Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.apz.20110201
AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, February 1, 2011 4:30 p.m. Sister Cities Room CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS — A. BMC Rezoning, recommendation to rezone 37925 Hwy 82 as part of an annexation application B. Misc. Code Amendment — historic lot split VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Appointment of chair and vice chair VII. VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: IT P1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development Department DATE OF MEMO: January 27, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 1, 2011 RE: Amendment to the Zone District Map for the initial zoning of the BMC West property Resolution No. , Series of 2011 APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City of Aspen Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission determine that this REPRESENTATIVE: Amendment to the Zone District Map Steve Barwick, City Manager meets required standards, and recommends Scott Miller, Asset Manager Council approval of a PUD Plan. LOCATION: SUMMARY: 38005 Highway 82 Applicant requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission determine that this PROPOSED ZONE DISTRICT MAP Amendment to the Zone District Map AMENDMENT: meets required standards, and recommends As part of a parallel annexation process, Council approval of a PUD Plan. applicant seeks initial zoning of S /C/I— PUD as a method of maintaining the existing lumber yard with no changes to current conditions and use. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following review procedure from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Amendment to the Zone District Map (Initial Zoning] – An application for Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone District Map. The Citv Council is the final decision - making body. • Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD – An application for Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)2, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommending City Council approve, approve with conditions or deny the Final PUD. The City Council is the final decision - making body. P2 BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen purchased the 4.6 -acre BMC West property in December 2007, with the long -term intent of developing affordable housing. However, the City has no intent to initiate a public process to plan the property for at least three to five years. In the meantime, the City has a fiduciary responsibility to its taxpayers to annex the property in order to collect property tax, sales tax and Construction Materials Use tax. Applicant is in a parallel review process for annexation. The intent at this time is to essentially "freeze" the site in its current condition as a lumber yard. This will be accomplished by the adoption of a Final PUD Plan that establishes the dimensional requirements and use of the parcel as they are today, referencing the 2009 Improvement Survey Plat (see application). A new development plan for the parcel would require a full review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council either through a PUD Amendment or rezoning — and very likely both. STAFF FINDINGS: Many of the standards of review for an Amendment to the Zone District Map do not apply in this case, because there is no "proposed development." For example, standards for an Amendment to the Zone District Map ask whether the proposal is "compatible with surrounding zone districts;" if it would have an impact on "traffic generation;" if it would place "demands on public facilities;" or if it would have "adverse impacts on the natural environment." If the City were seeking only to have the subject parcel rezoned to Service /Commercial /Industrial, the applicant would need to conduct an analysis of the potential build -out of the parcel under the allowances of the S /C /I Zone District. However, by adopting a Final PUD Plan that effectively "freezes" the current condition in place, this application does not include any "proposed development." The concept is that once the City is ready to move forward with a development plan in approximately three to five years, a land use application would be submitted, resulting in a comprehensive land use review. Therefore, this Amendment to the Zone District Map would not have any impact on surrounding zone districts, traffic generation, public facilities or infrastructure, or the natural environment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends in favor of the proposed Amendment to the Zone District Map and a Final PUD Plan, finding that the application meets or exceeds the standards of review. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend approval of a Zone District Map Amendment and Final PUD Plan to City Council, the commission may use this motion, "I move the adoption of Resolution No. , Series of 2011." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Application Exhibit B — Staff Findings for Amendment to Zone District Map Exhibit C — Staff findings for Final PUD Plan P3 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT REZONING MEETS APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR THE FORMER BMC WEST PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38005 STATE HIGHWAY 82, ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1 AND 2, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273503101801 and 273503101802 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen, represented by City Manager Steve Barwick, requesting approval of an Amendment to the Zone District Map and a final Planned Unit Development (PUD), for the property at 38005 State Highway 82, commonly known as the BMC West property, and legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Aspen Airport Business Center, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests the Planning and Zoning Commission find that the Amendment to the Zone District Map meets applicable requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 38005 State Highway 82, and is zoned B2 (General Business) in Pitkin County; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department found that the application meets or exceeds applicable standards of review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 1, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2011, by a vote, approving an Amendment to the Zone District Map, initially zoning the property as Service/Commercial/Industrial—PUD, and recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Final PUD, with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, P4 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, • WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Initial Zoning Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council initially zone 38005 State Highway 82 as S /C /I —PUD. Section 2: Approved PUD Dimensional Requirements The following dimensional requirements are recommended to City Council for the Final PUD at 38005 State Highway 82. Dimensional Req. 38005 Highwy 82 Minimum Lot Size Existing Min. Lot Area / Dwelling Unit Existing Maximum Allowable Density Existing Minimum Lot Width Existing Minimum Front Yard Existing Minimum Side Yard Existing Minimum Rear Yard Existing Maximum Site Coverage Existing Maximum Height Existing Minimum dist. between buildings Existing Minimum Open Space Existing Allowable Floor Area Existing Minimum Off- Street Parking Existing The dimensional requirements of the Final PUD Plan reflects existing conditions as outlined in Improvement Survey Plat of April 22, 2009, attached as Exhibit A. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. P5 Section 4: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 1st day of February, 2011. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A: Improvement Survey Plat of April 22, 2009 P6 r a 9 ; w . Ak 0 4 -. f - -- g P 1 1 F 8 8 d34 c ` C _ eL$e f a !S 'F �tlj h e g p 1- G J ® 80 E k it , di. ' \ \ y 7 z �FI f ! p. �r,� X 4 3 ,: , E F' X28 d � eia g R tlo �yp}g,�q��. b,b x 55 I 6 O Id �� ak x ; a � Is d® iei , a - ' ' ', - , ` PAF� ' " .t t: bag ; "e 2 J 0. Ix $ ' r g ® __ ,m 0 - g - f ie .' ` ax ev iw - - g c4 5 1 - -� 78�2a2 3 e3 n� ° iris - _ _ — dd b . y y4 a. Iy: ® O P of 8 8 P a SI $d ® 8 d 6 qv/ TV x4 Q ppg 5 4 0 1 ° 5 @ t i i g ytF€ DI *IT a 2 P P55 ¢ xa p b i Y " p !p a btl blt' Y @g� gg @Fe p &,?Ydigggb � ilbi1 be. b II . o � H E � 0 0 e ! , 1 Veep/ j ,° 1 ©r id I. Ir IM g i 1 II 7! 11 i ;Oil 9 ' 'v iI t E 11 2Q I E I,E1e ° Q , 9e 3 e9Ye: v ° • li 3 E _ 1 9 gin d 9 ° g@ I.1 -° i t ' o ° 11.1 I.iQ 7 . f i l l 5 D a ^Sl 6 y i 1 a �1 . l l'-`741e- ° lee F I'" 49 8 Ne 1 ?11 ,1 13: di gim6 F'®p 4 per$ J ®Q® >•` F UA EB1 °��' ' ` Il i CC 1 rt Int iS k I I6ilill�l61R6111B1 y te no- • 3 1 w rogt •i Qsa°i;aaoo27°iaao oa;aia i. pd °l6 Qfl�h CC t iso a 2'1 ° p p ! 1 ! I '' AC. in i g 1 ° Q�! !I1!r QS e al E f E°Q 8 l • � hi.: °C�Q {I 9 M bi 1 > p @9. 1 ei • e I 1 ® !' eE 3 3 19 1 I I 9E �I (I ' 3 @ 1 D ° 1 f Qp g Ei 17 19 3`��! i; j III ,° ; ° 3 r • p a l ° { el�` v F {' � f 1 I -° • o p 1 7 [ II"; I S 1 !• ° E ^ a ° 3 i f e E of vs ® a ° 6 ` �@ I ° � II' 9Q! € @ 41 1 1 1 1 . 9 3.R d � 1 ?i Q 1 lele � � ! : 4 ' QI 1 793 1t I 1 'III �I II 1 Ildig !!E I.I114!11I9101 1lI 111 1 I �p Pi I! 1 ¢ 1 _ e /III !I Ii/ 1 I�II�;I aQI *qI� 3I ' $ 1 RIF I I III ? 1. III I iop391� I 1 11.11 I I i' 311 E 11 !I 1 e I[.0I !11 II1;I10rIg° : 1 � 1 E I Cd • €I3 II 9 1 !• ITN ! *go Q a @ p 1 C 7 9 • 1 ! 9 .. 1 2 312 11 11 11 1 } @E I 9 E 1Q 11 i E i 711 : 1 1 1 1 I I .4 fl ! y e p `1 I d1 llee 0 ells 1 1 I ill 1 f E 1 11. C1 IE I 2 8 IlIi 1� 10 t � II I II { I IlI11 °' { ?11� V Iasi 99 g : ! 1 yy g 11;! p s 9 °: F f mg �1f6 P8 i City of Aspen Septem 10, 2009 Annexation Request IV. Initial Zoning A. Completed Application PROJECT: Name: Aspen Airport Business Center, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2 (Former BMC West Property) Location: 38005 State Highway 82, Aspen, CO 81611 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID #: 273503101801 and 273503101802 APPLICANT: Name: City of Aspen Address: 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970 - 920 -5000 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Steve Barwick, City Manager Address: 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970 - 920 -5205 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply) ❑ GMQS Exemption ['Conceptual PUD • Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ® Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane condominiumization) Amendment) ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Other: EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) The property is currently zoned B2 — General Business in Pitkin County. The property is 201,683 square feet in size. The subject property is currently used as existing Harbert Lumber operation. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Annexation of the subject property into the City of Aspen and establish the newly annexed parcel's initial zoning as SCI — Service, Commercial, Industrial in the City of Aspen and continue the operation of the existing lumber yard. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ® Pre - Application Conference Summary ® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement N/A Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards N/A 3 -D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model. Page 18 of 27 FINAL DRAFT P9 City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Annexation of the subiect property, located at 38005 State Highway 82, into the City of Aspen. (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and /or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and /or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and /or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: B y : Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: Billing Address and Telephone Number: City of Aspen, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (970)920 -5000 Account # 150.23.23140.82770 Page 19 of 27 FINAL DRAFT P10 City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request B. Pre - Application Conference Summary CITY OF ASPEN PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Enin Evans, 429 -2745 DATE: 11.05.2008 PROJECT: 38005 Highway 82 REPRESENTATIVE: Adam Trzdnski DESCRIPTION: The City owns two lots al the south end of the Airport Business Center. The properties are currently located in Pitkin County. On behalf of the City, Adam would like to annex these properties located al 38005, Highway 82, for an affordable housing project. There are currently businesses operating on the premises with a lease. The lease will expire in a few years, at that time the properly will be used for affordable housing. Annexation is governed by Colorado Revised State Statutes (CRS 31 -12 -102 et.seq.) Please refer to the City's annexation plan located at httrtiwwwaspenpitkin .comlpdfsfdepts 1411annex plan.pol for an overview of the process and an example petition for annexation. II is important to note that a property's perimoter boundary must have a minimum amount of contiguity with the City's boundary to be able to annex and that the subject property is capable of being integrated and serviced (utilities, etc.) by the City. The applicant may wish to schedule a development review committee meeting to find out if any improvements will be required of the property as a pail of an annexation agreement prior to submitting a petition for application. If the applicant is not securing any development approvals at this time, other than the zoning designation, It will be important to include a summary in the annexation proposal on the existing development potential within the County compared to the development potential within the City. Once the annexation petition is filed with the City Clerk, the City, through the Attorney's Office, hfales the annexation process as outlined in the City's Annexation Plan. As part of the annexation process, the City concurrently initiates zoning of the property to a City zone district Relevant Land Use Code Sectlon(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.310 Amendments to Text and Zone District Map 26.575.020 Calculating FAR CRS 31-12-102 et.seq. Colorado State Statutes http://www.aspenpitkin.comfdepts138/citycode.ofm Review by: • Staff for complete application - Referral agencies for technical considerations • City Council for annexation process • • Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation on the zone district designation of the property to the City Council ' Public Hearing: Yes, at P&Z and City Council Planning Fees: $2,940 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $245 per hour) associated with the applicant initiated zoning of the subject property Total Deposit: $2,940 Page 20 of 27 FINAL DRAFT P11 City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Total number of application copies: 4 Copies of petition and map (state requirement) 20 copies of zoning (Map Amendment) application To apply, submit the following Information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a fftie Insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, lions, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owns right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application and annexation petition. 5. Signed fee agreement (if applicable — there Is no fee associated with submitting a petition for annexation and if staff initiates the zoning of the property; however, 11 the applicant submits the request for zoning the fee is $2,940.0). 6. Pre - application Conference Summary. 7. An 8112' x 11' vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof ot ownership. 9. An annexation plat 10. A site improvement survey that includes all existing natural and man -made she features. 12. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 13. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. 14. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)- preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text formal easily convertible to Word is acceptable. • • Disclaimer. The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. FINAL DRAFT Page 21 of 27 P12 City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request C. Vicinity Map The subject property is located at 38005 State Highway 82, Aspen Airport Business Center, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2; across State Highway 82 from the south end of the Aspen /Pitkin County Airport. VICINITY MAP • Vin. '_-' ' =, r ' , j t i /di 07 13 r i SUBJECT r PROPERTY s 1 ) Page 22 of 27 FINAL DRAFT • P13 City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request D. Description of Compliance Aspen Municipal Code Sec. 26.310.040, Land Use Regulations, General Procedures and Regulations, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, Standards of review: 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: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Response: The applicant proposes an initial zoning of SCI for the continued operation of the lumber yard. Because the current request will facilitate only the annexation of the property and the continued operation of the lumber yard, this request does not represent a new land use policy or a change in land use policy. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: While the initial zoning request for the subject property is 50 —Service, Commercial, Industrial (which will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site), the future development intent of the site is for affordable housing. A future land use application (separate from this annexation request) will be processed by the City of Aspen to request that the property be rezoned as AH -PUD. The AH -PUD designation will be requested based on affordable housing development plans that will be developed in the future for that specific purpose. This effort is underway in an effort to fulfill the housing goals established in the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request does not create any adverse effects on the subject property's neighborhood or surrounding environment. When the City develops plans for affordable housing development at the subject property, a separate land use application will be submitted to request that the subject property be rezoned as AH -PUD. At that time, compliance with the AH -PUD zone district will be established. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request does not propose additional traffic generation that might contribute to road safety issues. When the City develops plans for affordable housing development at the subject property, a separate land use application will be submitted which will address traffic generation and road safety for that (future) application. E. 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. Response: The property proposed for annexation is currently served by City municipal water and district sanitary sewer service. For the continued short-term operation of the lumber yard at the Page 23 of 27 FINAL DRAFT P14 City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request subject property, there will be no additional demands on public facilities, nor would the current application cause the capacity of transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools or emergency medical facilities be in any way exceeded beyond current uses. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Response: The current lumber yard operation on the site is immediately adjacent to the City of Aspen as previously described in this document. As such, the Petitioner attests that the existing lumber yard operation is already integrated with and thus consistent with the community character in the City. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: Not Applicable I. 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. Response: Based on the above responses, the Petitioner attests that the proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the public interest and that the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. This request meets all of the 'Standards of review" criteria established in the above noted .Section 26.310.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations and as such the Petitioner requests annexation and initial zoning as requested. Please see the proposed zoning map included in the next section of this application. Page 24 of 27 FINAL DRAFT P15 Exhibit B Amendment to Zone District Map Review Criteria & Staff Findings Standards of Review: 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: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portion of this title, as the responses to standards of review illustrate below. The applicant proposes an initial underlying zoning of Service /Commercialllndustrial, which is the only city zone district that expressly permits a lumber yard. The applicant proposes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay with the express intent of "freezing" the existing development on -site in its current condition, including the existing dimensions and use. Any future change to the existing dimensions and use would require a rezoning and/or PUD Amendment. The intent of the current request is to facilitate only the annexation of the property and the continued operation of the lumber yard; this application does not represent a proposed development. Staff believes this criterion is met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would make no changes to existing conditions. However, the proposed amendment requires any future proposed development to rezone and/or gain approval for a PUD Amendment. Both a rezoning or PUD review process includes a criteria assuring that any future development must be "consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan." If the property is annexed, the City of Aspen has an obligation to assign a zone district to the property. Staff believes S /C/I- PUD for this property is consistent with all the elements of the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request does not create any adverse effects on the subject property's neighborhood or surrounding environment. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard under rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding compatibility. Staff believes this criterion is met. 11 The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. BMC Zoning Exhibit B Page 1 P16 Staff Finding: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request does not propose additional traffic generation that might contribute to road safety issues. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard under rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding traffic generation and road safety. Staff believes this criterion is met. E. 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: The property proposed for annexation is currently served by City municipal water and district sanitary sewer service. For the continued operation of the lumber yard, there will be no additional demands on public facilities. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard for rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding public facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard under rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding impacts on natural resources. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The existing lumber yard operation is already integrated with and thus consistent with the community character in the City. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard under rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding "consistency with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area," as well as criteria regarding site design and architectural character. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. BMC Zoning Exhibit B Page 2 P17 • Staff Finding: The City has purchased this parcel and wishes to annex it at this time, largely in fiduciary responsibility to city taxpayers through the future collection of property and sales taxes. Any future rezoning proposal must comply with this standard. I. 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: Based on the above responses, the proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the public interest and the proposed amendment is in harmony with the • purpose and intent of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. This request meets all of the "Standards of review" criteria established in the above noted Section 26.310.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. Any future rezoning proposal must comply with this standard. BMC Zoning Exhibit B Page 3 P18 Exhibit C PUD Review Criteria & Staff Findings A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not represent or reflect a "proposed development," and would make no changes to existing conditions. However, the proposed amendment requires any future proposed development to rezone and/or gain approval for a PUD Amendment. Both a rezoning or PUD review process includes a criteria assuring that any future development must be "consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan." This parcel is part of the urbanized area of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not represent or reflect a "proposed development," and would make no changes to existing conditions. The existing lumber yard operation is already integrated with and thus consistent with the character in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not represent or reflect a "proposed development," and would make no changes to existing conditions. Initial zoning and PUD designation will not adversely effect future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: No GMQS allotments are being requested. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 1 P1 9 development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. Staff finds criteria a -d are met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. Staff finds the proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate. 3. The appropriate number of off- street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development. The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. Staff finds these criteria met. Any future PUD Amendment must comply with this criteria. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maxirs density of a PUD may be reduced if: BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 2 P20 Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is not a proposal to increase allowable density. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 3 P21 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development at this time. Potential future development or redevelopment will need to address these criteria. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets this standard C(1 -7). D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well- designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development at this time. Potential future development or redevelopment will need to address these criteria. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets this standard D(1 -3). E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development at this time. Potential future development or redevelopment will need to address this criteria. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets standards E(1 -3). BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 4 P22 F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development at this time. Potential future development or redevelopment will need to address this criteria. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets standards F(1 -2). G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is no common park or open space propsed. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is no proposed increase in development at this time. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets standard H(1 -3). I. Access and circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 5 P23 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: There is no proposed change to the access or circulation patterns. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets criterion I (1 -6). J. Phasing of development plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is no phasing proposed. BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 6 . . , i.: as .4: 2cip...r. —.,:. :..a.::: .". '11 ' . ' . Pito 2 - 1 -- ii BMC Parcel it 14 1- • '...'• •: ' .41%. ,..: - D '.- - 1 -1 .. ' ' '' . • f F. '!'''. : ...- -' .. . • n ., .,, .., 1. .t •7> - - '-- -•' • '-'---- ■ 4 •ss • - 03 • ,... . .... .... , 1 11/ , fioc,' , •• - .:. ., t A It • ...... 17: ''' '...... -- ••-- '‘... g: -.. ' t.T. 'T ":".... • - - * ..., . ?„. r■INN t - . A — — — • IL li. • , . .... **-. P• . . ' _—.. 4 ' . • '' lirilid - ' . • • ' , I. ; ..,, - IL ... : •- ,„..e 119 A .' . - .Lj- r ''' ' . ".; 1111111111- , ?' '- - - - . . . '• . - ...i '' efr ' ' ": 4 ' ."---.4 r. . ' • .„.. 161 AA B C .209 :: maws 110 •:,.,:i4 i If' " • .194 ,./:' '',.. r . •;„....d ...",.":. 1.1 II 3'.' f( ; ... 1" o r i ■ ..; 1. t. . all . *.l: - ,` f . 1 - ".•-,,-.;* . - • — i.---iej-c.4-1 ._. • . . . rm.: ,„ki - , . . ,.... , r i ll e '''' . P r •• 'L IX' x • ' i '' f fe " . ' I; . '-- ="' ••' ' - ' ' k .., ... ..- • • ' - . , ,. iti is in IR . ' e.... .',.:/v.v....7 , 4 ', 10 .5 , -, .. • . , ■ it top 1 5 . . . . • . , . . i■ i ,.if , 41,/ ..-- ' -... .. t , -.. 1 ^. ' ,..1 .- ' '••• w. ''', ...'..;:=1”....1,.,-*_...' , . . ^ '-' ' 4 ' 4 ' 3e cr,":1 4 /: 44 o , .7 ....• ,. . .../ Ni - _ ____ ---•••■•"""''' 14 .. • • •••• 0 . 4 1,y" ) " , , .. s ,- et. .4;•,..'!' k. Irv',7,1 •' ' 7 , 4 ,1 _ : - i.. . PI . '1 / / . ,.;,= ' • ' ' ',', '''''''''''''',- .. -. - - •:. 3 4 01.. . . . - ... 4 ,. , 4'; ..•4" 7i..... . -. I r } ) tit0V.k% , . ... '1;' . - i . ,..-.... , . • : ,-, ,. i t, Sr. ...• ' XX,',.÷1.74.7"------ —, ...,,... . - . . - • - - ,.,.. .„,„ . . ,--;,:.(,/ - '..1",, , ,,..4-- - ,..,:ii...f.1.'44, - - - . , , - •,„ --„:,,,,,,,,,,,..,...,,,, _ 1 _.., -- -•-• ,- -1 - ?, : :: . -W, •-:z .• : - .. , ,, . .- z ,.. ,c-,,..,,,,,,-, 4 •• '• One-- • • - 1. •••"., A73)let r '''' ' ' ' ''' ' '' ..4 '4 0 9' ' '.1 4 Fi%•' • ?; * .' r...* . ..,,1 4 ... ' , PA*' 4 "' ' . ;:,%•;41,•..e.‘..Y$..; , ■ -:••• -. .! - ••.-'' i d... 4 -$04 ,,,.-,....,-_,...,..,..-.:,,,.. •,..,-• ...„... ,, . . _ , . 4, ,,,, .• -,• . • 4,,:- , ...7.4 i. _. ). ,,,e, \.,..,......,-, . ,. •.. , • - ' . . ■ • , - :. ,. . • , g. .."., . . , a ?. . ,..•.! [L '. --- x cl.. 9' - .. . , -..,.• :, .........,...,,.,, . --.-.... ‘. . . ,. • .-, . -'.'. 1:i=*.: 4 .• ..,i ,,.,. , ,..'.'•--.!:' ..7:7::,3*.i..4. , . ..... .., . .. ' .•.-,-,:: v i.,..,It .. ,t._0.„ , a ,, .. , .,, viti*A- * .t. - _ ,... p..., ',..:,12. , ---- ------;:-. .,:,.....;,....; 4. - . :,..,..; A . # " , ;.::4'' it'.. . .., . '---,....---- :,•,------- .. - . .. ., . , . . - : ....... ,. . ••., , . . . ... . ,, . . . _ . ,.. ..... .,. • . • • , , • , _ . , ......, . . . .. . ..._ , . , ,•• 0 100200 400 600 800 ! Ilu me ll 6 11.111111111111111111111 Feet r , . XIS • P 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 1 THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 't FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Proposed Amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision DATE: February 1, 2011 APPLICANT: SUMMARY: The City of Aspen Community The Community Development Department proposes Development Department amendments to land use regulations related to historic landmark lot splits. While this form of subdivision exemption was initially created to benefit residential properties, it was extended to the Mixed Use, MU Zone district ten years ago. The proposed code „ rzr amendment would remove some existing disincentives for historic landmark lot splits in the Mixed Use zone district, and would permit this historic preservation „�. strategy to be applied in the Commercial, C -1 zone district. 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend Council approval of the attached code amendments. H I S T O R I C PRESERVATION BACKGROUND: There are two changes proposed. 1. To remove language that requires the purpose of the lot split to be for the creation of a new single family house. . The historic preservation program has included special benefits for owners of landmark properties 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, whereby two units on a designated, residentially -1- P2 zoned site could be on individual, fee simple lots, rather than limited to a condominium form of ownership. This was allowed in the R -6 and R -15A zone districts. In 2001, the Historic Landmark Lot Split was extended to Main Street, which is the bulk of the "0, Office" zone district (since renamed "MU, Mixed Use, ") and in 2002, R -15 and RMF were added. There have been 21 Historic Landmark Lot Splits approved over the last 16 years. According to the subdivision review criteria, a Historic Landmark Lot Split is to be for the purpose of developing one new single - family dwelling. This has proven to be an awkward goal relative to the "Mixed Use" zone district because in 2005 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, plus confining the lot split to residential uses eliminates potentially desirable commercial use options. Two lot splits approved on Main Street in 2005 never had a plat recorded because the owners determined the restrictions were undesirable for them. The proposed code amendment would allow any permitted use on a Mixed Use lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. Though Community Development is sponsoring the code amendment, there is an advocate. In 2007, Michael Tullio requested this same code amendment in order to allow the possibility of subdividing the condominium association currently in place between Salon Tullio (208 E. Main) and Aspen Home Consignment (202 