Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Nonconformities.1998r^, ~-~ ~..~ .,. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager ~! i' FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Continued Public Hearing-Ordinance 65, Nonconformities DATE: March 9, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends final approval of Ordinance 65, which repeals and re-enacts Article XIII of Chapter 24, with respect to nonconformities. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At a public hearing on Ordinance 54, held on December 7, the Council directed the staff to remove the nonconformities provisions from the R-6 Ordinance and to begin processing a separate Ordinance, to allow public debate to focus on the issues. On December 21, Ordinance 65 was unanimously approved on first reading. At a public hearing held on January 11, 1988, Council directed the staff to delete certain provisions regarding nonconforming structures. At a continued public hearing on January 25, Council listened to concerns raised by staff and the Code consultant regarding the deletions. Based on these comments, Council asked staff to bring forward some alternative ways of addressing willful destruction of noncon- forming structures. However, when we brought back these alternatives on February 8, significant new concerns were raised by members of the public, resulting in another tabling action. BACKGROUND: At the hearing on January 25, we pointed out to you that the Council needed to make a policy decision as to how to treat nonconforming structures which are willfully demolished by their owners. When we originally drafted this section of the Code as part of the overall revision of our zoning and sub- division regulations, we believed it was Council's intent to gradually phase out existing nonconformities in the community. Our consultant indicated to you that the direction given at the January 11 meeting would not accomplish this intent, but instead had the effect of maintaining the status quo. He also pointed out to you that by giving the owner of a nonconforming structure the right to tear down and replace the nonconformity, in effect you give that owner a competitive edge in the marketplace. The alternative that appeared to have support at the meeting on February 8 was to only require a nonconforming structure to be rebuilt to conforming status when it is willfully demolished to the extent of 75$ of the floor area and exterior walls. However, the public identified two problems with this approach. First, it ,~^ ~, J was pointed out that a condominium complex with more units than currently allowed by Code which is willfully destroyed would not be able to rebuild the prior number of units, causing legal and financial problems. Secondly, it was argued that the regulation had a more severe effect on the owner of a small house than on the owner of a larger home, who could demolish more square footage without having to bring the structure into conformance. PROBLEM DISCQSSION: I believe there is a strong rationale for requiring a nonconforming structure which is willfully demolished to be brought into conformance. However, I also recognize that our regulatory approach appears to be having some unanticipated consequences. I suspect that the problems with the regulation being identified by the public may represent only a portion of the unintended problems we may cause by trying to eliminate willfully destroyed nonconformities. one response to the objections raised at the prior hearing is to add several new exceptions to the provisions of the Ordinance. One exception would state that a willfully destroyed structure which is nonconforming as to the number of dwelling units (minimum lot area per dwelling unit) can be restored by right to its prior unit count. The other exception would state that when willful demolition of a structure involves less than 1,000 square feet of floor area, the structure may be rebuilt to its prior nonconforming status. A second response would be to admit that the approach to willful demolition is too ambitious at this time and conclude that we should retain the manner in which nonconformities are addressed in the current Code. One reason for this position would be the problem of adopting a regulation which already includes numerous exceptions and which may require others over time. Exceptions make the regulation more difficult to administer and understand, running counter to the theme of the Code revision process. RECOMMENDATION: Attached as Exhibits A and B are proposed revisions to the willful demolition/restoration clauses of the Ordinance. Exhibit A, regarding nonconforming uses, should be adopted in place of the language in Section 24-13.2 (G). If you review the Ordinance, you will find it to contain language pertaining to reinvestment of more than 50$ of the value of the structure, which you decided was an inappropriate criterion. The approach taken in Exhibit A is based on that we have been discussing for nonconforming structures, but contains fewer exceptions and more rigid criteria, in recognition of the relatively greater impact that a nonconforming use can have on a neighborhood, compared to a nonconforming structure. Please also note that in Section 24-13.5 (A), Lodge and Hotel Preservation, the 50$ of value criterion is again used. If you agree to the revised approach to nonconforming uses, you should also apply 2 r~ .... ., this approach to the preservation clause, as shown in Exhibit C. Exhibit B, regarding nonconforming uses, has been drafted to include the new exceptions. On balance, we feel the added administrative difficulty and the potential for anyone to avoid compliance (by phasing reconstruction into increments of less than 1,000 square feet or less than 75$ of the floor and exterior wall area at any one time) may outweigh the potential community benefits. We are also concerned about the unanticipated consequences with respect to nonconforming structures which we have not yet discovered. Therefore, we recommend that the language in Exhibit B not be included in the Ordinance at this time. Instead, the language shown in the proposed motion should be included as a new subsection 24-13.3 (F). PROPOSED NOTION: "Move to adopt Ordinance 65, as amended, on second reading, with the following changes: 1. Insert the language of Exhibit A to replace that in Section 24-13.2 (G). 2. Add a new Section 24-13.3 (F) to read as follows: Ability to restore. A nonconforming structure which is demolished or destroyed through any manner and to any extent may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction shall be issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition or destruction. 3. Insert the language in Exhibit C to make Section 24- 13.5 (A) consistent with revised Section 24-13.2 (G)." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: nonconformities 3 .~. -^^~ ... this approach to the preservation clause, as shown in Exhibit C. Exhibit B, regarding nonconforming uses, has been drafted to include the new exceptions. On balance, we feel the added administrative difficulty and the potential for anyone to avoid compliance (by phasing reconstruction into increments of less than 1,000 square feet or less than 75$ of the floor and exterior wall area at any one time) may outweigh the potential community benefits. We are also concerned about the unanticipated consequences with respect to nonconforming structures which we have not yet discovered. Therefore, we recommend that the language in Exhibit B not be included in the Ordinance at this time. Instead, the language shown in the proposed motion should be included as a new subsection 24-13.3 (F). PROPOSED NOTION: "Move to adopt Ordinance 65, as amended, on second reading, with the following changes: 1. Insert the language of Exhibit A to replace that in Section 24-13.2 (G). 2. Add a new Section 24-13.3 (F) to read as follows: Ability to restore. A nonconforming structure which is willfully demolished or destroyed to any extent may be restored as of right if a building permit for recon- struction shall be issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition or destruction. A nonconforming structure which is demolished or destroyed to any extent by an act of God or through any manner not willfully accomplished by the owner may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction shall be issued within twenty-four (24) months of the date of demolition or destruction. Insert the language in Exhibit C to make Section 24- 13.5 (A) consistent with revised Section 24-13.2 (G)." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: nonconformities s^ ""` ~.. Exhibit A Section 24-13.2 G. Demolition or destruction. 