Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.RZ.39100 Hwy 82.A51-97 CAS"T.OAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY C—ASPEN DATE RECEIVED: 6/23/97 CASE# A51-97 DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Chris Bendon PARCEL ID# 2735-112-01-018 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 Review Body Date Public P&Z ®Yes ❑No CC ❑Yes ®No CC (2nd reading) ®Yes ❑No REFERRALS: ❑ City Attorney ❑ Aspen Fire Marshal ❑ CDOT ❑ City Engineer(DRC) ❑ City Water ❑ ACSD ❑ Zoning ❑ City Electric ❑ Holy Cross Electric ❑ Housing ❑ Clean Air Board ❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas ❑ Environmental Health ❑ Open Space Board ❑ Aspen School District ❑ Parks ❑ Other: ❑ Other: DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DATE DUE: APPROVAL: Ordinanceaft4we # 7� o� a Date: $• `� Staff Approval Date: Plat Recorded: G ook , Page �. `'o rA • vet.. CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS: ROUTE TO: '� J�tirq� 04'JVs t�1 A'� ;� v 1ii�U March 30,2000 THE CITY OF ASPEN 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, 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. S'= David Hoefer Assistant City Attorney cc. Sarah Oates Joseph Edwards III 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET• ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 PHONE 970.920.50M FAx 970.92 05197 Mwi d on Receded paper September 17, 1999 ASPEN hITKIN 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, g 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 Printed nn Recycled Pap,, r I 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 IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII IIIIII IIII IIIIIII III VIII IIII IIII 427321 02/06/1999 03:46P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI 1 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO A. 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. B. 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. 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 IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII IIIIII IIII V'II'I III VIII IIII IIII 427321 02/08/1999 03:46P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI 2 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 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 I"III VIII "III' I"I II'III "'I II'I"I III "I" IIII I'II 521 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 POMEGRANATE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED By: ✓�,^� 17 By: — 74/-4) JO-,� JohnyJBennett, Mayor on P. HedAch, President ATTEST: ATTEST: By: By: City Clerk Notary Public 4 'ea'r s z 9/3 APP 91t Z3 y 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 29°17'00" W 9.71 feet and N 64 014'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 48 124'11" W 64.96 feet; thence N 11 156'54" W 149.77 feet; thence N 30 106'33" 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 18°09'00" W 176.89 feet along the easterly boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 18 109'00" 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 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 comer of said section bears N 64 014'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 29°17'00" E 86.80 feet; thence N 60 043'00" W 60.57 feet; thence N 29 017'00" E 72.28 feet; S 60 143'00" E 311.07 feet; thence S 18 009'00" W 19.30 feet; thence N 89 035'00" W 290.30 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.6192 acres more or less. pomegran\21ega1.01 I Illlll "III 111111 I'll 111111 1111 1111111 III 11111 1111 Illl 427521 02/08/1999 03:46P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI 5 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager I 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. l , 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 Nol�-—IK, 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 1 LAW OFFICES f/�n HILL, EDWARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON, L.L.C. CENTENNIAL PLAZA BUILDING 502 MAIN STREET,SUITE 201 CARBONDALE,COLORADO 81623 - 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. FJooseE. Edwards, III pomegranate\1 bend.02 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 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, I I"III "III iI"I II'III "'II II 'II'I"I III "I'I II'I I"I Ordinance No. 38, Series 1997 414431 03/11/1998 02:54P ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI Pagel 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). 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.32, Series 1997 Page 2 i I"III "III "I"I (I'III �"II II 'II'I"I III "II' II'I I"I 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: 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 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 I ("III "III �'I"I II'III I'III II 'II'I"I III "I" IIII I"I 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. 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. 