HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.RZ.39100 Hwy 82.A51-972735-112-01-018 A51-97
Pomegranate Rezoning
=El
ffW14-2,
An
CA#OAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY WPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 6/23/97
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID # 2735-112-01-018
CASE # A51-97
STAFF: Chris Bendon
PROJECT NAME: Pomegranate Rezoning
Project Address: Pomegranate Condominiums & Highway 82
APPLICANT: Pomegranate Condominium Association
Address/Phone: 1925 Century Park E, STE 1900 LA, Cal. 90067
OWNER: same
Address/Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE: Joseph E. Edwards, III - Hill, Edwards, Edwards & Adkison, LLC
Address/Phone: 502 Main St., Suite 201 Carbondale, CO 81623
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address:
FEES DUE
FEES RECEIVED
PLANNING
$0
PLANNING
$
# APPS RECEIVED
ENGINEER
$0
ENGINEER
$
# PLATS RECEIVED
HOUSING
$0
HOUSING
$
GIS DISK RECEIVED:
ENV HEALTH
$0
ENV HEALTH
$
CLERK
$
CLERK
$
TYPE OF APPLICATION
TOTAL
$
TOTAL RCVD
$
Two Step
❑ City Attorney
❑ City Engineer (DRC)
❑ Zoning
❑ Housing
❑ Environmental Health
❑ Parks
DATE REFERRED:
❑ Aspen Fire Marshal
❑ City Water
❑ City Electric
❑ Clean Air Board
❑ Open Space Board
❑ Other:
INITIALS:
❑ CDOT
❑ ACSD
❑ Holy Cross Electric
❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
❑ Aspen School District
❑ Other:
DATE DUE:
APPROVAL: Ordinance/ fj% # �$ o� a�' Dater c6.
Staff Approval Date:
Plat Recorded:- G ook Page
CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS:
ROUTE TO: 01
syrg6 (Oa4oa
hP l 3 U 1U�IU
Arch, ;
ii vr- �PP 1i=N7
March 30, 2000
Jon Hedrich
c/o Coates, Reid, and Waldron Property Management
720 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Shared Access with Pomegranate and Aspen Country Inn
Dear Jon,
so
THE CITY OF ASPEN
As the attached letters indicate, efforts have been made by the City of Aspen
to have the orange construction webbing near the Pomegranate and
Aspen Country Inn replaced with something more appropriate.
Please advise Sarah Oates (920-5441) or me (920-5108) as to what steps,
if any, are being taken to bring this situation into meaningful compliance.
Thanks.
Si
7l
4
David Hoefer
Assistant City Attorney
cc. Sarah Oates
Joseph Edwards III
1 TY(
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - PHONE 970.920.5000 - FAx 970.922.5197
P—ted on Recycled papa -
September 17, 1999
ASPEN • PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CERTIFIED MAIL
Jon P. Hedrich
c/o Coates, Reid and Waldron Property Management
720 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO.81611
Dear Mr. Hedrich:
When the Pomegranate Condominiums received approval for garages one of the
conditions was that the residents use a shared driveway with the Aspen Country Inn.
Now that the Country Inn is complete and the units have received their Certificates of
Occupancy, the inability to access the shared entrance is no longer an issue.
The City asks that the Pomegranate homeowners, residents and guests comply with the
condition of approval and use the shared access only. Further, -the homeowners'
association must submit a plan to the Community Development Department that
demonstrates the access closest to the Maroon Creek Bridge will be used for emergency
access only. Please submit this plan to Chris Bendon or me by no later -than September
30; 1999. Feel free to call me at 920-5441 with any questions.
Regards,
Sarah Oates, Zo-n'hig Officer
City of Aspen
cc: Joseph Edwards III
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Chris Bendon, Senior Planner
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.5439
PnntM on Recycled Paper
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) AGREEMENT FOR THE
POMEGRANATE CONDOMINIUMS AND ASSOCIATED LANDS, 39100
HIGHWAY 82, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
This agreement, entered into this 8th day of December, 1997, by and between the City of
Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation (the City), and the Pomegranate
Condominium Association, Incorporated, (the Association) shall bind the certain real
property (the Property) as described in Exhibit A of this agreement.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, The Association submitted an application to the City for the rezoning
from Park -Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) and for
conceptual and final approval for a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay for a 1.92 tract
of land, generally described as the land between the Pomegranate Condominiums and State
Highway 82, located at 39100 Highway 82 and more accurately described in Exhibit A of
this agreement; and,
WHEREAS, after considering the application pursuant to all applicable Sections of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, the Property has been zoned RMF-SPA pursuant
to Ordinance No. 38, series of 1997; and,
WHEREAS, the requirements of Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen require execution and recordation of a Final Plat and a written SPA Agreement
between the City and the Association binding the Property to said documents; and,
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve execute and accept for recordation the
Final Plat and SPA Agreement upon agreement of the Association and their successors and
assigns to the matters hereinafter described, subject to the representations made in the
application and during public hearings conducted by the City, the conditions of approval as
described in Ordinance 38, series of 1997, terms and conditions of the City of Aspen RMF-
SPA regulations as now in effect and such other laws, rules, and regulations as are or may
become applicable; and,
WHEREAS, under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, the City
is entitled to assurances that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be recognized in good
faith by the Association and their successors and assigns, and the Association is willing to
enter into such agreements with, and provide such assurances to, the City.
NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1. General.
It is hereby recognized that this Agreement and Final Plat heretofore executed and recorded
burdens the certain real property, as described in Exhibit A, in the following manner:
I 1111111111111111111111111 HIM 111111111111111
427521 02/08/1999 03:46P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI
1 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
'Dimensional Requirements are as Fo
Minimum Percent open space:
Minimum distance between buildings:
Maximum height:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Minimum lot width:
Minimum lot area:
Trash access area:
Internal floor area:
Number of off-street parking spaces:
ows:
35 percent.
10 feet.
28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure.
100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way.
10 feet.
10 feet each.
375 feet.
As represented on final plat.
Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed.
Existing.
Minimum 1 per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit.
B. es:
Uses on the portion of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be limited to
those permitted in the Residential Multi -Family Zone District as specified in
the Aspen Municipal Code, as amended. Uses within the front yard, the area
within 100 feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way, shall be limited to those
represented on this final plat. Density on this parcel, regardless of
jurisdiction, shall be 18 residential units unless otherwise approved pursuant
to all applicable Sections of the jurisdiction's Land Use regulations, as
amended.
C. Amendments: .
Any amendment of this SPA shall be considered pursuant to all applicable
Sections of the Municipal Code, as amended, including Section 26.80.040, as
amended. In addition to the qualifying requirements for an insubstantial
amendment found in Section 26.80.040(E)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the following shall be considered: An increase by greater than one (1) percent
in the overall coverage of structures on the land shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the
approved open space shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An
increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of
the development shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An
increase in residential floor area greater than one (1) percent shall not be
considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase in garage floor area
greater than one (1) percent shall not be considered an insubstantial
amendment. Any garage floor area converted to any other use shall not be
considered an insubstantial amendment. Any structure(s) proposed within
one -hundred (100) feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way shall not be
considered an insubstantial amendment.
I 111111111111111111111 IN IIIIIIII IN IIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111
427521 02/08/1999 03:46P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI
2 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
0
2. Affirmation of Terms.
The terms and provisions of this Agreement and Final Plat are hereby confirmed by the City
and the Association.
3. Miscellaneous,
A. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon, and insure to the benefit of, the City and
the Association to their respective successors, grantees, and assigns.
B. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Colorado.
C. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Agreement, or
application thereof, 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.
D. This Agreement and the Final Plat may be altered or amended from time to time only by
written instruments executed by all the parties hereto.
E. Notices to be given to the parties to this Agreement shall be considered to be given
when delivered or deposited in the United States Mail to the parties by registered or
certified mail, at the addresses indicated below or such other address as may be
substituted upon written notification of the parties or their successors, grantees, or
assigns:
City of Aspen
City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Pomegranate Condominium Association, Incorporated
c/o Coates Reid and Waldron Property Management
720 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
F. The terms, provisions, conditions, and obligations, contained herein shall be deemed to
be covenants and burden the real property owned by the Association, any and all owners
thereof, their successors, grantees, and assigns and further shall insure to the benefit of,
specifically by or against, the parties hereto, their successors, grantees, or assigns.
I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIII IIIIII I'll IIIIIII III IIIII IIII IIII
427321 02/08/1999 03:46P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI
3 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
•
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals on the date
and year set forth above.
CITY OF ASPEN
By: .)—
JohrYBennett., Mayor
POMEGRANATE
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION,
INCORPORATED
By:
n P. Hedrich, President
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By:
City Clerk Notary Public,,,,
4 1 1-?aA-
C,AI-1, d-►Jf/ep Co. 6
�L
IIIIII III1I 1111111111 IIIIII 1111 IIIIIII 1111111111111111
427521 02/08/1999 03:46P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI
4 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
MAROON CREEK CLUB, LLC LANDS TRANSFERRED TO POMEGRANATE
A tract of land situated in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, also being within the Maroon Creek Club Subdivision, Pitkin County.
Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears S 29017'00" W 9.71 feet
and N 64014'44" W 2353.33 feet: thence N 48024' 11 " W 64.96 feet; thence N 11056'54" W
149.77 feet; thence N 30106'33" E 195.92 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of State
Highway 82, also being the boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 60°48'00"
E 375.70 feet along said subdivision boundary; thence leaving said right of way S 18109'00" W
176.89 feet along the easterly boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 18009'00"
W 30.96 feet; thence N 89141 '21 " W 259.10 feet. thence N 48124' 11 " W 30.50 feet to the point
of beginning, containing 2.541 acres more or less;
Excepting therefrom the following described land:
A tract of land located in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears N 641114'44" W 2353.33
feet; thence N 29117'00" E 86.80 feet; thence N 60143'00" W 60.57 feet; thence N 29017'00"
E 72.28 feet; S 60143'00" E 311.07 feet; thence S 18009'00" W 19.30 feet; thence N 89035'00"
W 290.30 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.6192 acres more or less.
pomegran\21egal.01
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 1111
427521 02/08/1999 03:46P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI
5 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
0 0
0 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
Julie Ann Woods, Acting Comm nity Development Directo
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Pomegranante Condominiums Extension of Recordation Period for Final
SPA Plat - Resolution No. CC-6 Series of 1998
DATE: September 28, 1998
SUMMARY:
The Pomegranate Condominiums Homeowners' Association was granted Final Specially
Planned Area (SPA) approval by City Council Ordinance No. 38, Series of 1997. This
Ordinance required the applicant to file a final plat and SPA Agreement within 180 days
of the approval granted December 8, 1997.
For various reasons including coordination of final plats between the Aspen Country Inn,
the Maroon Creek Club, and the Pomegranate, various lot line adjustments which
affected the three properties, and an access easement across the Aspen Country Inn
parcel, this plat was not filed within the required 180 days.
As part of the extension request, staff would like to point out that the eastern -most
vehicular access to Highway 82 which exists today should be vacated, according to the
applicant's development plan, upon final recordation of this plat and upon final
recordation of the access easement across the Aspen Country Inn parcel. This access
will be landscaped in a manner which will still allow emergency vehicular access. To
further emphasize this point, staff has included this vacation as a condition of the filing
extension.
Staff recommends City Council approve Resolution No.d, Series of 1998,
extending the deadline for filing the Final SPA Development Plan and SPA
Agreement to December 8, 1998.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No�, Series of 1998, extending the filing deadline for
the Pomegranate SPA Plat and Agreement to December 8, 1998."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Extension Request Letter
LAW OFFICES
HILL, EDWARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON, L.L.C.
1 N s 1998
CENTENNIAL PLAZA BUILDING
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE 201
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 COMMUNITY DEVELORAVENT
THOMAS C. HILL TELEPHONE
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR., P.C. (970) 963-3900
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III FACSIMILE
THOMAS L. ADKISON (970) 963-3131
August 21, 1998
Chris Bendon
Aspen/Pitkin County
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Pomegranate Condominiums Lot Line Adjustment with Maroon Creek Club
Dear Chris:
As we discussed, I represent the Pomegranate Condominium Association, Inc. This letter is to
request an extension of the time to file the Plat for the Lot Line Adjustment between Pomegrante
Condominiums Association, Inc. and the Maroon Creek Club. There has been no change in
circumstances. There were numerous factors causing the delay including the purchase by the City
of the Aspen Country Inn property.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
HILL, EDWARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON, L.L.C.
Jose E. Edwards, III
pomegranate\ 1 bend.02
0 •
ORDINANCE NO.38
(SERIES OF 1997)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM
PARK -PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P-PUD) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY
(RMF) AND CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL APPROVAL OF A SPECIALLY PLANNED
AREA (SPA) FOR A PARCEL OF LAND AT 39100 HIGHWAY 82, OWNED BY THE
POMEGRANATE CONDOMIPIIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
WHEREAS, The Pomegranate Condominium Homeowners Association (Applicant)
submitted an application (development proposal) to the Planning Office to rezone from Park -
Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) and to approve a
Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) for a 1.92 tract of land, generally described as
the land between the Pomegranate Condominiums and State Highway 82, located at 39100
Highway 82 and more accurately described in Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department reviewed the development proposal in accordance
with all applicable procedures and review criteria set forth in Sections 26.28, 26.52, 26.56, 26.80
and 26.92 of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on October
7, 1997, in accordance with Section 26.52 of the Municipal Code, reviewed the development
proposal in accordance with all applicable procedures and recommended to City Council approval
of the Amendment to the Official Zone District Map and Conceptual and Final approval for a
Specially Planned Area (SPA); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 97-26 is attached to
this City Council Ordinance as Exhibit B; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified in Sections 26.28,
26.52, 26.56, 26.80, and 26.92, of the Municipal Code, considered those recommendations as made
by the Planning Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered
public comment at a public hearing on December 8, 1997; and,
Ordinance No. 38, Series 1997
Page 1
I IIII1I IIIII IIIIII IIIIII IIIII II IIIIIIII III IIIII IIII I"I
414431 03/11/1998 02:54P ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI
1 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
•
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all
applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with
conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council strongly encourages the owners of the Pomegranate
Condominiums to consider annexing into the City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public
health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows:
Section 1
That it does hereby grant an amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the subject parcel, as
described in Exhibit A from Park -Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) to Residential Multi -Family
- Specially Planned Area (RMF-SPA).
The Official Zone District Map for this City of Aspen, Colorado, shall be and is hereby amended to
reflect the amendment as set forth in Section 1 above.
Section 3:
Pursuant to Sections 26.28, 26.52, 26.80, and 26.92, and subject to those conditions of approval as
specified hereinafter, the City Council hereby grants approval for an amendment to the Official
Zone District Map and Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area, with the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garages, the applicant shall complete and
record an SPA agreement with the City in accordance with the requirements of the City Attorney
and a final plat that meets the requirements of the City Engineer.
2. The SPA Agreement and the Final Plat shall contain the following language:
Ordinance No. 32, Series 1997
Page 2
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN
414431 03/11/1998 02:54P ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI
2 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
•
•
Dimensional Requirements are as Follows:
Minimum Percent open space:
Minimum distance between buildings:
Maximum height:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Minimum lot width:
Minimum lot area:
Trash access area:
Internal floor area:
Number of off-street parking spaces
35 percent.
10 feet.
28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure.
100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way.
10 feet.
10 feet each.
375 feet.
As represented on final plat.
Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed.
Existing.
Minimum I per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit.
Uses:
Uses on the portion of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be limited to those permitted
in the Residential Multi -Family Zone District as specified in the Aspen Municipal Code, as
amended. Uses within the front yard, the area within 100 feet of the Highway 82 right-of-
way, shall be limited to those represented on this final plat. Density on this parcel,
regardless of jurisdiction, shall be 18 residential units unless otherwise approved pursuant to
all applicable Sections of the jurisdiction's Land Use regulations, as amended.
Amendments:
Any amendment of this SPA shall be considered pursuant to all applicable Sections of the
Municipal Code, as amended, including Section 26.80.040, as amended. In addition to the
qualifying requirements for an insubstantial amendment found in Section 26.80.040(E)(1) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, the following shall be considered: An increase by greater than
one (1) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the approved open
space shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase by greater than one
(1) percent in the approved residential density of the development shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. An increase in residential floor area greater than one (1) percent
shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase in garage floor area greater
than one (1) percent shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any garage floor
area converted to any other use shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any
structure(s) proposed within one -hundred (100) feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way shall
not be considered an insubstantial amendment.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings
shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
Ordinance No. 32, Series 1997
Page 3
1111111111111111111111111 HE 1111111111111111111111111
414431 03/11/1998 02:54P ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI
3 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
•
•
Section 4•
All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, and or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by other specific conditions.
Section 5:
This Ordinance 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 6:
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.
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 8•
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 8th day of December, 1997 at 5:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within
the City of Aspen.
Ordinance No. 32, Series 1997
Page 4
111111111111 HIM IIIIIIII HE 11111111111111111111111111
414431 03/11/1998 02:54P ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI
4 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 1 Oth day of November, 1997.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
City Attorney
Attu: �
Kathryn S. Woch, City Clerk
John Bennett, Mayor
/S'
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ath day of December, 1997.
Approved as to form:
i
City Attorney
Ayist_; .
�J
Approved as to content:
John- Ben ett, Mayor
Kahryq Sr ch, City Clerk
Attachments: Exhibit A -- Legal description of property
Exhibit B -- Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 97-26
Ordinance No. 32, Series 1997
Page 5
I II'III "III I'I"I IIIIII'I'II II'II'I"I III I'I'I III1111
414431 03/11/1998 02:54P ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI
5 of 3 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
Ao-
mow
qp.
40 ,
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E)
I, ckw , being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on theJday of 199(which is days prior to the public
hearing date of Z . S • FTI.
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from ay
of , 199, to the day of , 199. (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
(Attach photograph here)
Signature
SignS4 before me this%ay of A/'
199 y
C�
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires: —41 / 7 3 1
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: POMERGRANATE REZONING FROM PARK (P) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI-
FAMILY (RMF) AND CONCEPTIAL AND FINAL APPROVAL FOR A SPECIALLY
PLANNED AREA (SPA)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, December 8, 1997
at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City
Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by The Pomegranate
Condominium Association Board of Directors, requesting Conceptual and Final approval for a
Specially Planned Area (SPA) and a Rezoning from Parks (P) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF).
The property is described as a 1.92 acre tract of land situated in Lot 4 of section 11, Township 10
South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado generally described
as the land between the Pomegranate Condominiums and Highway 82. For further information,
contact Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072.
s/John Bennett, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on November 22, 1997
City of Aspen Account
Dazoara L:oore
P.O. Box L11
• Aspen, CO 81612 •
nearzca jou � aereaitn-
1240 Thornapple Ln
Northbrook, IL 60062
Zoline Open Space Parcel
City of aspen
130 S . Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Maroon Creek LLC
10 Club Circle
aspen, CO 81611
3oyd Gail Bronson
7 Pine Valley Lane
Newport Beach, CA 92660-6503
-_=ckson Wendy S. Trust
__:ckson James A
P.O. Box 400
Aspen, CO 81612
Williams Genevieve Lee
299 F=Amore
Denver, CO 80206
Bartholow Ted & Cynthia
3837 Caruth
Dallas, TX 75225
Hartnett George & Marianne
240 Old Farm Road
North=ield, IL 60093
Pomeg-ranate Development Co.
