Allowance of Duplexes: A key concept of the R-15B zone district is to allow for the continuation of the single- family nature of the neighborhoods annexed into the City and to prohibit duplexes. This concept has received strong support from residents because it is believed that the character of the area would be threatened by added density, including the serviceability of narrow roads winding up the hill. At the May 19th meeting, it was pointed out that there are three (3) duplexes in Eastwood that were legally built prior to County regulations. These duplexes are fairly small structures located on lots 6, 9 and 10. Under the County R- 15 zoning, these uses are non-conforming and cannot be expanded. If made non-conforming uses in the City, these structures can still not be expanded without receiving variances. Options of dealing with these properties include: 1) Create a special provision in the non-conforming section of the Code "grandfathering" in these struct- 6 ~ ,...-, ures to allow for expansion without need of a variance; 2) Zone the 3 properties R-15A, which would allow for them to be made conforming duplexesl; Continue the single-family restriction. 3) Option 1 entails creation of another detailed special provision in the non-conformities section of the Code, already generally acknowledged to be the most convolu- ted and confusing part of our zoning code. Certainly, the interest of code simplification is not served. This option is more attractive than Option 2 from the point of view that it would relieve the owners of the duplexes form their non- conforming status, while not giving them FAR allowances above their neighbors under the proposed R-15B zoning. However, it is questionable if further modification of the non-conformities section of the Code is in the general interest of the neighborhood or the City. staff can prepare an amendment to Section 24-13.4, Non-Conforming Uses, accomplishing this exemption if the P&Z and/or City Council desire to pursue this alternative. Zoning the duplexes R-15A would constitute "spot zoning" of three separate parcels. Problems with this approach include creating a discrepancy in development rights from neighbor- ing properties otherwise similar in character and exposure to legal challenge. Please note that the City initially considered zoning the entire area R-15A, making these properties conforming while adding development rights to many single-family residences. However, when neighbors requested continuation of the single-family character of the area, it was agreed that such limitation is desirable. The Planning Office and City Attorney's Office recommend against this approach. Option 3 would not improve nor worsen the status of duplex use currently under the County Code. To expand, the owner of a duplex would have the burden of demonstrating hardship to the Board of Adjustment to receive a variance. It should be noted that the City has no abatement policy regarding non-conforming uses or structures. Furthermore, in the case of removal or destruction, a duplex can be repaired or replaced wi thin two years of the loss. Perhaps the main advantage of non-conforming duplex status in the City over the County is the ready ability to condominiumize the units. 1 Within the R-15A legally created duplexes constructed prior to the application of R-15A zoning may remain as free market duplexes. 7 ",-. ".-,. The Planning Office and the majority of the P&Z favors Option 3 because an increased burden is not added to the duplex properties, and R-15B zoning appears to be the most desirable and reasonable for the general area. The other options open the City to legal challenge for spot zoning, or entail further complication of a Code section that we want to simplify. 3. Setbacks, Height, and Off-Street Parking Requirements: The general concept of the R-15B area and bulk requirements is to establish parameters consistent with the County require- ments, as are acceptable to residents. Some residents have said they prefer the County R-15 30' front yard setback for dwellings (City front-yard setbacks is 25'), 5' side yard setback for dwelling (City side yard setbacks is 10') and maximum height of 28' (City height is 25'). Staff supports continuing the County area standards in the R-15B zone district, thereby not making structures non-conforming. However, we cannot support maintaining the County 28' height limit and instead propose a 25' height limit. The City limitation was a major consideration in the development of the City's Floor Area Ratios. A different height limit for the R-15B would be inconsistent with all City residential zone districts and previous City policy. In the case of front yard setbacks, the 30' minimum requirement would not allow new structures or additions to be built out of sync with neighboring homes. Off-street parking requirements in the County are two spaces; we propose for the R-15B zone, 1 space/bedroom or 2 spaces, whichever is less. The P&Z supported the Staff's recommendation regarding dimensional requirements with the exception of the proposed height limitation. The P&Z recommends a height limit of 28 feet rather than 25 feet. 4. Conditional Uses: Conditional uses in all City residen- tial zone districts are: open use recreation site; pUblic school; church; hospital; public administration building; day care center; museum and satellite dish antennae. The County R-15 zone districts treat these uses in a variety of ways: Church (on at least 2 acres with 30 ' setbacks), hospital, day care center, and satellite dish antennae are special reviews. A pUblic school is allowed by right (on at least 1d acres with 3D' setbacks). Private schools, public administration building, and museum are prohibited. In additio~, the County allows junk yards, guest ranch, community center and farm buildings by special review. Residents questioned if any of the conditional uses are appropriate in the subject annexation area. Allowing no conditional uses in the R-15B zone district is an option 8 ,-.., .~ that should be considered. staff notes that there are similarities between the City conditional uses and the County special review uses both of which are allowed only after P&Z reviews impacts and grants approval. The entire purpose of the respective reviews is to ensure that a conditional use is appropriate in the requested location, determined on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, it should be noted that the City's annexation policy is to pursue annexing other County subdivisions on the periphery of the City. The R-15B zone district may be appropriate for other annexed lands; and, for the sake of simplicity, we should try to keep the list of additional zone districts no longer than it needs to be. staff supports maintaining the current City conditional uses in the R-15B zone district. We question whether the special reviews allowed by the County R-15 have been problem- atic in the annexation area and we suggest that the City conditional uses will be no more troublesome for these neighborhoods. 5. Dwelling Unit Definition: A resident attorney expressed fear that the dwelling unit definition in the Municipal Code could be interpreted so that some multi-level houses in the annexed area are considered duplexes. Section 24-3.1 (g) defines a dwelling unit as "one or more rooms, in addition to a kitchen and/or bath facilities, intended or designed for occupancy by a family or guests independent of other families or guests." For example, a finished basement containing a bedroom, bathroom, and Sliding glass door might be considered a separate "dwelling unit". The County definition does not contain the inclusion of a bath. The Planning Office, Zoning Officials, and Code Simplifica- tion Task Force have identified the dwelling unit definition to be a difficult issue of interpretation, given the breadth of design options of a residence. It is also generally recognized that this definition has broad implications for the entire City. Staff believes that the only appropriate way to deal with the issue is through the Code Simplifica- tion process. This process is a major effort on the part of the City and interested citizens to come to grips with some long-term problems with the Code; and it is anticipated to be completed in the fall, 1987. The P&Z does not concur with the timing associated with the Staff recommendation. The P&Z recommends that the dwelling unit definition be addressed now rather than as part of the code Simplification/rewrite. 