32, Series 1997 Page 4 11111 HIM 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 414431 03/11/1998 02:54P ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 4 of 5 R 26.00 0 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 10th day of November, 1997. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Alt�t:A e Kathryn S. Woch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted,passed and approved this $th day of December, 1997. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney John,Ben ett, Mayor Atest°'. J. K hryn$. _ ch, City Clerk Attach4ws: Exhibit A -- Legal description of property Exhibit B -- Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 97-26 Ordinance No. 32, Series 1997 Page 5 414431 03/11/1998 02:54P ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 5 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO I Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) I, c w �M ,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: 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 within three hundred(300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list,on the Aay of�, 199_-�(which is tZ- days prior to the public li hearing date ofj?gi. 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 th4��ay of t Pe i , 1997 ' 99 ,to the _day of , 199_q-. (Must be posted for at least ten(10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. I Signature Signed before me thiszay of - 1993t OWNIC-1 &AUd z WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: No ublic 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 bcanrora Barbara Moore Hedrich Jon & Meredith- ` P.0. Box 111 1240 Thornapple Ln -� Aspen, CO 81612 Northbrook, IL 60062 .t- Zoline Open Space Parcel Hartnett George & .Marianne Hedrich Virginia E. Trust City of Aspen 240 Old Farm Road 1240 Thornapple La 130 S. Galena Northfield, IL 60093 Northbrook, LL. 60062 Aspen, CO 81611 Maroon Creek LLC Pomegranate Development Co. : i- esota Rubber Co. 10 Club Circle "Wallen Kathleen C/O c/o Ann Jacobson Aspen, CO 81611 901 Southridge Terrace 3630 Wooddale Avenue Northfield, IL 60093 Minneapolis, 'XN 35416 Boyd Gail Bronson Hoag' Alberta D Wr=ter Russell Scott & Suzanne '° 7 Pine Valley Lane P.O. Box 9705 Trustee of Alberta Trust � Newport Beach, CA 92660-6503 1301 Thomas P_ Aspen, CO 81612 7o=-:: worth, '?'R 76I07 ?r=ckson Wendy S. Trust THi_==ams Ginny L Nicholson John J -_ickson James A 160 Cherry Street Guild Mgmt Corp P.O. Box 400 Denver, CO 80220 9911 W PICO Blvd Path A Ashen, CO 81612 Los Angeles CA 90035 Wiliams Genevieve Lee Gary Barbara Elizabeth Diamond Sara Jean 299 Fllmore P.O. Box 7877 PO Box 4627 Denver, CO 80206 Aspen, CO 81612-7877 Aspen CO 81612 Zoline, Joseph T Bartholov Ted & Cynthia 900 Stage .Bd Walhart Realty Company 3837 Caruth Aspen CO 81611 Wallen William IV Dallas, T1 75225 PO Boa 2484 Aspen CO 81612 © Pomegranate Homeowners Assoc 720 E. Hyman Ave Aspen CO 81611 .- y "C The Aspen Times•Saturday-Sunday,November 22-23, 1997 1 � ' NOTICE TO CREDITORS Adjustment will give serious consideration to the PUBLIC NOTICE in the vicinity of Lone Pine Road. consideration paid,the receipt and sufficiency of ESTATE OF ETOCR LYNNE WILLE opinions of surrounding properly owners and PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:That the Board of 2.As part of this reconstruction project there which is hereby acknowledged,has remixed, abate AT'EOFFRA others affected in deciding whether to grant or County Commissioners of Pitkin County, was an agreement to exchange properties to released,sold,and quitclaimed and by these persons having claims against the above- deny the request for variance.A VARIANCE Colorado,will consider the following Ordinance acquire an additional right of way along Red presents does remise,release,sell,convey and ed estate are required to present them e- GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT at the Board's regular meeting on Wednesday, Mountain Road to accommodate the new quitclaim unto the grantee,its successors and Louts WNe or a the District to p Court them Pitkin REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. December 3, 1997 at 3:00 P.M.,Pitkin County construction.The current owner of the exchange assigns forever,all the real property,together icy,Colorado,on or before March Court f Pit i DATE AND TIME OF IMEETING:Tuesday, Courthouse,District Courtroom,506 East Main properly Is the Tercero Corporation. with any improvements located thereon,if any, claims may be forever baited. December 2,1997;5:15 P.M. Street,Aspen, at which time and place all 3.For reasons beyond the control of all the lying and being in the City of Aspen,County of Louis may Personal Representative LOCATION OF MEETING:Sister Cities Meeting members of the public may appear and be heard: parties involved,the proposed land exchange Pitkin and State of Colorado,described as follows DATES,KNEZEVICH&GARDFNSWARTZ,P.C. Room,City Hall Basement 130 S.Galena Street, AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY was never executed,even though the County did SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED Aspen,Colorado COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, complete the reconstruction