Wallen Kathleen C/0
901 Southridge Terrace
Northfield, IL 60093
Hedrich Virginia E. Trust
1240 Thornapple La
Northbrook, IL. 6006Z
Minnesota Rubber Co.
c/o knn Jacobson
3630 Wooddale Avenue
Y=eapolis , `1N 55416
Wr-_ter Russell Scott & Suzanne Hoag, 3lberta D
P.O. Box 9705 Trustee of Alberta Trust
�.spen, CO 81612 I301 Thomas Pl
Fcr- Wor-h, = 76107
w 1 b•
Tni1__ams Gi=y L
L60 Cher-7 Street
Denver, CO 80220
Gary Barbara Elizabeth
P.O. Box 7877
Aspen, CO 81612-7877
Zoline, Joseph T
900 Stage.Rd
Aspen CO 81611
Pomegranate Homeowners Assoc
720 E. Hyman Ave
Aspen CO 81611
Nicholson John J
Guild Mgmt Corp
9911 W PICO Blvd Path A
Los Angeles CA 90035
Diamond Sara Jean
PO Box 4627
Aspen CO 81612
Walhart Realty Company
Wallen William IV
PO Box 2484
Aspen CO 81612
0
•
Ird
M
�KyA NL„RT� $A;-;m••o'- sy � v`oc �v "�-rW�oo3o
CCCEO
eo
Au O W 3 N N.•, .5 �' N
.� 9�u�a°iu�yV
ulai�5g>o� �g E �•E`,�a' uQ:f' Y`B,Nri��`,BE vZ
rm_u vv�xE� YYm m" E At$ W r�'gN,cgr,.a�
« « N a-<«
c o oto�e
o.a E.
y•pC a S Y `-
NY�nU i7m=.L..ip �L o �--E 'o ffiF-=� o�
YGPa Y� AoEuovoWV �Z `oE n-6• of _viiN $GG
$� m$ ac+t p_ a_mx a -N O o. Yin e Y S Y
9 w C E 5 A E C u+ F m 7 G C N 3 7 �+ G A V o U-
r L Y gg??8
a TA-i-oWGze��AG`�Np� 32
OmSamp�T _;'QOu. �aa+ar5�>d3o
nda c i cc �NaL a.. Av� � BOO c ° o >,� N600
cYa�J v We A:= �z$aEt+ 5�«E Fe,j� L° vvoe5
NL „C >A�OY'SG F"O$F... Tp at-OEOVNyZ`OmE}'�CaCLLS-��
Y~YYAG qqC =Ai�-`oa3�A CrU.7V Q�Y�CCc3 u2�tZ my o°fo$$.5$Y cc
eLu V my a OF �_> Y "' YN; �z U m�iaOUFL--.-°u$'�32ir+aV m u33�out
c A 3 ra 3 at 6'0 o N ,9 a
FF, U 22S q i
m0c=O
yu 1c'°,� (YJ Ny��� u0u
p yCgv Ll py O� WW O
VU
z A¢.oe1�m6FW�. os$
� y p
W�y ZGyUp�
A OC
Z`�µa.atZOri lei
oo0�ue�v�5'�ap
WNOWW7 gzO V ri
<E=a..c.a;;n m� !"z>. o
30 pMpawu,ZZ
yUom�o$Np�<T'O cm �U GZZ< j-��
a Z2.2
=a E am<Og2OZcuar�.aan.0 a:
c°�c°�?5 m'. QO° _ u0u< Ou<0E-aa
C° A
«_00 � �a YYN�Lq�
_° Y 9 A� k y V` �
Y _ATGCL :P $ Z,°ed o- vy Y d� �9$ QQo. 9� uy e0ou T� eY
�gu ax�'o�V Fad <oEc��YE$A�aOUGc'an� qg>'0��c„aGUo
c > Y N c
�t<��iO�uN3ssY.. E�°„u A'Xbc�auo 5 `ryt�juA�c�
°•aA A- d a5� u u T� Y'9Y o Y Y G °�N GoY..aZ Y�
c v e- ` >4 �o.Ym Ny es$r'- Y �Aq � O o - = eYord�YN N�'°6o
oY30000 Y oa_o5W_ Y TtY Y W �'f:i�e
q'�eoEe°�«meoe°Ea"i�mg�u$2>udvam g^T230 «O va mo'Oy��A'ya-v
r�. o G3 EO n- o 0.9 N o
02° E35°0 0� oraY�xEkuceurA�: °e= Ac Y va_ YY` �o
umO° u;y�dwc�v vY acEru-.3� as �Es �'.'3�'°: V
�ek-u o� CCy qo-m� o uua o,�CC $poY,dZ. .yy. No 07 U
y qCJ >� 'OF TL_ Oy�y pyC p OQ�cEZ CSC YCCuYi LCg.-
��0ua7`valtYcnr$�L�t��NY �a_uoCCsvg 5 Y=cc�0CCyym0O/pt��o5o�5myma Y�-E °
C O V d O a G Y N k y C K V O N C t� Y A N
Sy�_9Yv u AS�Y 300 cuAF r3F.N,cAw €io oG o 3ia'�f.-o°x`o^ a o 'omA
QA Fer.3 -5.o YYia u�o`Y Ya ° E Y-„9 niiu A iv_'N G
`ocy�o�yN>�Y5.N5t�5�=YC�3°�$E5a>ym� $uuAvE ugL °LO=�BvWi°Oovwo �:Egv
o` _ -e t
c Ao'�smn3=YNr/ oy v �e`o A_mF 5 °� U;mOcn�pv` O G
mq G3.: Y5 0o u m�FmV Y Yv $ 3 N G,Y�rj� a d e o
'u o.wyV T� NOY; o. m YGl _>ouL u�.al�+ : u Z_Y�+Z •c :! s c-c��c'"
as�c"`c2a�4°=caavE��"Fa
ecorki�eojuN� a =$� YccF gyuagYYOO$e�°
XX
LN A Qo ° o� aZkUg.0 2412 F u`sO. U.QU3 cu8=yC3- dK...A ° M.uO
a3=6.3
5 3 Ai u o 0 3 uaE-
V w • Y
Y
ovoyc oo.d A
E
E
6 7y. Ot y
O
°oWE
m R 2.N71
O
1,0-
o
N/7 a
ZZ Ns o._ Wyyr2$u
Y
05> yuz ut
F 3 c Ea t 5.2
_ Y NT cTr— Gu c v-m YNY y -o g_s�ag� t� vy� `o�g�aaW.0 _22-
o>u>DS-
-
°SNpf �Oz
`w Y t Op
m°U9vcmo.g O pF
O Y_W V rn- E A o d Y k Tr y cv Sd. E
YG„3� 00 Y o°rat °A�n c oTNaT ZE Y
�wc 3G cq uWGY o0ppo� u�N s Q'<o� ppm a�e�—-ems°u nY YO fat
g��Y 5 YE?
W 3 CO1N A O Z C� 61 m N5 Of C O m�V U NM A O N 1 Y Sj m y$ O Y 2 C A Y Yd A 3 E�
,ace E Gm^- ° " z �>e9i0' ° 4 ° aN ° s�v e A .Y'$ .L,.tI$9L =
s_- i E pf-ra Y 9S o eo e o o,v; e c :" o., a �o m n Y'3 0- RR Y r Y G 99g E
F o-- ig: nm e. v N ova°G N o �o cN v e na3
yy w oo •p N E �j ca ^ m.4 Y r g E n y o L° `.�' c Y ou-
ral C N r.� w `> L p v r Cg
5 G u A j^c o $i fl o dam- To A� o o uGY� E y
U Y Eg °_ ra. n Y.. T 9y): yy w C C Y C L 7a A LY g N A p
F c y u s E xFEgo G .. u a e' ^ w$ z'L g e �j ° �' a v 0 "' 'n jrL A o Y a Y t y E-
ooAA A a $^ e. o o ,a $^ ey e Y �'� ogooe;Zx Aa
Z'NN GpH z°' AC�w me E9epu �euo omp uyp Ag O0- AerE�u °C c _°o�ss_9Co uy $QI �Lo
W~ V NiV OA HU O: Z C O Y G O L C C7 C C C P1 N m E .. N p 9� N A
N zZ W LO F
< E=9vi0 Y5a0"WU u X^ i�t Ay aYpc o �d=.yo9$;�°r°Ci ca o u Y`o'$�g ed° .. o �Y N o.e'R aE `d `? `05 e ° °,oa
F 0 3 YN N ZJ H c3 O Y 1 E N CO - 1 Z y O =' 7 L J C Y N T` 1� T U C C 6 _N 7 35 w ° C 5 3 .- - Y -o
'du A `o n c a v'Z E;; ° E Y nLE o ° d w a e c E
-..goo f o< 9- Ym a o Y n w-
y., o Oz �� ° a� r 39•O C }}�� ms� E e `3uLeeW E Y.'
C A Y L YgZZ� u, a Oc9-'F� Y 4Fo °f_ a °�O c= Ym a u^< C Nas `° 3'i '� a do ° 3 E E i
JjO� °�aE<paWp 'ig�5�:« �� v,�o�Y,�z��� �=m�$o�oy��3aE^ o"L°Yo�oLy°°
�Uu TOC uin E uu� ^ n.. JS a u YS•' uC.. �3 o A_ c�'o M. o3s u G u uAg
5 C ° :J < q C Y C Y$• < C V i0 °! y m N yCSm p .. O C O� w N Y mF 'S a a/ �y 53 Y~ C p G y r O T y E O T C< Q
y po �n G 'n q cryr _h
jjj"` � O � G E N J U yy 6 N^ A O C
y L Q A C g O U u V O Y O' Y L A of V "' Y O O b Z C
eYSez �A ` YiEu >>or-m$ E ug+-E u �0 0u9 ' SgY Ec� mu �c"s_y ��° ppeL�l
3c <Z F ° qsy oTu uyo? 'a� i gEc ww3Oras. °> gocc� c �mC
3$ a;v $aka u- u soi oho uL on
o A. $x eu N Eu- c- e d `�� Y '�1a'8 o yoaC mZ
a o .. Y c,.� . n ma ° Y ncSS O> c t O
c W s a ° Aa v o ° o
o u Eg Ei y w^ e9 a^ o.Y c��.° °•$ «'a o` L ?„o mY 0 0,
onsc,n W N �c«o � o•o� Y >, � F-�n �YVfNO``m2 $°,$�> " m �° �� Foyu��- d
uo3AW W y�i o.> w NC(n AG=C, 3 E 04a 1, co" m �9R Y�._ E E Nnvy.. E Zv
Z1' Ac H ;: d e� c c A y'C �.' W
q y� 7 Y _ ,4 9_ C G E U u A A O y C 4
U. O Q O g G s O pp� m Gy C
C9 'YL ah$A NOG UVf CG, �I..' U O
O E oa a :ch V cu A_E `ocG `o- oa ddg'e ra0�°E r nY �JG
Y.. o vmm K
CWN _ o Y c7� s EoL�a
2"N5sgY y.mmo'yau" �LW8iAd-y
a �_Yw.A_U3CT FJNx <LVY�o°
�g;A.;5
$_no=ov•qMI° .c
o�c�ayi 2 2v�m�
Eo2O mvco;
o v Gu OE p .�Yd aLyy
�a0
FgECuMa °Yau ro u� -�°n A w0=uo
0Vc oU-3:
c
yc < mAe -G e� - F.<
e�A e_q> $U 2Ti K q��w�'S Sw�
o f a O ,� S f ,r� o� o A r�TY � �«Y o n n O o0G Y°" _ [� TY cY C LLLV� Y-Cmt>U O O F OU N
Acp�•p 33 i+EY ,5uNY�od'?s� E y 0cowB ' -.`o>>V°°°oo a {�F'i oo.e�f uN OQ V �Q A C.1�^LD YN Y <rLgTm ag a� JE b °c'L'-�'+Evuova a$ `�wSrowa9g�<�=''3 a SuE=9 0ffs�}�vf Q '$ me 5$�q N t 6 g5�} c aV N 1 �3 °7 cuV �g p�t cW�Z N yL
u q°CgYo�ga v�<m jSuL�'E�VgIY �aCYpY2d4?�5 < °O-A��cc3i��',8G N°u `$ cSF pF�Eu
omueNEoq..
sn�$�'tl ��+ 44°g���$ g3bruG' D5 "a uJ3g��e_ouce. $���?o"D E3
<ZNHh� S o� �G'o M�a°�rj cj�YV' Ep u �} Y «V=$G>`'� Sao' °0_a5 �O La
Hu
Y. e n ° o {}(PJCs 7 4 85 wau s° AE3-« ?O� ° G .�' yam'Syr N O E C +-
6$9 uua n° C4 -on y �rt OG {N1OZ g UN -� J Va y�yNL
��Ay' yiM��g; x�p gaOC.Qic° ��g . < auu°
1 4
0.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development irecto4_
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Directo
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Pomegranate 2nd Reading
Rezoning to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) (public hearing)
Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) (public hearing)
DATE: December 8, 1997
SUMMARY:
The Pomegranate Homeowners Association is requesting to rezone their parcel from Park
(P) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) and Conceptual and Final approval for a Specially
Planned Area (SPA) overlay. This rezoning will accommodate an approval granted by
Pitkin County prior to annexation while the SPA overlay maintains the intent of the
scenic overlay, describes the current dimensions and uses on the parcel, and establishes a
procedure for future amendments.
SPA approval is generally a four -step process unless specifically consolidated to two.
The Planning Department feels that a four -step process would be redundant and would
serve no significant public purpose and recommends a consolidated review.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this rezoning to RMF and the
consolidated Conceptual and Final SPA on October 7, 1997, and recommended approval
(minutes are attached). The RMF Zone District is the most appropriate for this parcel.
The SPA will specify the current level of development, restrict development closer to the
highway, and establish a process for future amendments.
The Pomegranate parcel is partially in the City and partially in the County. The portion
in the County contains the residential building and the City's portion contains the new
garages, driveway, and associated landscape improvements. Should the County's portion
ever be annexed into the City, it would most likely be zoned RMF-SPA.
Staff recommends City Council rezone this property to Residential Multi -Family
(RMF) and approve the Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area (SPA)
Overlay.
APPLICANT:
Pomegranate Homeowners Association.
LOCATION:
39100 Highway 82.
14
ZONING:
Park (P). The applicant is requesting a zone change for the parcel to Residential Multi -
Family (RMF) with an Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay
LOT SIZE:
Total lot size = 2.54 acres = 110,712 square feet.
Within City of Aspen = 1.92 acres = 83,739 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
1.92 acres = 83,739 square feet.
FAR:
The SPA Agreement will establish the Allowable Floor Area for the parcel as existing
and will establish a process for amending the SPA.
CURRENT LAND USE:
18 Multi -Family Residential units with 18 garages and common accessory uses. The
parcel is split between City and County jurisdictions. The portion in the county contains
the residential building. The portion in the City contains the garage structure.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Same.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Council considered a request to rezone a portion of this parcel to RMF on August 25
and asked staff to consider other planning techniques to limit the future development
potential of the property The Planning and Zoning Commission considered rezoning the
entire parcel to RMF with an SPA overlay and recommended approval on October 7,
1997.
BACKGROUND:
In 1995, the applicant gained approval from Pitkin County for a major plat amendment,
to acquire the property where the garages were proposed, and approval of a rezoning from
AFR-2 to AR-2 to allow the proposed garages. The rezoning was contingent upon the
filing of an amended plat, which never occurred. Pitkin County also granted approval of
a scenic review. This review limits development along Highway 82.
This AR-2 Zone District allows a substantial amount of development including such uses
similar to those in the RMF Zone District, but also including more commercial uses such
as restaurants, professional offices, and entertainment establishments.
With the development of the Maroon Creek Subdivision, the property was annexed into
the City and rezoned (to reflect the existing County zoning of AFR-2) to Park (P), which
does not allow garages. The applicant has since submitted an amended plat for review.
Because the City does not have an AR-2 zone district, the property must be rezoned to the
district most compatible with the County's AR-2, which also allows garages. Staff
believes this district to be Residential Multi -Family (RMF).
2
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered rezoning to RMF this parcel July 15,
1997, and a recommendation of denial was carried forward to City Council. Specifically,
the Commission's concerns were centered around the increased build -out potential with
the rezoning, development potential within ten feet of the Highway 82 R.O.W., their
desire to annex the Pomegranate Condominiums, and site plan considerations.
With these concerns in mind, Staff recommended City Council rezone to RMF only a
portion of the subject parcel, leaving the area within 120 feet of the Highway 82 corridor
zoned Park (P). In Staff s estimation, this would enable the desired garages to be built
while preserving the intent of the scenic overlay approved by the County. Further
development would be limited by the normal processes of subdivision and growth
management.
City Council felt that this rezoning should not follow the County approvals so closely,
but should rather allow the garages while disallowing any further development. Also,
Council was concerned about the Planning and Zoning Commission not having the
opportunity to review the amended recommendation put forward by Staff.
Considering the comments from both the P&Z and Council, Staff is now suggesting
rezoning the entire parcel to RMF with an SPA overlay. The RMF Zone District is still
the most appropriate for the parcel. The SPA overlay maintains the intent of the
County's scenic overlay, describes the current uses and dimensions on the parcel, and
establishes a procedure for future amendments.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this proposed rezoning to RMF with the
consolidated SPA and recommends approval with the amended conditions suggested by
the Planning Department. Minutes of the October 7, 1997, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing have been attached.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Rezoning. Upon considering recommendations from the Planning Director and from the
Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council shall review and approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application at a public hearing.
Consolidated SPA. Upon considering recommendations from the Planning Director and
from the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council shall review and approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the application at a public hearing. In the alternative,
City Council may opt to review only the Conceptual SPA and require a full four step
review.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no discernible public costs associated with this rezoning.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Comments are included as Exhibit "A." The application is
included as Exhibit `B." A copy of the October 7, 1997, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing minutes has been include as Exhibit "C."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approve the Amendment to the Official Zone District
Map, with the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garages, the applicant shall complete and
record an SPA agreement with the City in accordance with the requirements of the City Attorney and
a final plat that meets the requirements of the City Engineer.
2. The SPA Agreement and the Final Plat shall contain the following language:
Dimensional Requirements are as Follows:
Minimum Percent open space:
Minimum distance between buildings:
Maximum height:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Minimum lot width:
Minimum lot area:
Trash access area:
Internal floor area:
Number of off-street parking spaces:
35 percent.
10 feet.
28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure.
100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way.
10 feet.
10 feet each.
375 feet.
As represented on final plat.
Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed.
Existing.
Minimum I per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit.
Uses:
Uses on the portion of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be limited to those permitted
in the Residential Multi -Family Zone District as specified in the Aspen Municipal Code, as
amended. Uses within the front yard, the area within 100 feet of the Highway 82 right-of-
way, shall be limited to those represented on this final plat. Density on this parcel,
regardless of jurisdiction, shall be 18 residential units unless otherwise approved pursuant to
all applicable Sections of the jurisdiction's Land Use regulations, as amended.
Amendments:
Any amendment of this SPA shall be considered pursuant to all applicable Sections of the
Municipal Code, as amended, including Section 26.80.040, as amended. In addition to the
qualifying requirements for an insubstantial amendment found in Section 26.80.040(E)(1) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, the following shall be considered: An increase by greater than
one (1) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the approved open
space shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase by greater than one
(1) percent in the approved residential density of the development shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. An increase in residential floor area greater than one (1) percent
shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase in garage floor area greater
than one (1) percent shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any garage floor
area converted to any other use shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any
structure(s) proposed within one -hundred (100) feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way shall
not be considered an insubstantial amendment.
4
•
CJ
All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the rezoning and Specially Planned Area for the Pomegranate parcel
with the conditions outlined in Ordinance No. 38, series 1997."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Application
Exhibit C -- October 7, 1997, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing minutes.
W
MAROON CREEK CLUB, LLC LANDS TR- NSFERRED TO POMEGRANATE
A tract of land situated in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, also being within the Maroon Creek Club Subdivision, Pitkin County,
Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears S 29°17'00" W 9.71 feet
and N 64014'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 48°24' 11 " W 64.96 feet; thence N 11 °56'54" W
149.77 feet; thence N 30106'33" E 195.92 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of State
Highwav 82, also being the boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 60148'00"
E 375.70 feet along said subdivision boundary; thence leaving said right of way S 18109'00" W
176.89 feet along the easterly boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 18009'00"
W 30.96 feet; thence N 89141'21" W 259.10 feet; thence N 48'24' 11" W 30.50 feet to the point
of beginning, containing 2.541 acres more or less;
Excepting therefrom the following described land:
A tract of land located in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears N 64114'44" W 2353.33
feet; thence N 29117'00" E 86.80 feet, thence N 60°43'00" W 60.57 feet; thence N 29117'00"
E 72.28 feet; S 60143'00" E 311.07 feet; thence S 18109'00" W 19.30 feet; thence N 89035'00"
W 290.30 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.6192 acres more or less.
pomegram2legal.01
lti6___ 9a.j 17V
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE
OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP FROM PARK -PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (P-PUD) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FA.-vIILY (I VIF) AND
APPROVE A CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA)
FOR A PARCEL OF LAND AT 39100 HIGHWAY 82, OWNED BY THE
POMEGRANATE CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCI.aTION, CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
Resolution #97 -
WHEREAS, The Pomegranate Condominium Homeowners Association
(Applicant) submitted an application (development proposal) to the Planning Office for a
Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) review and to rezone from Park -
Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) to Residential Multi -Family - Specially Planned Area
(RMF-SPA) a 1.92 tract of land, generally described as the land between the Pomegranate
Condominiums and State Highway 82 and more accurately described in Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department reviewed the development proposal in
accordance with all applicable procedure and review criteria set forth in Sections 26.28,
26.52, 26.56, 26.80, and 26.92 of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, because a full four step review might prove to be redundant and serve
no significant public interest, the Planning Director recommended a consolidated
Conceptual and Final SPA review and, in agreement with this recommendation, the
Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Conceptual and Final SPA concurrently;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on
October 7, 1997; in accordance with Section 26.52 of the Municipal Code, reviewed the
development proposal in accordance with all applicable procedures and review and
recommended, by a 7-0 vote, City Council approve the Amendment to the Official Zone
District Map and the Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area with the conditions
recommended by the Community Development Department, as amended during the public
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Aspen City Council should amend the Official Zone District Map from Park (P)
to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) and approve the Conceptual and Final Specially
Planned Area (SPA) Overlay for the Pomegranate parcel, 39100 Highway 82, with the.
following conditions:
I ' i
1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garages, the applicant shall complete
and record an SPA agreement with the City in accordance with the requirements of the City
Attorney and a final plat that meets the requirements of the City Engineer.
2. The SPA Agreement and the Final Plat shall contain the following language:
Dimensional Requirements are as Follows:
Minimum Percent open space: 35 percent.
Minimum distance between buildings: 10 feet.
Maximum height:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Minimum lot width:
Minimum lot area:
Trash access area:
Internal floor area:
Number of off-street parking spaces
28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure.
100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way.
10 feet.
10 feet each.
375 feet.
As represented on final plat.
Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed.
Existing.
Minimum 1 per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit.
Uses:
Uses on the portion of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be limited to those
permitted in the Residential Multi -Family Zone District as specified in the Aspen
Municipal Code, as amended. Uses within the front yard. the area within 100 feet of the
Highway 8-2 right-of-way, shall be limited to those represented on this final plat.
Density on this parcel, regardless of jurisdiction, shall be 18 residential units unless
otherwise approved pursuant to all applicable Sections of the jurisdiction's Land Use
regulations, as amended.
Amendments:
Any amendment of this SPA shall be considered pursuant to all applicable Sections of
the Municipal Code, as amended, including Section 26.80.040, as amended. In addition
to the qualifying requirements for an insubstantial amendment found in Section
26.80.040(E)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the following shall be considered: An
increase by greater than one (1) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land
shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. A reduction by greater than one (1)
percent of the approved open space shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment.
An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the
development shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase in
residential floor area greater than one (1) percent shall not be considered an insubstantial
amendment. An increase in garage floor area greater than one (1) percent shall not be
considered an insubstantial amendment. Any garage floor area converted to any other
use shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any structure(s) proposed
within one -hundred (100) feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 7, 1997.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
lIL
C ft, Attorney
ATTEST:
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Sara Garton, Chair
•
•
EXHIBIT A
Staff Comments: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this title or an 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 title.
Staff Finding;
The proposed zone district would permit the development of the approved garages and
would not create any non -conformities.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
The proposed zone change would not be in conflict with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding;
The surrounding land uses are multi -family residential. Because the Pomegranate
Condominiums are in Pitkin County, the zoning for the parcel is divided by the
jurisdictional boundary. If the Pomegranate Condominiums were ever annexed, the most
appropriate zoning would be RMF.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding_
The amendment will not affect traffic generation or road safety. The entrance to the
Pomegranate Condominiums is being combined with the new entrance to the Aspen
Country Inn. Combining these entrances will improve road safety.
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 facilities, including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding;
The amendment would allow greater development on the site than what is proposed. This
potential future development, however, would have to address the capacity of public
facilities.