6. Basement FAR: "Subgrade" space 100% below existing grade is presently excluded from the City'S FAR calculation, as 9 .-- -- defined in Section 24-3.1(ee). In the County Code, all subgrade space is included in FAR. Consequently, a house with an FAR excluding subgrade spaCe may be larger than a house with the same FAR that includes the subgrade area. Residents of this annexation area have stated they want to limit the size of houses to only allow minor expansions over the present FAR. An option for consideration is to set FAR at .16, and then through the change in definition of subgrade space those structures with 100% below grade areas would then have added floor area available. However, we expect that because of the hillside terrain, the great majority of structures do not have basements 100% below grade; rather, most are split levels opening up to a lower level down the hill. Therefore, this change in definition would effect few residents; and it is most appropriate to establish the FAR that works for the majority of homeowners, as discussed above. The City is working on changes to our complicated FAR definition as part of the code simplification effort. Staff anticipates that a definition more similar to the County's, including all habitable space within the structure, will be considered. If such a definition is adopted next fall, the confusion for annexed areas will be eliminated. 7. 8040 Greenline Review: The 8040 elevation line runs through the bottom part of the sUbj ect annexation area. As a result, the entire area north of Highway 82 appears to be subject to the 8040 Greenline Review. Since Greenline Review applies to development within fifty (50) yards of the 8040 elevation, it is quite certain that the whole area is subject to this review. At the neighborhood meeting, residents expressed concern that the 8040 Greenline Review may be largely inappropriate for this area. The following issues arose: 1) The area is an old subdivision and largely built out. Few environmental issues are likely to be associated with new development activities. 2) One of the key issues prompting 8040 review was the elevation of the water tank so to assure reliable service to residents. This is not applicable because the water tank serving this area is above the 8300 I elevation. 3) The one-step (P&Z) review process may be an unnecessary hassle for minor additions. 4) Development activities are currently only subject to Planning Director approval through County 1041 regula- 10 r-, ~. tions. A number of options are available to deal with this problem, including: 1) Change the elevation for Greenline Review in this subjecting only the top part of the Aspen Subdivision to the review process (perhaps elevation) . area, Grove 8140 2) Exempt all subdivisions date. development from annexed into the Greenline ci ty after Review in a certain 3) Restructure Greenline Review Planning Director approval activities. procedures to allow for of minor development All of these options require amending Section 24-6.2 pertaining to the 8040 Greenline Review. As part of the Code simplification process, amendments are forthcoming that would undoubtedly remedy this problem. The main question is when new regulations will be in effect. The city's approach to code amendments through code simplification is to undertake .one comprehensive rewrite and to avoid making numerous minor amendments in the interim which may only muddle the Code further. Therefore, we are not prepared to amend Section 24-6.2 as part of this annexation effort. We note that the third option listed above, creating a Planning Director minor development review procedure, is being developed at this time to address a more general problem. Within a few months it should be in effect. Staff recom- mends that this approach be used to address the problem in the Aspen Grove, Eastwood, Knollwood annexation area. It is our intention to modify 8040 Greenline Review similar to the manner in which the County recently amended the 1041 review. The basic concept will be to create a provision for staff approval of 8040 applications with insignificant impacts. Minor 1041 applications in the County now take approximately one week to approve. We intend to establish criteria to determine when a review can be just a staff sign-off. The P&Z recommendation differs from the Staff recommendat- ion regarding this issue. The P&Z recommends that a higher elevation line than the 8040 Greenline be utilized as the basis for Greenline reviews on the east side of Aspen and that the legislation to establish this new elevation line be created now rather than as part of the code rewrite. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The P&Z recommends approval 11 ,'-" .~ of the ordinance creating the R-15B zone on first reading and the application of the zone to the annexation area. However the P&Z recommends that the height limit for the zone be 28 feet and that the following code amendments also be initiated immediately, rather than as part of the code rewrite, to address the concerns of the property owners 1. Revisions to the City definition of a dwelling unit. 2. Revisions to the code procedures regarding the 8040 Greenline review to establish a higher elevation line for the east side of Aspen. The P&Z made this recommendation regarding new code amendments despite the staff's advise that code amendments be incorporated within the Code simplification/rewrite. The P&Z felt code amendments were important enough that they should be initiated immediately. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: approval on first reading of : The Planing Office recommends 1) Ordinance zone district. series of 1987 establishing the R-15B 2) Ordinance series of 1987 zoning the Aspen Grove/Ea- stwood/Knollwood annexation area R~15B. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to read and approve on first reading Ordinances and Series of 1987" CITY MANAGER'S ~ >~ffO{(1 e'Xwr -f WO"ilf) f. (C 1'4- -z:; or <- RECOMMENDATION: ~ fW/IJ ff'/c. /lJfrJl!e. ,,} ( ,ff ( S' ""2-0 N'fI.I{. , ~ ffiSlTtftct?y f-<< pfl-- 12 ,-.\ .,.-", Table 3 MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Purpose, Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses Purpose: The purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District is to provide areas for residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District are similarly situated to those in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15) and (r-15A) Zone Districts but are those in which single-family structures are a permitted use and duplexes are prohibited. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District. 1) Detached residential dwelling; 2) Farm and garden buildings and uses, provided that all such buildings and storage areas are located at least one hundred (100') feet from pre-existing dwellings on other lots; 3) Home occupations; 4) Group homes; and 5) Accessory buildings and uses. Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Art. 6, Div. 3. 1) Open use recreation site; 2) Public school; 3) Church; 4) Hospital; 5) Public administration building; 6) Day care center; 7) Museum; and 8) Satellite dish antennae. Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May, 1987. 13 1""'\ ,-,. Table 4 Area and Bulk and Off-Street Parking Requirement in the R-15B zone Area and Bulk Reauirements Minimum Lot size (sq.f.t) Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit (sq. ft.) Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All buildings except dwellings and accessory buildings Minimum Side Yard Dwellings & Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and accessory buildings Minimum Rear Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Maximum Height Minimum Distance Between Principal Building & Accessory Building Percent of Open Space for Building site External Floor Area Ratio Internal Floor Area Ratio Off-Street Parking Residential Uses SB.ANNEXATION 14 City of Aspen Proposed R.,.15B Zone 15,000 15,000 75' 30' 30' 30' 5' 5' 10' 5' 10' 25' No Requirement No Requirement .7 multiplier times the City sliding scale No Requirement One space per bedroom or 2 spaces whichever is less Cl o o 5: --.I --.I o Z :>::: I ClZ 00 0- 5:!::i: f-X (f)W <1:Z Wz 1<1: W > .~ Ci: (:;) z W Cl. (f) <r :t.~ll!ll',) - -, ~! '; ;;. ~lhi i ; ,i .. . 0' f.;- :'l,.;' I' -I- f'i.wri ;!:: IF'i;:i i . ii~ i: .;=i~:':j _H.;,h.!! . !":1 -f "i:!:J!r : ;i~ J ;ii ;ii;' : : ~~ j :~ f;;;!:ij; i~:i: l:;h;5! . i i'd ~! (Ii:;!il "'j, .r'II,oJ ! . P:'! .1 '~I: i ;i!i ii;i ;j; i · :!'