of Red Mountain TO HAVE AND ul HOLD the same,together runes Rkhard n Krtepres n ativ Sladly,Tom:Requesting approval for a 2'north COLORADO ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO LAND Road using the property to tr conveyed by with all and singular the appurtenances and rays for Personal e, rd Floor and south side yard setback variance where 10'Is Tercero,pursuant e a construction license privileges"hereunto belonging,e t anywise y USE CODE SECTION 3.150.130 B. agreement with the then owner. "hereunto appertaining,and all the estate,right, Fast Hopkins Avenue 3rd Floor PP 8. B required and a 20'front yard setback variance ORDINANCE N0.97 B ut,Colorado 81611 where 30'is required on this approximately RECITALS 4.o is still the desire of the County and Tercero title, interest and claim whatsoever,pr the heed in 0 11,000 s ft.lot in the AFR-10 zone district,for the to complete the exchange of properties b quit grantor,either in law or equity,to the only proper ushed in The Aspen Times November 11,29, 4 n Pitkin County adopted amendments to the g P P Y q mbar 6&13 1997. installation of a septic system which exceeds 30" Land Use Code on January 24,1995. claim deeds as attached as Exhibits A and B.The use, benefit and behool of the grantee, its above grade.Property Description:Lot 31A 2,One of these amendments,to Section 3- legal descriptions of the properties to be successors and assigns,forever. h darecontainedwithinthedeeds IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor has PUBLIC NOTICE Crystal River Park Subdivision. 150,130 B.,required that this Section of the Code excange . HOWER SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A Engelhardt,Anthony&Susan: Requesting shall expire within two years unless extended by NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED, executed this Quit Claim Deed on the date set SPIJi&GMQS IXFJl4PTK)N approval for a 90'major road setback variance the Board. _ that the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin forth above. )TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing where 100'is required and a 20'front yard 3.The Planning and Zoning Commission County,Colorado authorizes the chairman to ATTEST: be held on Monday,December B,1997 at a setback variance where 30'is required for this.99 reviewed Section 3-150.130 B.at a regularly execute the necessary documents in order to County Clerk Ming to begin at 5.00 p.m.before the Aspen acre lot in the RS-30 zone district, for the scheduled public meeting on January 14, 1997 complete the land exchange between Pitkin THE COUNTY OF rd of C Council,City Council Chambers,City Hall, construction of a detached residential garage. and recommended extension of the provisions of County and the Tercero Corporation a executing ST Chairman,Board of County Commissioners S. Galena St., Aspen. to consider an Property Location: 11398 Hwy 133,Carbondale, Section 3150.130 B. the quit claim deed in substantially,and causing the same form STATE OF COLORADO P CO. 4.The Board extended the provisions of Section b attached in Exhibit r and causing the same to COUNTY OF PITKIN Bcalion submitted by bale Hower of Running Published in The As n Times on November 22, be delivered to Tercero at the same time that The foregoing instrument was acknowledged r LLC,requesting approval for a Subdivision 3-150.130 B.until January 24,1998,at a public � B PP 1997. hearing on January 22,1997. Tercero delivers an original fully executed deed before me this_day of,199 by as Chairman of the nption for Lot Split and a GMQS Exemption. to the County in substantially the form attached Board of County Commissioners of the County of property is located at 930 W.Francis Street., 5.The his extension and Zoning Commission as Exhibit B, and to execute such further Pitkin,Grantor. cribed as Lots L-0,Block 3 City of Aspen and PUBLIC NOTICE reviewed this extension at a regularly scheduled RE 1997 NON-METRO RESIDENTIAL GMQS public meeting on November 25, 1997,and documents as may be necessary to complete the Witness Public hand and official seal. of the WI/2 of section 12,T 10 S.RSSW of the SCORING P B transaction. Notary Public P.M..For further information,contact Mitch recommended that the expiration provisions of Copies of the entire Ordinance are available for My commission expires: rs at the Aspen/Pitkin Community NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing Section 3 150.130 B.be removed by eliminating ubl c ins ection at the Clerk and Recorder's EXHIBIT A TO QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM THE elopment Department, 130 S.Galena St., will be held on Tuesday,December 23,1997 at a paragraph 5.of Section 3-150.130 B. P P en,CO ent Department, 5. regular meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the Office,Jeanette Jones,at 530 East Main Street, COUNTY OF PITKIN TO TERCERO John Bennett,Mayor Pilkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, Pilkin County Board of County Commissioners Aspen,Colorado 81611,during regular business CORPORATION Jo nCity Bennett, Commissioners'Meeting