0
•
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
This is primarily a developed area. The property has been used for surface parking in
relation to the condominium building. The applicant is proposing several landscape
improvements along with the garages. The zoning change will not significantly affect the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
While in Pitkin County, the garages and zone change were approved but a plat was never
recorded. Now that the area has been annexed into the City, an amended plat has been
proposed for the construction of the approved garages. The zone change will allow the
garages to be a permitted use. The area within 120 feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way
shall remain zoned Park (P). This will preserve the intent of the Scenic Overlay.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding
The property would have been automatically rezoned to AR-2 upon the recordation of the
amended plat if it were still in Pitkin County. The AR-2 zone change would have
allowed the proposed development of garages. This RMF zone district is the most
compatible with the proposed use and the surrounding land uses.
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
This zone change is not in conflict with the public interest.
Sara Garton, Chair, called the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning meeting to order
at 4:35 with Bob Blaich, Steve Buettow, Marta Chaikovska, Roger Hunt and Tim
Mooney present. Dave Johnston and Jasmine Tygre arrived late. Other Staff
present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, Chris Bendon, Stan Clauson,
Bob Nevins and Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Department.
COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS
Sara Garton asked Planning about the Aspen Meadows debriefing meeting. Stan
Clauson replied that the meeting has not yet occurred but he will schedule it.
Garton inquired about future P&Z meetings. Julie Ann Woods answered the
10/21/97 has a stream margin scheduled, but no public hearings.
Woods followed -up on the security signs in the right-of-way in the west end with
Sara Thomas, city zoning officer. Woods said that zoning has given the security
companies until the end of the month to comply.
Woods said the bronze sculptures around town were allowed in the 25% open
space according to the definition. She noted that solid wood 6' fences were
allowed to the property line in the R-6 zone district. Woods commented that only
on historic property were fences limited to 42" in height. Clauson said that site
specific instances could be reviewed. Roger Hunt questioned hedges serving as a
fence coming under the fence regulation. Clauson answered that landscaping was
not currently under the fence guidelines. Hunt asked if solid hedges over 6' could
be included in the definition. Garton noted that the hedge doesn't provide a street
friendly presence. Marta Chaikovska said there should be re -defined language.
Chris Bendon explained those were part of the Ordinance 30 revisions. He noted
the development level of vegetation as a fence would be a difficult definition.
Bendon gave recognition to Jackie Lothian for being patient with the staff on
memos, working late and the minutes on the 918 South Mill Street. Garton
expressed the timely minutes and Blaich said the minutes were very clear.
Blaich inquired (again) about the vans and also bigger (bus -like) vehicles parked
around the park in the west end. Clauson recalled that their permits would be
reviewed at the end of the year. Chaikovska brought up the safety issue of not
being able to see around them at the corners and asked if commercial vehicles
were allowed to park in a residential neighborhood. David Hoefer suggested that
Tim Ware and Randy Ready be contacted regarding the P&Z parking regulations
questions and to send a recommendation. He noted that a business located in the
residential zone district had the right to park in that neighborhood. Blaich asked
why the Institute lot couldn't be used in the winter for parking of these kinds of
vehicles. Garton inquired about the former Ritz parking garage during the off-
seasons. Hunt noted a potential problem with the heights of the vehicles.
MINUTES
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes from the August
19, 1997 and September 16, 1997 meetings. Bob Blaich second.
APPROVED 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
'
Sara Garton asked for proof of notice. David Hoefer said the notice was legally
sufficient and indicated mailing to property owners adjacent and within 300'.
Stan Clauson reiterated that when the city accepted the annexation, an agreement
was made to also accept all county land use approvals. He said the city agreed to
process all permits for the garage project and apologized for any confusion.
Clauson stated a zoning district needed to be constructed for the garages and
possible annexation of the condominiums. He said a building permit was issued
for the garages with conditions of a suitable zone district in place prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Garton asked about the contingency of
filing an amended plat with the county. Clauson said that when the city took over
the jurisdiction of the Pearce Property, the garage future site was not yet deeded
and was not yet rezoned.
Chris Bendon apologized for not disclosing that fact that city council had an
obligation prior to the first planning and zoning commission review. He said the
RMF/SPA would be the most appropriate zone district for this parcel. This will
preserve the intent of the scenic overlay. He continued it will define the uses,
specifying dimensional requirements and a process for amendments. He said that
staff could review a minor plat amendment but P&Z would review any substantial
amendments. Bendon noted that the condominium building footprint was in the
county and the garage site was annexed into the city. He said they cannot force
annexation. Garton asked if it would not be proper to deny this application
because of the two jurisdictions. Clauson replied that was correct.
2
Roger Hunt was concerned and felt the SPA was the best way to control the
project. He asked if there was any way to get the entire property under one
jurisdiction. He inquired as to the existing FAR. Bendon said there was only a
guesstimate on the FAR, with IS units and an average of 1500 square feet each.
He said that with SPA amendments, the condominium owners would need to
provide the information. Hunt questioned the hill and if it would be moved.
Bendon said the hill was on the Country Inn parcel and indicated berms on the site
plan. Garton asked that the minutes be included in the Council packet.
Hunt wanted to let it be known that this SPA would be a temporary fix on this
piece of property and could be relieved when the property is under one
jurisdiction. Bendon said that just leaves the RN1F zone district with more
development potential. He said that triangle parcel could be added as an
amendment to the SPA. Hoefer did not feel the language would be acceptable, but
rather the minutes should reflect the feeling of the board.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend approval to City Council
of rezoning the Pomegranate parcel from Park (P) to Residential Multi -
Family (RMP) and conceptual and final SPA overlay with conditions 1-
3 of the Community Development Memo dated October 7, 1997 with the
change of any reference of 3% to 1% and anv conversion of garage
floor area to any other use shall not be considered insubstantial. 1. Prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garages, the applicant shall complete
and record an SPA agreement with the City in accordance with the requirements of
the City Attorney and a final plat that meets the requirements of the City Engineer.
2. The SPA Agreement and the Final Plat shall contain the following language:
Dimensional Requirements are as Follows:
Minimum Percent open space: 35 percent.
Minimum distance between buildings: 10 feet.
Maximum height: 28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure.
Minimum front yard: 100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way.
Minimum rear yard: 10 feet.
Minimum side yards: 10 feet each.
Minimum lot width: 375 feet.
Minimum lot area: As represented on final plat.
Trash access area: Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed.
Internal floor area: Existing.
Number of off-street parking spaces: Minimum 1 per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit.
Uses: Uses on the portion of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be limited
to those permitted in the Residential Nlulti-Family Zone District as specified in the
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development irectdr
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Directo
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Pomegranate 1st Reading
Rezoning to Residential Multi -Family (RMF)
Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area (SPA)
DATE: November 10, 1997
SUMMARY:
The Pomegranate Homeowners Association is requesting to rezone their parcel from Park
(P) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) and Conceptual and Final approval for a Specially
Planned Area (SPA) overlay. This rezoning will accommodate an approval granted by
Pitkin County prior to annexation while the SPA overlay maintains the intent of the
scenic overlay, describes the current dimensions and uses on the parcel, and establishes a
procedure for future amendments.
SPA approval is generally a four -step process unless specifically consolidated to two.
The Planning Department feels that a four -step process would be redundant and would
serve no significant public purpose and recommends a consolidated review.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this rezoning to RMF and the
consolidated Conceptual and Final SPA on October 7, 1997, and recommended approval
(minutes are attached). The RMF Zone District is the most appropriate for this parcel.
The SPA will specify the current level of development, restrict development closer to the
highway, and establish a process for future amendments.
The Pomegranate parcel is partially in the City and partially in the County. The portion
in the County contains the residential building and the City's portion contains the new
garages, driveway, and associated landscape improvements. Should the County's portion
ever be annexed into the City, it would most likely be zoned RMF-SPA.
Staff recommends City Council rezone this property to Residential Multi -Family
(RMF) and approve the Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area (SPA)
Overlay.
APPLICANT:
Pomegranate Homeowners Association.
LOCATION:
39100 Highway 82.
ZONING:
Park (P). The applicant is requesting a zone change for the parcel to Residential Multi -
Family (RMF) with an Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay
LOT SIZE:
Total lot size = 2.54 acres = 110,712 square feet.
Within City of Aspen = 1.92 acres = 83,739 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
1.92 acres = 83,739 square feet.
FAR:
The SPA Agreement will establish the Allowable Floor Area for the parcel as existing
and will establish a process for amending the SPA.
CURRENT LAND USE:
18 Multi -Family Residential units with 18 garages and common accessory uses. The
parcel is split between City and County jurisdictions. The portion in the county contains
the residential building. The portion in the City contains the garage structure.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Same.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Council considered a request to rezone a portion of this parcel to RMF on August 25
and asked staff to consider other planning techniques'to limit the future development
potential of the property The Planning and Zoning Commission considered rezoning the
entire parcel to RMF with an SPA overlay and recommended approval on October 7,
1997.
BACKGROUND:
In 1995, the applicant gained approval from Pitkin County for a major plat amendment,
to acquire the property where the garages were proposed, and approval of a rezoning from
AFR-2 to AR-2 to allow the proposed garages. The rezoning was contingent upon the
filing of an amended plat, which never occurred. Pitkin County also granted approval of
a scenic review. This review limits development along Highway 82.
This AR-2 Zone District allows a substantial amount of development including such uses
similar to those in the RMF Zone District, but also including more commercial uses such
as restaurants, professional offices, and entertainment establishments.
With the development of the Maroon Creek Subdivision, the property was annexed into
the City and rezoned (to reflect the existing County zoning of AFR-2) to Park (P), which
does not allow garages. The applicant has since submitted an amended plat for review.
Because the City does not have an AR-2 zone district, the property must be rezoned to the
district most compatible with the County's AR-2, which also allows garages. Staff
believes this district to be Residential Multi -Family (RMF).
2
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered rezoning to RMF this parcel July 15,
1997, and a recommendation of denial was carried forward to City Council. Specifically,
the Commission's concerns were centered around the increased build -out potential with
the rezoning, development potential within ten feet of the Highway 82 R.O.W., their
desire to annex the Pomegranate Condominiums, and site plan considerations.
With these concerns in mind, Staff recommended City Council rezone to RMF only a
portion of the subject parcel, leaving the area within 120 feet of the Highway 82 corridor
zoned Park (P). In Staff s estimation, this would enable the desired garages to be built
while preserving the intent of the scenic overlay approved by the County. Further
development would be limited by the normal processes of subdivision and growth
management.
City Council felt that this rezoning should not follow the County approvals so closely,
but should rather allow the garages while disallowing any further development. Also,
Council was concerned about the Planning and Zoning Commission not having the
opportunity to review the amended recommendation put forward by Staff.
Considering the comments from both the P&Z and Council, Staff is now suggesting
rezoning the entire parcel to RMF with an SPA overlay. The RMF Zone District is still
the most appropriate for the parcel. The SPA overlay maintains the intent of the
County's scenic overlay, describes the current uses and dimensions on the parcel, and
establishes a procedure for future amendments.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this proposed rezoning to RMF with the
consolidated SPA and recommends approval with the amended conditions suggested by
the Planning Department. Minutes of the October 7, 1997, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing have been attached.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Rezoning. Upon considering recommendations from the Planning Director and from the
Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council shall review and approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application at a public hearing.
Consolidated SPA. Upon considering recommendations from the Planning Director and
from the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council shall review and approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the application at a public hearing. In the alternative,
City Council may opt to review only the Conceptual SPA and require a full four step
review.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no discernible public costs associated with this rezoning.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Comments are included as Exhibit "A." The application is
included as Exhibit "B." A copy of the October 7, 1997, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing minutes has been include as Exhibit "C."
•
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approve the Amendment to the Official Zone District
Map, with the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garages, the applicant shall complete and
record an SPA agreement with the City in accordance with the requirements of the City Attorney and
a final plat that meets the requirements of the City Engineer.
2. The SPA Agreement and the Final Plat shall contain the following language:
Dimensional Requirements are as Follows:
Minimum Percent open space:
Minimum distance between buildings:
Maximum height:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Minimum lot width:
Minimum lot area:
Trash access area:
Internal floor area:
Number of off-street parking spaces:
35 percent.
10 feet.
28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure.
100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way.
10 feet.
10 feet each.
375 feet.
As represented on final plat.
Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed.
Existing.
Minimum 1 per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit.
Uses:
Uses on the portion of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be limited to those permitted
in the Residential Multi -Family Zone District as specified in the Aspen Municipal Code, as
amended. Uses within the front yard, the area within 100 feet of the Highway 82 right-of-
way, shall be limited to those represented on this final plat. Density on this parcel,
regardless of jurisdiction, shall be 18 residential units unless otherwise approved pursuant to
all applicable Sections of the jurisdiction's Land Use regulations, as amended.
Amendments:
Any amendment of this SPA shall be considered pursuant to all applicable Sections of the
Municipal Code, as amended, including Section 26.80.040, as amended. In addition to the
qualifying requirements for an insubstantial amendment found in Section 26.80.040(E)(1) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, the following shall be considered: An increase by greater than
one (1) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the approved open
space shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase by greater than one
(1) percent in the approved residential density of the development shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. An increase in residential floor area greater than one (1) percent
shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase in garage floor area greater
than one (1) percent shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any garage floor
area converted to any other use shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any
structure(s) proposed within one -hundred (100) feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way shall
not be considered an insubstantial amendment.
4
0 •
All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 0 upon first reading."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Application
Exhibit C -- October 7, 1997, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing minutes.
5
Exhibit A
STAFF COMMENTS: Specially Planned Area
Section 26.80.040, Standards Applicable to Specially Planned Areas
Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Staff Finding:
This SPA is compatible with adjacent development. To the immediate west exists the
Aspen Country Inn Affordable Housing Project. This development is essentially
identical in land use to the subject parcel. Density for the subject parcel is lower, 18
units, compared with the Aspen Country Inn, 40 units. Height, bulk, architecture are
similar. The landscape plans are similar in approach with more mature trees existing on
the Pomegranate parcel. Open space for the subject parcel is compatible with the
surrounding development.
Staff suggests including the following set of existing conditions on the final plat and in
the SPA agreement:
Dimensional Requirements are as Follows:
Minimum Percent open space: 35 percent.
Minimum distance between buildings: 10 feet.
Maximum height:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Minimum lot width:
Minimum lot area:
Trash access area:
Internal floor area:
Number of off-street parking spaces:
28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure.
100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way.
10 feet.
10 feet each.
375 feet.
As represented on final plat.
Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed.
Existing.
Minimum 1 per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit.
Uses:
Uses on the portion of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be limited to those
permitted in the Residential Multi -Family Zone District as specified in the Aspen
Municipal Code, as amended. Uses within the front yard, the area within 100 feet of the
Highway 82 right-of-way, shall be limited to those represented on this final plat.
Density on this parcel, regardless of jurisdiction, shall be 18 residential units unless
otherwise approved pursuant to all applicable Sections of the jurisdiction's Land Use
regulations, as amended.
Amendments:
Any amendment of this SPA shall be considered pursuant to all applicable Sections of
the Municipal Code, as amended, including Section 26.80.040, as amended. In addition
to the qualifying requirements for an insubstantial amendment found in Section
26.80.040(E)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the following shall be considered: An
increase by greater than one (1) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land
shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. A reduction by greater than one (1)
percent of the approved open space shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment.
An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the
development shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase in
residential floor area greater than one (1) percent shall not be considered an insubstantial
amendment. An increase in garage floor area greater than one (1) percent shall not be
considered an insubstantial amendment. Any garage floor area converted to any other
use shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any structure(s) proposed
within one -hundred (100) feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
Staff Finding
There are sufficient public facilities to service the proposed development. The rezoning,
SPA overlay, or the development of the garages does not affect public facilities such as
water, schools, etc. The access to the Pomegranate and the Aspen Country Inn are
proposed to be combined. Both properties incorporate an easement for a future bike path.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud
flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Staff Finding:
This parcel is relatively flat and not in a known environmentally hazardous area.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and
provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and
the public at large.
Staff Finding:
The site plan for the garages went through a scenic review with Pitkin County. This
review process is generally more restrictive than Aspen's code would provide. Although
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may have approached this site plan with a
different philosophy, the City of Aspen is obligated, through the annexation agreement
for the Maroon Creek Club, to honor those approvals granted by Pitkin County prior to
annexation.
2
There exists an easement across the parcel for a future bike path. There are no significant
environmental impacts to be mitigated. There were no areas required to be dedicated to
open space as part of the County approval.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
The AACP does not specifically address garage development. The parcel, however,
includes a multi -family building for which the garages are accessory.
The Pomegranate Condominiums and the Aspen Country Inn are essentially identical
land use -wise. Both have similar site plans and architecture, are in the "Entrance to
Aspen" corridor, located adjacent to a private golf course, clearly outside of walking
distance to town but along a proposed bicycle path. The proposed use is compatible with
adjacent uses.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding
neighborhood.
Staff Finding:
The proposed development will not require the expenditure of public funds. The
easement for the bike path already exists. No other public funds are expected to be
needed.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet
the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
Staff Finding
There are no significant slopes on the subject parcel.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Staff Finding;
The proposed development does not require growth management allotments.
Staff Comments: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map
3
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this title or an 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 title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed zone district in combination with the SPA would permit the development
of the approved garages and would not create any non -conformities.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The proposed zone change would not be in conflict with the AACP. Please refer to SPA
criteria #5, above.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding:
The surrounding land uses are multi -family residential. Because the Pomegranate
Condominiums are in Pitkin County, the zoning for the parcel is divided by the
jurisdictional boundary. If the Pomegranate Condominiums were ever annexed, the most
appropriate zoning would be RMF. The SPA overlay will preserve the intent of the
Scenic Overlay approved by the County.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
The amendment will not affect traffic generation or road safety. The entrance to the
Pomegranate Condominiums is being combined with the new entrance to the Aspen
Country Inn. Combining these entrances will improve road safety.
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 facilities, including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding
The proposed amendment does not create any additional demand upon the infrastructure.
Any further development or re -development would be considered an amendment to the
SPA. If the proposed changes were significant, both the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council would review the amendment.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
This is primarily a developed area. The property has been used for surface parking in
relation to the condominium building. The applicant is proposing several landscape
improvements along with the garages. The zoning change will not significantly affect the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding;.
While in Pitkin County, the garages and zone change were approved but a plat was never
recorded. Now that the garage portion of the parcel has been annexed into the City, an
amended plat has been proposed for the construction of the approved garages. The zone
change will allow the garages to be a permitted use.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding.,
The annexation agreement obligates the City to uphold approvals granted by Pitkin
County. The County approved a rezoning request with a development application for
garages. The City of Aspen, however, does not have a corresponding zone district for
this approval which necessitated the public process.
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_
This zone change is not in conflict with the public interest.
Sara Garton, Chair, called the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning meeting to order
at 4:35 with Bob Blaich, Steve Buettow, Marta Chaikovska, Roger Hunt and Tim
Mooney present. Dave Johnston and Jasmine Tygre arrived late. Other Staff
present were David Hoefer, Assistant City. Attorney, Chris Bendon, Stan Clauson,
Bob Nevins and Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Department.
COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS
Sara Garton asked Planning about the Aspen Meadows debriefing meeting. Stan
Clauson replied that the meeting has not yet occurred but he will schedule it.
Garton inquired about future P&Z meetings. Julie Ann Woods answered the
10/21/97 has a stream margin scheduled, but no public hearings.
Woods followed -up on the security_ signs in the right-of-way in the west end with
Sara Thomas, city zoning officer. Woods said that zoning has given the security
companies until the end of the month to comply.
Woods said the bronze sculptures around town were allowed in the 25% open
space according to the definition. She noted that solid wood 6' fences were
allowed to the property line in the R-6 zone district. Woods commented that only
on historic property were fences limited to 42" in height. Clauson said that site
specific instances could be reviewed. Roger Hunt questioned hedges serving as a
fence coming under the fence regulation. Clauson answered that landscaping was
not currently under the fence guidelines. Hunt asked if solid hedges over 6' could
be included in the definition. Garton noted that the hedge doesn't provide a street
friendly presence. Marta Chaikovska said there should be re -defined language.
Chris Bendon explained those were part of the Ordinance 30 revisions. He noted
the development level of vegetation as a fence would be a difficult definition.
Bendon gave recognition to Jackie Lothian for being patient with the staff on
memos, working late and the minutes on the 918 South Mill Street. Garton
expressed the timely minutes and Blaich said the minutes were very clear.
Blaich inquired (again) about the vans and also bigger (bus -like) vehicles parked
around the park in the west end. Clauson recalled that their permits would be
reviewed at the end of the year. Chaikovska brought up the safety issue of not
being able to see around them at the corners and asked if commercial vehicles
were allowed to park in a residential neighborhood. David Hoefer suggested that
Tim Ware and Randy Ready be contacted regarding the P&Z parking regulations
questions and to send a recommendation. He noted that a business located in the
ZONING99
residential zone district had the right to park in that neighborhood. Blaich asked
why the Institute lot couldn't be used in the winter for parking of these kinds of
vehicles. Garton inquired about the former Ritz parking garage during the off-
seasons. Hunt noted a potential problem with the heights of the vehicles.
MINUTES
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes from the August
19, 1997 and September 16, 1997 meetings. Bob Blaich second.
APPROVED 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
POMEGRANATE REZONING AND SPA
Sara Garton asked for proof of notice. David Hoefer said the notice was legally
sufficient and indicated mailing to property owners adjacent and within 300'.
Stan Clauson reiterated that when the city accepted the annexation, an agreement
was made to also accept all county land use approvals. He said the city agreed to
process all permits for the garage project and apologized for any confusion.
Clauson stated a zoning district needed to be constructed for the garages and
possible annexation of the condominiums. He said a building permit was issued
for the garages with conditions of a suitable zone district in place prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Garton asked about the contingency of
filing an amended plat with the county. Clauson said that when the city took over
the jurisdiction of the Pearce Property, the garage future site was not yet deeded
and was not yet rezoned.
Chris Bendon apologized for not disclosing that fact that city council had an
obligation prior to the first planning and zoning commission review. He said the
RMF/SPA would be the most appropriate zone district for this parcel. This will
preserve the intent of the scenic overlay. He continued it will define the uses,
specifying dimensional requirements and a process for amendments. He said that
staff could review a minor plat amendment but P&Z would review any substantial
amendments. Bendon noted that the condominium building footprint was in the
county and the garage site was annexed into the city. He said they cannot force
annexation. Garton asked if it would not be proper to deny this application
because of the two jurisdictions. Clauson replied that was correct.