1. Ability to restore. Any nonconforming use which is demolished or destroyed to the extent of less than seventy-five (75$) percent of the floor area or exterior wall area of the entire structure may be restored as of right if a building permit for recon- struction shall be issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition. Any nonconforming use which is demolished or destroyed to the extent of seventy-five (75$) percent or more of the floor area or exterior wall area of the entire structure shall only be restored in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. 2. Non-willful destruction. Any nonconforming use which is demolished or destroyed by an act of God or through any manner not willfully accomplished by the owner may be restored as of right, regardless of the extent of its demolition or destruction, if a building permit for reconstruction shall be issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition or destruction. 4 ~^ .., Exhibit B Section 24-13.3 F. Demolition or destruction. 1. Ability to restore. Any nonconforming structure which is demolished or destroyed to the extent of less than seventy-five (75$) percent of the floor area and exterior wall area of the entire structure may be restored as of right if a building permit for recon- struction shall be issued within twenty-four (24) months of the date of demolition. Any nonconforming structure which is demolished or destroyed to the extent of seventy-five (75$) percent or more of the floor area and exterior wall area of the entire structure shall only be restored in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. 2. Exceptions. a. Non-willful destruction. Any nonconforming structure which is demolished or destroyed by an act of God or through any manner not willfully accomplished by the owner may be restored as of right, regardless of the extent of its demolition or destruction, if a building permit for recon- struction shall be issued within twenty-four (24) months of the date of demolition or destruction. b. Historic Landmark. Any nonconforming structure designated as a historic landmark may be restored as of right, regardless of the manner or extent of its demolition or destruction, if the restoration plan is approved by HPC pursuant to Section 24- 9.4." c. Density. A structure which is nonconforming as to minimum lot area per dwelling unit and is willfully demolished or destroyed shall not be required to reduce the number of units in the structure, regardless of the extent of its demolition or destruction, if a building permit for reconstruction shall be issued within twenty- four (24) months of the date of demolition or destruction. d. Minor Demolition. Any structure which contains less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area which is demolished or destroyed may be restored as of right, regardless of the manner or extent of the demolition or destruction. 5 Exhibit C Sec. 24-13.5. Lodge and hotel Dreservation. All lodge and hotel uses and structures that are lawfully established at the time of adoption of this chapter or an amendment which would be considered to make the lodge or hotel a nonconforming use or structure under this chapter are hereby declared to be conforming and not subject to the provisions of this article as long as the following standards and requirements are met. A. Demolition or destruction. Ability to restore. Any nonconforming lodge or hotel which is demolished or destroyed to the extent of less than seventy-five (75$) percent of the floor area or exterior wall area of the entire structure may be restored as of right if a building permit for recon- struction shall be issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition. Any nonconforming lodge or hotel which is demolished or destroyed to the extent of seventy-five (75$) percent or more of the floor area or exterior wall area of the entire structure shall meet the dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District. 2. Non-willful destruction. hotel which is demolished or through any manner not owner may be restored as extent of its demolition permit for reconstruction (12) months of the date o Any nonconforming lodge or or destroyed by an act of God willfully accomplished by the of right, regardless of the or destruction, if a building shall be issued within twelve demolition or destruction. 6 ORDINANCE NO. 65 (Series of 1987) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COi1NCIL REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING ARTICLE XIII OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMITIES WHEREAS, as a result of the scale of residential development being experienced within the R-6 Zone District in recent years, the Aspen City Council directed the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") to evaluate the current requirements for residential development and to recommend necessary changes thereto; and WHEREAS, in response to this directive, the Commission adopted Resolution 87-9, addressing setbacks, site coverage and floor area ratio in the R-6 zone district, the methodology for calculating floor area ratio and regulatory provisions pertaining to nonconformities; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on December 7, the Aspen City Council directed the Planning Office to remove from Ordinance 54, Series of 1987, those sections pertaining to nonconformities and to place those provisions in a separate ordinance to allow for public debate to focus on the issues involved; and WHEREAS, having considered the recommendations of the Commission pertaining to nonconformities, the City Council wishes to amend the Municipal Code as specified herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COIARADO: Section 1 That Article XIII of Chapter 24 of the Municipal code be repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: .... ARTICLE XIII - NON-CONFORMITIES Sec. 24-13.1. Purpose. Within the Zone Districts established by this chapter, there exist uses of land, buildings and structures that were lawfully established before this chapter was adopted or amended which would be in violation of the terms and requirements of this chapter. The purpose of this article is to regulate and limit the continued existence of those uses, buildings, and structures that do not conform to the provisions of this chapter or any amendments thereto. It is the intent of this article to permit these nonconfor- mities to continue, but not to allow nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded. The provisions of this article are designed to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order to preserve the integrity of the Zone Districts and the other provisions of this chapter but should not be construed as an abatement provision. Sec. 24-13.2. Nonconforming uses. A. Authority to continue. Nonconforming uses of land or structures may continue in accordance with the provi- sions of this article and this section. B. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance to permit continuation of nonconforming uses may be performed in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months, to an extent not exceeding ten (10$) percent of the current replacement cost of the structure. C. Extensions. Nonconforming uses shall not be extended. This prohibition shall be construed so as to prevent: 1. Enlargement of nonconforming uses by additions to the area of the structure in which such noncon- forming uses are located; or 2. Occupancy of additional lands. D. Relocation. A structure housing a nonconforming use may not be moved to another location on or off the parcel of land on which it is located, unless the use thereafter shall conform to the limitations of the Zone District into which it is moved. E. Chancre in use. A nonconforming use shall not be changed to any other use unless the new use conforms to the provisions of the Zone District in which it is located. F. Abandonment or discontinuance. The intent of the owner notwithstanding, where a nonconforming use of land or nonconforming use of structure is discontinued or abandoned for twelve (12) consecutive months, then such use may not be re-established or resumed, and any subsequent use must conform to the provisions of this chapter. G. Damage or destruction. Ability to restore. Any structure housing a nonconforming use which is damaged or destroyed to the extent of less than fifty (50$) percent of the fair market value of said structure may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction shall be issued within twelve (12) months of the date of damage. Any structure housing a nonconforming use which is damaged or destroyed to the extent of fifty (50$) percent or more of the fair market value of said structure shall only be restored in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. Exception. Any structure housing a nonconforming use which is damaged or destroyed by an act of God or through any manner not willfully accomplished by the owner may be restored as of right, regard- less of the extent of the damage or destruction, if a building permit for reconstruction shall be issued within twelve (12) months of the date of damage. Sec. 24-13.3. Nonconforming structures. A. Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the Zone District in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this article. B. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance to permit continuation of nonconforming structures may be performed in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months without limit on the cost of the maintenance. C. Extensions. 1. General. A nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. A nonconforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the nonconformity. 2. Historic Landmark. The only exception to this requirement shall be for a structure designated as an Historic Landmark which is located in the R-6 or R-15 zone districts. Such structures may be extended into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, may be extended into the minimum distance between buildings on a lot and may be enlarged, provided, however, such enlargement does not exceed the allowable floor area of the existing structure by more than five hundred (500') square feet, complies with all other requirements of this chapter, and receives development review approval as required by Section 24-9 of this Code. D. Relocation. A nonconforming structure shall not be moved unless it thereafter conforms to the standards and requirements of the Zone District in which it is located. E. Unsafe structure. Any portion of a nonconforming structure which becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance, and which is declared unsafe or unlawful by a duly authorized City official, but which an owner wishes to restore, repair or rebuild shall only be restored, repaired or rebuilt in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. Sec. 24-13.4. Nonconforming accessory uses and accessory structures . No nonconforming accessory use or accessory structure shall continue after the principal structure or use shall have ter- minated unless such structure or use thereafter shall conform to the provisions of the Zone District in which it is located. Sec. 24-13.5. Lodge and hotel preservation. All lodge and hotel uses and structures that are lawfully established at the time of adoption of this chapter or an amendment which would be considered to make the lodge or hotel a nonconforming use or structure under this chapter are hereby declared to be conforming and not subject to the provisions of this article as long as the following standards and requirements are met. A. Reconstruction or renovation. All reconstruction of a structure shall meet the dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District. Renovation shall not increase the nonconformity of the structure. Renova- tion is the investment of up to fifty (50~) percent of the appraised value of the structure, net of land 4 ..,, value. Reconstruction is the investment of fifty (50 %) percent or more of the value of the structure, net of land value. B. Increase in units or size. There shall be no increase in the number of units in the lodge or hotel, or the total square footage in the lodge or hotel, unless the enlargement is for the purpose of constructing deed restricted employee housing units accessory to the principal use. C. Construction of emnlovee housing. The enlargement of the lodge or hotel for the purpose of constructing employee housing shall be reviewed and considered as a Development Application for a conditional use pursuant to Section 24-3.3. In determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application, the Commission shall ensure all the following standards and requirements are met. 1. There is no increase in lodge or hotel units. 2. The proposed employee housing units are in compliance with the adopted housing plan, and specifically the need for seasonal employee rooms. 3. The construction quality and unit size of the proposed employee housing units meets the stand- ards of the City's housing designee. 4. There are adequate public facilities to serve the proposed development, and off-street parking is provided pursuant to Section 24-4.5. 5. The proposed employee housing is compatible with surrounding land uses and the dimensional require- ments of the underlying Zone District. 6. The proposed employee housing is deed restricted to the employee rental guidelines, and against commercial rental or sale. In the event the lodge is condominiumized, the deed restricted units must be retained as a portion of the common elements of the lodge or hotel. 7. The proposed employee housing receives health, safety and fire inspection and commitments are made to comply with the results of said inspec- tion. 8. The deed restricted employee housing units are limited in their rental solely to employees of the 5 lodge or hotel, and shall not be rented to other employees of the City nor rented on the open market. 9. The expansion may be in rental rooms, provided an equal amount of existing square footage of space is converted from rental rooms to deed restricted employee housing units. D. Abandonment. The intent of the owner notwithstanding, when a lodge or hotel subject to this section is discontinued or abandoned for twelve (12) consecutive months, then the use may not be re-established or the structure occupied, without conforming to the standards and requirements of the underlying Zone District. E. Damave or destruction. If a lodge or hotel subject to this section is damaged or destroyed by any means and is not repaired or replaced within two (2) years from the date of damage or destruction, it shall only be reconstructed pursuant to the standards and require- ments of this chapter. Sec. 24-13.6. Nonconforming lots of record. A. General. A detached single family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be developed on a lot of record if: 1. The lot of record is in separate ownership and not contiguous to lots in the same ownership; and 2. The proposed single family dwelling can be located on the lot so that the yard, height, open space and floor area dimensional requirements of the Zone District can be met, or a variance is obtained from said dimensional requirements. B. Undivided lot. If two (2) or more lots or combinations of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership (including husband and wife as in all cases a single owner) are of record at the effective date of the adoption or amendment of this chapter, regardless of time of acquisition, and if all or parts of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot width and area, the lots shall be considered an undivided parcel, and no portion shall be used or occupied which does meet the width and area requirements of this chapter. Sec. 24-13.7. Lot reduction. A. No lot or interest therein shall be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided so as to create a new nonconforming lot, to avoid, circumvent or subvert any provision of this chapter, or to leave remaining any lot in violation of the dimensional requirements of this chapter. B. No lot or portion of a lot required as a building site under this chapter shall be used as a portion of a lot required as a site for another structure. C. No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel of land which has been conveyed, sold, or subdivided in violation of this section. Any trans- feree who acquires a lot in violation of this paragraph without knowledge of such violation, and any subsequent transferee, shall have the right to rescind and/or receive damages from any transferee who violates the provisions of this paragraph. Section 2 That the following definitions be added to Section 24-3.1 of the Municipal Code: (ii) NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE means any structure which was estab- lished pursuant to the zoning and building laws in effect at the time of its development, but which does not conform to the dimensional requirements imposed by this Code for the Zone District in which it is located. (jj) NONCONFORMING USE means any use of land, building or structure, which was established pursuant to the zoning and building laws in effect at the time of its development, but which use is not a permitted or conditional use under the regulations imposed by this Code for the Zone District in which it is located. (kk) NORMAL MAINTENANCE OF A NON-CONFORMITY means any work done in a period of twelve (12) consecutive months on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of non-bearing walls, fixtures, wiring or plumbing. 