Room,Pltkln County that it hereby amends thel'ilkinCountylandUse hours.Please publish In the Weekend Edition of Beginning at a point whence the west 1/4 iblished in The Aspen Times on November 22, Courthouse,506 E Main St,Aspen to score the Code as follows: the Aspen Times on November 22,Office PO 00114 corner u(Section 7,-Township 10 South,flange n4 1 1997 non-metro area residential GMQS 1.Repeal existing Section 3-150.130 B.and re- 9205190 Pitkin County At 011ice West of the Pith P.M.,Dears North 175.06 feet,and ® applications.The following application was enact a new Section 3-150.130 B.to read as PuDlishedin The AspenTimes onNov.22,1997. West feet;feet;thence South 00"Eat 1 East PUBLIC NOTICE received from the competition: 1.Schwarz/Patch follows: QUIT CLAIM DEED 159.10 feet;thence South 34°05'00"East 119.84 E:POMEGRANATE REZONING FROM PARK Parcel.Applicant is requesting one non-metro B.Other Caretaker:The Board may permit THIS QUIT CLAIM DEED Is made this—day a feet;thence South nt mean West 52 tees more or TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY(RMF)AND residential GMQS allotment to develop a single-•. Caretaker Dwelling Units up to seven hundred — 199—,between TERCERO CORPORATION,a less in the apparent mean high water line of the NCEPTUAL AND FINAL APPROVAL FOR A family residence on a 64.9 acre parcel.The (700)square feet on any size lot in the R-30,AFR- corporation having its principal office and place Roaring Fork River;thence North 32°06'24"West CCiALLY PLANNED AREA(SPA) applicant is also requesting 1041 Hazard Review 10 AFR-2 RS-20,RS-30 and TLS-150 zones.The of Tulsa o n at 4400 One Williams Center,Tulsa, to the feet;thence north 24.94 feet more or less OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing and Conceptual Submission approval.The parcel Board may permit Caretaker Dwelling Units up to Tulsa County,Oklahoma,grantor,and BOARD OF to the point of beginning. be held on Monday,December 8, 1997 at a is located adjacent to and above the Brush Creek four hundred(400)square feet on any size lot In COUNTY COMMISSIONERS O THE COUNTY O Containing 1Q000 square feet,more less. PITKIN,with its principal off eting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen Village Subdivision,and Is described as a parcel the R-6,R15 and R-15A zone districts.All such office and place of f Published in The Aspen Times on Nov.22,1998. y Council,City Council Chambers,City Hall, of land situated in section 20,Township 9 South, units may be attached to,or within,the principal business at 530 East Main Street,Aspen,Pitkin Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., being residence; within a properly approved County,Colorado,grantee: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLICATION I S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an Southwester of the lathering parcel of the Cory WITNESSETH,that the grantor,for and in OFORDINANCE Aication submitted by The Pomegranate h g P outbuilding,or detached.All such units may be consideration of the sum of Ten and 00/100th PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:That the board of ndominium Association Board of Directors, I Point Ridge Subdivision adjacent to Lot 1,Cozy approved under the following conditions and iuesting Conceptual and Final approval for a Point Ridge Subdivision. limitations: Dollars 0),and other good and valuable County Commissioners of Pitkin County, :cially Planned Area(SPA)and a Rezoning For further Information contact Suzanne Wolff 1.The total floor area of the principal and consideraration tion paid,the receipt and sufficiency of Colorado,will conduct a public hearing on the at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development caretaker unit shall not exceed the allowable FAR which d hereby acknowledged,has remixed, following Ordinance at 2:00 sin (or will soon m Pants(P)to Residential Multi-Family(RMF). released,sold,and quit-claimed and by these thereafter as the conduct of business will allow) e property is described as a 1.92 acre tract of Department(970)920-5093. of the applicable zone district. d situated in Lot 4 of section 11,Township 10 s/David Guthrie,Chair 2.There shall be provided one(1)off-street presents does remise,release,sell,convey and at the Board's regular meeting December 3, nth,Range 85 West of the 6th P.M.,City,of Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission parking'space for each bedroom within the quitclaim unto the grantee,its successors and 1997 at the Pitkin County Courthouse Annex, pen, Pitkin County, Colorado generally Published In The Aspen Times on Nov.22,1997 principal unit and one(1)off-street parking space assigns forever,all the real property,together Commissioners Meeting Room,pa i Main Street, scribed as the land between the Pomegranate - for each bedroom in the caretaker unit. with any Improvements located thereon,it any, Aspen,CO and be NI interested parties are Invited ndominiums and Highway 82.For further NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 3.The applicant shall by deed restriction or lying and being a the