ASPEN PLANNW & ZONING COMMISSIONS OCTOBER 7, 1997
Roger Hunt was concerned and felt the SPA was the best way to control the
project. He asked if there was any way to get the entire property under one
jurisdiction. He inquired as to the existing FAR. Bendon said there was only a
guesstimate on the FAR, with IS units and an average of 1500 square feet each.
He said that with SPA amendments, the condominium owners would need to
provide the information. Hunt questioned the hill and if it would be moved.
Bendon said the hill was on the Country Inn parcel and indicated berms on the site
plan. Garton asked that the minutes be included in the Council packet.
Hunt wanted to let it be known that this SPA would be a temporary fix on this
piece of property and could be relieved when the property is under one
jurisdiction. Bendon said that just leaves the RMF zone district with more
development potential. He said that triangle parcel could be added as an
amendment to the SPA. Hoefer did not feel the language would be acceptable, but
rather the minutes should reflect the feeling of the board.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend approval to City Council
of rezoning the Pomegranate parcel from Park (P) to Residential Multi -
Family (RIMP) and conceptual and final SPA overlay with conditions 1-
3 of the Community Development Memo dated October 7, 1997 with the
change of any reference of 3% to 1% and any conversion of garage
floor area to any other use shall not be considered insubstantial. 1. Prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garages, the applicant shall complete
and record an SPA agreement with the City in accordance with the requirements of
the City Attorney and a final plat that meets the requirements of the City Engineer.
2. The SPA Agreement and the Final Plat shall contain the following language:
Dimensional Requirements are as Follows:
Minimum Percent open space: 35 percent.
Minimum distance between buildings: 10 feet.
Maximum height: 28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure.
Minimum front yard: 100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way.
Minimum rear yard: 10 feet.
Minimum side yards: 10 feet each.
Minimum lot width: 375 feet.
Minimum lot area: As represented on final plat.
Trash access area: Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed.
Internal floor area: Existing.
Number of off-street parking spaces: Minimum 1 per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit.
Uses: Uses on the portion of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be limited
to those permitted in the Residential Multi -Family Zone District as specified in the
3
Aspen Municipal Code, as amended. Uses within the front yard, the area within 100
feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way, shall be limited to those represented on this
final plat. Density on this parcel, regardless of jurisdiction, shall be 18 residential
units unless otherwise approved pursuant to all applicable Sections of the
jurisdiction's Land Use regulations, as amended.
Amendments: Any amendment of this SPA shall be considered pursuant to all
applicable Sections of the Municipal Code, as amended, including Section 26.80.040,
as amended. In addition to the qualifying requirements for an insubstantial
amendment found in Section 26.80.040(E)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
following shall be considered: An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the
overall coverage of structures on the land shall not be considered an insubstantial
amendment. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the approved open
space shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase by greater
than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development shall not
be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase in residential floor area
greater than one (1) percent shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment.
An increase in garage floor area greater than one (1) percent shall not be considered
an insubstantial amendment. Any garage floor area converted to any other use shall
not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any structure(s) proposed within
one -hundred (100) feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. 1. All material. representations made by the applicant in
the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions. Marta Chaikovska second. ALL IN
FAVOR, APPROVED 7-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
GMQS CODE AMENDMENT
Julie Ann Woods, staff, stated that some of the language had been clarified from
the last draft, and exhibit "c" had been added. She said there were 3 items: # 1.
the appeals process would be a joint City CouncilBOCC meeting, 92. the
amendments may be made to the application (to improve the project) and #3. the
multi -year allotment for AH-1, Free-market PUD/Affordable. She noted no
conclusions have been made on the voting recommendations. She said the
problem arose during a competition.
David Hoefer requested the following changes on page 2,1[3 add or may make
substantive changes. page 9, ,I(D. delete , after clarifications. Roger Hunt
requested the -,be replaced by a j (with a new sentence following on page 2 and
page 9. Sara Garton requested on page 5 11C add /BOCC to City Council (for joint
approval). Stan Clauson asked to take this last change under advisement. Hunt
4
ASPEN PLAN &r ZONING OMMIS IOA O TOBER 7, 1997
page 4, exhibit A, �I[B1 asked if "projects" and "developments" were synonymous.
Hoefer and Clauson replaced "projects" with "developments" in AH1. Hunt
requested page 2 exhibit B 1[4 delete. and replace with : and page 4 I[D add. after
parties.
No public comments.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend approval to City Council
for the proposed GMQS Code Amendments as so stated in the staff
memo and amended in this meeting of October 7, 1997. Bob Blaich
second, ALL IN FAVOR. APPROVED 7-0.
CREEKTREE HOME OWNERS' ASSOCIATION STREAM MARGIN
REVIEW
Chris Bendon, staff, explained Creektree Homeowners' Association proposed
work in the Roaring Fork River to stabilize the river bank and prevent further
erosion. He said two years ago the bank was eroded by the high run-off, and staff
gave approval for temporary gabion baskets to prevent further erosion.
Bendon said that the San District had a pipe located just above this project and he
felt the issues were important to get the heavy equipment in the river at the same
time with the same contractor (if at all possible). He noted that he amended the
conditions as follows: 1. For this project, this signed Planning and Zoning Resolution shall act as a
building permit, enforceable by the Community Development Department. Failure to adhere to the
conditions of this approval shall result in a stop work order. 2. Prior to construction, the applicant shall
obtain all* necessary approvals from the Pitkin County Floodp lain Administrator. A copy of said approvals
must be filed with the City Engineer. To the extent possible, the applicant shall coordinate construction
schedules and contracting with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's "drop structure" project at
Herron Park involving river disturbance. 3.Only one access point to the river shall be used. The access
point shall be revegetated with only native plantings to the approval of the Parks Department. Any
landscaping of the stabilized bank shall incorporate only native species to the approval of the Parks
Department. 4. Prior to construction, the applicant shall gain approval from the Parks Department and the
Engineering Department for the method of protecting the Rio Grande Trail from damage and the stream
bank from erosion during construction. 5. The applicant shall restore all portions of the Rio Grande Trail
(bike path) disturbed as a result of this project to approval of the Parks Department. This may include, but
is not limited to, repaving, patching, and sweeping. 6. The design Engineer shall perform construction
observation and, after construction is completed, shall provide a signed and stamped letter to the City
Engineer stating the project was built substantially as designed. 7. The applicant shall record this Planning
and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. 8. All material representations made by the
applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be
adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 9. The
applicant must repair any portion of this improvement that fails and remove any portion of this
improvement that is dislodged and carried downstream.
• ASPEN PLANNI& & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 19K
Steve Buettow asked staff if the Winnerman bank was ever repaired. Bendon
answered that this spring would tell. He said it was difficult to address after the
fact. Garton stated that there was an extra condition, if this did not work, then
they would have to repair again. Garton said the Winnerman bank stabilization
was not done properly. Jay Hammond, engineer for applicant, stated the
Winnerman embankment was flat rock and not the way that this embankment was
approved by the Army Corps. Joan Metcalf represented the homeowners
association.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the Creektree Stream
Margin Review and Special Review for the proposed bank stabilization
with conditions 1-9 as outlined in Community Development Memo (and
as stated above in these minutes) October 7, 1997. Jasmine Tygre
second. ALL IN FAVOR, APPROVED 7-0.
ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT STREAM MARGIN
REVIEW
Chris Bendon, staff, presented the proposal for work in the Roaring Fork River to
construct as grade modification drop structure for the purpose of protecting a 12"
service main from washing -out during high water flows. He said the drop
structure will alter the erosion pattern of the river to prevent damage to the
existing pipe and will prevent more extensive re -construction work.
Bendon noted this project was as Creektree and hopefully would use the same
contractor at the same time. He explained that a drop structure was a series of
boulders placed in the river, which slows down the water just enough to not have
to do more extensive work to prevent further erosion.
Tom Bracewell, applicant, stated the Army Corps. required the plans be reviewed
and/or modified by a morphologist (someone who looks at the shape of rivers and
decides if the right action has been taken).
Sara Garton said the trail will not be closed for any length of time. Bracewell said
the boulder will be brought down in dump trucks and should not cause the trail to
be closed for any lengthy period of time, but only for public safety. He said most
of the work will be in the river and will do whatever Parks requires. Bracewell
noted the Neale Street bridge is a good example of what this drop structure will
R
ASPEN PLANN& & ZONING COMMISSIOI-A OCTOBER 7, 1997
look like. He said that also right below the post office, in the Roaring Fork there
is a drop structure.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the ACSD Stream Margin
Review and Special Review for the proposed drop structure in the
vicinity of Herron Park with the conditions listed below: t. For this project,
this signed Planning and Zoning Resolution shall act as a building permit, enforceable by the
Community Development Department. Failure to adhere to the conditions of this approval
shall result in a stop work order. 2. Prior to construction, the applicant shall obtain all
necessary approvals from the Army Corps. of Engineers. A copy of said approvals must be
filed with the City Engineer. To the extent possible, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District shall coordinate construction schedules and contracting with the bank stabilization
project at Creektree Condominiums involving river disturbance in the Herron Park vicinity.
3. Only one access point to the river shall be used and shall be revegetated with only native
plantings to the approval of the Parks Department. 4. The applicant shall gain approval
from the Parks Department and the Engineering Department for the method of protecting
the Rio Grande Trail from damage and the stream bank from erosion during construction. 5.
The applicant shall restore all portions of the Rio Grande Trail (bike path) disturbed as a
result of this project to approval of the Parks Department. This may include, but is not
limited to, repaving, patching, and sweeping. 6. The design Engineer shall perform
construction observation and, after construction is completed, shall provide a signed and
stamped letter to the City Engineer stating the project was built substantially as designed. 7.
The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and
Recorder. S. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and
during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 9. The
applicant must repair any portion of this improvement that fails and remove any portion of
this improvement that is dislodged and carried downstream. Marta Chaikovska
second. ALL IN FAVOR, APPROVED 7-0.
Tom Bracewell said the Army Corps. of Engineers told him that once this drop
structure is built, the responsibility to maintain forever lies with that responsibility
party.
ASPEN MOUNTAIN MASTER PLAN
Stan Clauson reviewed the 9/16/97 Community Development Memo (which was
presented to County P&Z and City Council. he said the referral comments were
for specifics for the city. He mentioned the Pandora area and what was
appropriate for development. Clauson noted the Shadow Mountain lift was the
proposed extension and relocation of the existing 1-A Lift. He said the 1-A
corridor element will encourage visitor use for small lodges in the area. Clauson
felt the Shadow Mt. Lift combined with the proposed Town Lift will make the
mountain more pedestrian accessible. He noted the master plan did not provide a
ORDINANCE NO.3&
(SERIES OF 1997)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM
PARK -PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P-PUD) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY
(RMF) AND CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL APPROVAL OF A SPECIALLY PLANNED
AREA (SPA) FOR A PARCEL OF LAND AT 39100 HIGHWAY 82, OWNED BY THE
POMEGRANATE CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
WHEREAS, The Pomegranate Condominium Homeowners Association (Applicant)
submitted an application (development proposal) to the Planning Office to rezone from Park -
Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) and to approve a
Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) for a 1.92 tract of land, generally described as
the land between the Pomegranate Condominiums and State Highway 82, located at 39100
Highway 82 and more accurately described in Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department reviewed the development proposal in accordance
with all applicable procedures and review criteria set forth in Sections 26.28, 26.52, 26.56, 26.80
and 26.92 of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on October
7, 1997, in accordance with Section 26.52 of the Municipal Code, reviewed the development
proposal in accordance with all applicable procedures and recommended to City Council approval
of the Amendment to the Official Zone District Map and Conceptual and Final approval for a
Specially Planned Area (SPA); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 97-26 is attached to
this City Council Ordinance as Exhibit B; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified in Sections 26.28,
26.52, 26.56, 26.80, and 26.92, of the Municipal Code, considered those recommendations as made
by the Planning Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered
public comment at a public hearing on December 8, 1997; and,
Ordinance No. , Series 1997
Page 1
1 • 0
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all
applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with
conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council strongly encourages the owners of the Pomegranate
Condominiums to consider annexing into the City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public
health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows:
Section 1
That it does hereby grant an amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the subject parcel, as
described in Exhibit A from Park -Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) to Residential Multi -Family
- Specially Planned Area (RMF-SPA).
Section 2•
The Official Zone District Map for this City of Aspen, Colorado, shall be and is hereby amended to
reflect the amendment as set forth in Section 1 above.
Section 3•
Pursuant to Sections 26.28, 26.52, 26.80, and 26.."92, and subject to those conditions of approval as
specified hereinafter, the City Council hereby grants approval for an amendment to the Official
Zone District Map and Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area, with the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garages, the applicant shall complete and
record an SPA agreement with the City in accordance with the requirements of the City Attorney
and a final plat that meets the requirements of the City Engineer.
2. The SPA Agreement and the Final Plat shall contain the following language:
Ordinance No. _, Series 1997
Page 2
•
L�
Dimensional Requirements are as Follows:
Minimum Percent open space:
Minimum distance between buildings:
Maximum height:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Minimum lot width:
Minimum lot area:
Trash access area:
Internal floor area:
Number of off-street parking spaces:
35 percent.
10 feet.
28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure.
100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way.
10 feet.
10 feet each.
375 feet.
As represented on final plat.
Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed.
Existing.
Minimum 1 per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit.
Uses:
Uses on the portion of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be limited to those permitted
in the Residential Multi -Family Zone District as specified in the Aspen Municipal Code, as
amended. Uses within the front yard, the area within 100 feet of the Highway 82 right-of-
way, shall be limited to those represented on this final plat. Density on this parcel,
regardless of jurisdiction, shall be 18 residential units unless otherwise approved pursuant to
all applicable Sections of the jurisdiction's Land Use regulations, as amended.
Amendments:
Any amendment of this SPA shall be considered pursuant to all applicable Sections of the
Municipal Code, as amended, including Section 26.80.040, as amended. In addition to the
qualifying requirements for an insubstantial amendment found in Section 26.80.040(E)(1) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, the following shall be considered: An increase by greater than
one (1) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the approved open
space shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase by greater than one
(1) percent in the approved residential density of the development shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. An increase in residential floor area greater than one (1) percent
shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase in garage floor area greater
than one (1) percent shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any garage floor
area converted to any other use shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any
structure(s) proposed within one -hundred (100) feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way shall
not be considered an insubstantial amendment.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings
shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
Ordinance No. , Series 1997
Page 3
0 •
Section 4•
All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, and or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by other specific conditions.
Section 5•
This Ordinance 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 6•
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 7•
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 8•
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 8th day of December, 1997 at 5:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within
the City of Aspen.
Ordinance No. , Series 1997
Page 4
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 1 Oth day of November, 1997.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
City Attorney
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
John Bennett, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 8th day of December, 1997.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
City Attorney
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
.John Bennett, Mayor
Attachments: Exhibit A -- Legal description of property
Exhibit B -- Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 97-26
Ordinance No. , Series 1997
Page 5
0 •
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE
OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP FROM PARK -PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (P-PUD) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY (RMF) AND
APPROVE A CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA)
FOR A PARCEL OF LAND AT 39100 HIGHWAY 82, OWNED BY THE
POMEGRANATE CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
Resolution #97 -
WHEREAS, The Pomegranate Condominium Homeowners Association
(Applicant) submitted an application (development proposal) to the Planning Office for a
Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) review and to rezone from Park -
Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) to Residential Multi -Family - Specially Planned Area
(RMF-SPA) a 1.92 tract of land, generally described as the land between the Pomegranate
Condominiums and State Highway 82 and more accurately described in Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department reviewed the development proposal in
accordance with all applicable procedure and review criteria set forth in Sections 26.28,
26.52, 26.56, 26.80, and 26.92 of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, because a full four step review might prove to be redundant and serve
no significant public interest, the Planning Director recommended a consolidated
Conceptual and Final SPA review and, in agreement with this recommendation, the
Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Conceptual and Final SPA concurrently;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on
October 7, 1997, in accordance with Section 26.52 of the Municipal Code, reviewed the
development. proposal in accordance with all applicable procedures and review and
recommended, by a 7-0 vote, City Council approve the Amendment to the Official Zone
District Map and the Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area with the conditions
recommended by the Community Development Department, as amended during the public
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Aspen City Council should amend the Official Zone District Map from Park (P)
to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) and approve the Conceptual and Final Specially
Planned Area (SPA) Overlay for the Pomegranate parcel, 39100 Highway 82, with the
following conditions:
o ' �'
1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garages, the applicant shall complete
and record an SPA agreement with the City in accordance with the requirements of the City
Attorney and a final plat that meets the requirements of the City Engineer.
2. The SPA Agreement and the Final Plat shall contain the following language:
Dimensional Requirements are as Follows:
Minimum Percent open space: 35 percent.
Minimum distance between buildings: 10 feet.
Maximum height:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Minimum lot width:
Minimum lot area:
Trash access area:
Internal floor area:
Number of off-street parking spaces
28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure.
100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way.
10 feet.
10 feet each.
375 feet.
As represented on final plat.
Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed.
Existing.
Minimum 1 per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit.
Uses:
Uses on the portion of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be limited to those
permitted in the Residential Multi -Family Zone District as specified in the Aspen
Municipal Code, as amended. Uses within the front yard, the area within 100 feet of the
Highway 82 right-of-way, shall be limited to those represented on this final plat.
Density on this parcel, regardless of jurisdiction, shall be 18 residential units unless
otherwise approved pursuant to all applicable Sections of the jurisdiction's Land Use
regulations, as amended.
Amendments:
Any amendment of this SPA shall be considered pursuant to all applicable Sections of
the Municipal Code, as amended, including Section 26.80.040, as amended. In addition
to the qualifying requirements for an insubstantial amendment found in Section
26.80.040(E)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the following shall be considered: An
increase by greater than one (1) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land
shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. A reduction by greater than one (1)
percent of the approved open space shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment.
An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the
development shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase in
residential floor area greater than one (1) percent shall not be considered an insubstantial
amendment. An increase in garage floor area greater than one (1) percent shall not be
considered an insubstantial amendment. Any garage floor area converted to any other
use shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any structure(s) proposed
within one -hundred (100) feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment.
I ! i
•
0
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 7, 1997.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1IL
C Attorney
ATTEST:
'-� 9ZL-�►L'
Alickie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Sara Garton, Chair
MAROON CREEK CLUB, LLC LANDS TRANSFERRED TO POMEGRANATE
A tract of land situated in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, also being within the Maroon Creek Club Subdivision, Pitkin County,
Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears S 29017'00" W 9.71 feet
and N 64014'44" W 2353.33 feet. thence N 48024'11" W 64.96 feet; thence N 11156'54" W
149.77 feet; thence N 30106'33" E 195.92 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of State
Highway 82, also being the boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 60148'00"
E 375.70 feet along said subdivision boundary; thence leaving said right of way S 18009'00" W
176.89 feet along the easterly boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 18109'00"
W 30.96 feet; thence N 89141'21" W 259.10 feet; thence N 48124'11" W 30.50 feet to the point
of beginning, containing 2.541 acres more or less;
Excepting therefrom the following described land:
A tract of land located in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears N 64114'44" W 2353.33
feet; thence N 29117'00" E 86.80 feet; thence N 60°43'00" W 60.57 feet; thence N 29117'00"
E 72.28 feet; S 60143'00" E 311.07 feet; thence S 18109'00" W 19.30 feet; thence N 89135'00"
W 290.30 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.6192 acres more or less.
pomegranl21egal.01
I I !
i
•
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Develo ent D' ector
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner IWT I
RE: Pomegranate Condominium Association
Rezoning (public hearing)
Conceptual/Final SPA (public hearing)
DATE: October 7, 1997
SUMMARY:
The Pomegranate Homeowners Association is requesting to rezone their parcel
from Park (P) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) and Conceptual and Final
approval for a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay. This rezoning will
accommodate an approval granted by Pitkin County prior to annexation while the
SPA overlay maintains the intent of the scenic overlay, describes the current
dimensions and uses on the parcel, and establishes a procedure for future
amendments.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed rezoning this parcel without the
SPA overlay in July of this year and recommended denial. Staff carried forward
an amended rezoning to City Council who rejected the concept for reason similar
to P&Z's concerns in July. Staff is now suggesting an SPA overlay in addition to
the rezoning. The RMF Zone District is still the most appropriate for this parcel.
The SPA will specify the current level of development, restrict development
closer to the Highway, and establish a process for future amendments.
The Pomegranate parcel is partially in the City and partially in the County. The
portion in the County contains the residential building and the City's portion
contains the new garages, driveway, and associated landscape improvements.
Should the County's portion ever be annexed into the City, it too would be
rezoned to RMF-SPA.
Staff recommends the Commission make a recommendation to the City
Council to rezone this property to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) and
approve the Conceptual and Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay.
APPLICANT:
Pomegranate Condominium Homeowners Association.
•
LOCATION:
39100 Highway 82.
ZONING:
The parcel is currently zoned Park (P). The applicant is requesting a zone change
to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay.
LOT SIZE:
The entire parcel is 2.541 acres. The portion within Aspen City limits is 1.924
acres.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
1.942 acres = 83,809 square feet.
FAR:
The SPA would establish the FAR at the current level of development. An
increase would then be an amendment to the SPA.
CURRENT LAND USE:
18 Multi -Family Residential units with 18 garages and common accessory uses.
The parcel is split between City and County jurisdictions. The portion in the
county contains the residential building. The portion in the City contains the
garage structure.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Same.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission considered rezoning this parcel to RMF on July 15, 1997, and
unanimously recommended City Council deny the request for the following
ic_151-Y 10*
The Pomegranate Condominiums should be annexed into the City. This would
not only correct an oddity in our city boundary, but would alleviate any
jurisdictional problems with City and County services.
2. The rezoning from Park to Residential Multi -Family creates additional
development potential for the parcel and allows development very close to the
highway.
3. The site plan could be better developed with the plan for the Aspen Country Inn.
4. The garages and surface parking should be reversed so that the surface parking is
not so visible from Highway 82 and the garages are backed against the proposed
berms.
2
Considering these reasons, Staff recommended City Council approve a partial
rezoning of the parcel. In this recommendation, the area within 120' of the
Highway 82 R.O.W. would remain zoned Park. Council rejected this idea and
asked Staff to consider other measures to limit future development of this parcel.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Rezoning. At a public hearing, the Commission shall review and recommend
approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council.
SPA. The Commission shall review and recommend approval, approval with
conditions, or denial to City Council. The Commission shall hold a public
hearing during final review. Council shall hold a public hearing during
conceptual review.
BACKGROUND:
In 1995, the applicant gained approval from Pitkin County for a major plat
amendment, to acquire the property where the garages were proposed, and
approval of a rezoning from AFR-2 to AR-2 to allow the proposed garages. The
rezoning was contingent upon the filing of an amended plat, which never
occurred. Pitkin County also granted approval of a scenic review. This review
limits development along Highway 82.
This AR-2 Zone District allows a substantial amount of development including
such uses similar to those in the RMF Zone District, but also including more
commercial uses such as restaurants, professional offices, and entertainment
establishments.
With the development of the Maroon Creek Subdivision, the property was
annexed into the City and rezoned (to reflect the existing County zoning of AFR-
2) to Park (P), which does not allow garages. The applicant has since submitted
an amended plat for review. Because the City does not have an AR-2 zone
district, the property must be rezoned to the district most compatible with the
County's AR-2, which also allows garages. Staff believes this district to be
Residential Multi -Family (RMF).
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered rezoning to RMF this parcel
July 15, 1997, and a recommendation of denial was carried forward to City
Council. Specifically, Commission's concerns were centered around the
increased build -out potential with the rezoning, development potential within ten
feet of the Highway 82 R.O.W., their desire to annex the Pomegranate
Condominiums, and site plan considerations.
With these concerns in mind, Staff recommended City Council rezone to RMF
only a portion of the subject parcel, leaving the area within 120 feet of the
Highway 82 corridor zoned Park (P). In Staff s estimation, this would enable the
3
desired garages to be built while preserving the intent of the scenic overlay
approved by the County. Further development would be limited by the normal
processes of subdivision and growth management.
City Council felt that this rezoning should not follow the County approvals so
closely, but should rather allow the garages while disallowing any further
development.
Considering the comments from both the P&Z and Council, Staff is now
suggesting rezoning the entire parcel to RMF with an SPA overlay. The RMF
Zone District is still the most appropriate for the parcel. The SPA overlay
maintains the intent of the County's scenic overlay, describes the current uses and
dimensions on the parcel, and establishes a procedure for future amendments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." The
application has been included as Exhibit `B."
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garages, the applicant shall complete
and record an SPA agreement with the City in accordance with the requirements of the City
Attorney and a final plat that meets the requirements of the City Engineer.
2. The SPA Agreement and the Final Plat shall contain the following language:
Dimensional Requirements are as Follows:
Percent open space:
Minimum distance between buildings:
Maximum height:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Minimum lot width:
Minimum lot area:
Trash access area:
Internal floor area:
Number of off-street parking spaces:
35 percent
10 feet
28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure
100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way
10 feet
10 feet each
375 feet
As represented on final plat
Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed
Existing.
Minimum 1 per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit
Uses:
Uses on the portion of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be limited to those
permitted in the Residential Multi -Family Zone District as specified in the Aspen
Municipal Code, as amended. Uses within the front yard shall be limited to those
represented on this final plat. Density on this parcel, regardless of jurisdiction, shall be
4
18 residential units unless otherwise approved pursuant to all applicable Sections of the
jurisdiction's Land Use regulations, as amended.
Amendments:
Any amendment of this SPA shall be considered pursuant to all applicable Sections of
the Municipal Code, as amended, including Section 26.80.040, as amended. In addition
to the qualifying requirements for an insubstantial amendment found in Section
26.80.040(E)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the following shall be considered: An
increase in residential floor area greater than three percent shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. An increase in garage floor area greater than three percent
shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any garage floor area converted to
residential floor area shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any
structure(s) proposed within one -hundred (100) feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way
shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend City Council approve this Rezoning and Conceptual and
�mT
Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay with the conditions outlined in the
Staff memo dated October 7, 1997."
ATTACHMENTS:
`� ✓ Exhibit A == Review Criteria and Staff Comments
�0 Exhibit B Application
5
0 •
Exhibit A
STAFF COMMENTS: Specially Planned Area
Section 26.80.040, Standards Applicable to Specially I'lanned Areas
Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Staff Finding:
This SPA is compatible with adjacent development. To the immediate west exists the
Aspen Country Inn Affordable Housing Project. This development is essentially
identical in land use to the subject parcel. Density for the subject parcel is lower, 18
units, compared with the Aspen Country Inn, 40 units. Height, bulk, architecture are
similar. The landscape plans are similar in approach with more mature trees existing on
the Pomegranate parcel. Open space for the subject parcel is compatible with the
surrounding development.
Staff suggests including the following set of existing conditions on the final plat and in
the SPA agreement:
Dimensional Requirements:
Uses:
Percent open space:
Minimum distance between buildings
Maximum height:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Minimum lot width:
Minimum lot area:
Trash access area:
Internal floor area:
Number of off-street parking spaces:
35 percent
10 feet
28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure
100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way
10 feet
10 feet
375 feet
As represented on final plat
Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed
Existing.
Minimum 1 per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit
Uses on this parcel shall be limited to those permitted in the Residential Multi -
Family Zone District as specified in the Municipal Code, as amended. Uses
within the front yard shall be limited to those represented on this final plat.
Density on this parcel, regardless of jurisdiction, shall be 18 residential units
unless otherwise approved pursuant to all applicable Sections of the jurisdiction's
Land Use regulations, as amended.
0 •
Amendments:
Any amendment of this SPA shall be considered pursuant to all applicable
Sections of the Municipal Code, as amended, including Section 26.80.040, as
amended. In addition to the qualifying requirements for an insubstantial
amendment found in Section 26.80.040(E)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
following shall be considered: An increase in residential floor area greater than
three percent shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase in
garage floor area greater than three percent shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. Any garage floor area converted to residential floor
area shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any structure(s)
proposed within one -hundred (100) feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way shall not
be considered an insubstantial amendment.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
Staff Finding:
There are sufficient public facilities to service the proposed development. The, rezoning,
SPA overlay, or the development of the garages does not affect public facilities such as
water, schools, etc. The access to the Pomegranate and the Aspen Country Inn are
proposed to be combined. Both properties incorporate an easement for a future bike path.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud
flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Staff Finding:
This parcel is relatively flat and not in an environmentally hazardous area.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and
provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and
the public at large.
Staff Finding:
The site plan for the garages went through a scenic review with Pitkin County. This
review process is generally more restrictive than Aspen's code would provide. Although
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may have approached this site plan with a
different philosophy, the City of Aspen is obligated, through the annexation agreement
for the Maroon Creek Club, to honor those approvals granted by Pitkin County prior to
annexation.
There exists an easement across the parcel for a future bike path. There are no significant
environmental impacts to be mitigated. There were no areas required to be dedicated to
open space as part of the County approval.
2
•
E
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding=
The AACP does not specifically address garage development. The parcel, however,
includes a multi -family building for which the garages are accessory.
The Pomegranate Condominiums and the Aspen Country Inn are essentially identical
land use -wise. Both have similar site plans and architecture, are in the "Entrance to
Aspen" corridor, located adjacent to a private golf course, clearly outside of walking
distance to town but along a proposed bicycle path, and soon to be isolated from transit
service, the Pomegranate and the Aspen Country Inn could both be re -developed in a
much different configuration, including free-market units oriented to the golf course, with
growth management allotments and City Council approval of the PUD or SPA
amendment. Staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council found the
Aspen Country Inn in compliance with all aspects of the AACP.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding
neighborhood.
Staff Finding:
The proposed development will not require the expenditure of public funds. The
easement for the bike path already exists. No other public funds are expected to be
needed.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet
the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
Staff Finding:
There are no significant slopes on the subject parcel.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Staff Finding:
The proposed development does not require growth management allotments.
3
Staff Comments: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this title or an 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 title.
Staff Finding;
The proposed zone district in combination with the SPA would permit the development
of the approved garages and would not create any non -conformities.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The proposed zone change would not be in conflict with the AACP. Please refer to SPA
criteria #5, above.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding:
The surrounding land uses are multi -family residential. Because the Pomegranate
Condominiums are in Pitkin County, the zoning for the parcel is divided by the
jurisdictional boundary. If the Pomegranate Condominiums were ever annexed, the most
appropriate zoning would be RMF. The SPA overlay will preserve the intent of the
Scenic Overlay approved by the County.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
The amendment will not affect traffic generation or road safety. The entrance to the
Pomegranate Condominiums is being combined with the new entrance to the Aspen
Country Inn. Combining these entrances will improve road safety.
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 facilities, including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding;
The proposed amendment does not create any additional demand upon the infrastructure.
Any further development or re -development would be considered an amendment to the
SPA. If the proposed changes were significant, both the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council would review the amendment.
9
I
a • •
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Findingi
This is primarily a developed area. The property has been used for surface parking in
relation to the condominium building. The applicant is proposing several landscape
improvements along with the garages. The zoning change will not significantly affect the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding;
While in Pitkin County, the garages and zone change were approved but a plat was never
recorded. Now that the garage portion of the parcel has been annexed into the City, an
amended plat has been proposed for the construction of the approved garages. The zone
change will allow the garages to be a permitted use.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding_
The Aspen Country Inn will be essentially identical in land use to the Pomegranate. The
AH1-PUD Zone District requires 70% of new units to be deed restricted. The RMF Zone
District requires 60% of new units to be deed restricted.
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_
This zone change is not in conflict with the public interest.
residential zone district had the right to park in that neighborhood. Blaich asked
why the Institute lot couldn't be used in the winter for parking of these kinds of
vehicles. Garton inquired about the former Ritz parking garage during the off-
seasons. Hunt noted potential problems with the heights of the vehicles.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes from the August
19, 1997 and September 16, 1997 meetings. Bob Blaich second.
APPROVED 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Sara Garton asked for proof of notice. David Hoefer said the notice was legally
sufficient and indicated mailing to property owners adjacent and within 300'.
Stan Clauson reiterated that when the city accepted the annexation, an agreement
was made to also accept all county land use approvals. He said the city agreed to
process all permits for the garage project and apologized for any confusion.
Clauson stated a zoning district needed to be constructed for the garages and
possible annexation of the condominiums. He said a building permit was issued
for the garages with conditions of a suitable zone district in place prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Garton asked about the contingency of
filing an amended plat with the county. Clauson said that when the city took over
the jurisdiction of the Pearce Property, the garage future site was not yet deeded
and was not yet rezoned.
Chris Bendon apologized for not disclosing that fact that city council had an
obligation prior to the first planning and zoning commission review. He said the
RW/SPA would be the most appropriate zone district for this parcel. This will
preserve the intent of the scenic overlay. He continued it will define the uses,
specifying dimensional requirements and a process for amendments. He said that
staff could review a minor plat amendment but P&Z would review any substantial
amendments. Bendon noted that the condominium building footprint was in the
county and the garage site was annexed into the city. He said they cannot force
annexation. Garton asked. if it would not be proper to deny this application
because of the two jurisdictions. Clauson replied that was correct.
2
9
Roger Hunt was concerned and felt the SPA was the best way to control the
project. He asked if there was any way to get the entire property under one
jurisdiction. He inquired as to the existing FAR. Bendon said there was only a
guesstimate on the FAR, with 18 units and an average of 1500 square feet each.
He said that with SPA amendments, the condominium owners would need to
provide the information. Hunt questioned the hill and if it would be moved.
Bendon said the hill was on the Country Inn parcel and indicated berms on the site
plan. Garton asked that the minutes be included in the Council packet.
Hunt wanted to let it be known that this SPA would be a temporary fix on this
piece of property and could be relieved when the property is under one
jurisdiction. Bendon said that just leaves the RMF zone district with more
development potential. He said that triangle parcel could be added as an
amendment to the SPA. Hoefer did not feel the language would be acceptable, but
rather the minutes should reflect the feeling of the board.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend approval to City Council
of rezoning the Pomegranate parcel from Park (P) to Residential Multi -
Family (RMF) and conceptual and final SPA overlay with conditions 1-
3 of the Community Development Memo dated October 7, 1997 with the
change of any reference of 3% to 1% and any conversion of garage
floor area to any other use shall not be considered insubstantial..1. Prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garages, the applicant shall complete
and record an SPA agreement with the City in accordance with the requirements of
the City Attorney and a final plat that meets the requirements of the City Engineer.
2. The SPA Agreement and the Final Plat shall contain the following language:
Dimensional Requirements are as Follows:
Minimum Percent open space: 35 percent.
Minimum distance between buildings: 10 feet.
Maximum height: 28 feet for residential structure,
10 feet for garage structure.
Minimum front yard: 100 feet, measured from Highway 82
Right-of-way.
Minimum rear yard: 10 feet.
Minimum side yards: 10 feet each.
Minimum lot width: 375 feet.
Minimum lot area: As represented on final plat.
Trash access area: Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed.
Internal floor area: Existing.
Number of off-street parking spaces: Minimum 1 per bedroom or 2 per
residential unit.
Uses: Uses on the portion of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be limited
to those permitted in the Residential Multi -Family Zone District as specified in the
3
Aspen Municipal Code, as amended. Uses within the front yard, the area within 100
feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way, shall be limited to those represented on this
final plat. Density on this parcel, regardless of jurisdiction, shall be 18 residential
units unless otherwise approved pursuant to all applicable Sections of the
jurisdiction's Land Use regulations, as amended.
Amendments: Any amendment of this SPA shall be considered pursuant to all
applicable Sections of the Municipal Code, as amended, including Section 26.80.040,
as amended. In addition to the qualifying requirements for an insubstantial
amendment found in Section 26.80.040(E)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
following shall be considered: An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the
overall coverage of structures on the land shall not be considered an insubstantial
amendment. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the approved open
space shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase by greater
than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development shall not
be considered an insubstantial amendment. An increase in residential floor area
greater than one (1) percent shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment.
An increase in garage floor area greater than one (1) percent shall not be considered
an insubstantial amendment. Any garage floor area converted to any other use shall
not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Any structure(s) proposed within
one -hundred (100) feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment. 1. All material representations made by the applicant in
the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions. Marta Chaikovska second. ALL IN
FAVOR, APPROVED 7-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
Julie Ann Woods, staff, stated that some of the language had been clarified from
the last draft, and exhibit "c" had been added. She said there were 3 items: # 1.
the appeals process would be a joint City Council/BOCC meeting, #2. the
amendments may be made to the application (to improve the project) and #3. the
multi -year allotment for AH-1, Free-market PUD/Affordable. She noted no
conclusions have been made on the voting recommendations. She said the
problem arose during a competition.
David Hoefer requested the following changes on page 2, ,1j3 add or may make
substantive changes. page 9, y(D. delete, after clarifications. Roger Hunt
requested the -,be replaced by a . (with a new sentence following on page 2 and
page 9. Sara Garton requested on page 5 11C add /BOCC to City Council (for joint
approval). Stan Clauson asked to take this last change under advisement. Hunt
2
9
page 4, exhibit A, �I[B 1 asked if "projects" and "developments" were synonymous.
Hoefer and Clauson replaced "projects" with "developments" in AH1. Hunt
requested page 2 exhibit B 114 delete r and replace with 1 and page 4 11D add. after
parties.
No public comments.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend approval to City Council
for the proposed GMQS Code Amendments as so stated in the staff
memo and amended in this meeting of October 7, 1997. Bob Blaich
second, ALL IN FAVOR. APPROVED 7-0.
Chris Bendon, staff, explained Creektree Homeowners' Association proposed
work in the Roaring Fork River to stabilize the river bank and prevent further
erosion. He said two years ago the bank was eroded by the high run-off, and staff
gave approval for temporary gabion baskets to prevent further erosion.
Bendon said that the San District had a pipe located just above this project and he
felt the issues were important to get the heavy equipment in the river at the- same
time with the same contractor (if at all possible). He noted that he amended the
conditions as follows: 1. For this project, this signed Planning and Zoning Resolution shall act as a
building permit, enforceable by the Community Development Department. Failure to adhere to the
conditions of this approval shall result in a stop work order. 2. Prior to construction, the applicant shall
obtain all necessary approvals from the Pitkin County Floodplain Administrator. A copy of said approvals
must be filed with the City Engineer. To the extent possible, the applicant shall coordinate construction
schedules and contracting with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's "drop structure" project at
Herron Park involving river disturbance. 3.Only one access point to the river shall be used. The access
point shall be revegetated with only native plantings to the approval of the Parks Department. Any
landscaping of the stabilized bank shall incorporate only native species to the approval of the Parks
Department. 4. Prior to construction, the applicant shall gain approval from the Parks Department and the
Engineering Department for the method of protecting the Rio Grande Trail from damage and the stream
bank from erosion during construction. 5. The applicant shall restore all portions of the Rio Grande Trail
(bike path) disturbed as a result of this project to approval of the Parks Department. This may include, but
is not limited to, repaving, patching, and sweeping. 6. The design Engineer shall perform construction
observation and, after construction is completed, shall provide a signed and stamped letter to the City
Engineer stating the project was built substantially as designed. 7. The applicant shall record this Planning
and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. 8. All material representations made by the
applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be
adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 9. The
applicant must repair any portion of this improvement that fails and remove any portion of this
improvement that is dislodged and carried downstream.
Stan Clauson, 06:45 PM 2'v%'8/97 , Pomegranate
X-Sender: stanc@comdev
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 199718:45:53 -0600
To: johnb@ci.aspen.co.us, amym@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Stan Clauson <stanc@comdev.ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Pomegranate
Cc: johnw@ci.aspen.co.us, sarat@ci.aspen.co.us, juliew@ci.aspen.co.us,
chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us
Please see the attached opinion from John Worcester. I believe that we can
rezone as RMF-SPA. The Specially Planned Area part of the zoning would
limit the development rights and development areas, and still provide a
rational zone district to accept the Pomegranate structure if and when it
comes into the City. I strongly believe that we should not create a zoning
district specifically for a single use --both in the spirit of code
simplification and preservation of planner sanity. But we can restrict our
existing districts using the SPA or PUD designations. In this case, the SPA
is better targeted to what we want to accomplish:
1. protection of the highway setback and bike/ ped trail;
2. limitation of additional development rights; and
3. clear specification of the nature and extent of the garage/ parking
area.
With that in mind, it would be a 2-step process to establish an RMF/SPA
zone, which would probably take about 2 months. Do you think Council would
be amenable to permitting the work to go forward contingent on a final
rezoning approval prior to CO? Scott Writer would execute an agreement to
this effect, accepting the "no significant additional development rights"
provision in advance. They had a contractor lined up for 2 September and
have completed all Building Division review.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.
Stan
>X-Sender: johnw@commons
>Date: Mon, 25 Aug 199715:02:23 -0600
>To: stanc@ci.aspen.co.us
>From: John Worcester <johnw@ci.aspen.co.us>
>Subject: Pomegranate
>Sara made a good suggestion for the short term... How about issuing a
>building permit conditioned on rezoning before issuance of a CO? This might
>work to get Scott what he wants while we figure out the long term solution.
>Unless we can convince Council that there is no real potential for
>additional build -out, we should probably simply[create a parking district.
Printed for Christopher Bendon <chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us> 1
06:45 PM
/ >What do you think?
>John P. Worcester
>City Attorney
Printed for Christopher Bendon <chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us> 2 11
• • 1:�rju- brF +7
LAW OFFICES
HILL, EDWARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON, L.L.CTA"
6�
CENTENNIAL PLAZA BUILDING a`` WMDe.
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE 201 J
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
THOMAS C. HILL
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR., P.C.
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III
THOMAS L. ADKISON
June 19, 1997
Chris Bendon
Aspen/Pitkin County
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
111161-3900
TELEPHONE
R E C E I V`, E D (9FACS MILE
(970)963-3131
JUN 9 0 iyyl
ASPEN / PI TKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RE: Rezoning of Maroon Creek Club Lands to be Transferred to Pomegranate
Condominiums
Dear Chris:
Enclosed is a legal description for the portion of the Maroon Creek Club property which is being
transferred to the Pomegranate Condominium owners and on which Pomegranate intends to
construct garages. As we discussed, Pomegranate obtained major plat amendment approval from
Pitkin County prior to annexation of the Maroon Creek property (see Pitkin County Ordinance No.
95-19, Pitkin County Resolution No. 95-200, and Memorandum dated September 19, 1996 -- all
of which are enclosed for your reference). When the City annexed the Maroon Creek Club,
Pomegranate was assured that the City would honor all of the Pitkin County land use approvals
which authorized the exchange of lands and amendment of plats. Unfortunately, when the City
annexed the Maroon Creek Club, the portion of the Maroon Creek Club to be transferred to
Pomegranate was not zoned so as to allow the construction of the Pomegranate garages and,
therefore, this rezoning is necessary.
As we discussed, we will provide you a draft Amended Plat and Site Plan in addition to the
enclosed legal description. The application for rezoning will be heard by the City Planning &
Zoning Commission on July 17, 1997 and by the City Council on July 28, 1997 and August 11,
1997. I understand you will be handling all publication and mailing requirements for public
Chris Bendon
June 19, 1997
Page 2
notice. Please inform me or Scott Writer if you would like us to handle the posting of a notice on
the property.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
HILL, E WARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON, L.L.C.
r-!-L
Joseph . Edwards, III
'T
Enclosures
cc: Pomegranate Condominium Association Board of Directors
pomegranate\lbend.01
�1
MAROON CREEK CLUB, LLC LANDS TRANSFERRED TO POMEGRANATE
A tract of land situated in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, also being within the Maroon Creek Club Subdivision, Pitkin County,
Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears S 29117'00" W 9.71 feet
and N 64114'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 48124'11" W 64.96 feet; thence N 11156'54" W
149.77 feet; thence N 30106'33" E 195.92 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of State
Highway 82, also being the boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 60148'00"
E 375.70 feet along said subdivision boundary; thence leaving said right of way S 18109'00" W
176.89 feet along the easterly boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 18109'00"
W 30.96 feet; thence N 89141'21" W 259.10 feet; thence N 48124'11" W 30.50 feet to the point
of beginning, containing 2.541 acres more or less;
Excepting therefrom the following described land:
A tract of land located in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears N 64114'44" W 2353.33
feet; thence N 29117'00" E 86.80 feet; thence N 60143'00" W 60.57 feet; thence N 29117'00"
E 72.28 feet; S 60143'00" E 311.07 feet; thence S 18109'00" W 19.30 feet; thence N 89135'00"
W 290.30 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.6192 acres more or less.
pomegran\21egal.01
W
•
MAROON CREEK CLUB, LLC LANDS TRANSFERRED TO PONIEGRA:NATE
A tract of land situated in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, also being within the Maroon Creek Club Subdivision, Pitkin County.
Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears S 29117'00" W 9.71 feet
and N 64114'44" W 2353.33 feet, thence N 48'24' 11 " W 64.96 feet; thence N 11 °56'54" W
149.77 feet; thence N 30106'33" E 195.92 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of State
Highway 82, also being the boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 60148'00"
E 375.70 feet along said subdivision boundary; thence leaving said right of way S 18109'00" W
176.89 feet along the easterly boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 18°09'00"
W 30.96 feet; thence N 89 °41 ' 21 " W 259.10 feet. thence N 48124' 11 " W 30.50 feet to the point
of beginning, containing 2.541 acres more or less;
Excepting therefrom the following described land:
A tract of land located in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears N 64114'44" W'_353.33
feet: thence N 29117'00" E 86.80 feet; thence N 60°43'00" W 60.57 feet: thence N 29017'00"
E 72.28 feet: S 60043'00" E 311.07 feet; thence S 18009'00" W 19.30 feet: thence N 89135'00"
W 290.30 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.6192 acres more or less.
pomegran\21egal.01
IPA,
�61
0I/lii[�ililR;liF'iwz
W.
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct6l
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner r ,
RE: Pomegranate Rezoning 1st Reading
DATE: July 28, 1997
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Pomegranate Homeowners Association, is requesting a zone change from
Park (P) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) to allow the construction of 18 garages.
In 1995, the applicant gained approval from Pitkin County for a major plat amendment,
to acquire the property where the garages were proposed, and approval of a rezoning from
AFR-2 to AR-2 to allow the proposed garages. The rezoning was contingent upon the
filing of an amended plat.
Pitkin County also granted approval of a scenic review. This limits development along
Highway 82.
With the development of the Maroon Creek Subdivision, the property was annexed into
the City and rezoned (to reflect the existing County zoning of AFR-2) to Park (P), which
does not allow garages. The applicant has since submitted an amended plat for review.
Because the City does not have an AR-2 zone district, the property must be rezoned to the
district most compatible with the County's AR-2, which also allows garages. Staff
believes this district to be Residential Multi -Family (RMF).
Because the City does not have the ability to enforce the County's scenic overlay, the
applicant could potentially develop up to 10 feet from the Highway 82 R.O. W.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this case and recommended denial.
Specifically, their concerns were centered around the increased build -out potential with
the rezoning, their desire to annex the Pomegranate Condominiums, and site plan
considerations. These concerns are more thoroughly explained in Staff Comments.
Staff recommends that City Council rezone a portion of this property to Residential
Multi -Family (RMF) and also recommends encouragement of annexation.
APPLICANT:
Pomegranate Homeowners Association.
•
11
LOCATION:
39100 Highway 82.
ZONING:
Park (P). The applicant is requesting a zone change for the parcel to Residential Multi -
Family (RMF)
LOT SIZE:
Total lot size = 2.54 acres = 110,712 square feet.
Within City of Aspen = 1.92 acres = 83,739 square feet.
Being considered for RMF Zone = .86 acres = 37,455 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
Lot area of portion being considered for RMF Zone = 37,455 square feet.
I r.""
1:1 as a multi -family project. Can be increased to 1:1.1 by Special Review. Total
number of units depends on type(s) of units proposed. This is only for the portion of the
parcel that would be rezoned RMF.
5,562 square feet for a duplex. 5,142 square feet for a single family house. This is only
for the portion of the parcel that would be rezoned to RMF.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Surface parking accessory to the residential use.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
18 Garages and surface parking accessory to the residential use.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Council has not previously considered this request.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
A development application for an amendment to the text of this title or the official zone
district map shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions
or disapproval by the planning director and then by the Commission at a public hearing,
and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a
public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
In 1995, the applicant gained approval from Pitkin County for a major plat amendment,
to acquire the property where the garages were proposed, and approval of a rezoning from
AFR-2 to AR-2 to allow the proposed garages. The rezoning was contingent upon the
filing of an amended plat. The plat was never filed. The applicant has now submitted a
plat for review.
2
With the development of the Maroon Creek Subdivision (MCC), the property was
annexed into the City and rezoned to reflect the existing County zoning of AFR-2 to Park
(P), which does not allow garages. The applicant has since submitted an amended plat
for review.
Because the City does not have an AR-2 zone district, the property must be rezoned to a
district most compatible with the County's AR-2, which also allows garages. Staff
believes this district to be Residential Multi -Family (RMF).
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no discernible public costs associated with this rezoning.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Comments are included as Exhibit "A." The application is
included as Exhibit `B."
The original proposal was for the rezoning of the entire 1.92 acres in the City to RMF.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this rezoning and recommended denial
based on the concerns outlined below. Considering this, Staff is suggesting rezoning only
the portion, approximately .86 acres, of the parcel necessary for the construction of the
garages. This reduction in the area to be rezoned addresses some of the Commission's
concerns.
The Pomegranate Condominiums should be annexed into the City. This would not
only correct an oddity in our city boundary, but would alleviate any jurisdictional
problems with City and County services.
Staff response. The City's boundary is odd and there are potential jurisdictional
problems with this scenario. This, however, is an existing condition which should
have no bearing on the rezoning request. The Pomegranate Condominiums are in
Pitkin County and their land is contiguous with Pitkin County, therefore, the City
cannot force annexation. In other words, their building is in the center of a "C-
shaped" configuration, until it's in an "O-shaped" configuration we cannot force
annexation. The City can, however, strongly encourage the Pomegranate
Condominium owners to annex into the City. This encouragement has been included
in the ordinance. Any further encouragement should probably take the form of a
letter from the Community Development Department explaining the vast benefits of
being part of Aspen.
The rezoning from Park to Residential Multi -Family creates additional development
potential for the parcel and allows development very close to the highway.
Staff response. First of all, it is important to understand how we got here. When in the
County, the rezoning from AFR-2 to AR-2 was approved conditioned upon a final
plat. This final plat was never filed. The City annexed the property (owned by MCC)
along with the development of MCC and rezoned the entire development consistent
with the County's present zoning, which did not reflect the rezone to AR-2. In this
3
process the City agreed to honor all agreements made between the developer and the
County. Pomegranate Condominiums has now submitted this final plat to satisfy the
rezoning. The City, however, does not have an AR-2 zone.
In answering the question -- yes it does allow more development, but not by much
more than the AR-2 zone, which the County approved, would allow. Currently, the
strongest development market is for single family homes. If the entire parcel stayed
in the County, two 15,000 square foot houses could be built after demolishing the
condo building.
Rezoning only a portion of the property necessary for the garages preserves the intent
of the County's approval; allowing the construction of the garages while maintaining
the scenic overlay. The portion of the parcel to be rezoned would allow 6 single
family homes to be built with a total of 5,142 square feet for the total development.
12 duplexes totaling 5,562 square feet could also be built. These density numbers are
somewhat unrealistic considering the small size of each unit. A more realistic
expectation would be the development of a few large units. Also, more than two units
would require a subdivision approval from City Council.
There is also the potential of subdividing the portion of the parcel within the City into
6 separate lots and developing a single family home of 3,240 square feet or a duplex
of 3,600 square feet on each. This process, however, is not automatic. The City
Council, among other bodies, reviews all subdivisions.
Also important to consider is growth management. Controlling the development on
this parcel would be much the same way the City controls development on any other
parcel. Because it is a new lot (created after 1977) no development on this site would
be eligible for an exemption from growth management, meaning it would be scored
and would compete against other projects for that year's allotment.
The site plan could be better developed with the plan for the Aspen Country Inn.
Staff response. Most of the opportunity for cooperation between these two
developments has been accomplished through the combined entrance to Highway 82.
The landscape designs are not totally organized together but do respond to each other
and will share species types. Also, improvements will be somewhat coordinated in
timing. The Council may want to encourage or discourage landscape treatments the
Pomegranate owners are proposing. Staff feels there are no problems with the
proposed landscaping.
The garages and surface parking should be reversed so that the surface parking is not
so visible from Highway 82 and the garages are backed against the proposed berms.
Staff response. This plan is a direct result of the Scenic Overlay criteria of Pitkin
County. This overlay discourages buildings close to the road, but allows surface
4
i 0
parking. This probably does produces weird designs but the site design is not part of
the rezoning criteria and it is not in conflict with any Code provision. The design
does include many landscape improvements to screen the parking area. Any redesign
is up to the Pomegranate owners. The City Council may certainly make suggestions
about this arrangement, but cannot condition the rezoning upon changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approve the Amendment to the Official Zone District
Map, with the following conditions:
The legal description of the Pomegranate parcel, attached to the Ordinance as Exhibit A, shall
contain the following language:
For the purpose of differentiating the different zone districts on this parcel, a dividing line
parallel to the Highway 82 right-of-way, measured perpendicular one -hundred and twenty
(120) feet from the Highway 82 right-of-way, shall separate the Park and Residential
Multi -Family Zones. The portion of the parcel within this 120 foot distance from Highway
82 shall remain zoned Park. The remainder of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be
rezoned to Residential Multi -Family. This zoning line does not create a separate lot of
record.
2. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a final amended plat, meeting
all requirements of the City Engineer.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and with City Council shall be adhered to
and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve on first reading the amendment to the Official Zone District Map with
the conditions outlined in the Planning memo dated July 28, 1997."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Application
5
Exhibit B
of Ordinance , series of 1997
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENY AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL
ZONE DISTRICT MAP FROM PARK -PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P-PUD) TO
RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY (RMF) FOR A PARCEL OF LAND AT 39100
HIGHWAY 82, OWNED BY THE POMEGRANATE CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Resolution #97 -
WHEREAS, The Pomegranate Condominium Homeowners Association (Applicant)
submitted an application (development proposal) to the Planning Office to rezone from Park -
Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) a 1.92 tract of land,
generally described as the land between the Pomegranate Condominiums and State Highway 82
and more accurately described in Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department reviewed the development proposal in accordance
with all applicable procedure and review criteria set forth in Sections 26.28, 26.52, 26.56, and 26.92
of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 15,
1997, in accordance with Section 26.52 of the Municipal Code, reviewed the development proposal
in accordance with all applicable procedures and review and recommended to City Council denial
of the Amendment to the Official Zone District Map.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Aspen City Council should deny the request to amend the Official Zone District Map
for the following reasons:
1. The Pomegranate Condominiums should be annexed into the City. This would not only correct
an oddity in our city boundary, but would alleviate any jurisdictional problems with City and
County services.
2. The rezoning from Park to Residential Multi -Family creates additional development potential for
the parcel and allows development very close to the highway.
3. The site plan could be better developed with the plan for the Aspen Country Inn.
Ordinance No. , Series 1997
Page 5
4. The garages and surface parking should be reversed so that the surface parking is not so visible
from Highway 82 and the gararges are backed against the proposed berms.
RECOMMENDED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 15, 1997.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Ordinance No. Series 1997
Page 6
Jasmine Tiger, Vice -Chair
EXHIBIT A
Staff Comments: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this title or an 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 title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed zone district would permit the development of the approved garages and
would not create any non -conformities.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding_
The proposed zone change would not be in conflict with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding:
The surrounding land uses are multi -family residential. Because the Pomegranate
Condominiums are in Pitkin County, the zoning for the parcel is divided by the
jurisdictional boundary. If the Pomegranate Condominiums were ever annexed, the most
appropriate zoning would be RMF
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding_
The amendment will not affect traffic generation or road safety. The entrance to the
Pomegranate Condominiums is being combined with the new entrance to the Aspen
Country Inn. Combining these entrances will improve road safety.
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 facilities, including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding_
The amendment would allow greater development on the site than what is proposed. This
potential future development, however, would have to address the capacity of public
facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding_
This is primarily a developed area. The property has been used for surface parking in
relation to the condominium building. The applicant is proposing several landscape
improvement along with the garages. The zoning change will not significantly affect the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding;
While in Pitkin County, the garages and zone change were approved but a plat was never
recorded. Now that the area has been annexed into the City, an amended plat has been
proposed for the construction of the approved garages. The zone change will allow the
garages to be a permitted use. The area within 120 feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way
shall remain zoned Park (P). This will preserve the intent of the Scenic Overlay.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The property would have been automatically rezoned to AR-2 upon the recordation of the
amended plat if it were still in Pitkin County. The AR-2 zone change would have
allowed the proposed development of garages. This RMF zone district is the most
compatible with the proposed use and the surrounding land uses.
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_
This zone change is not in conflict with the public interest.
9 •
ORDINANCE NO. 3 Z
(SERIES OF 1997)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM
PARK -PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P-PUD) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY
(RMF) FOR A PORTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND AT 39100 HIGHWAY 82, OWNED
BY THE POMEGRANATE CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO
WHEREAS, The Pomegranate Condominium Homeowners Association (Applicant)
submitted an application (development proposal) to the Planning Office to rezone from Park -
Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) a 1.92 tract of land,
generally described as the land between the Pomegranate Condominiums and State Highway 82,
located at 39100 Highway 82 and more accurately described in Exhinit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department reviewed the development proposal in accordance
with all applicable procedures and review criteria set forth in Sections 26.28, 26.52, 26.56, and
26.92 of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 15,
1997, in accordance with Section 26.52 of the Municipal Code, reviewed the development proposal
in accordance with all applicable procedures and review and recommended to City Council denial
of the Amendment to the Official Zone District Map; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 97- is attached to this City
Council Ordinance as Exhibit B; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department, considering the recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission, recommends rezoning only a .86 acre portion of the parcel to
Residential Multi -Family (RMF) with the residual area to remain zoned Park (P); and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified in Sections 26.28,
26.52, 26.56, and 26.92, of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered those
recommendations as made by the Planning Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing on August 25, 1997; and,
Ordinance No�, Series 1997
Page 1
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all
applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with
conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council strongly encourages the owners of the Pomegranate
Condominiums to consider annexing into the City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public
health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows:
Section 1
That it does hereby grant an amendment to the Official Zone District Map for a portion of the
subject parcel, as described in Exhibit A, with additional language as set forth below, from Park -
Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF).
For the purpose of differentiating the different zone districts on this parcel, a dividing line parallel
to the Highway 82 right-of-way, measured perpendicular one -hundred and twenty (120) feet from
the Highway 82 right-of-way, shall separate the Park and Residential Multi -Family Zones. The
portion of the parcel within this 120 foot distance from Highway 82 shall remain zoned Park (P).
The remainder of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be rezoned to Residential Multi -Family
(RMF). This zoning line does not create a separate lot of record.
The Official Zone District Map for this City of Aspen, Colorado, shall be and is hereby amended to
reflect the amendment as set forth in Section 1 above.
Section 3•
Pursuant to Sections 26.28, 26.52, and 26.92, and subject to those conditions of approval as
specified hereinafter, the City Council hereby grants approval for an amendment to the Official
Zone District Map, with the following conditions:
I. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a final amended plat, meeting
all requirements of the City Engineer.
Ordinance No.' ?S Series 1997
Page 2
•
•
Section 4•
All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Growth Management Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, and or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if
fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions.
Section 5•
This Ordinance 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 6•
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.
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 8•
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 25th day of August, 1997 at 5:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing
a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City
of Aspen.
Ordinance No.�, Series 1997
Page 3
u
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28th day of July, 1997.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
City Attorney
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
John Bennett, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 25th day of August, 1997.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
City Attorney
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
John Bennett, Mayor
Attachments: Exhibit A -- Legal description of property
Exhibit B -- Planning and Zoning Resolution No.
Ordinance No.'32T Series 1997
Page 4
•
LAW OFFICES�/--
HILL, EDWARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON, L.L.C.
CENTENNIAL PLAZA BUILDING
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE 201
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
THOMAS C. HUI
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS. JR.. P.C.
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III
THOMAS L. ADKISON
June 19, 1997
Chris Bendon
Aspen/Pitkin County
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
TELEPHONE
RECEIVED (9FACSDvIIl.E DAI 00
(970)963-3131
JUN 2 0 Iy91
ASPEN I PiTKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RE: Rezoning of Maroon Creek Club Lands to be Transferred to Pomegranate
Condominiums
Dear Chris:
Enclosed is a legal description for the portion of the Maroon Creek Club property which is being
transferred to the Pomegranate Condominium owners and on which Pomegranate intends to
construct garages. As we discussed, Pomegranate obtained major plat amendment approval from
Pitkin County prior to annexation of the Maroon Creek property (see Pitkin County Ordinance No.
95-19, Pitkin County Resolution No. 95-200, and Memorandum dated September 19, 1996 -- all
of which are enclosed for your reference). When the City annexed the Maroon Creek Club,
Pomegranate was assured that the City would honor all of the Pitkin County land use approvals
which authorized the exchange of lands and amendment of plats. Unfortunately, when the City
annexed the Maroon Creek Club, the portion of the Maroon Creek Club to be transferred to
Pomegranate was not zoned so as to allow the construction of the Pomegranate garages and,
therefore, this rezoning is necessary.
As we discussed, we will provide you a draft Amended Plat and Site Plan in addition to the
enclosed legal description. The application for rezoning will be heard by the City Planning &
Zoning Commission on July 17, 1997 and by the City Council on July 28, 1997 and August 11,
1997. I understand you will be handling all publication and mailing requirements for public
Chris Bendon
June 19, 1997
Page 2
notice. Please inform me or Scott Writer if you would like us to handle the posting of a notice on
the property.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
HILL, EDWARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON, L.L.C.
Edwards, III
Enclosures
cc: Pomegranate Condominium Association Board of Directors
pomegranate\ 1 bend.01
C�
C
MAROON CREEK CLUB, LLC LANDS TRANSFERRED TO POMEGRANATE
A tract of land situated in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, also being within the Maroon Creek Club Subdivision, Pitkin County,
Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears S 29 ° 17' 00" W 9.71 feet
and N 64°14'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 48024'11" W 64.96 feet; thence N 11°56'54" W
149.77 feet; thence N 30106'33" E 195.92 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of State
Highway 82, also being the boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 60048'00"
E 375.70 feet along said subdivision boundary; thence leaving said right of way S 18109' 00" W
176.89 feet along the easterly boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 18109'00"
W 30.96 feet; thence N 89141' 21 " W 259.10 feet; thence N 48'24' 11 " W 30.50 feet to the point
of beginning, containing 2.541 acres more or less;
Excepting therefrom the following described land:
A tract of land located in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears N 64014'44" W 2353.33
feet; thence N 29017'00" E 86.80 feet; thence N 60143'00" W 60.57 feet; thence N 29117'00"
E 72.28 feet; S 60043'00" E 311.07 feet; thence S 18009'00" W 19.30 feet; thence N 89°35'00"
W 290.30 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.6192 acres more or less.
pomegran\2legal. 01
opt
•
•
County of Pitkin }
} ss.
State of Colorado }
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION
SECTION 26.52.060 (E)
being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (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-class, postage prepaid
U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject
property, as indicated on the attached list, on the4gday of , 1999 (which is2
days prior to the public hearing date of*26.
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen
from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously
from the _4�'day of , 199q. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full
days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
1V0 �L
Signature
(Attach photograph here)
Signed before me this day
,199y
PR Y PG r
kQ S MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My c ssion expires:
XO�t` j
Notary Puklic �
Nlry Public's Signature
• 0
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: POMEGRANATE REZONING FROM P (PARK) TO RMF (RESIDENTIAL
MULTI -FAMILY)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, August 11, 1997 at
a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by The Pomegranate Condominium
Association Board of Directors requesting Rezoning from P (Park) to RMF (Residential Multi -
Family) to allow for construction of garages. The property is described as a 1.92 acre tract of land
situated in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., City of Aspen,
Pitkin County, Colorado, generally described as the land between the Pomegranate Condominiums
and Highway 82. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072.
s/John Bennett, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on July 25, 1997
City of Aspen Account
F.'
Zoline, Joseph T.
900 Stage Road
0n, CO 81611
Zoline Open Space Parcel
City of aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 8161L
Maroon Creek LLC
10 Club Circle
Aspen, CO 81611
• i
Stanford Barbara Moore
P.O. Box 111
Aspen, CO 81612
Boyd Gail Bronson
7 Pine Valley Lane
Newport Beach, CA 92660-6503
Hartnett George & Marianne
240 Old Farm Road
Northfield, IL 60093
Pomegranate Development Co.
Wallen Kathleen C/O
901 Southridge Terrace
Northfield, IL 60093
Hedrich Jon & Meredith
1240 Thorn -apple Ln
Northbrook, IL 60062
Hedrich Virginia E. Trust
1240 Thornapple Ln
Northbrook, IL 60062
Minnesota Rubber Co.
c/o :inn Jacobson
3630 Wooddale Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 35416
Wr=ter Russell Scott & Suzanne HOgg' Alberta D
Trustee of Alberta Trust
P.O. Box 9705
2 1301 Thomas P1
Aspen, CO 8161
For_ Worth, IM 76107
Diamond Sara Jean Wa;aart Realty Company
.0. Box 46 7 Wa;len William IV C/0
Asoe^_, CO 81oi_' ?.0. Box 3434
Asoen, CO 3161;
_ . _—.._—rerl.e: ear..�..�.:•.��-...:.R..�...■ -.rirl�MGr�i '^
Oolson John J Re'_singer Deborah & Edward
uuild Hgmt. Corp C/O P.J. Box 12127
9911 T4. ?4-co 31vd ?nth 4A Aspen, CO 81612
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Erickson Wendy S. Trust
-rickson James A
P.O. Box 400
Aspen, CO 81612
Williams Genevieve Lee
299 Fillmore
Denver, CO 80206
Bartholow Ted & Cynthia
3837 Caruth
Dallas, TX 75225
Williams Ginny L
160 Cherry Street
Denver, CO 80220
Gary Barbara Elizabeth
P.O. Box 7877
Aspen, CO 81612-7877
�I
r t1L�NiL�r(
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community DevelopyDirectr
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy DirectorFROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Pomegranate Rezoning 2nd Reading (public hearing)
DATE: August 25, 1997
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Pomegranate Homeowners Association, is requesting a zone change from
Park (P) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) to allow the construction of 18 garages.
In 1995, the applicant gained approval from Pitkin County for a major plat amendment,
to acquire the property where the garages were proposed, and approval of a rezoning from
AFR-2 to AR-2 to allow the proposed garages. The rezoning was contingent upon the
filing of an amended plat. Pitkin County also granted approval of a scenic review. This
review limits development along Highway 82.
With the development of the Maroon Creek Subdivision, the property was annexed into
the City and rezoned (to reflect the existing County zoning of AFR-2) to Park (P), which
does not allow garages. The applicant has since submitted an amended plat for review.
Because the City does not have an AR-2 zone district, the property must be rezoned to the
district most compatible with the County's AR-2, which also allows garages. Staff
believes this district to be Residential Multi -Family (RMF).
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this case and recommended denial.
Specifically, their concerns were centered around the increased build -out potential with
the rezoning, development potential within ten feet of the Highway 82 R.O.W., their
desire to annex the Pomegranate Condominiums, and site plan considerations. These
concerns are more thoroughly explained in Staff Comments.
In response to these concerns, the Planning Department is now recommending rezoning
only a portion of the parcel. This will allow construction of the garages while preserving
the intent of the County's Scenic Overlay Review.
Staff recommends that City Council rezone a portion of this property to Residential
Multi -Family (RMF) and also recommends encouragement of annexation.
APPLICANT:
Pomegranate Homeowners Association.
4 • 0
LOCATION:
39100 Highway 82.
ZONING:
Park (P). The applicant is requesting a zone change for the parcel to Residential Multi -
Family (RMF)
LOT SIZE:
Total lot size = 2.54 acres = 110,712 square feet.
Within City of Aspen = 1.92 acres = 83,739 square feet.
Portion recommended for rezoing = .86 acres = 37,455 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
Lot area of portion being considered for RMF Zone = 37,455 square feet.
FAR:
1:1 as a multi -family project. Can be increased to 1:1.1 by Special Review. Total
number of units depends on type(s) of units proposed. This is only for the portion of the
parcel that would be rezoned RMF.
5,562 square feet for a duplex. 5,142 square feet for a single family house. This is only
for the portion of the parcel that would be rezoned to RMF.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Surface parking accessory to the residential use.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
18 Garages and surface parking accessory to the residential use.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Council considered and approved this request July 28, 1997, on first reading.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
A development application for an amendment to the text of this title or the official zone
district map shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions
or disapproval by the planning director and then by the Commission at a public hearing,
and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a
public hearing.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no discernible public costs associated with this rezoning.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Comments are included as Exhibit "A." The application is
included as Exhibit "B."
The original proposal was for the rezoning of the entire 1.92 acres in the City to RMF.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this rezoning and recommended denial
2
based on the concerns outlined below. Considering this, Staff is suggesting rezoning only
the portion, approximately .86 acres, of the parcel necessary for the construction of the
garages. This reduction in the area to be rezoned addresses some of the Commission's
concerns.
The Pomegranate Condominiums should be annexed into the City. This would not only
correct an oddity in our city boundary, but would alleviate any jurisdictional problems with
City and County services.
Staff response. The City's boundary is odd and there are potential jurisdictional problems
with this scenario. This, however, is an existing condition which should have no bearing on
the rezoning request. The Pomegranate Condominiums are in Pitkin County and their land is
contiguous with Pitkin County, therefore, it is not been a city policy to force annexation. In
other words, their building is in the center of a "C-shaped" configuration, until it's in an "O-
shaped" configuration we typically won't force annexation. The City can, however, strongly
encourage the Pomegranate Condominium owners to annex into the City. This
encouragement has been included in the ordinance. Any further encouragement should
probably take the form of a letter from the Community Development Department explaining
the vast benefits of being part of Aspen.
The rezoning from Park to Residential Multi -Family creates additional development potential
for the parcel and allows development very close to the highway.
Staff response. First of all, it is important to understand how we got here. When in the
County, the rezoning from AFR-2 to AR-2 was approved conditioned upon a final plat. This
final plat was never filed. The City annexed the property owned by the Maroon Creek Club
(MCC) along with the development of MCC and rezoned the entire development consistent
with the County's present zoning, which did not reflect the rezone to AR-2. In this process
the City agreed to honor all agreements made between the developer and the County.
Pomegranate Condominiums has now submitted this final plat to satisfy the rezoning. The
City, however, does not have an AR-2 zone.
In answering the question -- yes it does allow more development, but not by much more than
the AR-2 zone, which the County approved, would allow. Currently, the strongest
development market is for single family homes. If the entire parcel stayed in the County,
two 15,000 square foot houses could be built after demolishing the condo building.
Rezoning only a portion of the property necessary for the garages preserves the intent of the
County's approval, allowing the construction of the garages while maintaining the scenic
overlay. The portion of the parcel to be rezoned would allow 6 single family homes to be
built with a total of 5,142 square feet for the total development. 12 duplexes totaling 5,562
square feet could also be built. These density numbers are somewhat unrealistic considering
the small size of each unit. A more realistic expectation would be the development of a few
large units. Also, more than two units would require a subdivision approval from City
Council.
There is also the potential of subdividing the portion of the parcel within the City into 6
separate lots and developing a single family home of 3,240 square feet or a duplex of 3,600
square feet on each. This process, however, is not automatic. The City Council, among
other bodies, reviews all subdivisions.
Also important to consider is growth management. Controlling the development on this
parcel would be much the same way the City controls development on any other parcel.
Because it is a new lot (created after 1977) no development on this site would be eligible for
3
•
an exemption from growth management, meaning it would be scored and would compete
against other projects for that year's allotment.
The site plan could be better developed with the plan for the Aspen Country Inn.
Staff response. Most of the opportunity for cooperation between these two developments
has been accomplished through the combined entrance to Highway 82. The landscape
designs are not totally organized together but do respond to each other and will share species
types. Also, improvements will be somewhat coordinated in timing. The Council may want
to encourage or discourage landscape treatments the Pomegranate owners are proposing.
Staff feels there are no problems with the proposed landscaping.
The garages and surface parking should be reversed so that the surface parking is not so
visible from Highway 82 and the garages are backed against the proposed berms.
Staff response. This plan is a direct result of the Scenic Overlay criteria of Pitkin County.
This overlay discourages buildings close to the road, but allows surface parking. This
probably does produce awkward designs but the site design is not part of the rezoning
criteria and it is not in conflict with any Code provision. The design does include many
landscape improvements to screen the parking area. Any redesign is up to the Pomegranate
owners. The City Council may certainly make suggestions about this arrangement, but
cannot condition the rezoning upon changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approve the Amendment to the Official Zone District
Map, with the following conditions:
The legal description of the Pomegranate parcel, attached to the Ordinance as Exhibit A and
described on the final plat, shall contain the following language:
For the purpose of differentiating the different zone districts on this parcel, a dividing line
parallel to the Highway 82 right-of-way, measured perpendicular one -hundred and twenty
(120) feet from the Highway 82 right-of-way, shall separate the Park and Residential
Multi -Family Zones. The portion of the parcel within this 120 foot distance from Highway
82 shall remain zoned Park. The remainder of the parcel within City jurisdiction shall be
rezoned to Residential Multi -Family. This zoning line does not create a separate lot of
record.
2. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a final amended plat, meeting
all requirements of the City Engineer.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and with City Council shall be adhered to
and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 32 amending the Official Zone District Map with the
conditions outlined in the Planning memo dated August 25, 1997."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Application
4
0 0
EXHIBIT A
Staff Comments: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this title or an 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 title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed zone district would permit the development of the approved garages and
would not create any non -conformities.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The proposed zone change would not be in conflict with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding:
The surrounding land uses are multi -family residential. Because the Pomegranate
Condominiums are in Pitkin County, the zoning for the parcel is divided by the
jurisdictional boundary. If the Pomegranate Condominiums were ever annexed, the most
appropriate zoning would be RMF.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
The amendment will not affect traffic generation or road safety. The entrance to the
Pomegranate Condominiums is being combined with the new entrance to the Aspen
Country Inn. Combining these entrances will improve road safety.
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 facilities, including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
The amendment would allow greater development on the site than what is proposed. This
potential future development, however, would have to address the capacity of public
facilities.
0
•
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding_
This is primarily a developed area. The property has been used for surface parking in
relation to the condominium building. The applicant is proposing several landscape
improvements along with the garages. The zoning change will not significantly affect the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
While in Pitkin County, the garages and zone change were approved but a plat was never
recorded. Now that the area has been annexed into the City, an amended plat has been
proposed for the construction of the approved garages. The zone change will allow the
garages to be a permitted use. The area within 120 feet of the Highway 82 right-of-way
shall remain zoned Park (P). This will preserve the intent of the Scenic Overlay.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The property would have been automatically rezoned to AR-2 upon the recordation of the
amended plat if it were still in Pitkin County. The AR-2 zone change would have
allowed the proposed development of garages. This RMF zone district is the most
compatible with the proposed use and the surrounding land uses.
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_
This zone change is not in conflict with the public interest.
08/15;97 FRI 08:48 FAX 1 070 945 5948 SCEWMSHR GORDON MEYER 2002
CERTlFKATION OF OWNERSHIP
Know o/1 men by these pmswls that the Pomegranate CArlabv WMUM AsS060110M Inc• and Olt
unit owners: are the owners of the real property located in i Win Count; Cok ewo, described
as fellows:
A parcel of Aond bejng o part of Corrmment Lot 4 of Sschan 11. Township 10 South, Rouge 85
*9st of the 6th P.A[, smid pone/ is more fully described as fahb,,
GT'lJF7
.KM",
LESS
9&07nrng at a pewit frarn whkh the AtorthwaW corner of Sec*bn 11, Township 10
South. Rouge 83 MMt of the 6th PAO bswa N 64''1444" W 2,i5.x,T3 feat,•
thence N 29'17'00" E 8680 feet, thence N 60'43'00- W 60.57 feet,• thence
N 29'12'00" E 72.28 featthence S W43VO- E 311. 07 feet thence
S 18'09 00' W 79.30 feet,- t"Me N 89*M'00' W 29R30 feet to the point
of beginning, contawming 0.619 acres Mwe, or AMM
A parcel of land beginning at a point fmm wt ieh the Northo"t corner of Sectiam 11,
Township 10 South, Range 85 ftet of the 6th PM. bears S 29'17'00' w 9.71
feat, and N SC1444" W 2JUiM feat• thence N 48'24'11' !! 64L9d tfeat,
thence N 1156'54' W 149.77 feet thence N 30'06'.3,3' F 19592 feet
thence the southeny night —of —way #ne of Cobrvdb State H"wvy 82
S 60'48 al0 £ .37570 *,t,• thence S 18'090 00' W 176.89 feet to a point
on the northe►ty property &w of the Parr egrunne Condom Wurng; thenco carltrn4Nng
aAong said property Arne N 60'43'a0" W 311.07 feet thence $ 29'17'M' W
72M feet thence S A743100" E M57 teetr thence S 2rIr00- Al 7709
feet to the pdrrrt of A@0711ang. conta*d6g, 1.554 acres more or Amm
A parcel of hMd beginning of a pome from wAwh the Abrffi*wW currier of Sscban 11,
Township 10 S, Range 85 ;Wet of the 6th P.Aj bears N 89'3300' W 14.41 feet
and N 64-1444' W ?„315J.J3 feet,• thwMe, S 48'24'11' E 17.59 time thence
S 8914121" E 759.10 feet thence N 1B'0900' £ 11.66 feet to a point on
the sauther/y properly has of the Pomegranate Conobmmiunts• theAve aAxV said
property &ov N 8r'3500" W 275.89 feet to the point of beginning, ca,,ft ring
0.070 acres more or less.
A parrot of lead beginning at a point fors whkA the NWffiwust Comer of Sechon 71.
Township 10 South, Range 85 Newt of the 8M P.At beers N 64'14 44' W
2. 15,3 33 feet thwree N 29'17 00' E 9.71 feet • thence S 4874'11 " E 12.91 fdvt
MOW N 89'35 00" W 14.4 7 feet to the point of beginning, contakWng 61,26
square feet mWP or Aess.
hbte: This Pit amends CONDIO,edINUM AMP OF p0A/£CR4AffE E4S7 ApARTA&-WS
BLIILO/f G A recorded in Plat Beak 4 of Page 105, MtHh County Rtcords.
Or.
.bn P. hiv&hck
For the purpose of oMferentiating the different Zone aFatncts on th4
Parcel, a dividing kne paruMel to the Highway 82 right —of --way,
measured perpendicurar 12000' from the Nrghwu,y 82 right —of wiay,
shall separate the Pork and Residential wIti—Family Zones. the portion
of the parcel within this 120.00' distance from Highway 82 shaff
remain Par*. the ranwo Aer of the ponce/ within City jurisdiction shall
be re2+0er1t:d to Residencidi Mufti —Family. This zoning tine does not create
o separate lot of recard.
Exhibit B
of Ordinance , series of 1997
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENY AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL
ZONE DISTRICT MAP FROM PARK -PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P-PUD) TO
RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY (RMF) FOR A PARCEL OF LAND AT 39100
HIGHWAY 82, OWNED BY THE POMEGRANATE CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Resolution #97 -
WHEREAS, The Pomegranate Condominium Homeowners Association (Applicant)
submitted an application (development proposal) to the Planning Office to rezone from Park -
Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) a 1.92 tract of land,
generally described as the land between the Pomegranate Condominiums and State Highway 82
and more accurately described in Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department reviewed the development proposal in accordance
with all applicable procedure and review criteria set forth in Sections 26.28, 26.52, 26.56, and 26.92
of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 15,
1997, in accordance with Section 26.52 of the Municipal Code, reviewed the development proposal
in accordance with all applicable procedures and review and recommended to City Council denial
of the Amendment to the Official Zone District Map.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Aspen City Council should deny the request to amend the Official Zone District Map
for the following reasons:
1. The Pomegranate Condominiums should be annexed into the City. This would not only correct
an oddity in our city boundary, but would alleviate any jurisdictional problems with City and
County services.
2. The rezoning from Park to Residential Multi -Family creates additional development potential for
the parcel and allows development very close to the highway.
3. The site plan could be better developed with the plan for the Aspen Country Inn.
Ordinance No. 32, Series 1997
Page 5
4. The garages and surface parking should be reversed so that the surface parking is not so visible
from Highway 82 and the garages are backed against the proposed berms.
RECOMMENDED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 15, 1997.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Ordinance No. 32, Series 1997
Page 6
Jasmine Tygre, Vice -Chair
10 -
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENY AN AMENDMENT TO THE
OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP FROM PARK -PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (P-PUD) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY (RMF) FOR A
PARCEL OF LAND AT 39100 HIGHWAY 82, OWNED BY THE POMEGRANATE
CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
i
Resolution 997 -
WHEREAS, The Pomegranate Condominium Homeowners Association
(Applicant) submitted an application (development proposal) to the Planning Office to
rezone from Park -Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF)
a 1.92 tract of land, generally described as the land between the Pomegranate
Condominiums and State Highway 82 and more accurately described in Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department reviewed the development proposal in
accordance with all applicable procedure and review criteria set forth in Sections 26.28,
26.52, 26.56, and 26.92 of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on
July 15, 1997, in accordance with Section 26.52 of the Municipal Code, reviewed the
development proposal in accordance with all applicable procedures and review and
recommended to City Council denial of the Amendment to the Official Zone District Map.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Aspen City Council should deny the request to amend the Official Zone District
Map for the following reasons:
1. The Pomegranate Condominiums should be annexed into the City. This would not only
correct an oddity in our city boundary, but would alleviate any jurisdictional problems
with City and County services.
2. The rezoning from Park to Residential Multi -Family creates additional development
potential for the parcel and allows development very close to the highway.
3. The site plan could be better developed with the plan for the Aspen Country Inn.
4. The garages and surface parking should be reversed so that the surface parking is not so
visible from Highway 82 and the gararges are backed against the proposed berms.
IF A
•
RECOMMENDED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 15, 1997.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
C ----I
L_ . � j/_
ty Attorney
ATTEST:
Ja ie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Jasmine Vice -Chair
0 0
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 15, 1997
Steve Buettow asked if parking was mitigated for the ADU. George Draper,
representative for applicant, answered that parking would be provided on the
gravel pad.
Tim Mooney asked the ownership of the strip of land off of this property. Draper
said that driveway was existing but was unsure of the status of ownership or the
easement. David Hoefer noted condition # 1 j . addressed this issue but should be
made clear to the applicant for approval. Buettow asked if the applicant would be
willing to put in access from the street on their own property. Carol Lowenstern
answered yes, if it was necessary.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Tom D'Arri, public, reiterated that no variance set backs were being asked for on
this application. He asked to see the fence on the drawing.
Rick Brebner, public, stated his house was directly behind the Lowenstein house
and the 2 story garage addition would obliterate his view. He asked that height
limits be kept in mind. Brebner said the closed street in question was the original
entrance to Smuggler Trailer Park (Neale Street). Ellen Craven, public, said that
no windows on that side would be great because that side faces their deck.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the conditional use request
for the proposed detached Accessory Dwelling Unit at 910 Gibson
Avenue in the City of Aspen with conditions outlined in the Community
Development Memo dated July 15, 1997, also an adequate easement
must be attained. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
POMEGRANATE REZONING, 39100 HWY. 82, ASPEN
David Hoefer stated the public notice was properly posted and the commission
had jurisdiction to proceed. Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing.
Chris Bendon, staff, explained that the Pomegranate requested a zone change from
Park to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) to allow construction of attached garages.
Bendon stated in 1995 the applicant gained approval from Pitkin County for a
major plat amendment to acquire the property for the proposed garages and
approval of rezoning from AFR-2 to AR-2 to allow for the proposed 18 garages.
6
! r
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 15, 1997
Maroon Creek Subdivision was developed, annexed into the City and rezoned
from AFR-2 to Park (P) zone which does not allow garages. The Condominiums
are zoned AR-2 in Pitkin County and the proposed location for the 18 garages is in
Aspen City Limits. Bendon noted staff recommended the City annex the entire
property but annexation cannot be forced.
The Commission discussed all the problems of the zoning differences with city
and county boundaries on one parcel of land. There was concern for this rezone as
a parking lot today with the possibility of more development in the future because
of the rezoning. The RMF and AH zones were reviewed regarding parking and
the relationship to Highway 82 and C-DOT. The Commission questioned the lack
of past and present master planning. The Commission was uncomfortable with
this situation and agreed to recommend denial to City Council with P&Z concerns.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved by Resolution #97-15 of the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend denial to City Council
of an amendment to the official zone map for the following reasons:
1. The Pomegranate Condominiums should be annexed into the City. This would not only
correct an oddity in our city boundary, but would alleviate any jurisdictional problems
with City and County services.
2. The rezoning from Park to Residential Multi -Family creates additional development
potential for the parcel and allows development very close to the highway.
3. The site plan could be better developed with the plan for the Aspen Country Inn.
4. The garages and surface parking should be reversed so that the surface parking is not so
visible from Highway 82 and the garages are backed against the proposed berms.
Bob Blaich second. ALL IN FAVOR. APPROVED TO DENY 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Mitch Haas asked if the commission wanted to have a worksession on this item
prior to a public hearing. The Farmers Market will not happen this year so why
should any hearings be rushed. CCLC, DEPP, HPC and Parks commented on the
possibilities of farmers markets.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Text/Code Amendment
to August 19, 1997. Bob Blaich second. ALL IN FAVOR 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Jac ie Lothian puty City Clerk
•
f►Ti i1lu 0] IMIO 11"05 I
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo�
Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Pomogranate Rezoning
DATE: July 15, 1997
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Pomegranate Homeowners Association, is requesting a zone
change from Park (P) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF) to allow the
construction of 18 attached garages.
In 1995, the applicant gained approval from Pitkin County for a major plat
amendment, to acquire the property where the garages were proposed, and
approval of a rezoning from AFR-2 to AR-2 to allow the proposed garages. The
rezoning was contingent upon the filing of an amended plat.
With the development of the Maroon Creek Subdivision, the property was
annexed into the City and rezoned to reflect the existing County zoning of AFR-2
to Park (P), which does not allow garages. The applicant has since submitted an
amended plat for review.
Because the City does not have an AR-2 zone district, the property must be
rezoned to a district most compatible with the County's AR-2, which also allows
garages. Staff believes this district to be Residential Multi -Family (RMF).
Staff recommends the Commission make a recommendation to the City
Council to rezone this property to Residential Multi -Family (RMF).
APPLICANT:
Pomegranate Homeowners Association.
LOCATION:
39100 Highway 82.
ZONING:
Park (P). The applicant is requesting a zone change to Residential Multi -Family
(RMF). The Pomegranate Condominiums are zoned AR-2 (Pitkin County) which
allows multi -family buildings. The Aspen Country Inn is zoned AH 1-PUD which
also allows multi -family residences.
LOT SIZE:
1.9218 acres = 83,714 square feet
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
83,714 square feet.
FAR:
1:1 as a multi -family project. Can be increased to 1:1.1 by Special Review. Total
number of unit depends on type(s) of units proposed.
7,201 square feet for Duplexes. 6,444 square feet for single family units.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Surface parking accessory to the residential use.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
18 Garages and surface parking accessory to the residential use.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this request.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
A development application for an amendment to the text of this title or the official
zone district map shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with
conditions or disapproval by the planning director and then by the Commission at
a public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by
the City Council at a public hearing.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no discernible public costs associated with this rezoning.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Comments are included as Exhibit "A." The application
is included as Exhibit "B."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission recommend approval of the Amendment to
the Official Zone District Map, with the following conditions:
1. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Aspen City
Council an amendment to the Official Zone District Map from Park (P) to Residential
Multi -Family (RMF) for a tract of land situated in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10
2
South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, being
more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point from which the NW
corner of said section bears S 29'17'00" W 9.71 feet and N 64°14'44" W 2353.33 feet;
thence N 48'24' 11" W 64.96 feet; thence N 11'56'54" W 149.77 feet; thence N
30006'33" E 195.92 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of State Highway 82, also
being the boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 18°09'00" W 176.89
feet along the easterly boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S
18009'00" W 30.96 feet; thence N 89°41'21" W 259.10 feet; thence N 48'24' 11" W
30.50 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.541 acres more or less.
