Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.0010.2010.ASLU THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0010.2010.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER CODE AMEND x -,, t ;216>I29 o$.)P� e C(off. PROJECTS ADDRESS 130 S. GALENA I PLANNER AMY GUTHRIE -61G-1 2, , c1 ��- C.:;\,0_1}1 0 �' , . C? CASE DESCRIPTION MUNC. CODE AMEND - JU LeJz (ISI1J REPRESENTATIVE CITY OF ASPEN J) r u`S pil u.es j DATE OF FINAL ACTION 4.1.10 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON 4.1.10 0010 2010 . -c (y eryelmJtd A—la File Edit Record ttaavgate Farm aepms Format Iab Het) ii J _: rXF' r> = pi &ejAJ• t ;, i . ,; J =lt lumP 1 : VOr 0 I 6 i r /dation I Custom Fields Actors 'Feel I Parcels ,Fee Somali I sub Aunts IAttaduares IRapnastatus I Routi0g dktory t Type Iaslu _!Aspen Land Use permit S 10010.2010.ASLU ddress4T J API/Suite! City!ASPEN State lCO J 14 !81611 J Paint Information Master Punt I J Routing Queue laslu07 Applied 104101/2010 J Project! J Status Ipendng Approved I J Description MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT SECTION 26.480030%BDIYISON EXEMPTION Issued I J Final I J submitted(CITY OF ASPEN Clock !Running Days[F Expires 103/27/2011 J Owner Last Mare CITY OF ASPEN J First Name(CITY HALL 130 5 GALENA ST ASPEN CO81611 Phone I W Owner Is Applicant? Atpicant Last Name (CITY OF ASPEN J First Name ICITY HALL 130 SGALENA ST Phone I Gust$128765 J ASPEN CO 81611 Lender Last Name I J First Name I Phone I 1 , AspenGolglbj _ Record:1 ol 1 tf ,r IA C ORDINANCE N0. 50 /� (Series of 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,AMENDING SECTION 26.480.030 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE,SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to the following Chapter and Section of the Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code: 26.480.030 —Subdivision Exemptions WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the proposed amendments, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter and Section on October 16, 2007, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Community Development Director and recommended, by a 7-0 vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the land use code by amending the text of the above note Chapters and Sections of the Land Use Code, as described herein; and WHEREAS,the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: •Text being removed is bold red and strikethrough. Text being removed looks like-this 'Text being added is bold green and underline. Text being added looks like this. • Text which is not highlighted is not affected. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,THAT: Section 2: 4. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the purpose of creating one (I) additional development parcel. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), and section 26.415.110(A) of this code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall he a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-I5, R-15A, RMF, or MU zone district. b. The total FAR for each new lot shall be established by dividing the allowable floor area for a duplex or two detached residences on the fathering parcel according to the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each single family and duplex residential development on each new lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. When the property is redeveloped with any allowed uses other than single family or duplex residential, refer to the zone district for allowable FAR on each lot. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in section 26.415.120(B)(I)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that contain a historic structure. Only one (1) FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet may be granted, allocated between the newly created parcels in a manner approved by HPC. Section 3. Severability. 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. Existing Litigation. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 24th day of March, 2008, in the City. Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 24,2008 • McCabe said staff is working toward updating those figures. The proposed increase is from $69.53 to $125.15, which is a substantial increase. Steve Barwick, city manager, said re-examining the job generation per square foot of residential is a large issue. Costs/square foot for construction and for land is a straightforward issue. Councilman Johnson said this increase is a better reflection of actual costs of affordable housing than $69.53. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #5, Series of 2008, amending the housing guidelines to set the $125.15/square foot; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Councilman Skadron asked about substantiating the other components of the housing program. Mayor Ireland moved to table Ordinance#5, Series of 2008. Mayor Ireland said there is data immediately accessible from Clarion as well as a study from NW COG on job generation/employment/square foot. Mayor Ireland stated the job generation figure of one employee per 3,000 square feet may well be low. Mayor Ireland said he is leery of the land costs/square foot because there are $288, $150 and$90 listed in the memorandum and that average should be weighted by the size of the purchases. Mayor Ireland said the soft costs, like architecture fees, should be included in the costs. Mayor Ireland said studies may find that the relationship between job generation and square footage is not a linear one. Councilman Johnson asked the relationship between costs of constructing housing and the cash-in-lieu costs. Mayor Ireland said a lot of questions can be answered by looking at the studies that have already been done. Mayor Ireland noted the staff's figures assume one employee/3,000 square feet and that may be low. Mayor Ireland stated the correct number should be used. Mayor Ireland moved to continue Ordinance#5, Series of 2008,to April 28th; seconded by Councilman Skadron. Councilmembers Skadron and Mayor Ireland, yes; Councilmembers DeVilbiss and Johnson, no. Motion NOT carried. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes;DeVilbiss, yes; Skadron,no; Mayor Ireland, no. Motion NOT carried. Mayor Ireland moved to continue Ordinance#5, Series of 2008,to April 28th; seconded by Councilman Skadron. Councilmembers Skadron and Mayor Ireland, yes; Councilmembers DeVilbiss and Johnson, no. Motion NOT carried. ORDINANCE#50,SERIES OF 2007 —Code Amendment Historic Lot Splits Amy Guthrie, community development department, told Council the historic preservation program has offered incentives since the 1980s. One incentive is on a historic landmark site where a single family residence could be located is the opportunity to have two 9 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 24,2008 detached homes with the same floor area. Ms. Guthrie noted in 1995 this was amended to allow the two buildings on the same lot to be subdivided and in 2000 this was extended into Main street, the office zone. Ms. Guthrie reminded Council the office zone was changed to mixed use and the incentives in the area were changed to not give people incentives to create new single family houses. Ms. Guthrie said this code amendment allows a property owner on Main street with a historic property that could be subdivided into two lots to create a mixed use project on the newly created lot, rather than just a single family house. Ms. Guthrie said this is more consistent with the direction of the mixed use zone district. P&Z recommends approval. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk urged Council to refer this to this historic task force and have them comment on this code amendment. The task force is working on context and character for blocks with historic buildings. Bill Wiener said he is concerned whether the lot is split lengthwise or crosswise. If these are side by side lot splits, there is visibility on street frontage. Mayor Ireland closed the pubic hearing. Ms. Guthrie said lot spit ordinance does not state which direction a lot has to be split; however,the idea is to allow people to revert back to the original townsite lot configuration of longer, skinnier lots. Mayor Ireland said granting lot splits is discretionary and Council could take the configuration into account. Ms. Guthrie said HPC favors two smaller buildings in many instances rather than one large building. Ms. Guthrie said this could be referred to HPC for their comments; that may be more appropriate than the task force. Councilman Johnson said there was much public comments last year about historic preservation and one of the tasks Council gave to the task force was to look at the incentive program, whether it was sufficient or not. Councilman Johnson said this is creating an incentive and the task force should be allowed to comment before Council takes action. Councilman DeVilbiss agreed it should be referred to the task force. SIM ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2008 —Code Amendment S/C/I Zone Ben Gagnon,community development department,pointed out the 3 areas of S/C/I zoning are on the west of north Mill,the east of north Mill and the Obermeyer property. Gagnon reminded Council the S/C/I zone is a shelter for uses that are not commercial core uses and are uses that the city wants to protect. Gagnon said if this were more free market zone,uses like a Laundromat,paint or glass contractor would not exist. Gagnon went over proposed changes. Gagnon noted uses have changed over the past 30 years and once the door is open, it gets opened wider. In the late 1970's martial arts was allowed, which expanded into physical fitness and yoga and Pilates studios. Staff 10 lltt b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City,Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Second Reading of Ordinance#50, Series of 2007, Code Amendment to Municipal Code Section 26.480.030, Subdivision Exemptions DATE: March 24, 2008 SUMMARY: The historic preservation program has included special benefits for owners of landmark property since 1987. Among the original provisions was the ability to develop a new free market residential unit on the same site as a landmark structure, exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS.) In 1995, the concept of allowing more than one home on a landmark parcel morphed into the Historic Landmark Lot Split, wherein the two units on a designated, residentially zoned site could be separated onto individual, fee simple lots, rather than a condominium form of ownership. In 2002, the Historic Landmark Lot Split was extended to the "0, Office" zone district. According to the review criteria, the lot split is to be for the purpose of developing one new single-family dwelling. By 2005 the Office zone district was renamed "MU, Mixed Use" and a number of disincentives for the creation of new single family homes in the neighborhood were adopted, such as a reduction in allowable floor area. As a result, if a home is the only use that can be developed in this zone on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split, it has become much less desirable from an owner's perspective than exercising the rights allowed for mixed use buildings. Without the lot split as a viable option, the redevelopment may take on the form of larger proposed additions to historic structures, rather than splitting the development rights into smaller, detached, and perhaps individually owned structures. There are a few parcels on Main Street, such as the one at 202/208 W. Main (Aspen Home Consignment and Salon Tulio), that are already fully developed and would like to separate ownership through lot split, but cannot do so if the purpose must be to create a new single family home. As another example, if the open lot to the cast of Main Street Bakery were proposed for redevelopment in the future, a lot split for mixed use development would likely be preferable to a single family house. The following code amendment proposes to allow any permitted use on a Mixed Use lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. In addition, the amendment revises code citations that are no longer accurate. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 REVIEW PROCESS: According to Section 26.310.020, in order to amend the Code, there must be a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and a public hearing and affirmative vote by City Council. P&Z reviewed the code amendment on October 16, 2007 and recommended approval by a 7-0 vote (minutes attached.) The review criteria for code amendments are located at Section 26.310.040 and are addressed by Staff in Exhibit A to this memo. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS Staff proposes amendments to existing language within the Municipal Code as follows. New language is underlined and removed language is stricken. Amend Section 26.480.030.A.2 to read as follows: 2. Lot split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 1'I, -1-977, creating one (1) additional development parcel where all of the following conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.170.070(B). 