! :. !;~';!l;i ..... ..'.1.' ' . ." II .i.ll..,1 if~:! ~i!~ t:! ~l~: ;~i! !" :~;! !!!! !!i;<i if!: Iii ".~!r ;~!. :j .:h!H= ,_,1.< "." . ...., .- Is-..' f p!;! !!i!~~!; _ .:1.;i i~l! :;! ::~!:i~!I' .fl..:a_;:::dU::J.,,-:Ifll::I.....!:i; 13 ,I;!! :;L,I::;IIH=::;:~~;'l.'li';11 ::Ei:ll:1, 'HI' t! ~:'J J':';;f;' ! .~; "f; ;,..j I Iii!; ;;jj~!!!h!i!'i!!~:.;!;l !:.: I'l,i ~! ;~;l' :;'i;:i:~!;,h;!dill;:i! ii,!hl'! :!:.IJ il:ii~ii!::r:;f:;ig!iH;!Hll1til;;lfi 1_ .U!:!!H!' liWij:rf. H:' ! .1I.,.d U:!!;I~: ~ .-J--< ...:' I! ' I :\\ I Ii:;:. .- ,'I':'! 1; '_Er~L~l MAP 1 --- "'I . i :h jl ," 1_ J!;r iii -i;! I~ J:;I !!I.1m IS ~ ~r~~ ~!~g~m::ie :!!j '1.1:;Uf~li: :~I J@!lliilii!ilii .B.H,ml.,p~il ; ...._W;!! ii'i ;;1; .1. n~ !iil I',. .t.;, II!! 11',i, I' rI,! ;)1 iI. p, H; .'1 1" ';1 ~. 1;: }I .S! "!.. ;1 i ~ " Ii s; Ii .. j; I.. '!ll! l.'!t ;1ui, .,!., ij iI~ '2!ll ,h'h' lidl. lii;!e"'~ ' I'; ,I,...... ill~!:.~. '',.. 1..1" . i::i:I '. ' it;,;:! . . ~;,;.!;: . I~:i:': ~ ~~1~! 1 ."""" ."""" !~. '-'. . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and zoning Commission FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Creation of R-15B Zone District and zoning of.Annexed Areas: Aspen Grove, Eastwood, Starodoj and Knollwood DATE: June 2, 1987 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND: The Aspen City Council has initiated annexation proceedings to annex the Aspen Grove, starodoj and Knollwood Subdivisions (see Map 1). Although City council has sole author- ity for annexation discussion, the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission is required by the Municipal Code to reco~end zoning of the annexed area. A public meeting was held on May 19, 1987 to discuss proposed zoning. The objectives for zoning the area are: 1) To not substantially change development rights (either to increase or decrease) from that allowed under the current county zoning regulations; 2) To avoid creating non-conforming uses or structures through the change in jurisdiction and the jurisdiction's regula- tions; 3) To arrive at zoning that satisfies the residents regard- ing problems that were not addressed under County regula- tions, such as through removal of certain non-conformities; 4) To create a zone which may be applicable to other annexa- tion areas; and 5) To insure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. DESCRIPTION OF AREA: This annexation area consists of approxi- mately 79.3 acres, directly east of Aspen's city limits. Most of the area is north of Highway 82 on the rolling mountainous terrain of the south side of Smuggler Mountain, between 8,000' and 8,400 I elevation. Block 4 of the Knollwood Subdivision is south of Highway 82 and borders the Roaring Fork River. ~. ,..-,-, There are approximately 114 parcels within the four subdivisions. Approximately 27 lots are undeveloped. Buildout of the area consists of some 84 single-family houses and three duplexes. The subdivisions were approved by the Pitkin County Board of County commissioners between 1963 and 1971. The Roaring Fork East Neighborhood Master Plan of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of the entire annexation area "Low Density Residential" (LOR), described as follows: "A designation recommended for existing residential subdivisions which may be suitable for additional development based upon an analysis of land use characteristics and. the ability of the community to provide services. Principal uses include clustered single-family dwellings. The density of Low Density Residential development will vary from three units per acre to one unit per two acres depending upon the land's unique site characteristics and compatibility with surrounding areas." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The current Pitkin County zoning of the entire area is R-15 Residential. When the City originally met with residents in the annexation area, the planning Office staff mentioned that the preliminary zoning recommendation was R-15A. within the R-15A zone district, duplex structures are permitted. By comparison, duplex structures are prohibited in the County. Residents at the meeting indicated they were strongly opposed to zoning which would enable new duplex units to be built because the area is a single-family neighborhood and the addition of duplexes would change the character of the area. Other differences between the city and County R-15 zone districts include: floor area ratio calculations, setbacks, height, parking requirements and conditional uses (see Table 1). Dwelling units and basement FAR are defined differently in the City and County Codes. In addition, the 8040 Greenline and stream Margin Review would apply to some properties in the area in a different way than does the 1041 County environmental hazard review. 2 ,,-.- Table 1 ,,-.-., A Comparison of Area & Bulk Requirements in Pitkin County's R-15 Zone with the City of Aspen's R-15A Zone Area & Bulk Reauirements Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Minimum Lot width Minimum Front Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Minimum Side Yard Dwellings & Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Minimum Rear Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Maximum Height Minimum Distance Between Principal Building & Accessory Building Percent of Open Space for Building site External Floor Area Ratio Internal Floor Area Ratio Off-Street Parking Residential Uses other Uses city of Aspen R-15A Zone Pitkin County R-15 Zone 15,000 15,000 10,000 15,000 75' 75' 25' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 5' 5' 10' 5 ' 10' 10' 5' 5' 20' 10' 25' 28' 10' No Requirement No Requirement No Requirement Sliding Scale .16 No Requirement No Requirement One per bedroom 2 Conditional Special Review Use Review Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May 1987 3 -- r~ Based upon comments from residents, staff proposes enactment of a new zone district entitled R-15B. Discussed below are options for dealing with each area of difference between the City and County code: 1. Floor Area Ratio Calculations: Maximum FAR in the County R- 15 zone districts is .16, while the City uses a sliding scale. For the purpose of comparison, a house on a 15,000 square foot lot may not exceed 2,400 square feet in the County. In the city a house on a 15,000 square foot lot may not exceed 4,500 square feet. Numerous residents expressed concern that the city FAR allowance is too great for this mountainous suburban area, and the character of the .area would be negatively affected if the City FAR limitations were used. Residents have suggested several options, including to use: (a) County .16 FAR, (b) .20 FAR, (c) .21 FAR, (d) .21 FAR for lots up to 17,000 square feet and the sliding scale for lot area above 17,000 sq. ft. and (e) .7 of the sliding scale. The following table gives FAR's using suggested methods of calculation: Table 2 Floor Area Ratio Comparison Lot Area(s.f.) FAR Calculations (s. f.) .7x City City Sl.iding Sliding .16 .20 .21 .21* Scale Scale 15,000 2,400 3,000 3,150 3,150 4,500 3,150 17,000 2,720 3,400 3,570 3,570 4,620 3,234 20,000 3,200 4,000 4,200 3,975 4,800 3,360 40,000 6,400 8,000 8,400 4,950 6,000 4,200 * .21 FAR up to 17,000 sq.ft., 6 sq.ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May 1987 4 "",.-, "",.-, It has been noted that the current .16 FAR may be too restrictive because some houses built prior to County bulk regulations are non-conforming and it may be desirable to remove their non-conforming status. In addition, owners may wish to add on to their small conforming structures slightly exceeding the current FAR limitation. As you can see, there is a minor difference between the maximum floor area under .20 FAR and .21 FAR when building on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. Both allow for a moderate sized expansion from the existing .16 FAR (600 to 750 square feet) while under the city's sliding scale a much larger structure can be built. The residents and P&Z should determine whether .20 or .21 FAR is better suited for the area. The concept of a sliding scale calculation for lots over 17,000 sq. ft.. in area seems to have merit, as it would preclude the building of houses much greater in size than existing houses in the neighborhood which would be conse- quently be out of scale. We note that most subdivision lots are around 17,000 sq. ft., however, there are a few unsub- divided parcels, very large lots and contiguous undeveloped lots where much larger houses could be built. The FAR established by multiplying .7 by the city sliding scale accomplishes a similar calculation as alternative (d). It may be easier to administer. staff supports the .7 multi- plier sliding scale measurement. 2. Allowance of Duplexes: A key concept of the R-15B zone district is to allow for the continuation of the single- family nature of the neighborhoods annexed into the city and to prohibit duplexes. This concept has received strong support from residents because it is believed that the character of the area would be threatened by added density, including the serviceability of narrow roads winding up the hill. At the May 19th meeting, it was pointed out that there are three (3) duplexes in Eastwood that were legally built prior to County regulations. These duplexes are fairly small structures located on lots 6, 9 and 10. Under the County R- 15 zoning, these uses are non-conforming and cannot be expanded. If made non-conforming uses in the City, these structures can still not be expanded without receiving variances. options of dealing with these properties include: 1) Create section ures to a special prov~s~on in the non-conforming of the Code "grand fathering" in these struct- allow for expansion without need of a variance; 5 ,-.- ~ 2) Zone the 3 properties R-15A, which would allow for them to be made conforming duplexesl; continue the single-family restriction. 3) option 1 entails creation of another detailed special prov~s~on in the non-conformities section of the Code, already generally acknowledged to be the most convolu- ted and confusing part of our zoning code. Certainly, the interest of code simplification is not served. This option is more attractive than option 2 from the point of view that it would relieve the owners of the duplexes form their non- conforming status, while not giving them FAR allowances above their neighbors under the proposed R-15B zoning: However, it is questionable if further modification of the non-conformities section of the Code is in the general interest of the neighborhood or the city. staff can prepare an amendment to Section 24-13.4, Non-Conforming Uses, accomplishing this exemption if the P&Z and/or City Council desire to pursue this alternative. zoning the duplexes R-15A would constitute "spot zoning" of three separate parcels. Problems with this approach include creating a discrepancy in development rights from neighbor- ing properties otherwise similar in character and exposure to legal challenge. Please note that the city initially considered zoning the entire area R-15A, making these properties conforming while adding development rights to many single-family residences. However, when neighbors requested continuation of the single-family character of the area, it was agreed that such limitation is desirable. The Planning Office and city Attorney's Office recommend against this approach. option 3 would not improve nor worsen the status of duplex use currently under the County Code. To expand, the owner of a duplex would have the burden of demonstrating hardship to the Board of Adjustment to receive a variance. It should be noted that the City has no abatement policy regarding non-conforming uses or structures. Furthermore, in the case of removal or destruction, a duplex can be repaired or replaced within two years of the loss. Perhaps the main advantage of non-conforming duplex status in the City over the County is the ready ability to condominiumize the units. The planning Office favors option 3 for reasons that no burden is added to the duplex properties, and R-15B zoning 1 within the R-15A legally created duplexes constructed prior to the application of R-15A zoning may remain as free market duplexes. 6 ~. r----" appears to be the most desirable and reasonable for the general area. The other options open the city to lagal challenge for spot zoning, or entail further complication of a Code section that we want to simplify. 3. Setbacks, Height, and Off-Street Parking Requirements: The general concept of the R-15B area and bulk requirements is to establish parameters consistent with the county require- ments, as are acceptable to residents. Some residents have said they prefer the County R-15 30' front yard setback for dwellings (City front-yard setbacks is 25'), 5' side. yard setback for dwelling (City side yard setbacks is 10') and maximum height of 28' (City height is 25'). Staff supports continuing the County area standards in the R-15B zone district, thereby not making structures non-conforming. However, we cannot support maintaining the County 28' height limit and instead propose a 25' height limit. The City limitation was a major consideration in the development of the city's Floor Area Ratios. A different height limit for the R-15B would be inconsistent with all city residential zone districts and previous city policy. In the case of front yard setbacks, the 30' minimum requirement would not allow new structures or additions to be built out of sync with neighboring homes. Off-street parking requirements in the County are two spaces; we propose for the R-15B zone, 1 space/bedroom or 2 spaces, whichever is less. 4. Conditional Uses: Conditional uses in all City residen- tial zone districts are: open use recreation site; public school; church; hospital; public administration building; day care center; museum and satellite dish antennae. The County R-15 zone districts treat these uses in a variety of ways: Church (on at least 2 acres with 30' setbacks), hospital, day care center, and satellite dish antennae are special reviews. A public school is allowed by right (on at least 10 acres with 30' setbacks). Private schools, public administration building, and museum are prohibited. In addition, the County allows junk yards, guest ranch, community center and farm buildings by special review. Residents questioned if any of the conditional uses are appropriate in the subject annexation area. Allowing no conditional uses in the R-15B zone district is an option that should be considered. Staff notes that there are similarities between the city conditional uses and the County special review uses both of which are allowed only after P&Z reviews impacts and grants approval. The entire purpose of the respective reviews is to ensure that a conditional use is appropriate in the requested location, determined on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, it should be noted that the City's annexation 7 -- --, policy is to pursue annexing other County subdivisions on the periphery of the city. The R-15B zone district may be appropriate for other annexed lands; and, for the sake of simplicity, we should try to keep the list of additional zone districts no longer than it needs to be. staff supports maintaining the current city conditional uses in the R-15B zone district. We question whether the special reviews allowed by the County R-15 have been problem- atic in the annexation area and we suggest that the city conditional uses will be no more troublesome for these neighborhoods. 5. Dwelling unit Definition: A resident attorney expressed fear that the dwelling unit definition in the Municipal Code could be interpreted so that some multi-level houses in the annexed area are considered duplexes. Section 24-3.1 (g) defines a dwelling unit as "one or more rooms, in addition to a kitchen and/or bath facilities, intended or designed for occupancy by a family or guests independent of other families or guests." For example, a finished basement containing a bedroom, bathroom, and sliding glass door might be considered a separate "dwelling unit". The County definition does not contain the inclusion of a bath. The Planning Office, zoning Officials, and Code simplifica- tion Task Force have identified the dwelling unit definition to be a difficult issue of interpretation, given the breadth of design options of a residence. It is also generally recognized that this definition has broad implications for the entire City. Staff believes that the only appropriate way to deal with the issue is through the Code Simplifica- tion process. This process is a major effort on the part of the City and interested citizens to come to grips with some long-term problems with the Code; and it is anticipated .to be completed in the fall, 1987. 