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 Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of 1988, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 1988. ATTEST: William L. Stirling, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 1987. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk William L. Stirling, Mayor 8 day of _., ... • ~~S REID &WAIDRON Real Estate • Rentals • Property Management February 4, 1988 Bill Stirling Mayor City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Bill: I am writing you with some serious concerns I have in regards to Ordinance #65 dealing with non-conforming use. In this regard I have two questions: 1. When a multi-ownership building becomes too old to keep up and it must be destroyed and rebuilt, how is the equity dis- tributed if less total units or square footage can be built than presently exists? How does the ordinance address this situation? We manage a multi-unit complex in Aspen which mlght have serious foundation problems which we have been addressing. The building might need several hundred thousand dollars worth of repairs and each owner is possibly faced with several thousand dollars worth of expenses. At some cost it would be wiser to tear down and rebuild the complex again. How will this ordinance address a problem like this which occurred through no fault of the owners? Can they rebuild what they already have? If not they stand to lose a lot through the high cost to repair or not being able to rebuild the same square footage. 2. How will condominium complexes and apartment buildings get replacement insurance if what they have can't be rebuilt? My feeling is that it would not be insurable. Has the Council investigated this potential problem. We are all concerned with keeping a high quality of living in Aspen, but these two issues represent real problems to us that need to be addressed before this ordinance is passed. S1nc'~, Michael L. Spalding General Manager MS/jc cc: John Howard Aspen Office • 720 East Hyman, Aspen, Colorado 8161 1 • (303) 925-1400 Snowmass Office • Box 6450, Snowmass Cenier, Snowmass Village, Colorado 8167 S • (303) 923-4750 ~.~ .,,A ~. 2`~ ~ ~ ~~~~ S~tV~'~ ~~~ar~,kf ,` l~a9i-cr~~or~~~ sµrvc~~r~S ~~q,rr.~-akl~P j U~~ ~e 0 v ~a Q~~ n~ Q rv (~ CU kJ e v S --~ n i ~ W yr ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~- ~ i'O~-~t~ r~( ~e _S' OS !0 ~~ QS ~~'~7• ~e/G/re~ry~E? cv i/v~ u~~-c~w~azr.u~ ~~~ ~~y Qv d l~sS o~ lr~~v ~C~vc~w~j ~ o~ ~(~~oua'f-fd w ,GoS'~s i~vc~ro~ ~(t~GS-e C,v /~ sr c! -e.- -~~'~ ~GL~ Cv ~.fvC+ , (J f{- ~~~ ~l% rc~'~r'h/ Oww'Pr (,~/IC6//~~~5('S ~d0/,"~(J~y. -~-u v,'///,~cJ t/~a d ~// o' ,f/o.G-Go.t~~vr~r.r,~~ /. SO q 5 ~~ w~' !fS / ~ «° 5' ~ 2 ~u~ vs~ ~ ~ °~ av l~,'tvary John R. Werning, Proprietor • 905 East Hopkins • Aspen, CO 81611 • (303) 920-2550 R,; M I I / /' ~ c1 ~o (i S 'I-~c ca ~-a r ~r //~~r c G; `7` See ~ ra ,o r -f~o p ~ tires ~~ ~ ~ K- ~ C u-~lL~°G~S U~~ 6~+5 e w ( q x ~ a C( c~ ~ ~ ~~ / ~o er~~S ~ ur~~ ~ av (~ ~Que crti fwd-~c.~ va(ls~~ ~Ql,~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ f ~4 ~ y 5 ~~~~~ G~ Q ~~ w~ ~ ,~~ 9 ek~S ~ e,~Ca,,.~~~ ~.~ Yt4~Gva'~rG.~. eaS~S ~ .~ / f ~ /~PQ Cl~ U/Y/k.~Y'ls~ TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Man~ger~ FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Continued Public Hearing-Ordinance 65, Nonconformities DATE: January 20, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends final approval of Ordinance 65, which repeals and re-enacts Article XIII of Chapter 24, with respect to nonconformities. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At a public hearing on Ordinance 54, held on December 7, the Council directed the staff to remove the nonconformities provisions from the R-6 Ordinance and to begin processing a separate Ordinance, to allow public debate to focus on the issues. On December 21, Ordinance 65 was unanimously approved on first reading. At a public hearing held on January 11, 1988, Council directed the staff to make some significant policy changes to the Ordinance prior to its adoption. CHANGES SINCE PRIOR HEARING: In response to Council's direction, following are the changes included within the revised Ordinance: 1. Section 24-13.1, Purpose, second paragraph amended to make it clear that this is not an abatement ordinance. 2. Section 24-13.2, Nonconforming uses, subsection (F) clarified to address Sally Roach's comments. New subsection (G) written from language of prior version to address Bil Dunanway's concern as to possible inconsistency of the language. 3. Section 24-13.3, Nonconforming structures, sections regarding termination and damage/destruction eliminated. 4. Throughout Ordinance, reference to section numbers of new Code replaced with section numbers of current Code, other minor typos corrected. 5. Severability sections added as new Sections 3 and 4 of Ordinance, as per City Attorney's instructions. One additional issue which arose at the last meeting was the Mayor's question regarding whether the single family houses in the commercial core are nonconforming uses, and if so, what we could do to minimize the effect of the regulations on these structures. We checked our records and find that there are seven such structures in the CC zone district, two of which are designated as historic landmarks and five which are not desig- nated. Presently, all are nonconforming uses, because the zone district does not list detached residential dwellings as a permitted or conditional use. We concur with Council that we should encourage preservation and restoration of these structures and not have regulations which might cause their needless destruction. Therefore, we recommend that the clarified Code list "detached residential dwellings designated as historic landmarks" as a permitted use in the CC zone district. This will be an incentive towards designation of the five undesignated structures by giving them expansion and remodeling rights not shared by the undesignated homes. We do not recommend that all detached residential dwellings be allowed by right, as this could result in new residential development outbidding commercial uses for our limited downtown area. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the revisions to the nonconformities provisions within their Resolution 87-9, and were responsible for several important modifications to our original staff recommend- ation during their discussion of this proposal. MOTION: "Move to adopt Ordinance on second reading" CITY MANAGER' S COMMENTS : ~ !.~.~.~.~. ~z~~ .~~~-r ~~ ti_ nonconformities --, 4... a.a SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES IN COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT ADDRESS HISTORIC EVALUATION/ DESIGNATION STATUS 309 E. Main St. 4 311 E. Main St. 4 302 E. Hopkins Designated 530 E. Hopkins 3 532 E. Hopkins 3 534 E. Hopkins 2 104 S. Galena Designated TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: Aspen City Council ~~~// ~j Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager _~-~/~ Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director '~` Public Hearing on Ordinance 65, Nonconformities January 4, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends second reading approval of Ordinance 65, which repeals and re-enacts Article XIII of Chapter 24, with respect to nonconformities. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At a public hearing on Ordinance 54, held on December 7, the Council directed the staff to remove the nonconformities provisions from the R-6 Ordinance and to begin processing a separate Ordinance, to allow public debate to focus on the issues. On December 21, Ordinance 65 was unanimously approved on first reading. BACRGROUND: When we began working on the clarification of our land use regulations, first the Task Force, then staff and finally the consultant identified the nonconforming use and structure provisions as among the most confusing, disorganized and internally inconsistent regulations in the Code. You asked the staff to review these provisions from a substantive stand- point and the consultant to completely reorganize and clarify this section of the Code. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Rather than try to put a bandage on this section of the Code, the Consultant's approach was to build an entirely new regulation in the following manner. First, the consultant produced a "model" draft, containing virtually no policy considerations, but instead relying on the recommendations of the American Law Institute/American Bar Association (ALI/ABA) in their Model Land Development Code. Using this model as the skeleton, we then added on the local policies with respect to nonconformities which had been adopted in the past, and which we felt continued to represent community interests. Following are the basic policies contained within this Ordinance. 