Excepting therefrom the following described land: A tract of land situated in Lot 4 of
Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Pitkin
County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point
from which the NW corner of said section bears N 64° 14'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence
N 29017'00" E 86.80 feet; thence N 60°43100" W 60.57 feet; thence N 29017'00" E
72.28 feet; S 60°43'00" E 311.07 feet; thence S 18°09'00" W 19.30 feet; thence N
89035'00" W 290.30 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.6192 acres more or
less.
2. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a final amended plat,
meeting all requirements of the City Engineer.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend to City Council approval of the amendment to the Official
Zone District Map with the conditions outlined in the Planning memo dated July
15, 1997."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Application
3
EXHIBIT A
Staff Comments: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this title or an 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 title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed zone district would permit the development of the approved garages and
would not create any non -conformities.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
The proposed zone change would not be in conflict with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding
The surrounding land uses are multi -family residential. Because the Pomegranate
Condominiums are in Pitkin County, the zoning for the parcel is divided by the
jurisdictional boundary. If the Pomegranate Condominiums were ever annexed, the most
appropriate zoning would be RMF
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding_
The amendment will not affect traffic generation or road safety. The entrance to the
Pomegranate Condominiums is being combined with the new entrance to the Aspen
Country Inn. Combining these entrances will improve road safety.
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 facilities, including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding;
The amendment would allow greater development on the site than what is proposed. This
potential future development, however, would have to address the capacity of public
facilities.
•
•
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding;
This is primarily a developed area. The property has been used for surface parking in
relation to the condominium building. The applicant is proposing several landscape
improvement along with the garages. The zoning change will not significantly affect the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding;
While in Pitkin County, the garages and zone change were approved but a plat was never
recorded. Now that the area has been annexed into the City, an amended plat has been
proposed for the construction of the approved garages. The zone change will allow the
garages to be a permitted use.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The property would have been automatically rezoned to AR-2 upon the recordation of the
amended plat if it were still in Pitkin County. The AR-2 zone change would have
allowed the proposed development of garages. This RMF zone district is the most
compatible with the proposed use and the surrounding land uses.
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 Findingi
This zone change is not in conflict with the public interest.
n h
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
July 18, 1995
Page 12
Ely: Th alue of the would be different, butt ey ould be able to ick�a
1'DR rural and remote.'\T value is a point of view, b would probably de ase.
utbrie:� I would like to ake a motion on the Balcoflhb/Stephenson 1041. Hazard Revie
and Rezoning appji�c6tion to recornlmend denjal of the 1041 hazA review based on
Sections 3-808 ,E, and 3-805 C.2 of th6'Pitkin County Land Use Code`and recommenO
approval of th6 rezoning of both 40 acre parcels from RS-30 to the R/R (R ral/Remote)
,zone district, recognizing that the cabin use is precluded under current circumstances due
tot' �10 constraints, but that a transfer of development rights may be pursued subject to
sp lal review.
Harper: I second the motion. \
\Hatfield: I would like to include in the "motion that the slopes exceed the 30% grads also.
Guthrie: I agree to this clarification.
Harper: I second the amendment to the motion.
Krawzoff: All ,in favor? All were infavor except Jack Hatfield who opposed. Motion
passed four" to ones.
HaVtftto,ugh
8: 1 voted against s because[ was really concerned abo that rezoning, issue,
I approve of the ne district. 15oh't�ink it meets the teria of the `ode.
I think it is cony-idt with applic8lle sectiorA of the Land Us�ode.
C. Pomegranite Rezoning and Scenic Overlay Review:
Malloy: The applicant is requesting rezoning, a major plat amendment, and scenic
foreground approval for the Pomegranite East Apartment property. The applicant wants
to eliminate the non -conforming status of the multi -family use of the property to allow for
the construction of 18 detached garage/storage structures.
The property is approximately 26,970 square feet and is zoned AFR-2. The existing
structure contains 18 apartments and is a three-story walkup. It was originally built in the
1960's in accordance with the zoning at that time. In 1974 the property was downzoned
to AF-2 as part of an effort to promote low density residential development and to prohibit
lodge expansion and commercial development in the Highway 82 corridor area. This
action made the existing use nonconforming and also put a provision on it requiring lodges
made non -conforming to be eliminated within five years of the adoption of the new zone
district. In 1979 the County granted exemption from abatement to several lodges and the
Pomegranite East was among those exempted. In 1991 the County approved the Maroon
Creek Club (MCC) project. During the review of the MCC project, several commitments
were made regarding the Pomegranite East apartments property, including a commitment
to replace parking which was lost as a result of the removal of the Pomegranite Inn.
The first issue, rezoning from AFR-2 to AR-2, would eliminate the non -conforming use on
the property and would provide more floor area for the proposed garage addition. AR-2
•a 0em
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
July 18, 1995
Page 13
is intended to provide for resident and tourist housing nearby to skiing and other
recreational areas. AR-2 also has a more appropriate scale for determining the proper
density. If the plat amendment is approved, this would become a conforming use.
Another criteria for rezoning is that it cannot conflict with any other sections of the Code.
The existing structure encroaches into the 200 foot arterial highway setback and that
encroachment will be increased because of the garage structures. This was a significant
concern and, therefore, was taken to the Board of Adjustment on June 6, 1995. All
variances necessary to accommodate the applicants' proposal, except for the identification
sign, was approved at this meeting.
Another criteria is that the rezoning must be consistent with the Pitkin County Master
Plans, which include the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and the Highway 82
Corridor Master Plan. The AACP has identified a shortage in permanent resident housing.
This provides housing for permanent residents. It is also consistent with the objective of
the Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan, which identifies the property within the resource
con ervation (RC) designation. The key phrase is that the objective is to preserve these
lar'in their present state to the greatest degree possible. It can be assumed that
allowing this use to remain would be consistent with the stated goal of "preserving these
lands in their present state to the greatest extent possible."
The fourth criteria for rezoning is that it not be in conflict with the public interest. This is
relative to the improvements of Highway 82 into Aspen. There has been no comment
from the Colorado Division of Transportation (CDOT). I talked with Bud Eylar and he
stated that the improvements to the highway in this area would either leave the driving
lan/s in their current location or would take them further away from the property.
Therefore, there will be no conflict with the public interest and improvements can still be
pursued on the highway.
As discussed previously, several conditions have changed which have significant impact
on the subject property. The original Pomegranite Inn has been demolished, leaving the
Pomegranite East apartments. The apartment units are either being sold to permanent
residents or are rented on a long-term basis.
With regards to the effect of the proposed rezoning and development on traffic generation
and road safety, this proposal should have a positive effect. There should be no increase
in the traffic generated by this use since no new units are being contemplated. Also, the
proposed location for the single access point has been moved to the west, away from the
Maroon Creek Bridge.
The plat amendment is necessary in order to allow the applicants to add acreage to the
property. This action will also eliminate the non -conforming size status of the property.
Again, no units are being added, only a couple of additional parking spaces. This meets
the zone district requirements and makes the parcel in compliance.
Concerning the scenic impacts, the top three exhibits focused on that issue. We are
talking about a row of garages. This structure is in front of and is dropped down below
the existing grade, therefore, you see only the roof line. The applicant plans on blending
lee
Planning and Zoning Commissicn Meeting
July 18, 1995
Page 14
the structure in with the background and use berms to do some screening. The applicant
plans on keening the height to 10 feet and install additional landscaping. They plan on
preserving much of the existing vegetation. We would rather see more vegetation and
less berm. We are also suggesting the applicant does not do another berm. What is
being proposed puts less parking close to the highway. The proposal is a good one
minimizing the visual impacts. Therefore, staff is recommending approval with conditions.
Scott Writer: We would like to keep the proposed berm. We are talking about a 4 foot
height limit above the existing grade in two locations. It will be contoured so it doesn't
look like a straight berm. The topography of the site drops toward the highway. The site
steps up naturally and blocks the view of the cars parked there. We only want to try to
block out part of the highway. We are lowering the grade three feet and would like to use
that dirt for the berm.
Caskey: I'm concerned about the headlights on the road. Does that road exist, and are
we right in choosing the alignment the Maroon Creek Club built?
Scott Writer. Negotiating with the MCC has been very good. The previous sign had spot
lights on it. and we are willing to take the spot lights off it. We do want to do some
lighting within the County Code. Some of the units are still used for rentals and we would
like to have the lighting so the complex can be seen. We would like to have a line of
lights along the existing line of trees and a couple of lights along the roadway going into
the project. These would be indirect lights.
Harper. Once a person parks, you would want some type of lighting.
Scott Writer. We are comfortable with what Tim Malloy has recommended in the memo.
Guthrie: There should also be some type of light on the trash area. The highway would
see nothing.
Harper: The street lights serve a purpose to encourage people to walk and use the bus.
I need a clarfication on the lights. There would be two sets of lights, one in the existing
area and one close to the trash dumpster.
Hatfield: The key issue is the height of the garages. Why 10 foot high garages.
Scott Writer. It is appropriate to slope the roofs so that the snow will slide off.
Whipple: You need to have the garage tall enough for a car.
Harper: With ski racks on the car, you need additional height also.
Hatfield: With the 5,000 additional square feet, where could you go with this additional
allotment?
Whipple: Would you willing to commit to no additional units?
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
July 18, 1995
Page 15
Hatfield: The plat amendment seems complete but I would also like to see no more units.
Whipple: Maybe this additional square footage could go into a bigger maintenance area
or cooling structure.
Guthrie: Why not add other units.
Scott Writer: We would be willing to commit to no additional units as part of the approval.
Caskey: The Villas of Aspen vastly improved their units by enclosing decks and making
the interior better.
Guthrie: Adding units is slim to none.
Hatfield: Therefore, it is not onerous to say no additional units.
Caskey: What if they come to us in the future with something wonderful.
Harper. Pertaining to the proposed identification sign, would that allow low lighting?
Malloy: In reading the Code, it would allow for low lighting. In addressing the garages
nd drive lane with respect to emergency access, there are some concerns that e e
firintina vehicles may not be a5le to ARP Trip r5m I will di ,ca this furtner wittl Fne tire
dal.
Scott Writer: This is not a driving lane but a sidewaik and for snow removal only. We
wouldn't want the fire trucks any closer.
Malloy: If you shift the garages back closer to the units, they you could allow for a larger
area for emergency vehicles.
Scott Writer. This doesn't work because the garages work with the existing
vegetation/trees that would be between the garages.
Harper: I would like to make a motion to approve the Pomegranite Rezoning, Major Plat
Amendment and Scenic Foreground Overlay Review subject to the conditions
recommended by staff with the following changes: in condition 2 you need to eliminate
the last sentence dealing with the berm; in condition 3, you need to allow safety lighting
on the west to facilitate the traffic for pedestrians and allow lighting at the trash dumpsters
and along the walkway for pedestrians to go to the bus stop. The fire marshal must also
take a look at the plan to see if a problem exists for the fire a uioment to turnaround no
to the review by the BOCC, and if there is a major problem, this should be ad resse .
Guthrie: I second the motion.
Krawzoff: Any further discussion? I would like to call the question. All were in favor and
the motion passed unanimously.
There a
located
su
•. •
PW, --, IM /h,��NID 4v `E'�1
r urrently 52 p kin paces available to the PomegRate East apartments *of which e �w
n t e adjacent Z ICC lams There are also three sigh's for the Pomegranate loca don e
t property�as ell as a dumpy er /and significant areas of landscaping which help scre e
property fro Highway 31
e existing structure encroaches into the 20toot arterial highway setback (for structure .The
exi ing parking areas also encroach into the 10 oot arterial highway setba (for all uses). In fact,
there e parking spaces within'60 to 65 feet of thghway right-of-way in th Curren %onfiguration
The dum%_'ustment
n 45 feet of the Highway right-o _way.
The Boreviewed this application on June 6, 1995 and has approv d all variancenecessaodate the applicants' proposal (except for the identification sib whiol� is to%be
located off site, and r which little information has been provided):
YZEFERRAL AGENCY ONUN ENTS: The application was referred'ta,thq following re�rral
agencies. The County Attom Colorado Department of Transportation, MCC have not provided
written comments. The comments,\of the other referral ageni 'es are mcorp ated�in the appropriate
sections of this memo. Their summary,memos are ahso attach or refere ce.
1) Environmental Health Departm%
i 2) County Engineer
))Zoning Office
4) County Attorney
5) Colorado Departmet of Transportation
6) N1400n Creek Club vianagement
PLANNING STAFF CONUMENTS:
Rezoning
The Applicant proposes to rezone the property from AFR-2 (one unit per two acres) to AR-2 (one
multi -family units per 5,500 square feet). The proposed rezoning will eliminate the non -conforming use
status of the property (multi -family dwelling units are prohibited in the AFR-2 zone district) and
provides more floor area for the proposed garage addition. The AR-2 zone district is intended to
provide for resident and tourist housing nearby to skiing and other recreational areas and lists multi-
family dwelling units as an "allowed use". The AR-2 zone district also allows development at a density
taff feels the AR-2 zone district is the most appropriate
similar to the existing use on the property. S
zoning for this property regardless of whether the other aspects of this proposal are approved.
3
Section 3-20102 of the Land Use Code establishes several criteria for considering whether a rezoning
request is appropriate. Those criteria are reviewed as follows:
A. The development resulting from the proposed rezoning shall:
1. Not conflict with any applicable sections of the Land Use Code:
Response: As discussed above, the proposal results in violations to the setback
regulations. The necessary variances have been granted by the Board of Adjustment.
2. Be consistent with Pitkin County master plans:
Response: The applicable Pitkin County Mater Plans include the _-\-MCP and the
Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan.
AACP-. The .-\ACP has identified a shortage in permanent resident housing. The Plan
includes several measures for encouraging affordable housing in the Metro area (up
valley of Aspen Village). The Pomegranate East apartments provide housing which is
being occupied by permanent residents, as identified in Figure 1 in the application. This
is housing which the community does not have to pay for or subsidize. In this regard
this use is a valuable asset to the Community.
HiQhwav 82 Corridor Master Plan: The Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan includes the
property within the resource conservation (RC) designation. This designation is applied
to lands based on their visual sensitivity, environmental characteristics, relationship to
essential public services and the community goal to preserve these lands in their present
state to the greatest degree possible. Since this use was in place at the time the
Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan was adopted, it can be assumed that allowing this
use to remain would be consistent with the stated goal of "preserving these lands in
their present state to the greatest extent possible". In addition, the Pomegranate Inn
had already been granted exemption from abatement when the Highway 82 Corridor
Master Plan was approved.
Further, since it is the objective of the Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan to preserve
and promote the visual character of the Highway corridor, the applicants' proposal
should be considered consistent with the Plan. The proposal will result in an
improvement to the appearance of the property by reducing the amount of signage,
eliminating one of the driveway entries onto Highway 82 and pulling the surfacing
parking areas back further from the Highway right-of-way.
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the applicable comprehensive
plans.
0
•
•
3. Be compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, con-
sidering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics;
Response: The land surrounding the subject property is zoned AF the same as the
existing zoning for the property. However, the surrounding lands have been developed,
as part of the Maroon Creek Club project, for golf course and single-family residential
use. The property across the Highway from the subject site is located within the City of
Aspen and is zoned for open space use.
The subject property is relatively isolated and has little impact on any of the
surrounding land uses. This is due to the fact that the structure on this property is set
back from the Highway and is relatively well screened from the adjoining lands. Staff
feels this proposal does not effect the way in which the existing use blends in with the
surrounding neighborhood.
�. Not result in demands on public facilities. and shall not exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including, but not limited to,
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities:
Response: This proposal does not involve any increase in units or residential square
footage. The primary purpose of the proposed structures is to provide vehicle and
other storage for the existing residential units. No additional facilities or services will be
required.
5. Not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;
6. Be consistent and compatible with the community character; and
Response: The proposed rezoning will result in no adverse impacts to the environment
and will not effect community character.
7. Not be in conflict with the public interest;
Response: The primary issue relative to this criteria is whether the proposed
garage/storage structures would have any impact on plans to improve Highway 82 into
Aspen. Staff referred this application to CDOT but received no comment; however,
Staff has discussed this issue with the County Engineer. According to Bud Eylar, all
foreseeable alternatives for improvements to the Highway in this area would either
leave the driving lanes in their current location or would take them further away from
the subject property and further onto the publicly owned lands on the other side of the
5
Highway. The reasons for this are two. First the Highway Department generally prefers
to deal with a public entity when obtaining additional right-of-way. Second, the
Maroon Creek Bridge has been designated on the National Register of Historic Places.
This places extreme limitations on what can be done with the bridge. Since the bridge
deck can not meet any standard for width (even for two lanes), the current preferred
plan involves constructing a new bridge roughly 100 feet downstream of the existing
bridge.
Based on this information, Staff is comfortable that the applicants proposal will not
interfere with plans to improve Highway 82.
B. The Board shall consider:
1, Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment;
Response: As discussed previously in this memo, several conditions have changed
which have sianincant impact on the subject property. First, the original Pomegranate
Inn has been demolished leaving Pomegranate East apartments without the amenities it
once enjoyed as part of a larger resort. As a result, the apartment units are less
marketable for short-term occupation and most of the units have either been sold to
permanent residents or are rented on long-term basis. Therefore, this facility provides
housing for permanent residents which is desperately needed in the Metro area.
In addition, the surrounding property has been developed for golf course and single-
family residential use in a manner which is compatible with the use on the subject
ss of the
property. As a result, there is no question as to the lon- term appropriatene
existing multi -family residential use. Further, the County has granted this use
exemption from abatement and has recognized its value for providing housing for
permanent residents.
2. The effect of the proposed rezoning and development on traffic
generation and road safety.
Response: This proposal should have a positive effect on road safety. There should be
no increase in the traffic generated by this use since no new units are contemplated and
the number of parking stalls remains relatively similar as in the existing situation.
Further, the proposal includes the elimination of one of the two existing access points
onto Highway 82 from the Pomegranate site. Also, the proposed location for the single
access point has been moved to the west, away from Maroon Creek bridge. However,
Staff has no information from the Highway Department as to whether the proposed
N.
i --
location meets their criteria. Further, the County Engineer indicates that MCC may be
constructina an access drive onto Highway 82 very near to the location shown on the
applicants site plan. If this is the case, CDOT may be unwilling to allow a second
access in the same area. Staff will attempt to additional information on this issue at the
meeting.
N a r Plat amendment,
The Major Plat amendment is necessary in order to allow the applicants to add acreage to the subject
property from the adjacent MCC"I'ands. This action will also eliminate the non -conforming size status
of the property (both the ,A R-2 and AR-2 zone districts require a 2 acre minimum lot size).
The existing property includes 26,970 square feet or .619 acres. The applicants propose to increase\tte
total lot area bW 78, 7 56 square feet or 1.81 acres to a total of 105,726 square feet or 2.43 acres. The
areas which"are being exchanged are depicted on Map 2 in the application. The bulk of the lands being
added to the subject property are located between the existing building and the Highwav right-of-wav,
though there is also a significant area to the west of the building which is being absorbed into the
,.,�bject property. There is also a very small area (149 square feet) which is being added to the MCC
site from the subject property.
Section 3-1809 provides a subdivision exemption for major plat amendments prodded the following
criteria are complied with:
ZA -
Amendments shall be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Response: Generally, the property being deeded over to the Pomegranate from MCC, is land
that is already used by the Pomegranate and been so used for years. For example, virtually the
entire parking area and associated driveways for the Pomegranate are located on lands owned
by MCC. The Pomegranate has also done significant landscaping on MCC lands and has
maintained these areas for years. The proposed amendment will result in the Pomegranate
owning lands which they have the greatest stake in maintaining and caring for.
The subject property is also relatively isolated from the surrounding neighborhood. The
property is bordered on the north by Highway 82 and the east by Maroon Creek. The rest of
the site is surrounded by the Maroon Creek Club golf course. The proposed plat amendment
will have no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
B. Additional community impacts resulting from the amendment shall be completely
mitigated by the applicant.,
7
0
Is
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: POMEGRANATE REZONING FROM P (PARK) TO RMF
(RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 15,
1997 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by The Pomegranate Condominium Association Board
of Directors requesting Rezoning from P (Park) to RMF (Residential Multi -Family) to
allow for construction of garages. The property is described as a 1.92 acre tract of land
situated in Lot 4 of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., City
of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, generally described as the land between the
Pomegranate Condominiums and Highway 82. For further information, contact
Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena
St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on June 28, 1997
City of Aspen Account
Stanford Barbara Moore
P.O. Box 111
Aspen, CO 81612
Hedrich Jon & Meredith.
1240 Thornapple Ln
Northbrook, IL 60062
ya
Zoline Open Space Parcel
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Maroon Creek LLC
10 Club Circle
aspen, CO 81611
Hartnett George & Marianne
240 Old Farm Road
Northfield, IL 60093
Pomegranate Development Co.
Wallen Kathleen C/O
901 Southridge Terrace
Northfield, IL 60093
Hedrich Virginia E. Trust
1240 Thornapple La
Northbrook, IL 6006Z
:Minnesota Rubber Co.
c/o Ann Jacobson
3630 Wooddale Avenue
M..4nneapolis, M.N 55416
Boyd Gail Bronson Wrter Russell Scott & Suzanne HOgg' Alberta D
=
7 Pine Valley Lane P.O. Box 9705 Trustee of Alberta. Trust
Newport Beach, CA 92660-6503 As1301 Thomas Pl
Aspen, CO 81612
Fort Worth, TX 76107
re i
rickson Wendy S. Trust
-Dickson James A
P.O. Box 400
Aspen, CO 81612
Williams Genevieve Lee
299 Fillmore
Denver, CO 8OZ06
Bartholow Ted & Cynthia
3837 Caruth
Dallas, TX 75225
rvi_=lams Ginny L
160 Cher-v Street
Denver, CO 80220
Gary Barbara Elizabeth
P.O. Box 7877
Aspen, CO 81612-7877
Zoline, Joseph T
900 Stage Rd
Aspen CO 81611
Pomegranate Homeowners Assoc
720 E. Hyman Ave
Aspen CO 81611
I —
Nicholson John J
Guild Mgmt Corp
9911 W PICO Blvd Path A
Los Angeles CA 90035
Diamond Sara Jean
PO Bog 4627
Aspen CO 81612
Walhart Realty Company
Wallen William IV
PO Box 2484
Aspen CO 81612