6. Basement FAR: "Subgrade" space 100% below existing grade is presently excluded from the city's FAR calculation, as defined in section 24-3.1 (ee) . In the County Code, all subgrade space is included in FAR. Consequently, a house wi th an FAR excluding subgrade space may be larger than a house with the same FAR that includes the subgrade area. Residents of this annexation area have stated they want to limit the size of houses to only allow minor expansions over the present FAR. An option for consideration is to set FAR at .16, and then through the change in definition of subgrade space those structures with 100% below grade areas would then have added floor area available. However, we expect that because of the hillside terrain, the great majority of structures do not have basements 100% below grade; rather, most are split levels opening up to a lower level down the hill. Therefore, this change in definition 8 ...-" - .--. --.. would effect few residents; establish the FAR that works as discussed above. and it is most appropriate to for the majority of homeowners, The City is working on changes to our complicated FAR definition as part of the code simplification effort. staff anticipates that a definition more similar to the County's, including all habitable space within the structure, will be considered. If such a definition is adopted next fall, the confusion for annexed areas will be eliminated. 7. 8040 Greenline Review and stream Margin Review: The 8040 elevation line runs through the bottom part of the subject annexation area. As a result, the entire area north of Highway 82 appears to be subject to the 8040 Greenline Review. since Greenline Review applies to development within fifty (50) yards of the 8040 elevation, it is quite certain that the whole area is subject to this review. Block 4 of Knollwood SUbdivision, south of Highway 82, would be subject to the Stream Margin Review. At the neighborhood meeting, residents expressed concern that the 8040 Greenline Review may be largely inappropriate for this area. The following issues arose: 1) The area is an old subdivision and largely built out. Few environmental issues are likely to be associated with new development activities. 2) One of the key issues prompting 8040 review was the elevation of the water tank so to assure reliable service to residents. This is not applicable because the water tank serving this area is above the 8300 I elevation. 3) The one-step (P&Z) review process may be an unnecessary hassle for minor additions. 4) Development activities are currently only subject to Planning Director approval through County 1041 regula- tions. A number of options are available to deal with this problem, including: 1) Change the elevation for Greenline Review in this subjecting only the top part of the Aspen Subdivision to the review process (perhaps elevation). area, Grove 8140 2) Exempt all subdivisions date. development from annexed into the Greenline city after Review in a certain 9 ~. ,.....-.. 3) Restructure Greenline Review Planning Director approval activities. procedures to allow for of minor development All of these options require amending section 24-6.2 pertaining to the 8040 Greenline Review. As part of the Code simplification process, amendments are forthcoming that would undoubtedly remedy this problem. The main question is when new regulations will be in effect. The City's approach to code amendments through code simplification is to undertake one comprehensive rewrite and to avoid making numerous minor amendments in the interim which may only muddle the. Code further. Therefore, we are not prepared to amend section 24-6.2 as part of this annexation effort. We note that the third option listed above, creating a Planning Director minor development review procedure, is being developed at this time to address a more general problem. within a few months it should be in effect. Staff recom- mends that this approach be used to address the problem in the Aspen Grove, Eastwood, Knollwood annexation area. It is our intention to modify 8040 Greenline Review similar to the manner in which the County recently amended the 1041 review. The basic concept will be to create a provision for staff approval of 8040 applications with insignificant impacts. Minor 1041 applications in the County now take approximately one week to approve. We intend to establish criteria to determine when a review can be just a staff sign-off. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning commission to recommend approval of city Council of: (a) the creation of the R-15B zone district as specified below in Tables 3 and 4 and (b) zoning the Aspen Grove, Eastwood, Knoll- wood Annexation Area to the R-15B zone district. 10 --, ~. Table 3 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Purpose, Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses Purpose: The purpose of the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District is to provide areas for residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District are similarly situated to those in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15) and (r-15A) Zone Districts but are those in which single-family structures are a permitted use and duplexes are prohibited. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District. 1) Detached residential dwelling; 2) Farm and garden buildings and uses, provided that all such buildings and storage areas are located at least one hundred (100') feet from pre-existing dwellings on other lots; 3) Home occupations; 4) Group homes; and 5) Accessory buildings and uses. Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Art. 6, Div. 3, 1) Open use recreation site; 2) Public school; 3) Church; 4) Hospital; 5) Public administration building; 6) Day care center; 7) Museum; and 8) Satellite dish antennae. Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May, 1987. 11 ,--, ,.--, Table 4 Area and Bulk and Off-Street Parking Requirement in the R-15B zone Area and Bulk Reauirements City of Aspen Proposed R-15B Zone Minimum Lot size (sq.f.t) 15,000 Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling unit (sq. ft.) 15,000 Minimum Lot Width 75' Minimum Front Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All buildings except dwellings and accessory buildings 30' 30' 30' Minimum side Yard Dwellings & Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and accessory buildings 5' 5' Minimum Rear Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Maximum Height 10' 5' 10' 25' Minimum Distance Between Principal Building & Accessory Building No Requirement Percent of Open Space for Building site No Requirement External Floor Area Ratio .7 multiplier times the City sliding scale Internal Floor Area Ratio No Requirement Off-Street Parking Residential Uses One space per bedroom or 2 spaces whichever is less Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May, 1987 SB.ANNEXATION 12 ~''''<:V''M .....0..... 010 O~. ~ O,,~ ,~'... "/.'9' ~. s.'.o,'" '91.'.'_____ " " " , ". '. . .... .,....., .. ("61;>1)01\", ,'" . ":' .It~',. 0:'- )./(/ ,":"- ... ,.,," .:;;. .. "," :!.. \ \' .. . S '. . , ... ... '. ~:'..'" . '. \.. ....... , \ . , GROVE A5PE~EIoIETERY II . z 'O~ o. 0 0 . : ~ i " " ~ 10 . ',. ~ 10 o. T , , , 1 8:0J T , ORI"E SOUTh TO THE -NNEXATION CITy OF ASPEN Sf 1/4 NEV4ClOT 5) SEe, 18 (l('M8ERl T) CAllAHAN PARCEL No ANNEXATION rO rHE elT/ OF AS PEN ClTT~OT ~ 4SPE~ 4~~ItO"04l t"Us "'SpC~ G'~O" COIJ~CIl. CITy 0 E - C4sr.oOO~Il'Not.l ' -..... To< ""'., PIT.,. - ......"0 ~ OAy O'~T"", CO(,Olt4C "'AYOR. . . ____ 'II CITy CI.C"1l' n",-p-L ~ .-- Aspen/Pit 130 s iug Office tree t 81611 1041 MINOR HAZARD REVIEW PROCEDURE Dear Property Owner, If you own a parcel of land in Pitkin County and would like to build a single family or duplex house, or if you would like to add an addition of more than 30% of your existing structure, then continue reading. Pitkin County has adopted state regulations that give the County the authority to review and approve develop- ment within "AREAS OF STATE AND LOCAL INTEREST", These regula- tions are commonly referred to as 1041 regulations and include the review of development in the following locations: GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS FLOODPLAIN HAZARD AREAS WILDLIFE HAZARD AREAS WILDFIRE HAZARD AREAS The Planning Office and the Zoning Official have copies of maps that provide for an initial determination of whether your property is affected by any of these hazards. You should go to .either office to request help in determining where your property is located on the maps. If the Planning Office or the Zoning official determines that your parcel is totally outside of any hazard area you can stop reading right now and request a building permit. However, if your parcel has a hazard somewhere on the property (as shown by the 1041 Hazard Maps) but your proposed development area is to be located outside the hazard area then please submit the informa- tion as listed below at the time of filing your building permit or prior thereto: 1. NAME; 2. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP (i.e. deed or title report); 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PARCEL; - 4. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE PARCEL; 5. 24" X 36" MYLAR COPY AND BLUEPRINT OF IMPROVEMENTS SURVEY (CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING:) (SEE ATTACHED MODEL) ~ ~~.. A. SHOW THE BOUNDARY OF THE PARCEL ON A LEGAL SURVEY THAT IS NOT OVER ONE YEAR OLD; B. THE.PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE AND ACCESS ROAD; C. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL; D. THE NAME OF THE OWNER; E. WAIVER AS SHOWN; AND F. SIGNATURES BLOCK AS SHOWN; 6. $50.00 REVIEW FEE. Once all of the above information and the review fee has been submitted an employee of the Planning or Building Office will then go out and take a look at your property (within 7 working days). After we've looked at your property and made a determina- tion that your development area is outside of a hazard area you need to come by the office and pick up your mylar map, make two blueprint copies and take them to the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. At the clerks office, you should record the mylar and have the clerk stamp both blue prints to evidence that the mylar has been recorded. Bring one copy of the blue print to the Building Department or Planning Office and keep the other copy for your records. If you have any questions about what you need to submit give one of us a call. PLANNING OFFICE 925-2020 Cindy Houben Francis Krizmanich ZONING OFFICIAL 925-5973 Peggy Seeger '. <-- c > )> -I m ." ." :0 0 < m 0 ... 0 ~ ... :J: > N > JJ C JJ m < - m ~ \XI -< c > -I m o 'TJ en C JJ < m o Q.I::t:>O~::t:> n:::::l""'S-t)Q,I"'O 0'< CD (1)"0 ~ Q.Jc+ --' "'C ......(/) :::rC""....;,. Q,l3 =CDtDO ::s ""C CD Q,I (')'"'5c-t-m::s::s '<O::rX c+ < Q,I ........... C'+(Dc+tn:::5Q,l ::r3 C'+-t')(') CD(1)3CDO" -S::::S .....:::::l ..,.:::S CD c+c.o n 3 0 a(/)::rmCD~ -t,.. c+ 0.--' . 0 '" QJQ,I-t)C""c.. :::::l...." '< (,Q a.. -t) = CD m ...... -0 (I) c+ no...... ::rc-t-.f:::oc+c+ CD ......A"::r c+ -'.01 s:: ::r:I::::::l rt en",,,, CD N ("")::r "'CClOCD III ""'S"""'Sc........ :::100.:::5(1'1 0..""C rl::r '" ,<", .., <+ '< . ~ --- . . - ...~"_.. """-.,, ~O~ ~b-i ~yo 't::-J:> jt)>OJ:> ~I)l)-y ~ ~ .~ Q ~ ~ (: ~ :e > - < m JJ ~~~:;;. .- m. Ci) > .- c m en (') JJ ;; -I - o z ~ "^ 'it .l- ~'O~lTe ... ',61" ~ - 3: "tJ JJ o 5 < :J: ~ Z m c.. Z 0 -I Z en m en en c JJ < m -< ~ . ,.-.. r--". ~a.;7 1// /'!ll? ~~$":z. 41.. ~~''''''/:.J /~"-.. '?"" $'/6"/1 0::4... ,,4,...}"< ~"l"'e", /?:.fi-... /'7""'-'1"'>;.7" .??/~"".e- /30 5tt)v/d ~<z-/e.;,_ >/ree-I 4~/e-.... 4. tlUj/ :;; "",. O<V'$~ ~ ....of<Jl';e-s.$ /......e. $</&~.:--/.,/ ..::......d' c>r'''4.... ,-/..../e..d' :;C r6~<>SL</ ;;z"","'''';.:J c:;..-r'a."y s2.. _<2--/~.s .c//",.- 0~ 4t/' ..,/ ~...;'7 .-?<:oc,,?4,;;,..,k.. /. 4-_ ';, 4vl>I'" <<> /' "-L,,I.Q, ~y<!!O.... ......"..e.......6"'''''" c>" r'..( e. <<--'~ 4. .c d..~"<Z-JI. ....11"'.... .,./' r,(e- A"~/--..t:?"'''' ,,4.- <llC,.to""c.a........ ;.- ~ .?,....e.......,.,../""-'"'~ ~ - .,e$4!-"'.......&D;>.S c:;.e>"~o.......':.J ~,L.c. /"....~:>~4' :#.6..'",;;/.' d~ /re-se",,! 4"'"' "''''''7 i 6brA_""/, ,.,.... .... .1A6"","'I,:/ .,4'''''4.0 <$", ;S~"'''''-e.--./ c"....,,& .A'~/r. ,;C ~e/ .,;::';(/$ ./S 4.... "'~4.-/ 6'...,4..,-<2.. 0/'/.:....../ </$.. t$'-,/<4~;;s~ r..(e, /f'~",S ;I.",,,,,,"':} =/6.....$ ~6 ~.......4 ,.,(,.';'$,;;;,","",,4" ~..~.. r'~. .7A"'",. /"'<.'-"""'$-<:'-./" ,/{'-/$"'-.4 ;lCo",~ #C>o"'/./ /'~cG..~ 4.-/7"e.... ~,(J2-- ':;''''__/'I>S ,,,.;.,,,,, ... /' 4e .h.<Z-iji ~,,"~D I, ~ e,><.do..../J/e... U''''''' 1.1 k 4.. A",-e. ,I',..'U""I& /... /f.,L.V.:vhD.... ~...","",Se. .II- ...""..e<i..r At.~ ~""Y4-1~ f ~,..v",..~1- /A~ $"~6o.""..6./ 4"-''/ A'....~.t-~ re;t"",..e.meif-Ir. V....I__ ~~ /"''''p~d ;;."'..,~) ..c~'$ ,("',....., ~""""/./",,"'" Iv ~e.ed ~..(e. ~"".f.tf /;~.I-1tthD;o..$ 4.... d' u,,""...././'..k.. ~ .--. .-:-, "'. :2. df:. ~...,e--d 4 ... ~ /' ..... ./ "'--- 4~ o. --,(.,.:,4, a..../.?-i....q../ /6"00 sf.#. -,.'.(e.- "o"=e....,1 ~...?_c;.~....a. as /5 D,," a... /$ 4-~--"i? "',,"".... iQ......,-.J ,... ?/~, 4./~6""~f/ .z- ,..r~/ ""~I ,/.i.Q.. fi'-/s-8 ;cY"4~'S~.j &.</1>""'/'/ c>""4 4c/ct" //e. r'ie. ~><alr';.j/1.,....I/e..,s ;t,vLe..... .,.(,;; .ie... ~"S';;' ;S 4- //o...<--cl. ;P,~~.....~ 8""..e",~ ~4 'bk/ re....-I- ~"..,... ..(.,.....<2,$ ri$....tt".,.,/ ..........."..1.... &0""// :/...,s ~"~4^./ ~,f'e.... ,S',.<'......,..4....e..; ,...::; &C...._.Iq/lL/e. e""'e....... ",~~Q., ..............,4"'.t. ~e, -t>..,/d /.4.... ...(......... - "'''''76,;;",.,/.,,<:1 -/ _>h'... .io4h. rq.d..... ~,....... c.. """$ .I ./.....,i, '" / <I.-;-e... . .zr- .a..1> '" ,;...,.// A 1'"",,,- ..:...r'~ ,{."#t ,......-./cz., .."...,4/e... \ ~,r ""- e:~~,:!/ ....-..t.... .-s:r....,......4-~"'... ................ ....<-<---~V ".{. ....ere_~ /' A...,-t",..e..,I _..."..$. ............,..,.... 4, .6..... Po-:_ d" I ;"I~~,,^ .:;c,..-....$ /4r'1"'e.t'..-,,- /96~/ ~s/,_ ~;..v~ A_oI 4-~~ ~e...... "o/'.j~ f;/ 4J"J"e...."... ~.i_r I /40 ",..c:a.. h..~ tI~e ~.....<<.- h ~......c., r-.(e. /4~. /t:/<7CA./ ......$ /h...IW /k ;I?I",-J"s ".<; A..~ ""'.......ec-0t s:A.o__ ....... e-""s6~ C"".....f;7?od ~c;.d 6.....c.~~s /',.,.,.......... .4. /1?,;. ~~lmYII~ Atyj A".e',.{"e 4's~e..... ~~v<e.. fl,.& I"o...d cr......,! /,1,. e: ..s..._e...,r,; ""'.....,.1...,..... "'~.... ""(I,,),,"S " 7k. //....1 /Nlk ,,1...0 // A.n>a -i ' 7 6 V' ,Lie. 4";s~ f!;t. ~/I'd"'.e. ,,1. /i ~ c;"'e_e-~....? . 4// ,,"~,,-i~ ~ a.. '" ",. -""an j. . .-.--/4 ;{, ~ /' ""-';I?,p "'Cv>"J $: '.~I.I o~...$.../I r,{e.. ~".... J;. , II II II ..... .".""" r-- ~ '3 ,4/,t'",rn-;; S"....~ .-'0 CDA&c.I'n'';j #s be. a.~/N/rtQ/,1e. AJ,4.II'e",. - .JC''/ ~"'(/ /.:1 h e..,,,,~-:I r'.t~ //q..ls ~r,,'v /0 <l'."...e...d........ . ;t:" ^ c;. .. '" c./,-, fiL''?;'' ..- 7"'''' ,c;.". .70"'" 4-/'4".6. <>~ _"~""~b""'.; 4rL ~e. Ae'j'6.."".~ cI ,.(...,/<1" /.. -s.....ec1l.e.d hI< e..-4-/ ",I.. a-/"'e......!j .1$ 6 ./~'::;/ /k. ~- /$ r.;tf,e; . z ~~si A- 14.""-,,,):.. r - /..... "tZ,j,6Y' I I 51#r.:,.e."t:,-(j ~ L P .,c""e.,--6/,,)... ;/(R~ I I I I I II ~. ,-,. __FROM THE DESK OF ~,. J) lQ9'1 ,. ~ "~,. Sandy :Johnston 1'.~~:,~;~;:por,~~~,;~~?~o.id,OaIl';': ToX"" 75266-'0429 r-- ,--., May 19, 1987 Glenn Horn Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Horn: I am a resident of Aspen Grove Subdivision; my being 0452 McSkimming Rd. I have reviewed homeowners of the neighborhoods proposed for 4/30/87 and I would like to go on record with my property address your letter to annexation dated response. I think it is a mistake to confine the search for a zoning classification from one that already exists, ie. R-15A, if some of the provisions of this classification are inappropriate for the neighborhood. This is a "suburban" neighborhood, and R-15A is more appropriate for an urban neighborhood. Specifically, I am strongly opposed to duplex structures in the Aspen Grove subdivision. You apparently are addressing this problem by the creation of a new zone, R-15B. In the process, however, a new problem arises. I strongly believe that City of Aspen formula new R-15B zone district by establishing a criteria to adopt the for R-15 Area & Bulk Requirements for the is an obvious mistake. Many of the home-sites in Aspen Grove Subdivision are approximately one-third (1/3) acre in size. For the sake of this letter I will base my position on a 15,000 sf lot. Under the current County R-15 zone the maximum size of a structure could be 2,400 sf. By virtue of annexation (which I strongly support), and the adoption of the City R-15 formula, the maximum size of a structure could be 4,500 sf, an increase of eighty seven and one half percent (87 1/2%). This is absurd. I think the current FAR of .16 is reasonable...maybe a bit low. A fair, equitable and appropriate increase of up to .20 would make sense and win my support. Under this proposal the maximum size of a structure on a 15,000 sf lot would be 3,000 sf, an increase of twenty five percent (25%), which