26.470.060. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (C)(1)(a). d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS SIAPF REPORT PAGE 2 d. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. f. In the case where an existing - . -: building occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling building need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. g. Maximum potential residential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Amend Section 26.480.030.A.4 to read as follows: 4. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single family dwelling the purpose of creating one (1) additional development parcel. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), section 26.170.070(C), and section 26.415.120(A) 110(A) of this code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or 0 MU zone district. b. The total FAR for both-residences each new lot shall be established by dividing the size allowable floor area for a duplex or two detached residences on of the fathering parcel and--according to the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each single family and duplex residential development on each new lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. When the property is redeveloped with any allowed uses other than single family or duplex residential, refer to the zone district for allowable FAR on each lot. In the Office zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R 6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor ar a for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will--contains a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. Only one (1) FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet may be granted, allocated between the newly created parcels in a manner approved by HPC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code complies with the applicable review criteria and should be approved. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #50, Series of 2007, on Second Reading." Attachments: Exhibit A: Amendments to the Land Use Code— Staff Findings Exhibit B: Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of October 16, 2007, recommending that Council approve amendments to the Municipal code related to historic preservation. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 EXHIBIT A Amendments to the Land Use Code Section 26.310.040 - Standards for Review of an Amendment to the Text of Title 26: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Staff is unaware of any conflicting portions of the Title. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES _ Staff finds that the amendment supports the Historic Preservation element of the AACP, which includes the goals of making improvements to the historic preservation process and protecting all buildings of historic significance. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES The code amendments have no direct affect on land uses. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES The code amendments have no effect on traffic generation and road safety. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES There will be no additional affect on infrastructure as a result of this code amendment. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 This code amendment has no direct impacts on the natural environment, however, preservation can have less negative effect on the natural environment than new construction. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Aspen's physical character is in great part defined by the community's historic resources. Ensuring that Aspen has an effective historic preservation process and good benefits for property owners will allow us to be more successful in protecting this character, which is vitally important to the economy and livability of town. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES The City has lowered FAR as a disincentive for residential, rather than commercial uses on Main Street. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Staff finds that the proposed amendment will not be in conflict with the public interest and, in fact, will help to protect the public interest by preserving historic structures for everyone to enjoy. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPOR( PAGE 6 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes— October 16, 2007 MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #25, series 2007 approving a substantial PUD Amendment and Change-In-Use Growth Management Review for the conversion of Condominium Meeting Space in Building 2 to Commercial Space at 133 Prospector Road pursuant to the language proposed by staff. Seconded by Cliff Weiss. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Bloom, yes; Gibbs, yes; Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Erspamer, yes; Johns, yes. All in favor, APPROVED 7-0. Discussion: Erspamer said with all of the beams in this space it would not be a very good meeting room; he supported the conversion. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT WITH REGARDS TO HISTORIC LOT SPLITS Dylan Johns opened the public hearing. Amy Guthrie said there was interest in designated historic properties and the people who were being designated were calling out for a more workable solution for them; this code amendment was about trying to make one of our existing preservation benefits the best and most valuable that it can be for people in the mixed use zone district. Guthrie explained in the early 1970s the city merged adjacent lots that were in the same ownership so the original historic townsite lots were 30'x100' and if one family owned 3 lots in a row then the city said the family owned one 9000 square foot lot. Guthrie said the result from a preservation point of view was miner's cottages were located on some pretty large parcels, which lead to some of the bustle additions or additions that were criticized because the additions overwhelmed the historic buildings. In the late 1980s the city tried to start directing development in another way if you were a historic property you could have 2 houses on one lot and tried to break it up into separate buildings. In the 1990s it went one step further by saying the historic lot could be lot split so there were two fee simple properties. In 2005 this was expanded