Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Subdivision.0003.2011 L J THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0003.2011.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER NO PARCEL PROJECTS ADDRESS 130 S. GALENA ST PLANNER AMY GUTHRIE CASE DESCRIPTION CODE AMENDMENT REPRESENTATIVE CITY OF ASPEN DATE OF FINAL ACTION 5.22.11 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 8.11.11 c 3 2dr( -ASLU i3 I Fie Edit Retard Margate Fnm Repo$ Format It Help i 9ilit igAi Rafswaa Feel Fee5sThri Fgdm littafterts IR 01111 9 tistorY liekabco IPIchiErc I OztOre F lab brats 1ParcelF l . pen Lard Use 111 2m1 A6LU 130SGALENd = s 3 a"? ne4m1 -, I ,t .A #.4 t app N , 1 $01441i . CODE AABNMBJT -HSro CLANaA4Pof LOT SPLIT Band 1 1 I find I Mold in Of ASPEN 1 God; h kr 8 bites 1114(2812 orew 1 tast nm CITY OF ASPEN I Fest nacre CITY MALI 130 SGALENA ASPEN CO 81611 Rat ; 1 - Address Bows isgime o Contractor o appinanl? Last nag MY OF ASPEN Fistnm CRY HALL 130S GALENA ASPEN 00 81611 Plane () - Coct 28789 Address i Lender Last 1 Fv 1 Phone :) - Address 1d1 Perms L _-- - -- j ..0C/1 ,,, \ r, e . r Ordinance #7 (SERIES OF 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF THE 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 Planning Director of the Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were presented to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on January 26, 2011 for referral comments to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Aspen City Council. The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval; and 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 4 to 1 vote, City Council adopt amendments to the land use code as written in Section 1, below, and WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: • Text being removed is bold and strikethrough. Otis: • 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 Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Municipal Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Municipal Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: 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 lots 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 2. Lot split. The split of a lot for the purpose of creatine 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. 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 .. 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 Tots 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 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. 3 4. Historic Landmark lot split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for 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. Cede-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. b. The total FAR for bath - residences 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. .r. 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. • : • ' ; • . ; • ' • : • : : • • : • _' : -• l my 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. 4 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: 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 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: Recordation That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 14th day of March, 2011, 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 14th day of February, 2011. A /� < Michael . Ireland ayor A StheiSsA 7 AO Kathryn Koch, O ! Cler FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this t day of 2011. �4 Michael C. Irelan ' ayor athryn Koch, o r Clerk APPRO S TO FORM; er, City Attomey 5 0 - --'" I UC, rel l u su I , 6184460 Ad Ticket #5 �) t a- 10 -,cI/ Acct: 1013028 Name: Aspen (LEGALS) City of Phone: (970)920 -5064 Address: 130 S Galena St E -Mail: ANGELA SCOREY Client: Caller: Kathryn Koch City: Aspen Receipt State: CO Zip: 81611 Ad Name: 6184460A Original Id: 0 Editions: 8ATI /8ATW/ Class: 0990 Start: 02/20/11 Stop: 02/20/11 Color: Issue 1 Copyline: 6184460 atw Ordinance #7 Rep: AT Legals LEGAL NOTICE Lines: 20 ORDINANCE #7, 2011, PUBLIC HEARING Depth: 1.68 Ordinance #7. Series of 2011, was adopted on Columns: 1 first reading at the City Council meeting February Discount: 0.00 14, 2011. This ordinance, If adopted, will amend the historic lot split section of the land use code. Commission: 0.00 The public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for March 14, 2011 at 5 PM, City hall, 130 South Net: 0.00 Galena. To see the entire text, go to the city's legal notice Tax: 0.00 website : //www,aspenpitkin.comf Total 10.12 Departments /Clerk/Legal- Notices/ Payment 0.00 If you would like a copy FAXed or e- mailed to you. call the city clerk's office, 429 -2686. Publisehd in the Aspen Times Weekly on February 20, 2011. 16184460] Ad shown is not actual print size V ¢ s if &. at a z VeRaa; .2 aR 81i23. !1 eg y O x .1.1 O O r . 9 .s O 6 ' u '' . 41 . .0 0 L O N 2 c y v a , ••- K3 0 o Fti u 3 L N 5 U v i., N m -- .... -0 o ..o ,4 L b' I .19 w u. a 041-8 G i 7 kl 11 p E ., ►, u eO p v � ° ° ° r1 N �p 5 Z a ° � L 3 oLv Z at w o 0 3 v .J ' 0 U a 3 o v n C o m cis O L T c c C N ,b O. T N �o s O 3 o y v u v 1 W N 3 h '3 m V a r Ft r > D N O > u C u �' �7 L ° v r G a h EN � fv'D N O O- cnu a u E .o'° N v ^ ° O O oX u 2 u o G L a ro L L, 0.! 0 N u .0 y �i O .`8 i/i O v . 0. ri ' W o " v c u � � > o sal iemm W O W ° , 5 � L a (i t ` >ca Eo a t' 'S 1:1 o c v o o n o U 3 3 y�'� v N o v 3 a U a 7 u 5 u u a v o UD v o u v a w. 3 c -a E 0 C ro a as L v v O U u N v O J °N' u U L 3� n� a co N d Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 14, 2010 that postcards only be mailed to those on the permanent mail in voter list. Councilman Johnson said he favors requiring identifications to be consistent with county election. Councilman Johnson stated he is not in favor of making the ballots public. Councilwoman Kruger agreed to requiring identification because of the consistency issue. Councilwoman Kruger said she feels postcards sent to all voters is a good reminder to the electorate to get out and vote. Councilwoman Kruger said she is confident the election commission will write the audit procedure appropriately. Mayor Ireland noted the audit section is written for a minimum audit and that can be addressed by the election commission Mayor Ireland moved to correct the typos and spacing; seconded by Councilman Skadron. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Ireland moved to drop the requirement for identification; seconded by Councilman Skadron. Councilman Skadron stated there is ample safeguards in place in Aspen to insure the accuracy of elections and does not support adding difficulties to the voting procedures. Councilman Torre said he will support identification as voter security and there are provisions for voters who show up without ID to participate. Mayor Ireland and Council Skadron in favor; Councilmembers Johnson, Torre, and Kruger opposed. Motion NOT carried. Mayor Ireland moved to amend section 9.10.060 to change it to "shall deliver to all registered electors a notice by U.S. mail to the effect that an absentee ballot will not be delivered unless application for the same is made to the city clerk's office "; seconded by Councilman Skadron. Councilmembers Skadron, Kruger, Johnson and Mayor Ireland in favor; Councilman Torre opposed. Motion carried. Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 2011, as amended; seconded by councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, no; Johnson, yes; Kruger, yes; Skadron, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #7, SERIES OF 2011— Code Amendment Historic Lot Splits Amy Guthrie, community development department, proposed two code amendments to the historic lot split section. Ms. Guthrie reminded Council since 1987, the historic preservation program has been incentive based and the historic lot split has been the most successful incentive. Ms. Guthrie told Council the historic lot split is allowed in the MU mixed use zone; however, one of the provisions is that if one is separating out a vacant lot to build on, it has to be a single family house. Ms. Guthrie noted MU is not where single family houses are encouraged; it is a commercial area. Ms. Guthrie said another amendment is to extend the historic lot split to the C -1 zone, similar to the MU zone. Ms. Guthrie pointed out currently historic lot splits are not an option in C -1. This amendment will not create any new development rights but will allow property owners to take their existing development rights and separate them into two buildings. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing. 8 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 14, 2010 Councilman Torre said he would like more information on the lots in the C -1 zone that could take advantage of this code amendment; there seems to be only 3 or 4 lots to which this would apply. Councilman Torre said he can support the code amendment for the mixed use zone. Ms. Guthrie said of the 4 properties in the C -1 zone all have significant development rights; this code amendment gives property owners an option to create a detached building. Ms. Guthrie noted it is difficult to protect the historic resource when the development rights on a lot are so large. Councilman Torre asked if these structures are not already protected by the historic overlay. Ms. Guthrie said HPC does have review capability; but property owners would attempt to make the most of the property rights. Councilman Torre said his concern with properties on Hopkins Avenue in the C -1 zone is moving the historic structure on the site; the lot is often part of the historical significance. Greg Hills, property owner in C -1 zone, told Council the motivation behind this code amendment has to do with the Walton property, which has been a residential property forever and there is a right to do an addition to the building. Hills told Council staff feels if this were a commercial property, it would add energy to the comer of Hopkins and Spring. Hills said his thought was to have the historic property on the front be a commercial building with a residential structure on the rear of the property. Hills told Council movement of the historic structure is usually minimum. Mayor Ireland said he would rather not have residential development on lot split in C -1; residential development in the C -1 has made it a darker, less active area. Mayor Ireland said it would be good to have commercial activity in the C -1 zone. Mayor Ireland said this is still a discretionary review. Councilwoman Kruger said in that particular C -1 location, it would have to be an unusual destination commercial use to get activity. Councilman Johnson stated he supports the recommendation of staff, HPC and P &Z and likes the idea of adding vitality to the C -I zone. Councilman Skadron stated he, too, supports staff's recommendation. Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #7, Series of 2011, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Kruger. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes; Torre, no; Johnson, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #3, SERIES OF 2011 — Engineering Fees ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2011 — Community Development Department Fees Chris Bendon, community development, reminded Council these two ordinances deal with fees charged to development and development services. Bendon said these fees have not been increased in 5 years and the whole system has not been looked at as a unit in 20 years. Bendon said the current structure provides a subsidy to development, which is greater than was thought and represents a challenge to the city's general funds. At the previous public hearing, Council indicated they were interested in a delayed effective date. Council also wanted to see incentives 9 c MEMORANDUM lit 12 TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #7, Series of 2011, Proposed Amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision DATE: March 14, 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 „ t 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. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff, HPC and P &Z recommend Council approval of the attached code amendments. HISTORIC 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 second free market residential unit on a landmarked property, exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS.) In 1995, the concept of allowing more than one home on a landmark parcel -1- morphed into the Historic Landmark Lot Split, whereby two units on a designated, residentially 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 the "0, Office" zone district (since renamed "MU, Mixed Use, ") the bulk of which is located on Main Street. 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, and one lot on Main Street. 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, Community Development 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 two of the properties that might be eligible for the lot split. (The properties are currently occupied by -2- 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. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. City Council is the final review authority. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the Standards of Review for amendments to the Municipal Code, as outlined in Exhibit A, and recommends Council approval. HPC RECOMMENDATION: HPC reviewed the proposed code amendments on January 26, 2011 and recommended approval. P & Z RECOMMENDATION: P &Z reviewed the proposed code amendments on February 1, 2011 and recommended approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission requested that, as part of the City Council review, staff clarify any possible increases in development rights that could result from a Historic Landmark Lot Split. No development increases are generated by a lot split. Underlying development rights are not being amended. Even without a lot split, the range of options in the two affected zone districts, MU and C -1 already allow numerous different combinations of residential and commercial space. The more residential units that are built on a given site, the more FAR exemptions are possible for garage /storage space, but the number of residential units allowed is not directly increased by a historic landmark lot split. Most historic sites are currently allowed to build one new free market unit (in addition to what already exists on the site) with a GMQS exemption. Many properties can receive GMQS exemptions for addition residential units. In some scenarios, overall development rights may decrease with a lot split. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #7, Series of 2011." ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #7, Series of 2011 Exhibit A — Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review Exhibit B — Proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision -3- 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- Staff Response: This code amendment is intended to ensure stability in Aspen's neighborhoods and community characteristics by preserving past development patterns where appropriate. H. 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- Ordinance #7 (SERIES OF 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF THE 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 Planning Director of the Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were presented to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on January 26, 2011 for referral comments to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Aspen City Council. The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval; and 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 4 to 1 vote, City Council adopt amendments to the land use code as written in Section 1, below, and WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: • Text being removed is bold and strikethrough. 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 Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Municipal Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Municipal Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: 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 lots 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 2. Lot split. The split of a lot for the purpose of ngle fumil a•,.., ling 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. 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 . .. 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 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. 3 4. Historic Landmark lot split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for • • • . • ,• . family welling 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 . Cede -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. b. The total FAR for 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 Panzgraphs 26 415 120 n s . b a_d e Chapter 26.415 as benefits for historic preservation are only permitted on the parcels that will- contains an historic structure. The F"D b w ill be app cod t • • •• .. •' • ' • • : • • • • • • • 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. 4 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: 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 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: Recordation That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 14th day of March, 2011, 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 , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney 5 , AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Nfri , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: is at If It AMA .. 1 5: I S , 20 00 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) i. l A (name. please print) being or representi g an Applicant to the City of Asp n, Colorado, hereby personally certify that T 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 C 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 , 20 , 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) p 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 acknowled• ed before me this 27(day of FP ray , ..a PUBLIC NOTICE !! RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AFFECTING DI SECTION 25.450, SUBDIVISION ISI SECTION C DE sec WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL SU NOTICE I5 HERE Y GIVEN that a public hearing F2 \aa will be held on ontlay. March 14, 2011, at a 1.•. IR •• Ue t meeting to begi at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen ••• ••. I Cit Council t conaitler an application My COInlSSIOn expires: �f (,� l e l ementlments to Me Cit of ■Aspen Lantl Use C atle per to historic preservation, initiated by the N II so sour eIena Street, Aaplen, 00816111. ')NCA M. •1 ' 1. / - � ��- y /� �� The proposed amendments affect historic i,ANNING j ,a/°\k /VI Oulkii'/LA'.1I o merc lot splits Mixed Use (MU) and 1 b e held in l zone btls. The hearing will - Cm � Notary Public I be held in Council z cil Chammberrs at City Hall, 130 <., South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611. For • J • further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City OF (CA- of Aspen Comm Doppment Depatlment � 130 S. Galena Street. unity Aspen CO, X9]0) 429 -2]5B, „ * UM airthdedri.aapgn.ggyg :ion Expires 03/29/2014 s/ MlchaM C Ireland Mayor, Clry of Aspen 2 0 27, 11 ! l we A 17 i 93 9apen Times Weekly an February ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE• D, 2011 PUBLICATION I OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) A,AO yr i at OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 MEMORANDUM DV I t a TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council etym THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: First Reading of Ordinance #7, Series of 2011, Proposed Amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision DATE: February 14, 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 ,, 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 R district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff, HPC and P &Z 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 - 1 - morphed into the Historic Landmark Lot Split, whereby two units on a designated, residentially 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 the "0, Office" zone district (since renamed "MU, Mixed Use, ") the bulk of which is located on Main Street. 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, Community Development is the applicant for the code amendment to include the C -1 zone district in the program, but advocates are Greg and Jane 1lills, 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 -2- 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. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. City Council is the final review authority. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the Standards of Review for amendments to the Municipal Code, as outlined in Exhibit A, and recommends Council approval on First Reading. HPC RECOMMENDATION: HPC reviewed the proposed code amendments on January 26, 2011 and recommended approval. P & Z RECOMMENDATION: P &Z reviewed the proposed code amendments on February 1, 2011 and recommended approval. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to approve Ordinance # I, Series of 2011, on First Reading." ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #37 Series of 2011 Exhibit A — Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review Exhibit B — Proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision -3- 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- Staff Response: This code amendment is intended to ensure stability in Aspen's neighborhoods and community characteristics by preserving past development patterns where appropriate. H. 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- Ordinance # (SERIES OF 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF THE 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 Planning Director of the Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were presented to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on January 26, 2011 for referral comments to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Aspen City Council. The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval; and 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, and WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: • Text being removed is bold and strikethrough. Text-being—removed—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 Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Municipal Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development . ; Director, Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Municipal Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: 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 lots 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 • 2. Lot split. The split of a lot for the purpose of • • • .. •• • • . • • • • • —gle famy dw^ °in^ 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. 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 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 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. 3 4. Historic Landmark lot split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for • • : • • :: •• • • • . ' • ' ' • • • 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, : • • - • • • • • - •. • '• • • • • Cede -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. b. The total FAR for both-residences 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. , .. , , _• 9 . . •• .. . • • • . •• , • • • • .. _, • ! •• 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 n411-contains an historic structure. The FAR b ill b.. applied rr .. •• .. . , , , . 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. 4 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: 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 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: Recordation That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 14th day of March, 2011, 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 , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney 5 Resolution No. 2 (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. 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 4 to 1 vote, City Council adopt amendments to the land use code as written in Section 1, below. The Planning and Zoning Commission requested that, as part of the City Council review, staff clarify any possible increases in development rights that could result from a Historic Landmark Lot Split. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: 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 b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both Tots 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 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 Tots 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 building occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwcl ing 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 Tots 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 wing 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 Eerie -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 -I 5A, RMF, CC = 1 or 0 MU Zone District. 3 b. The total FAR for both -- residences each lot shall be established by dividing the site 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 FARz. . ill be a —lied to •• . ; . : ••••: ':.Inlv one (1) FAR bonus ofup 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' _�. 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 ot'the City of Aspen on this day of February, 2011. Attest: / Ja ie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk S 1 ibbs, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM ames R. True, Special Counsel 5 Ir lb • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission , THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director lvl 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 ' ; x 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 4111 district. 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 - 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- 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- 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- Staff Response: This code amendment is intended to ensure stability in Aspen's neighborhoods and community characteristics by preserving past development patterns where appropriate. FL Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Response: n /a. L 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- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: R I , '(Zi,�.ease j € 4 ! qt y.'V1 20 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) )414n -e) fib, f �f4 (name, please print) being or represeg an Applicant to the City of As en, Colorado, hereby personally certify that 1 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 mch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 20_, 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 govermnental 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. L t s„, 441111r Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled 1 ed before me this /8 day of.ja n ,20f/,by .u' i . '_ . • RE: PROPO P D AMENOMENTS2A69M 110, WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MUNI CIPAL ODE SECTION 26 BEN EFITS F R HISTORIC PRESERVATION = . AND SECTI 26.480, SUBDIVISION � / PaY P` e 1 11 1 NOTICE 1 EREBY GI 11 c ,T y t a puG Februic heea a � o .• �do, I My ., mission expires: 52? `2 d 6 2011, Aspen al a do, / will be held on Tuestla y Ft t th consider an e C1 me S meeting 10 begin at 4 Commission t to 11nf1� �. 1 g and omng y . app for amendments Ib t Pty o Ae I e n : �, ' i 1 4t Land Use Code pertaining to Lmy evelopment D ' jt�; i,�C i h ./ initiated by the Aape^ 130 South Street, Department, Pty Hall, ed amendments otary Public afeen,CO 8l611. That splits poa. affect MU) and Gommerc ) one districts The r(. i> hearing will be held in the Sister cities Meeting ur Room at City Hall. 1 South Galena Street, \ Expires CO 81611 0 at ft C information, As-en 1$IOf 4 es Q329I2014 contac Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen ) xN� Community Development Department, 13 S. ^P " CO, (810) 429 -215 Galena Street. AsFcous. Aspen Plsnm ghand Zoning Commission . ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: Published in the Aspen times Weekly on January THE PUBLICATION in ..�, . vuxAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) * LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 e gr A MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Historic Landmark Lot Split Code Amendment DATE: January 26, 2011 HPC is asked to provide referral comments to P &Z and City Council regarding proposed code amendments related to Hi §toric Landmark Lot Splits. 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. BACKGROUND: 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 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, 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 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 Office, now renamed "MU, 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. 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 and Aspen Home Consignment. Each owner might wish to be on a 3,000 square foot fee simple lot. The code amendment was reviewed in 2007, 1 i^a 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 good candidates for the lot split. (The properties are currently occupied by Susie's, Six 2 Five Salon, and the former Adam Walton house, historically known as the Berg House.) The Historic Landmark Lot Split may provide more opportunities to separate ownership, diversify uses on these parcels, create detached buildings on the lots, etc. Staff requests HPC provide comments for P &Z and City Council consideration of the code amendments. 2