is plenty, and in my opinion quite suitable for the neighborhood. I urge the Planning Office to reconsider the proposed density for this new city zone of R-15B. It deserves its own standards; its own formula. The subdivision proposed for annexation are neither urban or rural. Their suburban character deserves special consideration as it pertains to FAR. Sincerely, Donald J. Fleisher (" ::1' -'J' 4- .. ~~ ,-,~ CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, hereby certfty that on this /<j-I-h day of -yw ~ 1981- , a true and correct copy of the attached N ice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners ap indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case _ed on the public notio c Nancy ..:.J'Ct. r;- ~. (', .,-, PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ASPEN GROVE/EASTWOOD/KNOLLWOOD MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION INITIAL ZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pUblic hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 2, 1987 at a meeting to being at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council Cham- bers, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, Colorado to consider the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office's initial zoning proposal of R-15B for the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood Annexation area. The annexation area is generally located to the east of the existing City limits and north of SH 82 comprised of lands of Aspen Grove, Eastwood and Starodoj subdivision also part of the Knollwood Subdiv-3.sion with tracts of land located in the Highland Placer u.s. Mineral Survey No. G120 AM and Riverside Placer, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 3905 AM. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, Co 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 298. sIC. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ================================================================ Published in the Aspen Times on Lj.jo-r1 City of Aspen Account. rr-, .-, r , f){} ~ 0 fJ fh.c.ij; D,,~ Pdt [k. &~:<..,o 1 IS ~ Iq~7 ~. b.L.,.. ~ ~p~~ i:.o 5 q~ ~ ~i (b, 8J(of/ ~:~~~~~ " \ ~ !J1A. -tJ &"/At- ; ~ rr:- foy ~..WL 1 ~ ~o,lq8'1., &a-~ vv-e- ~ tUJ.. ~ CL~ ~ ~ nu.. ~ l~ ~\) t-e.. ~ $Ju tv ~ .Qti,v ~ ~r duM bfiI=-. Ou-v ~ j;o ik.J ~ ~ ~ t1/I.UJ; ~ fJ.., ~i ~,()-(Mf-t ~ {).A.Lo.-, ~ ~ ~ --h..u. ~ ~fU."J.; I ~ 1<<- ~~~~~~~w 't-e ~ rJo CltlA- ~~. ~ ~ A.l(U>tHf w-<: ~ d-1? MJ ~( c!luJ. ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~I~~j ~.~i~)~/~~' ~ ~ i ~ ~ SftTEL/..-liE ))/st/ A~JI6J\JtJfJ, w~~~ey,~1~1~. ~ ~ c1~.' W1L~'~F:~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~iflu.~ ~ o.ud) ~ ~ Ju (JJu ~ ~ ~1~~" ~/~4~ . \D) r2 ~ r2 0 W ITH..f\ 1\... ~. \.1 D 1.5 ~ 1.5 -~,. ,Ii lr- 1::1:; II. ". a (' I MAY I 41987 \ II ,j n..\ I, :.yJU ; iU'\j\j >1'. I. H ",' !. 1 . I ,-- ,-,. J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 AREA CODe 303 TELEPHONE 925-2612 May 12, 1987 Mr. Glenn Horn Assistant Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Zone R-15B, Aspen Grove, etc. Dear Glenn: Here are my initial thoughts on the new zone: 1. FAR. While I think the County FAR of .16 in the R-15 zone applicable to Aspen Grove (and I think Eastwood, Knollwood, and Starodoj} is too restric- tive, I think your proposed R-15B zone FAR allows for much too large a house. Ignoring the sliding scale, your proposal increases the FAR from .16 significantly. That is, on an ordinary 15,000 square foot lot, your proposal would allow a house of 4,500 square feet and the existing County FAR permits a size of 2,400 square feet. You have taken the existing City formula at page 1454 of the Code, which I think is not designed for more rural- like subdivisions such as Aspen Grove. Perhaps a simple FAR of .21 for lots of up to 18,000 square feet and .18 for lots over 18,000 square feet, would be more appropriate. 2. Facts and Lot Survey. It would be helpful in establishing a new zone to know with regard to each of the four subdivisions how many total lots in each, how many built-upon lots and how many vacant lots, the variation in size and average size of lots, and whether any, and if so how many, lots in each subdivision have legal duplexes. This would be helpful for example in establishing the FAR. It seems to me inappropriate to encourage the building of houses double the size of the houses in these older subdivisions if in fact all have been almost completely built out at a lesser size and density. 3. Uses. The group home use of right in these older subdivisions that aare primarily long term, local families in single-family homes is inappropriate. . };... ".,..-... ~ J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C. ATTORNEY AT lAW Mr. Glenn Horn May 12, 1987 Page 2 There are no group homes now, and I see no reason to allow them as a permitted use, or as a condi- tional use. This is not an employee housing area. This is an area of stable, long term families and it would devalue property values and the experience of living in these older subdivisions by having group homes, many cars, inadequate parking, and the like. By the way, on-street parking is illegal at least in Aspen Grove and should remain so. Simi- larly, conditional uses 2 through 8 ought to be eliminated. There certainly is not a call for a school, church, or hospital or public administra- tion building or a museum in this area of older subdivisions that are primarily single-family. You probably took existing uses from the County Code, R-15, page 51, but there is no need to continue prior errors, or text uses not designed for the actual subdivision at issue. I would not like to see satellite dish antennae proliferated in the area. Cable exists in these subdivisions unlike Castle Creek, and thus there is little reason for a satellite dish, although I am not necessarily opposed to that use if administered properly as a conditional use. With regard to a day care center, while I as a parent of two young children going to day care certainly want to encourage day care schools, I do not see any reason to have them in a primarily single-family home area because of the increased traffic, parking, etc. A day care center near my house would reduce its value significantly. 4. Your handling of duplexes could cause problems. Perhaps duplexes ought to be made legal, not just non-conforming. But those should be true duplexes. We should not encourage making further duplexes out of single family homes because these subdivisions are clearly almost entirely single family. However, the City's definition, City Code 24-3.1(f) and (g) is poor, and more restrictive than the County's (compare County Code Section 20-1, page 226). Many homes have downstairs with separate entrances (you need for safety reasons and perhaps for building code reasons as well), and a separate bath--if Bill Drueding considers that a "duplex" under 24- 3.1(g), then the definition needs changing. . , .i.. ~ ~ , J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW Mr. Glenn Horn May 12, 1987 Page 3 5. I would leave the existing thirty-foot front yard setback. If you change the setback to twenty-five feet and increase the FAR, you may give Stanford everything she built in violation of the County Code, which is presently in litigation after she was denied a variance. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss these concerns. Thank you. Sincerely, . ~ J. Nicholas McGrath, P.C. JNM:jc:13.aspgrove507.ltr ,-... t"'--- Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 April 30, 1987 Dear Aspen Grove, Knollwood, Eastwood and Starodoj Subdivision Property Owners: As you know, the City of Aspen has initiated annexation proceed- ings to annex your subdivision. When a pUblic meeting of the property owners in the subdivisions was held the proposed zoning for the annexation area was an issue of concern. Specifically, residents expressed concern about the City's R-15A zone which had been suggested for the area, because R-15A zoning permits the construction of duplex structures. Property owners in attendance at the meeting expressed a desire to preclude the possibility of property owners constructing duplexes in predominantly single- family subdivision following City annexation. In response to these comments, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office has prepared a proposal for the creation of a new zone district, R-15B, to be applied to the Aspen Grove, Eastwood, Knollwood and Starodoj Subdivision. The proposed R-15B zone district will preclude duplex dwelling units. Existing duplex structures may continue to exist as legal non-conforming structures. Legal non- conforming uses are prohibited from increasing in size. Present- ly, according to County R-15 zoning, all duplexes within the subdivisions are non-conforming uses. In developing the proposed R-15B zone district, the Planning staff has attempted to avoid creating any instances in which existing single-family structures will fail to meet the city's Area & Bulk Requirements. To accomplish this goal, we compared the County R-15 Area & Bulk Requirements with the City's R-15 Area & Bulk Requirements. In every instance in which the City's R-15 zone Area & Bulk Requirements were more restrictive than the County R-15 zone requirements, the County R-15 zone requirements have been incorporated into the proposed R-15B zone district. Attachment 1 compares the existing County R-15 zone Area & Bulk Requirements with the proposed City R-15B zone Area & Bulk Requirements. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is known as the relationship between the total square footage of a residential unit and the total square footage of a lot. According to the County land use regulations the maximum floor area of a residential structure in the R-15 Zone is .16. This means that the total floor area of a house on ,..-., ,.-., I'" Aspen Grove, Knollwood, Eastwood and Starodoj SUbdivision Property April 30, 1987 Page 2 Owners a 15,000 square foot lot may not exceed 2,400 square feet (.16 x 15,000 = 2,400). Within the city of Aspen maximum floor area is determined by a sliding scale which varies depending upon individual lot sizes. As a general rule, the City's FAR's are more permissible except for very large lots. Attachment 2 presents the city methodology for calculating maximum floor area and an example of a calculation for a 15,100 square foot lot. Attachment 3 contains a proposal for the "purpose", "permitted uses" and "conditional uses" in the R-15B zone district. Please review the attached proposals and contact Glenn Horn at 925-2020 ext. 298 if you have any questions or suggestions. A public meeting with the Planning staff is scheduled for Tuesday, May 19th, at 7:00 P.M. in city Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena to discuss the possible need for refinements to the proposed zoning. On June 2, 1987 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a pUblic hearing to consider the zoning proposal. It is the City of Aspen's desire that any problems with the proposed zoning may be resolved prior to the public hearing at the meeting in May. Thank you very much. Sincerely, ~~ Glenn Horn AICP Assistant Planning Director GH/ds Enclosures: Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 gh.annex ~. Attachment 1 ~. A Comparison of Area & Bulk Requirements in Pitkin County's R-15 Zone with the City of Aspen's Proposed R-15B Zone Area & Bulk Reauirements Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Minimum Side Yard Dwellings & Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Minimum Rear Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Maximum Height Minimum Distance Between Principal Building & Accessory Building City of Aspen Proposed R-15B Zone Pitkin County Existing R-15 Zone 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75' 75' 25' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 5' 5' 5' 5' 10' 10' 5' 5' 10' 10' 28' 28' No Requirement No Requirement Percent of Open Space for Building site External Floor Area Ratio No Requirement No Requirement Internal Floor Area Ratio *Sliding Scale .16 No Requirement No Requirement Off-street Parking Residential Uses One per bedroom 2 or 2 whichever is less All Other Uses Special Review Special Review * Please refer to Attachment 2 for explanation of sliding scale. Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, April 23, 1987 ,,-- ,,/". Attachment 2 City of Aspen Formula for Calculating Maximum Floor Area for Single-Family Residential structures Lot size Standard Allowable Sauare Feet 0-3,000 80 s.f. of floor area for each additional 100 s.f. in lot area 0-2,400 3,001-9,000 28 s.f. of floor area for each additional 100 s.f. in lot area 2,400-4,080 9,001-15,000 7 s.f. of floor area for each additional 100 s.f. in lot area 4,080-4,500 15,001-50,000 6 s.f. of floor area for each additional 100 s.f. in lot area 4,500-6,500 50,000+ 2 s.f. of floor area for each additional 100 s.f. in lot area 6,500+ Example: 1. Assume 15,100 s.f. of lot area 2. The house may be 4,500 s.f. for the first 15,000 s.f. of lot area. 3. To calculate the additional remaining floor area, the following calculation is done: 15,100 s.f. - 15,000 s.f. = 100 s.f. 100 s.f. / 100 s.f. = 1 1 x 6 s.f. = 6 s.f. 4,500 s.f. + 6 s.f. = 4,506 s.f. Maximum Floor area = 4,506 s.f. Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office April 30, 1987 . ''; . r- ~ ... Attachment 3 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Purpose, Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District is to provide areas for residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District are similarly situated to those in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15) Zone District and are lands annexed from Pitkin County from Zone Districts in which single- family structures are a permitted use and duplexes are prohibit- ed. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District. 1. Detached residential dwelling; 2. Farm and garden buildings and uses, provided that all such buildings and storage areas are located at least one hundred (100 ') feet from pre-existing dwellings on other lots; 3. Home occupations; 4. Group homes; and 5. Accessory buildings and uses. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted as condition- al uses in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone Dis- trict, subject to the standards and procedures established in Art.6, Div. 3. 1. Open use recreation site; 2. Public School; 3. Church; 4. Hospital; 5. Public administration building; 6. Day care center; 7 . Museum; and 8. Satellite dish antennae. Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office April 30, 1987 ( ,-.. ( ,-, PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ASPEN GROVE/EASTWOOD/KNOLLWOOD MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION INITIAL ZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 2, 1987 at a meeting to being at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council Cham- bers, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, Colorado to consider the Aspen/Pi tkin Planning Office's initial zoning proposal of R-15B for the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood Annexation area. The annexation area is generally located to the east of the existing City limits and north of SH 82 comprised of lands of Aspen Grove, Eastwood and Starodoj subdivision also part of the Knollwood SUbdivision with tracts of land located in the Highland Placer U.S. Mineral Survey No. G120 AM and Riverside Placer, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 3905 AM. . For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Co 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 298. sIC. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ================================================================ PUblished in the Aspen Times on Lj-3o-r1 city of Aspen Account. .-' (""" ~n/Pltld. n. Planning Office ~.~"\'1 ""~@~\\\\\ ,\\\\ \r-\ 0 \qol .. ': \ \\ \\\)/.. W\~,.) ,,() . /\ Ii , , l' __._ _. r. r -.,,,. :: .As. P91'1/Pit~111. '. fannlnlJ omie, ~ 130,~. Qil~,lt. =. :: Aipen; GO 81111 _ . ,- ..-:::~ .:- ,:::-..' -----r1 \ r::: \ \\\\ ~~"",'n "';\\\\111'1' \S':.~."'...........'.' ~p ''''\1'1::.1__-..\....... ~ ~ \:::7~ ,....\ '~\E>__ _( ". '..\\ l~0' \ r i7-~p-~"'b.c.:}~..~ /~'" ~A,'''''''''_. r .v\. /;':1 r:y ~i 4. ~'ll1 """..c"'~ ~~ ,,-,Pf'" ')4291 05/HVB7 NEW ;\DIX::ESt; MOF: BO 21{HlNLt:::J. ,. NOTIFY ~3ENDER. 01. "hOHN:mC; ~:.;TAH l:O. . 1~:XPII:::Ef.) OH[)EF~' HEl Uf~N \:UB!"S )I( ----' ....-- ,- INDENTURE OF TRUST OF EDITH R. STERN 7/6/53 . C/OHORNING STAR COMPA~Y POST OFFICE BOX 11180 ASPEN, COLORADO .'", .. INVESTORS GROUP OF FLORrDA, C. H. BELL, PRESIDENT 720 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO INC. 71 104097 81612 71 /09094 TO SENI),EJ, -~ t=___~. .c'. I~ ..........~ P t:.- .."...... --....".. ~ ,<," "1- '........ MAY 14'87 j:v:? I . r ~ ~1J c 0 ;;6~;~' r1 Q1GrvJ> 81611