to the office zone district, which was primarily Main Street from an HPC interest; there were a few other pockets of that zone district throughout the city. Guthrie said that one of the criteria that held over into the Main Street area was for the purpose of creating a single family house. Guthrie stated the objective of keeping Main Street Office Zone District placed disincentives on single family homes by loosing FAR. Guthrie stated in the mixed use zone district the language to be stricken was that section of the criteria that says that a historic landmark lot split has to be for the purpose of creating a single family lot; they would like to have the mixed use zone district to be able to use whatever permitted uses were possible. Guthrie said that the FAR would not change if they did no lot split at all. 5 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes— October 16, 2007 Stan Gibbs asked for more of a narrative about what does this really mean in the staff memos. Guthrie responded that the first section in the land use code that they were amending was within the subdivision chapter and it describes how someone would get permission to do a lot split and the specific criteria. Guthrie said the second section was specific to historic landmark lot splits and lays out which zone district that can be accomplished in; the development rights was only allowed the development rights that the fathering parcel had. Cliff Weiss stated that he was a visual person. Dylan Johns asked when there were specific zones it would help to identify the areas. LJ Erspamer asked if this was the final step. Guthrie replied this was a recommendation to City Council. Erspamer asked if this had anything to do with heights or FAR formula. Guthrie replied no, it did not increase any development rights that already exist. Erspamer made some grammatical changes to the Resolution. No public comments. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #29, series 2007recommending that Council approve the amendments to the Municipal Code related to historic preservation as amended and corrected; seconded by Cliff Weiss. Roll call vote: Gibbs, yes; Bloom, yes; Speck, yes; Erspamer,yes; Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Johns, yes. All in favor, APPROVED 7-0. Adjourned 5:40 pm. ckie Lothian, eputy City Clerk 6 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: /� IA ,Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MoN.DA`1 Maac i1 Ij.QUPM,200a. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin I C 3 E( F% £_p t (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department,which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in • any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. • Signature The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this /0 day of , 200g', by -L4 _� _ • veuCNE RE: 'WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AFFECTING MUNICIPAL NODE SPTNN 26.480.030, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing My commission expires: DR I\ ( ,Q(� will be held on Monday,March 24,2006,at a ing to leg nu at 5.00 p.m.before the Aspen City Council,Concil Chambers,City Hall,130 S.Gale A A na SL,Aspen.to ectioner amendments affecting te \ p /t Municipal . Section 26.480.030,Subtlivisior. �� �- v Exemptions. The amentlmenls relate to review Cr, t lane for er information,co Lot Splits. Notary Public meFor further n mmuniity De Am nof Aspen Community DevelopmentlDepart 4 9m 130 S.Galena SL,qs en _ ..i 429.2)58,amY9�ci.aspen.co.usP CO,(9]0) q 11 AspenCity Ireland (0 f Aspen City Council Mayor ••• • ; blistl 1 e 2008Pu .(12he51666th)Aspen Times Weekly on March 9, LAURA ( It (/L. • MEYER S ATTACHMENTS: 'y 9 v. ••• : 4 COPY OF THE PUBLICATION My Commission Expires 0811012010 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL VI MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Directo tAn FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: First Reading of Ordinance tee, Series of 2007, Code Amendment to Municipal Code Section 26.480.030, Subdivision Exemptions DATE: November 26, 2007 SUMMARY: The historic preservation program has included special benefits for owners of landmark property since 1987. Among the original provisions was the ability to develop a free market residential unit (adjacent to the landmark structure) exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS.) In 1995, the concept of allowing more than one home on a landmark parcel morphed into the Historic Landmark Lot Split, wherein two units on a designated, residentially zoned site could be on individual, fee simple lots, rather than limited to a condominium form of ownership. In 2002, the Historic Landmark Lot Split was extended to the "0, Office" zone district. According to the review criteria in place at the time, the lot split was to be for the purpose of developing one new single-family dwelling. By 2005 the Office zone district was renamed "MU, Mixed Use" and a number of disincentives for the creation of new single family homes in the neighborhood were adopted, such as a reduction in allowable floor area. As a result, if a home is the only use that can be developed in this zone on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split, it has become much less desirable from an owner's perspective than exercising the rights allowed for mixed use buildings. Two lot splits approved on Main Street in 2005 have never had a plat recorded because the owners determined the restrictions were undesirable for them. It is important in terms of HPC priorities to rework the existing provisions as an incentive for projects to break up their development rights into smaller, detached, and perhaps individually owned structures rather than pursuing out of scale additions to the small miner's cottages that dot Main Street. The following code amendment proposes to allow any permitted use on a Mixed Use lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. In addition, the amendment revises code citations that are no longer accurate. REVIEW PROCESS: According to Section 26.310.020, in order to amend the Code, there must be a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning and Zoning LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 Commission, and a public hearing and affirmative vote by City Council. P&Z reviewed the code amendment on October 16, 2007 and recommended approval by a 7-0 vote. The review criteria for code amendments are located at Section 26.310.040 and are addressed by Staff in Exhibit A to this memo. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS Staff proposes amendments to existing language within the Municipal Code as follows. New language is underlined and removed language is stricken. Amend Section 26.480.030.A.2 to read as follows: 2. Lot split. The split of a lot, which, except for Historic Landmark Lot Splits in the MU, Mixed Use Zone District,''—' is for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.070(B). 26.470.060. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (C)(1)(a). d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. d. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. f In the case where an existing single family dwelling building occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling building need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single- family home. Amend Section 26.480.030.A.4 to read as follows: 4. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which, except for Historic Landmark Lot Splits in the -`MU, Mixed Use Zone District," is for the development of one new single-family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), section 26.170.070(C), and section 26.415.120(A) 110(A) of this code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or 0 MU zone district. b. The total FAR for bees each new lot shall be established by dividing the size allowable floor area for a duplex or two detached residences on of the fathering parcel and-according to the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each single family and duplex residential development on each new lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. When the property is redeveloped with any allowed uses other than single family or duplex residential, refer to the zone district for allowable FAR on each lot. In the Office zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R 6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R 6 standards. If there is commercial/office use on both newly crated lots, the maximum floor ar a for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contains a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code complies with the applicable review criteria and should be approved. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance #5 Series of 2007, on First Reading. Attachments: Exhibit A: Amendments to the Land Use Code—Staff Findings Exhibit B: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #29, Series of 2007, recommending that Council approve amendments to the Municipal code related to historic preservation. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 EXHIBIT A Amendments to the Land Use Code Section 26.310.040 - Standards for Review of an Amendment to the Text of Title 26: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Staff is unaware of any conflicting portions of the Title. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Staff finds that the amendment supports the Historic Preservation element of the AACP, which includes the goals of making improvements to the historic preservation process and protecting all buildings of historic significance. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES The code amendments have no direct affect on land uses. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES The code amendments have no effect on traffic generation and road safety. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES There will be no additional affect on infrastructure as a result of this code amendment. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 This code amendment has no direct impacts on the natural environment, however, preservation can have less negative effect on the natural environment than new construction. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Aspen's physical character is in great part defined by the community's historic resources. Ensuring that Aspen has an effective historic preservation process and good benefits for property owners will allow us to be more successful in protecting this character, which is vitally important to the economy and livability of town. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES The City has lowered FAR as a disincentive for residential, rather than commercial uses on Main Street. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Staff finds that the proposed amendment will not be in conflict with the public interest and, in fact, will help to protect the public interest by preserving historic structures for everyone to enjoy. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,AMENDING SECTION 26.480.030 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE,SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to the following Chapter and Section of the Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code: 26.480.030—Subdivision Exemptions WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the proposed amendments, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter and Section on October 16, 2007, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Community Development Director and recommended, by a 7-0 vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the land use code by amending the text of the above note Chapters and Sections of the Land Use Code, as described herein; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: •Text being removed is bold red and strikethrough. Text being _emo- ed looks like thi •Text being added is bold green and underline. Text being added looks like this. • Text which is not highlighted is not affected. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Section 26.480.030.A.2 — Subdivision Exemptions, shall be amended to add and delete the following: 2. Lot split. The split of a lot, which, except for Historic Landmark Lot Splits in the MU, Mixed Use Zone District, is for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling where all of the following conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.060. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (C)(1)(a). d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. £ In the case where an existing building occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the building need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single- family home. Section 2: 4. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which, except for Historic Landmark Lot Splits in the MU, Mixed Use Zone District, is for the development of one new single- family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), and section 26.415.110(A) of this code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or MU zone district. b. The total FAR for each new lot shall be established by dividing the allowable floor area for a duplex or two detached residences on the fathering parcel according to the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each single family and duplex residential development on each new lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. When the property is redeveloped with any allowed uses other than single family or duplex residential, refer to the zone district for allowable FAR on each lot. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contains a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. Section 3. Severability. 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. Existing Litigation. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the day of , 2007, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY,adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jim True, Special Counsel Resolution No. 29 (Series of 2007) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER AND SECTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: SECTION 26.480.030,SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the Community Development Department re- commends the following amendments to the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS,the amendments requested relate to the following Chapter and Section of the Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code: 26.480.030 —Subdivision Exemptions WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval,approval with condi- tions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zon- ing Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS,the Community Development Director recommended approval of the proposed amendments, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: • Text being removed is bold red and strikethrough. Text being remo- " looks • Text being added is bold green and underline. Text being added looks like this. • Text which is not highlighted is not affected. WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a public hearing to con- sider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter and Section on September 18, 2007,continued the hearing to October 16,2007,then took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Community Development Director and recommended,by a 7-0 vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the land use code by amending the text of the above note Chapters and Sections of the Land Use Code, as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,THAT: Resolution 29, Series 2007 Page 1 of 4 Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- mission hereby recommends City Council amend 26.480.030.A.2—Subdivision Exemptions, to add and delete the following: 2. Lot split. The split of a lot, which, except for Historic Landmark Lot Splits in the "MU, Mixed Usc Zone District," is for the purpose of the development of one detached single- family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council,or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the require- ments of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mi- tigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.170.070(B). 26.470.060. c.The lot under consideration,or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a sub- division exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a"lot split"exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (C)(1)(a). d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter, and conforms to the require- ments of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. c. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty(180)days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and rcconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. f In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. g. Maximum potential huildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not ex- ceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- mission hereby recommends City Council amend 26.480.030.A.4—Subdivision Exemptions, to add and delete the following: 4. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of His- toric Landmark Sites and Structures which,except for Historic Landmark Lot Splits in the "MU, Mixed Use Zone District," is for the development of one new single-family dwel- ling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section Resolution 29, Series 2007 Page 2 of 4 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), section 26. 170.070(C), and section 26.415.120(A) 110(A) of this code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand(6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or O"MU, Mixed Use" zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the Office"MU, Mixed Use" zone district,the following shall apply to the calcula- tion of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area al- lowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards. If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b),and(c)are only per- mitted on the parcels that will contains a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be ap- plied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided,and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase,or portion of this Resolution is for any rea- son 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. Resolution 29, Series 2007 Page 3 of 4 A APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on October 16, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Dylan Johns,Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Resolution 29, Series 2007 Page 4 of 4 r / MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Code Amendment, Municipal Code Section 26.480.030, Subdivision Exemptions DATE: October 16, 2007 SUMMARY: The historic preservation program has included special benefits for owners of landmark property since 1987. Among the original provisions was the ability to develop a free market residential unit (adjacent to the landmark structure) exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS.) In 1995, the concept of allowing more than one home on a landmark parcel morphed into the Historic Landmark Lot Split, wherein two units on a designated, residentially zoned site could be on individual, fee simple lots, rather than limited