E. Main). Each owner might wish to be on a 3,000 square foot fee simple lot. The code amendment was reviewed in 2007, received the support of P &Z and proceeded to second reading at City Council. Council decided not to take action because they were in the process of adopting Ordinance #48, and were envisioning the creation of the Historic Preservation Task Force, who was to look at all aspects of the program, including incentives. The Task Force did express general comments and concerns about the possibility of overdeveloping historic properties through the award of incentives including the Historic Landmark Lot Split, but did not make any specific recommendations for changes. In staff's estimation, there are approximately 6 lots in the Mixed Use Zone District that are possible candidates for a Historic Landmark Lot Split. One of the goals of the lot split is to offer an incentive to direct development pressure towards new buildings that are detached from the adjacent historic resource. This may be more likely if the language requiring the development to be a single family home is removed. 2. To extend the lot split to the C - 1 zone district. The Commercial, C -1 zone district is comprised of three and a half city blocks between Hunter and Spring Streets. There are four historic properties in this area, three of which are candidates for a Historic Landmark Lot Split, which is not currently allowed. Again, the City is the applicant for the code amendment to include the C -1 zone district in the program, but advocates are Greg and Jane Hills, who own the three properties that might be eligible for the lot split. (The properties are currently occupied by Susie's at 623 E. Hopkins, Six 2 Five Salon at 625 E. Hopkins, and the former Adam Walton house, historically known as the Berg House at 205 S. Spring.) The Historic Landmark Lot Split may provide more opportunities to separate ownership, diversify uses on these parcels, create detached buildings on the lots, etc. -2- P3 HPC RECOMMENDATION: HPC reviewed the proposed code amendments on January 26, 2011 and recommended approval. REQUEST OF THE P & Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed code amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the AACP, as outlined in Exhibit A, Standards of Review for amendments to the Municipal Code, and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution # , Series of 2011 Exhibit A — Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review Exhibit B — Proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision - 3 - P4 Exhibit A Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. 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: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Response: The amendment is not in conflict with other areas of the Municipal Code. Aspen adopted historic preservation regulations almost 40 years ago and policies that support preservation can be found throughout the Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: The AACP specifically addresses historic preservation and the importance of incentives. It states as a goal, "Maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the historic landmark lot split." The AACP also encourages efforts that "Create a more vibrant town with appropriate mixed uses and a variety of building sizes. Allow historic patterns to inform new development throughout town." Staff believes that restoring some of the smaller lot sizes that existed historically in town is in keeping with this statement. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Response: The amendments do not change the underlying zoning, allowed uses, or dimensional requirements on properties where a Historic Landmark Lot Split might occur. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Response: n/a. E. 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 Response: n/a. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Response: A well used quote within the preservation field is that "The greenest building is the one that already exists." Staff believes that impacts on the natural environment are generally reduced by historic preservation efforts. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. -4- P5 Staff Response: This code amendment is intended to ensure stability in Aspen's neighborhoods and community characteristics by preserving past development patterns where appropriate. 11. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Response: n/a. 1. 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 Response: Historic Preservation is a 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. • -5- P6 Resolution No. (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: 26.480, SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the Community Development Department prepared amendments to Chapter 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal code, affecting historic landmark lot splits in the Mixed Use (MU) and Commercial(C -1) zone districts; and 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 proposed amendments were presented to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on January 26, 2011 for referral comments to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Aspen City Council and the Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: • Text being removed is bold and strikethrough. Text be o ed looks like this. • Text being added is bold and underlined. Text being added looks like this. • Text which is not shown as strikethrough or underlined is not affected. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter on February 1, 2011, took and considered public testimony and the recommendations of the Community Development Director and Historic Preservation Commission and recommended, by a _ to _ vote, City Council adopt amendments to the land use code as written in Section 1, below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: P7 Section 1: Chapter 26.480, Subdivision is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26.480.030. Exemptions. The following development shall be exempted from the terms of this Chapter: A. General exemptions. 1. Lot line adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots if all the following conditions are met: a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or surveying error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels; and b. All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide written consent to the application; and c. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this Chapter and conform to the requirements of this Title, including the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot. The plat shall be submitted and recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder. Failure to record the plat within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following approval shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the Community Development Director will be required before its acceptance and recording; and d. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights, including any increase in FAR or permitted density of the affected Tots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development. A plat note will be added to the corrected plat indicating the purpose of the lot line adjustment and the recognition that no additional FAR will be allowed with the adjustment. 2. Lot split. The split of a lot for the purpose of • • : • • .... • • : • • • creating one (1) additional development parcel 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 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 on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. 2 P8 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 . Chapter 26.470. 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 Subse° 2c 040 C 1... Chapter 26.470. 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 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 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 Ingle famil 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 residential build -out 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. 3. Approved subdivision. All subdivisions approved prior to the effective date of this Chapter, except those lots contained within an approved subdivision which are intended or designed to be resubdivided into smaller lots, condominium units or multi- family dwellings. 4. Historic Landmark lot split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for • • e • • .. •• • • • . • • • • • • • family-dwelling the purpose of creating one (1) additional development parcel. The Historic Landmark lot split shall meet the requirements of Subsections 26.480.030.A.2 and 4, Chapter 26.470, : • - ... • • - .. . - ! . • . Qode -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, C-1 or 0 MU Zone District. 3 P9 b. The total FAR for both- r;dcnees each 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 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 ' : : .. • - , • Chapter 26.415 as benefits for historic preservation are only permitted on the parcels that will - contains an historic structure. The FAR bonus will b applied to • • •• : •• • ' . • • : : • • • : •:• • • • . Only one (1) FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet may be granted to each historic landmark lot split subdivision exemption. 5. Exempt timesharing. The creation of time -span estates that comply with the requirements for exempt timesharing, pursuant to Section 26.590.030 of the Code. This subdivision exemption shall not be used to create any new lots or dwelling units. (Ord. No. 55 -2000, §11; Ord. No. 1 -2002, §11, 2002; Ord. No. 9 -2002, §9; Ord. No. 21 -2002, §7; Ord. No. 34 -2003, §1) Section 2: 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 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be 4 P10 deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this _ day of February, 2011. Attest: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Stan Gibbs, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM James R. True, Special Counsel 5 !CA. TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Appointment of Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson MEETING DATE: February 1, 2011 At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a Chair and Vice - Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re- elected. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to appoint , as chairperson and as vice - chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission for 2011." RESOLUTION NO. _ Series of 2011 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to elect a chairperson and vice - chairperson as outlined in Section 26.212.030, Membership- Appointment, removal, terms and vacancies of the land use code; and WHEREAS, the term of each position is for one (1) year; and WHEREAS, the commission voted to elect a chairperson and vice - chairperson on February 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, was elected chairperson and was elected vice - chairperson; and WHEREAS, both positions shall expire on February 1, 2012; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado, by this resolution that be appointed as chairperson and be appointed as vice - chairperson. DATED: February 1, 2011 ,Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk