Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLanduse Case.ZO.815 W Main St.A118-00 r'\ ,-' CASE NUMBER A118-00 PARCEL ID # 2735-123-17002 CASE NAME Sandunes Zoning PROJECT ADDRESS 815 W. Main SI. PLANNER Fred Jarman CASE TYPE Rezoning OWNER/APPLICANT Susan Horsey REPRESENTATIVE Jennifer Causing DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION Ord.51-2000 PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION Approved BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 1/3/01 BY J. Lindt ~ '" , ' \J r'\ 1""\, ' \T-A .LL", . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director...JAo Fred Jarman, Planner 6. Sandunes L. P. Rezoning to R- 5 (Moderate-Density Residential) Public Hearing FROM: RE: DATE: October 17,2000 4 fiJ~ 4tj~,}! ApPLICANT: Susan H. Horsey REPRESENTATIVE: Jennifer M. Causing of Krabacher Law Offices LOCATION: 815 West Main Street ZONING: R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) in Pitkin County_... LOT~" ~~;::;JiD CURRENT LAND USE: LOT 1 = VACANT LOT 2 = HOUSE AND BARN PROPOSED LAND USE: Rezoning to R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) in the City of Aspen SUMMARY: Applicant is proposing to annex the subject property into the City of Aspen and rezone the property to R-15. (See map) Rezoning to R-15 is the most appropriate zone district because of the surrounding neighborhood is already zoned R-15, and the lot would conform to most of the zone district's dimensional requirements. Northwestern view of the subject property (Lot 1) ),,:1., vf. &7) //iS1 . ' L, ~')' /1-'1 .crt1-4 I )/ oO,? w ,-, ,-, REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning - An application for amendments to the Land Use Code (such as this request for rezoning) or the official zone district map may be initiated by the persons and decision- making bodies identified in Section 26.304.040, and shall be processed in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedures' set forth at Chapter 26.304. Two steps are required. I) a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and 2) a public hearing before the City CoUncil to determine if the application meets standards for amendment to code text or official zone district map. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant, Susan Horsey, has submitted a petition for annexation into the City of Aspen and the petition has been accepted by the City Council as complete. The annexation process now requires a determination by City Council on the merits of annexing the property and that step has not been completed. Additionally, the annexation procedures require that the City designate appropriate zoning on newly annexed property within 90 days of the annexation. As part of the annexation process, the City of Aspen is required to assign an appropriate zone district to the subiect prQpertx. This rezoning is a process initiated by City staff including participation from the applicant regarding applicable review standards and the appropriateness of the recommended zone district. Analysis performed by City staff indicates that the R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) zone district is the most appropriate zone district for this property and its location relative to the City of Aspen and surrounding neighborhood. R-tS ZONE DISTRICT PURPOSE The purpose of the R-15 (Moderate-Density Residential) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the R -15 zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite, which border Aspen Mountain, are also included in the R-15 zone district. Staff finds that the subject parcel meets these defining elements of the R-15 zone district indicated in the zone district's purpose. t t PARCEL LOCATION Uniquely, the parcel exists in Pitkin County (86%) and the City of Aspen (14%) under Pitkin County's R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) zone district (see map on font page). More specifically, the parcel is located at the western edge of Aspen city limits on Main Street right at the entrance to Aspen and visibly part of the City urban environment. The immediate surrounding properties .have been develo ed in either Pitkin County's R-15 zone' ct or ill e I s -IS F P ffice AH PUD, and R-30 PUD zone districts (See zoning map below). e R-t5 designation is the most compatible with the neighboring Pitkin County zoning, the surrounding area and its transition from higher denSity to lower density, and the nature of the immediate area. 2 ZONING The applicant proposes a single-family dwelling and an ADU on Lot I and a duplex in the future on Lot 2. Single- family dwellings are permitted uses in both jurisdictions, whereas duplexes are prohibited in the County under the current R-15 zoning. .~ ~ By annexing the property and rezoning to R-15, the applicant achieves more units not allowed in the county's R -15 zone district. In effect, this annexation allows the CIty to 1lChipve grp.ater residential density. Staff finds that this allowable increase in density is consistent with the AACP, which calls for higher density in the City. Additionally, the proposed single-family dwelling on Lot I and the duplex on Lot 2 requires GMQS mitigation in the form of cash-in- lieu, deed restriction of the main units, or ADUs which benefit the City. This will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. A caretaker dwelling unit (CDU) in the County would be approved in a manner similar to the ADU review and approval process in the City. However, only one (I) CDU would be required in the County whereas between two and three (2-3) ADUs would be required in the City - up to two for the duplex and one for the single-family dwelling. Staff again refers to the community plan that calls for increased densities. C\ ..'{ C' 1/ ~ Review of the dimensional requirements for the R-15 zone district in both jurisdictions shows that the City is much more restrictive in terms of allowed uses. (Please see Exhibit D and E that contain Pitkin County's and the City of Aspen's allowable uses, uses allowed by special review, and prohibited uses in the R-15 zone district.) Other differences include a reduction in structure height. The County allows primary structures to be 28 feet in height while the City only allows 25 feet. A matrix is provided showing a comparison of dimensional requirements afforded by both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County for their respective R-15 zone districts. The City's Development Review Committee (DRC), which consists of at least one representative from each City Department, has reviewed the Sandunes L. P. annexation and rezoning request. A copy of the DRC report is attached for your review as Exhibit F. In summary, this key parcel should be developed in a manner consistent with the City's development provisions and in a manner compatible with the entrance to Aspen. Staff feels an 3 ,-". ,-, R-15 zone district designation achieves this end fOr a parcel located at the entrance to the original townsite of Aspen. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for the assignment of the R-15 (Moderate-Density Residential) Zone District to Lots 1 and 2 of the Sandunes 1. P. Annexation located at 815 West Main Street, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. RECOMMENDED MOTION: (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "1 move to approve Resolution No. u.<t, Series 2000 of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommending City C;;t;~il approve an assignment of the R-15 (Moderate- Density Residential) Zone District for Lots I and 2 of the property to be known and dedicated as the Sandunes 1. P. Annexation located at 815 West Main Street, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Parcel Location Exhibit C -- Development Application Exhibit D -- City of Aspen R-15 Zone District Exhibit E -- Comparative Ma~jxt7 Exhibit F -- Resolution No. ~, Series 2000 4 1""'. ,-, EXHIBIT A Rezoning from R-15 (Pitkin County) to R-15 (City of Aspen) REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following review standards pursuant to Section 26.310.040 of the Aspen Land Use Code to determine if the application meets standards for amendment to code text or official zone district map: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. . Staff Finding This proposal to assign the R-l5 Zone District to this parcel is appropriate in that the purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-l5) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses, Lands in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-l5) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite, which border Aspen Mountain, are also included in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-l5) zone district. The property subject to this request for a zoning designation is currently located in both Pitkin County (86%) and the City of Aspen (14%). Both portions of the property are zoned under the County's R-l5 Zoning designation. However, as a result of this unique location of the property straddling both jurisdictions' boundaries, the City required the applicant (owner of the property to adhere to certain requirements of the City's R-l5 zoning designation. More specifically, the applicant was required to adopt the City's Floor Area calculations for the permitted size of single-family dwellings as well as adopt the City's lighting code to go into effect on November 23,2000. By the nature of these requests, coupled with the fact that this property is located on Main Street and surrounded by complementary zone districts, Staff finds this rezoning designation to R-l5 to be a logical action. The proposed amendment to the official zone district map to change the subject property's zoning designation from R-l5 in Pitkin County to R-l5 in the City of Aspen is not in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. The amendment does not represent new land use policy or a change in land use policy for the City of Aspen. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding This zoning designation will promote desired increased density as indicated in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). The City's R-l5 Zone District will allow a higher density regarding the number and type of units that could be placed on these lots than if the parcel remained in the County's R-l5 Zone District. Additionally, it also allows a higher number of Accessory Dwellings Units than the County's R-l5 designation. 5 ,;~ I ) \ 'I' (II i""'. ,-." It should be noted that if this property were to stay il1 the County, it would be developed at a lower density under current zoning and allow fewer affordable housing opportunities. Moreover, given the property's future likelihood of annexing into the City because of its location on the City of Aspen's Main Street, it would result in the City's infrastructure being stretched to serve existing lower density than could have been achieved if it were annexed at the present time and assigned an R-IS zoning classification. Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan (MCP). )j;' C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding As mentioned above in Staff's Findings for Review Standard A, the purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-IS) zone district is to provide areas for long-term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. This area of Aspen currently accommodates areas that include long-term residential purposes. Lands in the Moderate- Density Residential (R-IS) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. The subject parcel is located adjacent to the Townsite of Aspen as well as in close proximity to the base of Aspen Mountain which is in concert with the purpose of the R-IS Zone District. More specifically, the subject parcel is located at the western edge of the city limits on Main Street. The immediate surrounding properties have been developed in either Pitkin County's R-IS zoning or in the City's more intensive R-IS, R/MF PUD, Office, and R-30 PUD zoning across Castle Creek. Staff finds that the R- I S designation is the most compatible classification with the Pitkin County zoning, the surrounding area and its transition from higher density to lower density, and the nature of the immediate area. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding Lots I and 2 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation have existing individual access from 7th Street. Lot 2, which contains the applicant's current residence and is located in the City portion of the lot, has a private drive access from 7th Street. There is no intention of creating a curb cut off of Main Street to access this lot. Lot I is accessed via an existing 20' private road access easement across a neighboring property to the south from 7th Street. That same easement provides access to other parcels in the Adams Subdivision in Pitkin County as well as Lot 2. Under the City's R-IS Zone District and as a requirement of the pending subdivision exempt lot split, the applicant has a maximum buildout capability of three units for both lots. This could be in the form of a single-family dwelling and a duplex. Currently, there is one single- family dwelling on Lot 2. The applicant proposes to demolish this unit, construct one single- family unit on Lot I and construct a duplex on Lot 2. This will result in two additional units to the area, which will generate more traffic than currently exists. However Staff does not see this increase in vehicle generation to be a significant difference that what could be currently accommodated given the properties existing zone district. 6 /"""0" ~ There will be significant impact to the access of these two properties if and when the "Entrance to Aspen" is realized. It will effectively limit the ability of the applicant to directly access 7th Street from Main Street in the "Light Rail" scenario because 7th Street will be closed. In the event that this occurs, the applicant will have to reach the access to Lots 1 and 2 by routes other than the 7th and Main Street intersection. However, the "Entrance to Aspen" will not preclude or interfere with the actual access points themselves. Access, and the impacts as a result of the new entrance plan will remain the same if the property is rezoned or not. (The graphic above illustrates the "Entrance to Aspen" route in relation to Lots 1 and 2 of the Sandunes L. P. parcel. ) E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of suchfacilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medicalfacilities. Staff Finding In return for the request by the applicant to receive City water service, the City requested the property annex into the City. Prior to this "Petition for Annexation," the City participated in an "advisory" role for a 50% Density Reduction Lot Split performed in the County. As a result, the City requested that the resulting Lots 1 and 2 be approved with the following conditions: 1) no development take place on the City portion of the parcel, 2) Sandunes 1.P. adopt the City of Aspen's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lighting code requirements, 3) Sandunes 1. P. grant the City a fisherman's easement and entered into a curb, sidewalk and gutter agreement. These conditions remain in effect today. Staff finds that this request for the R-15 zoning designation for this property would not result in excess demand that would exceed the capacity of the City's public facilities. The existing single-family dwelling located on Lo12 is currently served by City water and sewage disposal system utilities. As a result of the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on July 28th, 2000, the City Water Department Director, Phil Overynder, indicated that 1) a new Raw Water Agreement will be required for the lot; 2) two separate agreements will be required to show the applicable square footage on each lot; 3) service for the new lot can come from SH 82, but may need to be relocated based on the CDOT SH 82 realignment in the near future. Therefore it may be more feasible to receive service from 7th Street; and 4) the current service tap for Lot 2 containing the old bam structure needs to be abandoned. 7 '-\ ,-., The Aspen Consolidated Waste District (ACWD) concluded that the existing sewer service lines are inadequate to allow proper additional flow from the new structure. It is therefore recommended that a new 8" service line be installed from 7th Street. Further discussion with the ACWD Director, Tom Bracewell, indicated that a connection configuration could be worked out for both lots but consideration should be given to current sewer service connected to Bruce Berger's cabin and the "Entrance to Aspen" plan and its effect on Main Street. Both Lots I and 2 are located within the City of Aspen Fire Protection District. The proposed residence on Lot 1 is greater than 5,000 sq. ft. and is therefore required to contain a full sprinkler system. Site drainage for both lots and their proposed development should not pose a problem for the area. The applicant has complied with the City of Aspen Engineering department's request for a full soils and drainage report to be submitted and analyzed prior to the application of a building permit. An existing irrigation ditch exists on Lot 1 on the Sandunes property. There are existing Raw Water Agreements with the City of Aspen for the use of the Si Johnson Ditch for irrigation purposes. As indicated above, I) a new Raw Water Agreement will be required for the lot, and 2) two separate agreements will be required to show the applicable square footage on each lot. Additionally, the applicant is aware of potential future problems from irrigation seepage into basement development and that basements will only be approved in locations where this will not result in a seepage problem. The applicant understands that ditch access on Lots I and 2 shall be maintained and other surrounding ditch owners are relieved of responsibility for damage to the development caused by the ditch or seepage problems resulting from the ditch. Finally, the proposed development and zone designation will not further impact the City's ability to provide adequate parks, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff finds that the proposed zoning designation for Lots I and 2 of the Sandunes 1. P. Annexation meets this review standard. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding The applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence on Lot 1. This 51,811 sq. ft. lot is bordered by Castle Creek on its westemproperty line. Lot 1 contains a considerable amount of square footage of steep slopes that extend from the flat portion designated for the residence down to Castle Creek. This slope is considered as a sensitive Castle Creek riparian area, which shall remain undisturbed, pristine, and untouched condition to allow for adequate drainage capability for activity above the top of slope. The applicant recently received Stream margin Review form the City of Aspen which required the applicant to locate all development at least 15 feet back from the top of slope in order to protect this sensitive riparian zone. The applicant understands that the City of Aspen Community Development Department and Parks Department must review any proposed disturbance to the area below this top of slope. Staff finds that the applicant complies with the necessary requirements regarding development in close proximity to an environmentally sensitive area. 8 r(~ r--. ,-. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed zoning designation to the property and change to the official zone map is consistent with the surrounding area in character determined as compatibility with existing uses and the purpose of the R-15 zone district to provide areas for long-term residential purposes. As stated above, this area of Aspen currently accommodates areas that include long-term residential purposes. Lands in this zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. The subject parcel is located adjacent to the Townsite of Aspen as well as in close proximity to the base of Aspen Mountain which is in concert with the purpose of the R-15 Zone District. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding The annexation of this property into the City of Aspen has been the main catalyst for the initiation of this land use action. By the nature of the annexation process, the property must be assigned an appropriate zone district for the direction of future development on the property. The property immediately surrounding this newly annexed parcel is zoned R-15, RlMF PUD, AH PUD, Office, and R-30 PUD zoning across Castle Creek. Staff finds that the R-15 designation is the most compatible classification with the Pitkin County zoning, the surrounding area and its transition from higher density to lower density, and the nature of the immediate area. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not find that assigning this property the R-15 Zone District is in conflict with the public interest. Moreover, Staff finds that this designation allows the City to more effectively and efficiently serve additional density with its public infrastructure. This is an action which is in concert with the intention of the 2000 AACP and is a clearly appropriate designation given the purpose of the R-15 Zone District and the surrounding land uses and zone districts. 9 ,,-" ,-" EXHIlJlT B PARCEL LOCATION 10 r-, ~ APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Applicant: Susan H. Horsey 815 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Representative: B. Joseph Krabacher, Esq. Jennifer M. Causing, Esq. Krabacher Law Offices a Professional Corporation 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.6300 Property: Sandunes Lot Split Aspen, Colorado ORIGINAL ~ ""," .,.-" DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO TEXT OR MAP In conjunction with the Applicant's pending Petition for Annexation into the City of Aspen, the Applicant requests review of the instant Application for Amendment to Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map pursuant to the City of Aspen, Land Use Regulations, Section 26.310. In accordance with the Specific Submission Contents for a Development Application for Amendment to text or map set forth in Section 26.310.030 the applicant submits herein, the following information in compliance with the Specific Submission standard. A. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. The general application information required by this section has been submitted with the Applicant's application for a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split/Stream Margin/Accessory Dwelling Unit, Applicant's Petition for Annexation into the City of Aspen, and supplements submitted with these applications. B. If the applicant requests an amendment to the text of this chapter, the precise wording of any proposed amendmen t. The applicant requests an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, therefore, this requirement is not applicable. ~ ;''''''', C. in the applicant requests an amendment to the Official Zone District Map: 1. The present Zone District classification and existing land uses of the real property proposed to be amended. The parcel is currently located in both Pitkin County and the City of Aspen, 84% and 16% respectively. The present zone classification of the portion of the parcel located in the County, is R-15 moderate density. Similarly, the portion of the parcel located in the City of Aspen is also zoned R-15. This application is made in conjunction with applicant's petition to annex this parcel into the City of Aspen. 2. The area of the property proposed to be amended, stated in square feet or acres, or a major fraction thereof; and The exact area of the property proposed to be amended is equivalent to the exact area of the parcel sought to be annexed into the City. The Petition for Annexation, attached as Exhibit 1, contains the exact description of the parcel to be annexed into the City of Aspen and the exact portion of the map to be amended. 3. An accurate survey map of the real property proposed for amendment. The Petition for Annexation, attached as Exhibit 1, contains an accurate survey map of the real property proposed for annexation and for amendment as zone R-15 by the City of Aspen. ~ ,-.. STANDARDS OF REVIEW The Applicant has petitioned to annex the portion of the parcel located in the County into the City. In conjunction with the petition to annex, applicant also requests amendment of the Official Zone District Map by applying the City residential R-15 zoning to the parcel. The exact area of the property proposed to be amended is equivalent to the parcel sought to be annexed. A copy of the Petition for Annexation and the survey map specifying the area for annexation and rezoning is attached as Exhibit 1. In reviewing a proposed amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter." The proposed amendment, to zone the annexed portion of the Sandunes' parcel R-15 is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. As discussed above, the parcel was previously zoned R-15 in the County prior to annexation into the City of Aspen, and the Applicant requests that the newly annexed parcel also be zoned R-15. Additionally, the R-15 designation would be consistent with the remainder of the parcel, already located in the City, which is currently zoned R-15. B. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan" The proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. t""'\, ..~ C. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics." The proposed amendment, to zone the newly annexed parcel R- 15 is compatible and consistent with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses. In fact, the parcel was previously zoned moderate density residential in both the City and the County. The surrounding land on the West side of 7th Street, where the lot is located, is similarly zoned R-15. D. traffic "The effect of the proposed amendment on generation and road safety." The proposed amendment to the Official Zone District Map, will not have any effect on traffic generation and road safety. As mentioned above, the proposed amendment is consistent with the prior zoning of the parcel in the County. The maximum potential build out for the two parcels created by the proposed lot split will not exceed three units. Access for proposed Lot 1 will be via a private access drive from Seventh Street and access to proposed Lot 2 will be directly off 7th Street. Although both of the proposed lots have access from Main Street, the Applicant prefers the access from Seventh Street to minimize any complications in the event Highway 82 is four-Ianed via the "straight-shot" approach. Private driveways will access each lot. There should be no significant impact on surrounding roads. The applicant proposes to keep the accesses private and the maintenance responsibility will be born by the owners of the proposed lots. ,!"""o.. .'-'. 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." The proposed amendment, to zone the newly annexed parcel R- 15, would not exceed the capacity of public facilities. Both of the proposed lots will be served by City utilities. The existing single-family residence located on proposed Lot 2 is currently served by City water and sewage disposal systems utilities. The City of Aspen Water Department will provide water to both lots. The project site is located within the City of Aspen Fire Protection District. The proposed residence on Lot 1 is greater than 5,000 square feet and therefore, sprinkler installation is planned for this proposed residence. Sewer service for both lots will be provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Any future development on the two newly created lots should have little impact on historical drainage patterns and surface water runoff. Building envelopes have been and will be selected so that they are easily drained, and subsequent grading, building foot prints, and access driveways will not adversely affect any of the property's significant drainage features. Improvements to the existing access road and future site development plans will include drainage control provisions. A drainage study has been completed and will be submitted for review by the City Engineering department. ~\ .-., with respect to other public facilities, including but not limited to, transportation facilities, parks, schools, and emergency medical facilities, the proposed amendment would not result in any additional demands on public facilities. As mentioned above, the parcel was similarly zoned R-15 in the County prior to its annexation into the City. F. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment." The proposed amendment to the Official Zone Map will not result in any adverse impact on the natural environment. The parcel was previously zoned R-15 in the County and therefore, applying R-15 zoning would not result in any impact to the natural environment. Additionally, the proposed lot split is located with the intention of preserving the significant natural features on the site. Any proposed building by the Applicant on Lot 1 will be contained entirely on level ground, consistent with the City's Code requirements, and to avoid any disruption of the natural slope and stream on the western portion of the lot. The Applicant received Stream Margin Review approval from the City Planning and Zoning Commission on September 5, 2000. Proposed Lot 2 already contains an existing single-family residence facing Main Street. This existing house has a private driveway with access off of 7th Street. The driveway access and any future site development will be designed with consideration of visual impact and will preserve significant natural features of the property. r", ~ G. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen." The proposed amendment to the Official Zone Map is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. The moderate density residential zoning is consistent with the prior zoning in the County and the surrounding zoning in both the City and the County. H. "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment." The change affecting the subject parcel is the Petition for Annexation into the City of Aspen. The annexation of the parcel is the sole factor necessitating the request for an Amendment to the Zone District Map. The surrounding neighborhood, also zoned R-15 would likely support such an amendment, as it is consistent with the prior Pitkin County zoning. I. conflict with the "Whether the proposed amendment would be in with the public interest, and is in harmony purpose and intent of this chapter." The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the public interest as the applicant is merely requesting that the City amend the Official Zone Map to reflect the prior zoning in the County. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a means of amending the official zone district map. This chapter is not intended to relieve particular hardships or confer special privileges or rights on any person. The proposed amendment is clearly in harmony with this purpose and does not relieve ,1"""\ .~ applicant of any particular hardship nor does it confer any special rights or privileges on the applicant. By: horsey\2rezoning.Ol September 19, 2000 (9:53AM) Krabacher Law Offices, a Professional Corporation J n ifer 2 North Mill, Suite Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-6300 Representative of Applicant ~ ~ PETITION OF ANNEXATION To: The City Clerk and the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado PURSUANT to the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 ("Act"), Part I, Article 12, Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1913, as amended, the undersigned hereby petitions and requests the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, to approve and complete the annexation to the City of Aspen of certain unincorporated territory located in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, more particularly described on "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION, the petitioner alleges as follows: 1. It is desirable and necessary that the above described area be annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado. 2. No less than one-sixth (l/6th) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the City of Aspen, Colorado. 3. A community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen, Colorado. 4. The area proposed to be annexed is urban, or will be urbanized in the near future. 5. The area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen; Colorado. 6. In establishing the boundaries of the territory to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, has been divided into separate parts or parcels. 7. All requirements of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, Sections 31~12-104 and 31-122-105, exist or have been met. 8. No annexation proceeding has been commenced for the annexation to a municipality other than the City of Aspen, COloJ;:ado, of all or part of the area described above. 9. The annexation proposed in this petition will not result in the detachment of area from any school district and the attachment of the same area to another school district. . 1""'\ ,-, 10. The petitioner herein is the sole landowner of the entire territory included in the area to be annexed. 11. The parcel to be annexed was approved for a 50% Density Reduction Lot Split in Pitkin County by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") on or about November 24, 1992. The parcel subject to the 50% Density Lot Split is located in both pitkin County and the City of Aspen, approximately 84% and 16%, respectively. 12. The BOCC's approval of the 50% Reduction Lot Split was subject to conditions set forth in Resolution Number 92-418 and Resolution Number 93-169. 13. An extension of statutory Vested Rights application for the 50% Density Reduction Lot Split approval was filed and rejected by the BOCC, but the BOCC adopted a resolution recognizing common law vested rights for the 50% Density Reduction Lot Split. 14. The City of Aspen does not recognize the 50% Density Reduction Lot Split of the City portion of the parcel. 15. The City of Aspen has requested that petitioner annex the parcel into the City of Aspen and re-apply for lot split approval pursuant to a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split. 16. This Annexation petition is contingent upon approval of a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split. 17. Upon approval of the instant Annexation Petition, the Applicant will be released from the conditions of approval imposed by the BOCC with respect to Applicant's prior 50% Density Reduction Lot Split approval specifically set forth in the Resolution No. 92-418 and Resolution No, 93-169. 18. Petitioner is exempt from the Growth Management Requirements of a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.470.070(i). 19. Pursuant to oral Agreement with John Worcester, City Attorney, the Petitioner is exempt from land use application fees associated with this Subdivision Exemption Lot Split application. ~.. 1""""\ .,-, Petitioner, sole landowner of the property to be annexed, has approved the annexation and having met all of the requirements under the Municipal Annexation Act, requests that the City of Aspen approve the annexation of the proposed area. Dated: PETITIONER: Susan 815 West Main Str Aspen, Colorado 8 3056\4annexation.petiti~n.2 . I""" EXHIBIT A .~ April 19, 2000 (2:40PM) "'~'""" .~... ,-., ~ COUllty of Pitkin } } 55. State of Color:ldo } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAJ."ID USE REGULATION SECTION 26.304.066 (E) . I, C;~ of 4,PW? t.1>"1o/A,l1 1)U/"!ct~v1.f bV'l. being or representing an AppUcant to the ity of Aspen. personally certify that r aave compUed with the public notice requirements pursuant tc? Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-<:lass, pOstage prepaid U.S. Mail to all o....nersof property >'lith three hundred (300) feet of the sl.lbject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the ;,," day of S:r f~5~. ~ (which is /5 . ~~ days prior to the public hearing date of 1";;~/oO ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject prope::y (as it coule! be see:;. ! from the ,1 j w I from the nearest public way) ane! that the said sig:;. was posted and visible continuously day of 1/,,- , . 1~9::':-'{."lust be posted for at lea:: te:;. (10) ti.lLl days before the hearing e!ate). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. -.-....... .,. - PUBuc NOTICE "'" SANl>UNEs LP F.STAIlIJsHMENT OJ' em ZONIHGTOR-15. ,__. NO'I1CE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pubUc hearing w8l beheld on 1Uesday, Octobei 17, 2000 at a ~ to .besin.. at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen ~ _..~ and Zoning CCIftlmisslon, Sister CitieS Room. CIty Hall. 130 s.; GaJena St,Aspen to establish the zoning of the Sandun~'~ alter annexation into the City of Aspen. The PfOpertyis commonly known as the Sandune;s LP Parcel. The ~ Is described as Lot I, Seodunes LPLot SpUt. ForfurtherinforlJmlon. contact Fred:iannan- at the ASpenJpIWn. CommUnIty. Development 1leou1Dien~ 130 " Gal..... St, As_CO (970) 92000102, fz'edJ@d.aspen.co.us.;, . , '., '.. .' ,sIBob Blalch.Clwr ASpea PlannJng.anCI':,ZOnlng ConunisSlon Pubtished In The Aspen 1'knes ooSeptember 30 20Illl (75002) , Signed before me this Oflf.6bov \V1TNESS MY HAJ.'ID.~ O~~AL My COmmission expires: \ , .~. eoJ ~~ ~~1~ Notary Public's Signat\lre \ , / / / / / / .~. r-.. City of Aspen Fax To: Jennifer Causing From: Fred Jarman Fax: 925-1181 Pages: 3 including cover Phone= 925-$300 Date: 11/6/00 Re: Sandunes plat info CC, o Urgent o For Review o Please Comment o Please Reply o Please Recycle As promised, here are the City Engineer's comments to be reflected on the plat. Hope this helps; give me a call if you have any questions, 920.5102. Fred .,., ' ~ >>.;!"" t . .,-.., .~ MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Enginee~ Date: October 30, 2000 Re: Sandunes L.P. 1. All lot acreage must be shown within 0.001 acres. 2. There needs to be a symbol indicating found (15710) and set monuments and a description of those symbols in the legend. Currently there are only monument number descriptions on the property corners. 3. There needs to be a note stating that the survey was performed within the past 12 months. 4. There needs to be a vicinity map with a scale of l' = 400'. 5. There needs to be a legal description of the property. 6. There needs to be a designation of all areas that constitute natural hazard areas including but not limited to snowslides, avalanche, mUdslide, rockslide, mine shafts, . stokes, tunnels, and 1 OO-year flood plain. 7. The title policy must be dated within the past 12 months. Currently it is dated July 1999 in the notes. 8. There needs to be a Planning and Zoning Certificate similar to the following: This lot split plat amendment for Sandunes L.P. Lots 1 and 2 was approved by by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission this _day of 2000. Chair, City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 9. The City Council Approval Certificate needs to be revised to include a line at the bottom as follows: attested by City Clerk 0.< ~ ? ~ >> - .! . !~, ~< 10. The Engineering Certificate needs to be revised as follows: This Plat was approved by the City Engineer of the City of Aspen this _ day of ,2000 City Engineer 11. The names of all abutting lots need to be indicated. If the abutting lot is unplatted, then it must be noted as so. In particular is the Berger Property - everything else is correctly noted. 1""\ 1""\ -: County of Pitkin } } } SS. AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 26.304.060(E) State of Colorado I, -:r~~S ~ , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Mwricipal Code in the following 1. .ling of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owner property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as. icated on the attached list, on day of days prior to the public hearing date of 2. By posting a sign in a and visible continuously from the _ day the neares of , 200_, to the _ day of 0_. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. ~. P~I ,'sk~ Alel-,'CA- Signature (Attach photograph here) Signed ber. 200_. by ;= .' 'PliiiC"NOiiCE .RE: SANDlJNFS LP &m8I;.ISHMENTOF em ZQNING'1'O'~~' -"", .,' - NonCE '5 IlEREBV GIVtN that a public hWtng wID be held on Tuesday, October 17. 200Qat a meeting to begin-at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning ComlJli$Slon. Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., ~pen, to establish the zoning of the Sandunes Property after annexation Into the City of Aspen. The property Is cOmmonly known as the' Sandunes LPParceL The property Is described as Lot I, Sandunes lP Lot SpIlt. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the AspenjPttldn' CommUnity' Development Departnlent,l30 S. Galena 51., Aspen, ,CO (970) 920-5102. fiedjOcl.aspen.co.US. _Blalch.CIlalr ....... PIannIng....'i.Onto. e_ PubHshedln1'heMpenThnel onSeptem6er 30, 2000. (75082l . WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: Notary Public