to a condominium form of ownership. In 2002, the Historic Landmark Lot Split was extended to the "0, Office" zone district. According to the review criteria in place at the time, the lot split was to be for the purpose of developing one new single-family dwelling. By 2005 the Office zone district was renamed "MU, Mixed Use" and a number of disincentives for the creation of new single family homes in the neighborhood were adopted, such as a reduction in allowable floor area. As a result, if a home is the only use that can be developed in this zone on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split, it has become much less desirable from an owner's perspective than exercising the rights allowed for mixed use buildings. Two lot splits approved on Main Street in 2005 have never had a plat recorded because the owners determined the restrictions were undesirable for them. It is important in terms of HPC priorities to rework the existing provisions as an incentive for projects to break up their development rights into smaller, detached, and perhaps individually owned structures rather than pursuing out of scale additions to the small miner's cottages that dot Main Street. The following code amendment proposes to allow any permitted use on a Mixed Use lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. In addition, the amendment revises code citations that are no longer accurate. REVIEW PROCESS: According to Section 26.310.020, in order to amend the Code, there must be a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and a public hearing and affirmative vote by City Council. The review LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 criteria for code amendments are located at Section 26.310.040 and are addressed by Staff in Exhibit A to this memo. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS Staff proposes amendments to existing language within the Municipal Code as follows. New language is underlined and removed language is stricken. Amend Section 26.480.030.A.2 to read as follows: 2. Lot split. The split of a lot, which, except for Historic Landmark Lot Splits in the "MU, Mixed Use Zone District," is for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.170.070(B). 26.470.060. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (C)(1)(a). d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. £ In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 Amend Section 26.480.030.A.4 to read as follows: 4. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which, except for Historic Landmark Lot Splits in the "MU, Mixed Use Zone DistricttC for the development of one new single- family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), section 26.170.070(C), and section 26.415.120(A) 110(A) of this code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or 0 "MU, Mixed Use" zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the Office "MU, Mixed Use" zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards. If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that ' contains a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code complies with the applicable review criteria and should be approved. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #. , Series of 2007, recommending that Council approve amendments to the Municipal code related to historic preservation. Attachments: Exhibit A: Amendments to the Land Use Code— Staff Findings LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 EXHIBIT A Amendments to the Land Use Code Section 26.310.040 - Standards for Review of an Amendment to the Text of Title 26: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Staff is unaware of any conflicting portions of the Title. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Staff finds that the amendment supports the Historic Preservation element of the AACP, which includes the goals of making improvements to the historic preservation process and protecting all buildings of historic significance. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES The code amendments have no direct affect on land uses. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES The code amendments have no effect on traffic generation and road safety. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES There will be no additional affect on infrastructure as a result of this code amendment. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 This code amendment has no direct impacts on the natural environment, however, preservation can have less negative effect on the natural environment than new construction. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Aspen's physical character is in great part defined by the community's historic resources. Ensuring that Aspen has an effective historic preservation process and good benefits for property owners will allow us to be more successful in protecting this character, which is vitally important to the economy and livability of town. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? NOT APPLICABLE Historic Preservation is an increasingly difficult task in Aspen because of high property values. It is clear that the City must provide a workable historic preservation program and benefits, which is addressed through these code amendments. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES Staff finds that the proposed amendment will not be in conflict with the public interest and, in fact, will help to protect the public interest by preserving historic structures for everyone to enjoy. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS S[AFF REPORT PAGE 6 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AFFECTING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 26.415.110.E, HISTORIC PRESERVATION FLOOR AREA BONUS AND 26.480.030, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, at a meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, which is scheduled to begin at 4:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider amendments affecting Municipal Code Sections 26.415.110.E, historic preservation Floor Area Bonus and 26.480.030, Subdivision Exemptions. The amendments relate to review criteria for Historic Landmark Lot Splits, and to how the floor area bonus available to landmarks should be shared when the affected property is subdivided. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2758, amyg @ci.aspen.co.us. s/Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on August 19,2007 City of Aspen Account