1. Nonconforming uses (a use which is not allowed in the zone): a. Are limited as to maintenance and repair to only 10% of the replacement cost of the structure per year. b. Cannot be enlarged and cannot occupy additional lands. h /.w^ r c. Cannot be relocated to another site or changed in use unless brought into conformance. d. Can be restored by right if damaged or destroyed to the extent of less than 50% of the fair market value of the structure or if damaged or destroyed to any extent by an act of God or in any manner not willfully accomp- lished by the owner, provided a building permit for restoration is issued within 12 months. e. Must be restored to a conforming use if willfully damaged or destroyed by more than 50% of the fair market value of the structure. 2. Nonconforming structures (buildings not meeting dimensional requirements of the zone): a. Are not limited as to annual maintenance and repair. b. Cannot be extended or altered to increase a nonconform- ity, but can be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or decreases a nonconformity. Historic Landmarks which are nonconforming structures can be extended or altered in a variety of ways if HPC approval is obtained. c. Can be restored by right if damaged or destroyed to the extent of less than 50% of the fair market value of the structure or if damaged or destroyed to any extent by an act of God or in any manner not willfully accomp- lished by the owner, provided a building permit for restoration is issued within 24 months. d. Must be restored to a conforming structure if willfully damaged or destroyed by more than 50% of the fair market value of the structure. e. Historic Landmarks which are nonconforming structures can be restored by right, whether restored willfully or by an act of God, without limitation on the value of the reinvestment if HPC approval is obtained. The above summary demonstrates that the proposed rules for nonconforming uses are somewhat more stringent than those for nonconforming structures. This is consistent with current provisions and with general thinking that a use which is not allowed in a zone is a greater problem for the neighborhood than is a structure which exceeds its dimensional limitations. The major new policy contained within our recommendation is 2d above, regarding willful damage or destruction by more than 50% of the structure's value. we believe this change is most 2 ., .~ important, because it means that at the end of a structure's useful life, neighbors can expect that its reconstruction will comply with the same limitations which new construction must meet. Otherwise, the City can never expect to see its neighbor- hoods come into compliance with. any new understanding of land use and zoning matters which are formulated over time. We have attempted to limit the effects of this requirement on the owners of nonconforming structures by extending to them add- itional opportunities to renovate by eliminating the annual maintenance and repairs value limitation of 10~. This limit does apply to residential nonconforming structures, contrary to the comment voiced by Gideon Kaufman at the prior hearing, because the preservation clause only applies to nonconforming lodge structures, not residential structures. We have further limited the applicability of the new requirement by first, allowing the investment of up to 50$ of the value of the structure without requiring compliance with the dimensional requirements, second, differentiating between willful and accidental destruction of a structure, and third, allowing the restoration of historic landmarks by right. All of these policies have been discussed with a real estate appraiser and a mortgage banker, who felt that they would not make nonconforming structures incapable of obtaining a mortgage. The lodge preservation clause has been retained as Section 9-105 of the Ordinance, in recognition of the crucial role of lodges in our tourist economy. There are still a few nonconforming lodge uses in existence (the Swiss Chalet and Ullr being the only examples of which I am aware) which we felt should not be limited in terms of repairs and maintenance. We also wanted to maintain the ability of these facilities to add units for employees of the lodge. The clause retains the differentiation between reno- vation, which is the investment of less than 50g of the value of the structure and reconstruction, which is the investment of more than 50$ of this value. In the case of reconstruction, under- lying area and bulk requirements for the nonconforming use must be met. The residential portion of the preservation clause, which only applied to nonconforming residential uses, not structures, has been deleted. This means that residential nonconforming uses will be subject to the 10$ repairs and maintenance limitation, which was not previously the case. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the revisions to the nonconformities provisions within their Resolution 87-9, and were responsible for several important modifications to our original staff recommend- ation during their discussion of this proposal. 3 ,.~.. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to adopt Ordinance S~ on second reading" CITY MANAGER' S COMMENTS : ~ f. n ~ T 1I~N C 1 0 ~~/'~Q ~ ~f 4 N°/¢6 ~ f3gT'~ t SM1 ~ R"~6'F°PRI~d`~e, S (,~NGflti . nonconformities ~~, .~m TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager ),fly, ~/~ FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director 1~ ~ RE: Ordinance lv 5, Nonconformities DATE: December 15, 1987 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends first reading approval of Ordinance ~p~ , which repeals and re-enacts Article XIII of Chapter 24, with respect to nonconformities. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At a held on December 7, the Council nonconformities provisions from processing a separate Ordinance, on the issues. public hearing on Ordinance 54, directed the staff to remove the the R-6 ordinance and to begin to allow public debate to focus BACKGROUND: When we began working on the clarification of our land use regulations, first the Task Force, then staff and finally the consultant identified the nonconforming use and structure provisions as among the most confusing, disorganized and internally inconsistent regulations in the Code. You asked the staff to review these provisions from a substantive stand- point and the consultant to completely reorganize and clarify this section of the Code. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Rather than try to put a bandage on this section of the Code, the Consultant's approach was to build an entirely new regulation in the following manner. First, the consultant produced a "model" draft, containing virtually no policy considerations, but instead relying on the recommendations of the American Law Institute/American Bar Association (ALI/ABA) in their Model Land Development Code. Using this model as the skeleton, we then added on the local policies with respect to nonconformities which had been adopted in the past, and which we felt continued to represent community interests. Following are the basic policies contained within this Ordinance. 1. Nonconforming uses (a use which is not allowed in the zone): a. Are limited as to maintenance and repair to only 10% of the replacement cost of the structure per year. b. Cannot be enlarged and cannot occupy additional lands. ,, ., r .~.,~ c. Cannot be relocated to another site or changed in use unless brought into conformance. d. Can be restored by right if damaged or destroyed to the extent of less than 50$ of the fair market value of the structure or if damaged or destroyed to any extent by an act of God or in any manner not willfully accomp- lished by the owner, provided a building permit for restoration is issued within 12 months. e. Must be restored to a conforming use if willfully damaged or destroyed by more than 50% of the fair market value of the structure. 2. Nonconforming structures (buildings not meeting dimensional requirements of the zone): a. Are not limited as to annual maintenance and repair. b. Cannot be extended or altered to increase a nonconform- ity, but can be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or decreases a nonconformity. Historic Landmarks which are nonconforming structures can be extended or altered in a variety of ways if HPC approval is obtained. c. Can be restored by right if damaged or destroyed to the extent of less than 50~ of the fair market value of the structure or if damaged or destroyed to any extent by an act of God or in any manner not willfully accomp- lished by the owner, provided a building permit for restoration is issued within 24 months. d. Must be restored to a conforming structure if willfully damaged or destroyed by more than 50$ of the fair market value of the structure. e. Historic Landmarks which are nonconforming structures can be restored by right, whether rescored willfully or by an act of God, without limitation on the value of the reinvestment if HPC approval is obtained. The above summary demonstrates that the proposed rules for nonconforming uses are somewhat more stringent than those for nonconforming structures. This is consistent with current provisions and with general thinking that a use which is not allowed in a zone is a greater problem for the neighborhood than is a structure which exceeds its dimensional limitations. The major new policy contained within our recommendation is 2d above, regarding willful damage or destruction by more than 50°s of the structure's value. We believe this change is most 2 important, because it means that at the end of a structure's useful life, neighbors can expect that its reconstruction will comply with the same limitations which new construction must meet. Otherwise, the City can never expect to see its neighbor- hoods come into compliance with any new understanding of land use and zoning matters which are formulated over time. We have attempted to limit the effects of this requirement on the owners of nonconforming structures by extending to them add- itional opportunities to renovate by eliminating the annual maintenance and repairs value limitation of 10~. This limit does apply to residential nonconforming structures, contrary to the comment voiced by Gideon Kaufman at the prior hearing, because the preservation clause only applies to nonconforming lodge structures, not residential structures. We have further limited the applicability of the new requirement by first, allowing the investment of up to 50$ of the value of the structure without requiring compliance with the dimensional requirements, second, differentiating between willful and accidental destruction of a structure, and third, allowing the restoration of historic landmarks by right. All of these policies have been discussed with a real estate appraiser and a mortgage banker, who felt that they would not make nonconforming structures incapable of obtaining a mortgage. The lodge preservation clause has been retained as Section 9-105 of the Ordinance, in recognition of the crucial role of lodges in our tourist economy. There are still a few nonconforming lodge uses in existence (the Swiss Chalet and Ullr being the only examples of which I am aware) which we felt should not be limited in terms of repairs and maintenance. We also wanted to maintain the ability of these facilities to add units for employees of the lodge. The clause retains the differentiation between reno- vation, which is the investment of less than 50% of the value of the structure and reconstruction, which is the investment of more than 50$ of this value. In the case of reconstruction, under- lying area and bulk requirements for the nonconforming use must be met. The residential portion of the preservation clause, which only applied to nonconforming residential uses, not structures, has been deleted. This means that residential nonconforming uses will be subject to the 10$ repairs and maintenance limitation, which was not previously the case. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the revisions to the nonconformities provisions within their Resolution 87-9, and were responsible for several important modifications to our original staff recommend- ation during their discussion of this proposal. 3 .._ s MOTION: Move to read Ordinance ~5 "Move to approve Ordinances ~Aon first reading" CITY MANAGER'S COMMENNTS : ~ SeQ %~ ~ 5 SR-e-i ivri ~'S T YP~~'o'~ 9t F w~a~o,Cr ft~P~2o,~-cG.P,f ~~ '(L.e ~ f5 aQ , ~ ,Qe co~+ w~2/D //~~,G9dd-~- nonconformities 4 r *'-' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director 1~ ~ RE: Ordinance Nonconformities DATE: December 15, 1987 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends first reading approval of Ordinance , which repeals and re-enacts Article XIII of Chapter 24, with respect to nonconformities. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At a held on December 7, the Council nonconformities provisions from processing a separate Ordinance, on the issues. public hearing on Ordinance 54, directed the staff to remove the the R-6 Ordinance and to begin to allow public debate to focus BACKGROUND: When we began working on the clarification of our land use regulations, first the Task Force, then staff and finally the consultant identified the nonconforming use and structure provisions as among the most confusing, disorganized and internally inconsistent regulations in the Code. You asked the staff to review these provisions from a substantive stand- point and the consultant to completely reorganize and clarify this section of the Code. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Rather than try to put a bandage on this section of the Code, the Consultant's approach was to build an entirely new regulation in the following manner. First, the consultant produced a "model" draft, containing virtually no policy considerations, but instead relying on the recommendations of the American Law Institute/American. Bar Association (ALI/ABA) in their Model Land Development Code. Using this model as the skeleton, we then added on the local policies with respect to nonconformities which had been adopted in the past, and which we felt continued to represent community interests. Following are the basic policies contained within this Ordinance. 1. Nonconforming uses (a use which is not allowed in the zone): a. Are limited as to maintenance and repair to only 10~ of. the replacement cost of the structure per year. b. Cannot be enlarged and cannot occupy additional lands. r ~~ <. A c. Cannot be relocated to another site or changed in use unless brought into conformance. d. Can be restored by right if damaged or destroyed to the extent of less than 50~ of the fair market value of the structure or if damaged or destroyed to any extent by an act of God or in any manner not willfully accomp- lished by the owner, provided a building permit for restoration is issued within 12 months. e. Must be restored to a conforming use if willfully damaged or destroyed by more than 50$ of the fair market value of the structure. 2. Nonconforming structures (buildings not meeting dimensional requirements of the zone): a. Are not limited as to annual maintenance and repair. b. Cannot be extended or altered to increase a nonconform- ity, but can be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or decreases a nonconformity. Historic Landmarks which are nonconforming structures can be extended or altered in' a variety of ways if HPC approval is obtained. c. Can be restored by right if damaged or destroyed to the extent of less than 50$ of the fair market value of the structure or if damaged or destroyed to any extent by an act of God or in any manner not willfully accomp- lished by the owner, provided a building permit for restoration is issued within 24 months. d. Must be restored to a conforming structure if willfully damaged or destroyed by more than 50$ of the fair market value of the structure. e. Historic Landmarks which are nonconforming structures can be restored by right, whether rescored willfully or by an act of God, without limitation on the value of the reinvestment if HPC approval is obtained. The above summary demonstrates that the proposed rules for nonconforming uses are somewhat more stringent than those for nonconforming structures. This is consistent with current provisions and with general thinking that a use which is not allowed in a zone is a greater problem for the neighborhood than is a structure which exceeds its dimensional limitations. The major new policy contained within our recommendation is 2d above, regarding willful, damage or destruction by more than 50$ of the structure's value. We believe-this change is most 2 r- r... important, because it means that at the end of a structure's useful life, neighbors can expect that its reconstruction will comply with the same limitations which new construction must meet. Otherwise, the City can never expect to see its neighbor- hoods come into compliance with any new understanding of land use and zoning matters which are formulated over time. We have attempted to limit the. effects of this requirement on the owners of nonconforming structures by extending to them add- itional opportunities to renovate by eliminating the annual maintenance and repairs value limitation of 10$. This limit does apply to residential nonconforming structures, contrary to the comment voiced by Gideon Kaufman at the prior hearing, because the preservation clause only applies to nonconforming lodge structures, not residential structures. We have further limited the applicability of the new requirement by first, allowing the investment of up to 50$ of the value of the structure without requiring compliance with the dimensional requirements, second, differentiating between willful and accidental destruction of a structure, and third, allowing the restoration of historic landmarks by right. All of these policies have been discussed with a real estate appraiser and a mortgage banker, who felt that they would not make nonconforming structures incapable of obtaining a mortgage. The lodge preservation clause has been retained as Seotion 9-105 of the Ordinance, in recognition of the crucial role of lodges in our tourist-economy. There are still a few noneon€orming lodge uses in existence (the Swiss Chalet and Ullr being the only examples of which I am aware) which we felt should not be limited in terms o€ repairs and maintenance. We also wanted to maintain the ability of these facilities to add units for employees of the lodge.. The clause retains the df€erentiation between reno- vation, which is the investment of less than 50~ o€ the value of the structure and reconstruction, which is the investment of more than 50$ o€ this value. In the ease of reconstruction, under- lying area and bulk requirements for the nonconforming use must be met. The residential portion of the preservation clause, which only applied to nonconforming residential uses, not structures, has been deleted. This means that residential nonconforming uses will be subject to the 10$ repairs and maintenance limitation, which was not previously the case. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the revisions to the nonconformities provisions within their Resolution 87-9, and were responsible for several important modifications to our original staff recommend- ation during their discussion of this proposal. 3 ~.~, law X MOTION: "Move to read Ordinance " "Move to approve Ordinance on first reading" CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: nonconformities 4 ,. .~~ ORDINANCE NO. _ (Series of 1987) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COIINCIL REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING ARTICLE XIII OF THE MDNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMITIES WHEREAS, as a result of the scale of residential development being experienced within the R-6 Zone District in recent years, the Aspen City Council directed the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") to evaluate the current requirements for residential development and to recommends necessary changes thereto; and WHEREAS, in response to this directive, the Commission adopted Resolution 87-9, addressing setbacks, site coverage and floor area ratio in the R-6 zone district, the methodology for calculating floor area ratio and regulatory provisions pertaining to nonconformities; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on December 7, the Aspen City k ` Council directed the Planning Office to remove from Ordinance 54, Series of 1987, those sections pertaining to noneonformities and to place those provisions in a separate ordinance to allow for public debate to €ocus on-the issues involved; and WHEREAS,' having considered the recommendations of the Commission pertaining to nonconformities, the City Council wishes to amend the Municipal Code as specified herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TBE CITY OF ASPEN, COIARADO: Section i That Article XIII of Chapter 24 of the Municipal code be repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: ,~.. ~.., ARTICLE XIII - NON-CONFORMITIES Sec. 24-13.1. Purpose. Within the Zone Districts established by this chapter, there exist uses of land, buildings and structures that were lawfully established before this chapter was adopted or amended which would be in violation of the terms and requirements of this chapter. The purpose of this article is to regulate and limit the continued existence of these uses, buildings, and structures that do not conform to the provisions of this chapter or any amendments thereto. It is the intent of this article to permit these nonconfor- mities to continue, but not to encourage their survival. It is further the intent of this article that nonconformities should not be enlarged or expanded. The provisions of this article are designed to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities and to bring about their eventual elimination in order to preserve the integrity of the Zone Districts and the other provisions of this chapter. Sec. 24-13.2. Nonconformin uses. A. Authority to continue. Nonconforming uses of land or structures may continue in accordance with the provi- sions of this article and this section. B. Normal repair and maintenance. Normal maintenance and repair to permit continuation of nonconforming uses may be performed in any period of twelve (12) consecu- tive months, to an extent not exceeding ten (l0~) percent of the current replacement cost of the struc- ture. C. Extensions. Nonconforming uses shall not be extended. This prohibition shall be construed so as to prevent: 1. Enlargement of nonconforming uses by additions to the area of the structure in which such noncon- forming uses are located; or 2. Occupancy of additional lands. D. Relocation. A structure housing. a nonconforming use may not be moved either to another location on or off the parcel of land on which it is located, unless the use thereafter shall conform to the limitations of the Zone District into which it is moved. E. Chance in use. A nonconforming use shall not be changed to any other use unless the new use conforms to 2 >~ .,~ the provisions located. F. Termination. of the Zone District in which it is 1. Abandonment or discontinuance. The intent of the owner notwithstanding, where a nonconforming use of land or structure is discontinued or abandoned for twelve (12) consecutive months, then such use may not be re-established or resumed, and any subsequent use must conform to the provisions of this chapter. 2. Damage or destruction. Any structure housing a nonconforming use which is damaged or destroyed to the extent of less than fifty (50$) percent of the fair market value of said structure for which is damaged or destroyed to any extent by an act of God or through any manner not willfully accomp- lished by the owner may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction shall be issued within twelve (12) months of the date of damage. Any structure housing a non-conforming use which is willfully damaged or destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50$) percent of the fair market value of said structure shall only be restored in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. Sec. 24-13.3. Nonconforming structures. A. Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use pertaitted in the Zone District in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this article. B. Normal repair and maintenance. Normal maintenance and repair of nonconforming ,structures may be performed in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months without limit on the cost of the maintenance and repair. C. Extensions. 1. General.- A nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. A nonconforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the nonconformity. 2. lIistoric Landmark. The only exception to this requirement-shall be for a structure designated as .~ -. an Historic Landmark pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 7 which is located in the R-6 or R-15 zone dis- tricts. Such structures may be extended into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, may be extended into the minimum distance between buildings on a lot and may be enlarged, provided, however, such enlargement does not exceed the allowable floor area of the existing structure by more than five hundred (500') square feet, complies with all other requirements of this chapter, and receives development review approval as required by Section 24-9 of this Code. D. Relocation. A nonconforming structure shall not be moved unless it thereafter conforms to the standards and requirements of the Zone District in which it is located. E. Termination. 1. Abandonment. Where a nonconforming structure is abandoned for twelve (12) consecutive months, then such structure shall be removed or converted to a conforming structure. 2. Damage or destruction. a. General. Any part of a .nonconforming structure which is damaged or destroyed to the extent of less than fifty (508) percent of the fair market value of said strueture[or which is damaged or destroyed to any extent by an act of God or through any manner not willfully accomplished by the owned may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction shall be issued within twenty- four (24) months of the date of the damage. Any part of a non-conforming structure which is willfully damaged or destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (508) percent of the fair market value of said structure shall only be restored in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. b. Historic landmark. A non-conforming structure designated as a historic landmark may be restored as of right, whether destroyed wilfully or by an act of God and without limitation on the value of the reinvestment in the structure, if the restoration plan is approved by HPC pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 6. 4 c. Structure in stream margin. Any part of a nonconforming structure which is in the stream margin as established pursuant to Sec. 7-504, which is damaged or destroyed to the extent of less than fifty (50$) percent of the fair market value of the structure, may be restored as of right if the structure can be rebuilt in the original footprint, consistent with the provisions of Art. 7, Div. 5. d. Unsafe structure. Any portion of a noncon- forming structure which becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance, and which is declared unsafe or unlawful by a duly authorized City official, but which an owner wishes to restore, repair or rebuild shall only be restored, repaired or rebuilt in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. Sec. 24-13.4. Nonconformin4 accessory uses and accessory structures. No nonconforming accessory use or accessory structure shall continue after the principal structure or use shall have ter- urinated unless such structure or use thereafter shall conform to the provisions of the Zone District in which it is located. See. 24-13.5. F,odae and hotel vreservation. All lodge and hotel uses and structures that are lawfully established at the time o€ adoption of this chapter or an amendment which would be considered to make the lodge or hotel a nonconforming use or structure under this chapter are hereby declared to be conforming and not subject to the provisions o€ this article as long as the following standards and requirements are met. A. Reconstruction or renovation. All reconstruction of a structure shall meet the dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District. Renovation shall not. increase the nonconformity of the structure. Renova- tion is the investment of up to fifty (50$) percent of the appraised value of the structure; net of land value. Reconstruction is the investment of fifty (50~) percent or more of the value of the structure, net of land value. B. Increase in units or size. There shall be no increase in the number of units in the lodge or hotel, or the total square footage in the lodge or hotel, unless the 5 ~.. .. :Y enlargement is for the purpose of constructing deed restricted employee housing units accessory to the principal use. C. Construction of emolovee housing. The enlargement of the lodge or hotel for the purpose of constructing employee housing shall be reviewed and considered as a Development Application for a conditional use pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 3. In determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application, the Commission shall ensure the following standards and requirements are met. 1. There is no increase in lodge or hotel units; 2. The proposed employee housing units are in compliance with the adopted housing plan, and specifically the need for seasonal employee rooms; 3. The construction quality and unit size of the proposed employee housing units meets the stand- ards of the City's housing designee; 4. There are adequate public facilities to serve the proposed development, and off-street parking is provided pursuant to Art. 5, Div. 3. 5. The proposed employee housing is compatible with surrounding land uses and the dimensional require- ments of the underlying Zone District. 6. The proposed employee housing is deed restricted to the employee rental guidelines, and against commercial rental or sale. In the event the lodge is condominiumized, the deed restricted units must be retained as a portion of the common elements of the lodge or hotel. 7. The proposed employee housing receives health, safety and fire inspection and commitments are made to comply with the results of said inspec- tion. 8. The deed restricted employee housing. units are limited in their rental solely to employees of the lodge or hotel, and shall not be rented to other employees of the City nor rented on the open market. 9. The expansion may be in rental rooms, provided an equal amount of existing square footage of space is converted from rental rooms to deed restricted 6 h employee housing units. D_ Abandonment. The intent of the owner notwithstanding, when a lodge or hotel subject to this section is discontinued or abandoned for twelve (12) consecutive months, then the use may not be re-established or the structure occupied, without conforming to the standards and requirements of the underlying Zone District. E. Damaqe or destruction. If a lodge or hotel subject to this section is damaged or destroyed by any means and is not repaired or replaced within two (2) years from the date of damage or destruction, it shall be recon- structed pursuant to the standards and requirements of this chapter. Sec. 24-13.6. Nonconforming lots of record. A. General. A detached single family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be developed on a lot of record if: 1. The lot of record is in separate ownership and not contiguous to lots in the same ownership; and 2. The proposed single family dwelling can be located on the lot so that the yard, height, open space and floor area dimensional requirements o€ the Zone District can be met, or a variance is obtained to vary from said dimensional require- ments pursuant to Article 10. B. Undivided lot. I€ two ~2a or more lots or combinations of lots with continuous €rontage in single ownership Bineluding husband and wife as in all eases a single owner} are of record at the effective date of the adoption or amendment of this chapter,. regardless of time of acquisition, and if all or parts of the lots do not meet the requirements established €or lot width and area, the lots shall be considered an undivided parcel, and no portion shall be used or occupied which does meet the width and area requirements of this chapter. Sec. 24-13.7. Lot reduction. A. No lot or interest therein shall be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided so as to create a new nonconforming lot, to avoid, circumvent or subvert any provision of this chapter, or to leave remaining any lot in violation of the dimensional requirements of this chapter. B. No lot or portion of a lot required as a building site under this chapter shall be used as a portion of a lot required as a site for another structure. C. No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel of land which has been conveyed, sold, or subdivided in violation of this section. Any trans- feree who acquires a lot in violation of this paragraph without knowledge of such violation, and any subsequent transferee, shall have the right to rescind and/or receive damages from any transferer who violates the provisions of this paragraph. Section 2 That the following definitions be added to Section 24-3.1 of the Municipal Code: NONCONFORMING STRUCTDRE means any structure which was estab- lished pursuant to the zoning and building laws in effect at the time of its development, but which does not conform to the dimensional requirements imposed by this Code for the Zone District in which it is located. NONCONFORMING IISE -means any use of land, building or structure, which was established pursuant to the zoning and building laws in effect at the time of its development, but which use is not a permitted or conditional use under the regulations imposed by this Code for the Zone District in which it is located. NORMAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF A NON-CONFORMITY means any work done in a period of twelve (12) consecutive months on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of non-bearing walls, fixtures, wiring or plumbing. Section 3 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1987, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published. once in a rr2wspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. READ AND ORDERED PIIBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 1987. 8 .,, .~ William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of 1987. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 9