City of Aspen,County s to attend and be heard. ormation, contact Chris Bendon at the PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:That the Board of other permanent commitment running with the Pitkin and State of Colorado,described as AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY County Commissioners of Pitkin County, land,guarantee that the caretaker unit shall not follows: COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, pen/Pitkin Community Development Colorado,will conduct a public hearing on the SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED COLORADO,APPROVING AND ADOPTING LEASE w partment, 130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO(970) P B be required to be rented; not be TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same,together AND USE AGREEMENTS EXTENSIONS,EACH )5072 below-described Formal Resolution at 2:00 p.m. condominiumized or sold;not be occupied by /John Bennett,Mayor (or as soon thereafter as the conduct of business the owner or spouse;be limited to occupancy by with all and singular the appurtenances and WITH A TERM OF YEARS,UNITED BETWEEN THE ispen City Council will allow)at the Board':regular meeting on not more than two(2)adults,and related privileges"hereunto belonging,or to anywise COUNTY AND,RESPECTIVELY,MOUN IN UNITED R THE 'ubfished in The Aspen Times on November 22, December 3, 1997, at the Pitkin County children,who quality as(and have been found by hereunto rest and claim and all the estate,right, AND ASPEN MOUNTAIN AIR FOR THE Courthouse Annex,Commissioners'Meeting title, interest and claim whatsoever,pr the OCCUPANCY AND USE OF THE AIRLINE 17 B the Housing Authority to be)employees of the grantor,either in law or equity,to the only proper TERMINAL AND FACILITIES AT THE Room,530 E.Main Street,Aspen,CO 81611.NI community under such guidelines as may be gr NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING interested parties are Invited to attend and be from time to time established by said Authority; use, benefit and behoo(of the grantee, its ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT;AND SETTING 'LEASE'TAKE NOTICE:That the Board of heard. be rented for terms not less than six(6)months successors and assigns,forever. A PUBLIC HEARINGTEIEREON. unty Commissioners of Pitkin Coun M ty, TITLE OF FORMAL RESOLUTION if rented. The caretaker dwelling mad be IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor has ORDINANCE lorado,will consider the following Resolution A FORMAL RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF occupied by members••f the Immediate family executed this Quit Claim Deed on the date set RECITALS SERIFS OF 1997 B m,nn...ncvu�ucnc nc or r.....rno em, forth above. 1. Pitkin County,Colorado("County"),is a 1 � MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development irecto Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Directof 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. 1 v 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 Staffs 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. F+'INANCIAL 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." 3 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: 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 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 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. 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. 5 Ak l 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 64 114'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 48°24'11" W 64.96 feet; thence N 11 156'54" W 149.77 feet; thence N 30°06'33" 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 18°09'00" W 176.89 feet along the easterly boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision, thence S 18 109'00" 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 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 64 114'44" W 2353.33 feet, thence N 29°17'00" E 86.80 feet: thence N 60 143'00" W 60.57 feet; thence N 29 117'00" E 72.28 feet, S 60 143'00" E ."11.07 feet; thence S 18 009'00" W 19.30 feet; thence N 89 135'00" W 290.30 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.6192 acres more or less. pomegran\21ega1.01 r SS�y A6_-,9a�j 199 Qdllh�_ 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 32, OWNED BY THE POMEGRANATE CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Resolution 997- 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 E.,d ibit A; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department reviewed the development proposal in accordance with all applicable procedure and review criteria set trorth 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: 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 Highwav 82 Right-of-way. Minimum rear yard: 10 feet. Minimum side yards: 10 feet each. Minimum Iot 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 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 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: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: C Attorney Sara Garton,Chair ATTEST: �ckie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk 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 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. ASPEN PLANNING & _ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 t3ckAbl� _ C, 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 t ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 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 R.1VIF/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 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING OMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 r J 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 13 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 RNM 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 (RTMP) 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 TO: Mayor and City Council MEMORANDUM THRU: Stan Clauson, Community DevelopmentRirector !, Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Directo � � FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner V Y V 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. 1 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." 3 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: 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 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 r 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. RECOMMENDED MOTION: move to approve Ordinance No.0 I 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 1. 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: 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 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. 1 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 45, 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. 4 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. 5 ASPEN PLANNI_ s & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 11997 t36"b+_ G 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 1 • ASPEN PLANN . G & ZONING COMMISSION _ OCTOBER 7, 1997 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. 2 ASPEN PLANN: s & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1 97 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 (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 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 PLANNI. _; & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 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 Council/BOCC meeting, #2. the amendments may be made to the application (to improve the project) and 93. 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, ,11D. 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 I[C add /BOCC to City Council (for joint approval). Stan Clauson asked to take this last change under advisement. Hunt 4 • ASPEN PLANN. G & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 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 1(4 delete . and replace with _ 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. CREEKTREE HOME OWNERS' ASSOCIATION STREAM MAR IN 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 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. 5 • ASPEN PLANNI._ s & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 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 6 ASPEN PLANNI__ s & ZONING COMMissi N 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: 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 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. 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. 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 7 ORDINANCE NO.31t� (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 13; 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 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 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 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 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 l 0th day of November, 1997. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney John Bennett,Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch,City Clerk FINALLY, adopted,passed and approved this 8th day of December, 1997. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney John Bennett,Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A -- Legal description of property Exhibit B -- Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 97-26 Ordinance No._, Series 1997 Page 5 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: 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 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 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: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: C Attorney Sara Garton,Chair ATTEST: �ckie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk 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 comer of said section bears S 29017,00" W 9.71 feet and N 64 014'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 48 024'11" W 64.96 feet; thence N 11 056'54" W 149.77 feet; thence N 30 006'33" 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 60 048'00" E 375.70 feet along said subdivision boundary; thence leaving said right of way S 18°09'00" W 176.89 feet along the easterly boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 18 009'00" W 30.96 feet; thence N 89°41'21" W 259.10 feet; thence N 4801-4'11" 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 64 014'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 29 017'00" E 86.80 feet; thence N 60 143'00" W 60.57 feet; thence N 29 117'00" E 72.28 feet; S 60 043'00" E 311.07 feet; thence S 18°09'00" W 19.30 feet; thence N 89 135'00" W 290.30 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.6192 acres more or less. pomegran\21ega1.01 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Develo ent D' ector,,' Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner 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. 1 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 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. 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: 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 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 Final Specially Planned Area(SPA) Overlay with the conditions outlined in the 1 Staff memo dated October 7, 1997." ATTACHMENTS: t Exhibit A == Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B Application 5 Exhibit A STAFF COMMENTS: Specially Planned Area Section 26.80.040,Standards Applicable to Specially Planned Areas 1. 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: 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 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 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. 1 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 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 r 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. 4 a 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 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. 5 ASPEN PLANNhyG & ZONING COMMISSION`— OCTOBER 7., 1997 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. 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. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 71997 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 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 1997 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: GMOS 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 Council/BOCC 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, 11D. 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 I[C add/BOCC to City Council (for joint approval). Stan Clauson asked to take this last change under advisement. Hunt 4 Stan Clauson,06:45 PM 2,o/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> Stan Clauson, 06:45 PM 2o/8/97,Pomegranate >What do you think? >John P. Worcester >City Attorney �Printed for Christopher Bendon <chrisb @ci.aspen.co.us> 2 LAW OFFICES HILL, EDWARDS, EDWARDS & ADKISON, L.L.CI • CENTENNIAL PLAZA BUILDING 502 MAIN STREET,SUITE 201 (-�'r CARBONDALE,COLORADO 81623 THOMAS C.HILL TELEPHONE JOSEPH E.EDWARDS,JR.,P.C. (970)963-3900 JOSEPH E.EDWARDS,III R E C E IV E O FACSIMILE THOMAS L.ADKISON (970)963-3131 JUN '? 0 M7 ASPEN/Pi1'KIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT June 19, 1997 Chris Bendon Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 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. L a�p-po- Joseph . Edwards, III Enclosures cc: Pomegranate Condominium Association Board of Directors pomegranate\I bend.01 i ��1 v 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 64 014'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 48 124'11" W 64.96 feet; thence N 11°56'54" W 149.77 feet; thence N 30 106'33" 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 18°09'00" W 176.89 feet along the easterly boundary of Maroon Creek Club Subdivision; thence S 18 109'00" W 30.96 feet; thence N 89°41'21" W 259.10 feet; thence N 48 024'11" 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 64 014'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 29017'00" E 86.80 feet; thence N 60043'00" W 60.57 feet; thence N 29017,00" E 72.28 feet; S 60 143100" E 311.07 feet; thence S 18 109'00" W 19.30 feet; thence N 89 035'00" W 290.30 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.6192 acres more or less. pomegran\21ega1.01 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 29 117'00" W 9.71 feet and N 64 114.'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 48 124'11" W 64.96 feet; thence N 11°56'54" W 149.77 feet; thence N 30 106'33" 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 60 148'00" E 375.70 feet along said subdivision boundary; thence leaving said right of way S 18 109'00" 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, Pi&dn County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point from which the NW corner of said section bears N 64 114'44" W 2353.33 feet: thence N 29 117'00" E 86.80 feet; thence N 60 043'00" W 60.57 feet; thence N 29 117'00" E 72.28 feet; S 60 043'00" E 311.07 feet; thence S 18 009'00" 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. pomeg=\21ega1.01 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner 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. 1 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. 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 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 R 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: 1. 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 i 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 Jasmine Tiger,Vice-Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk Ordinance No. , Series 1997 Page 6 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. ORDINANCE NO. (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?J2,, 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. 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, 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: 1. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a final amended plat, meeting all requirements of the City Engineer. Ordinance No.�a 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. 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 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.52 Series 1997 Page 3 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 John Bennett,Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch,City Clerk FINALLY,adopted,passed and approved this 25th day of August, 1997. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney John Bennett,Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch,City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A -- Legal description of property Exhibit B -- Planning and Zoning Resolution No. Ordinance No.;52 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.HILL TELEPHONE JOSEPH E.EDWARDS.JR..P.C. (970)963-3900 JOSEPH E.EDWARDS.III RECEIVED FACSRvIII.E THOMAS L.ADKISON (970)963-3131 JUN 2 0 IY97 ASPEN/PiTKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT June 19, 1997 Chris Bendon Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 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. - - - - Joseph . Edwards, III Enclosures cc: Pomegranate Condominium Association Board of Directors pomegranate\1 bend.01 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 comer of said section bears S 29 117'00" W 9.71 feet and N 64 114'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 48 124'11" W 64.96 feet; thence N 11°56'54" W 149.77 feet; thence N 30°06'33" 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 18 109'00" 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 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 64 114'44" W 2353.33 feet; thence N 29117'00" E 86.80 feet; thence N 60143'00" W 60.57 feet; thence N 29'17'00" E 72.28 feet; S 60 043100" E 311.07 feet; thence S 18 109'00" W 19.30 feet; thence N 89 135'00" W 290.30 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.6192 acres more or less. pomegran\21ega1.01 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060 (E) I, 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 theAay of V , 194(which is'Z—Z 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 day of , 199q. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full the hParin.g date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. Signature I PUBLIC NOTICE Signed before me this l* day DATE.-,199y TIME PLACE_ PURPOSE S MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL y' My c ssion expires: C01.Da� Notary Pu lic ry Public's Signature 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 Zoline, Joseph T. Stanford Barbara Moore Hedrich Jon & Meredith 900 Stage Road P.O. Box 111 1240 Thornappie Ln .n, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612 Northbrook, IL 60062 Zoline Open Space Parcel Hartnett George & Marianne Hedrich Virginia E. Trust City of Aspen 240 Old Farm Road 1240 Thornapple Ln 130 S. Galena Northfield, IL 60093 Northbrook, IL 60062 Aspen, CO 81611 Maroon Creek LLC Pomegranate Development Co. Minnesota Rubber Co. 10 Club Circle Wallen Kathleen C/O c/o Ann Jacobson Aspen, CO 81611 901 Southridge Terrace 3630 Wooddale venue Northfield, IL 60093 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Boyd Gail Bronson Hogg Alberta D 7 Pine Valley Lane Writer Russell Scott & Suzanne Trustee of Alberti. Trust P.O. Box 9705 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6503 1301 Thomas P1 Aspen, CO 81612 Fort Worth, TY 76107 Diamond Sara Jean Wa;zart 3ealty Company 0. Box 4627 ;fallen W1114-am IV C/O aspen, CO 31612 P.O. Box 2484 Aspen., CO 31612 "I.11almos"Imw 'A ' f olson John J Reisinger Deborah & Edward �• m-;VK uuild Hgmt. Corp C/O P.O. Box 12127 9911 W. Pico 31vd Pnth 4A Aspen, CO 81612 ' Los Angeles, CA 90035 Erickson Wendy S. Trust Williams Giany L Erickson James A 160 Cherry Street P.O. Box 400 Denver, CO 80220 Aspen, CO 81612 Williams Genevieve Lee Gary Barbara Elizabeth 299 Fillmore P.O. Box 7877 Denver, CO 80206 Aspen, CO 81612-7877 Bartholow Ted & Cynthia 3837 Caruth Dallas, TX 75225 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Develop yDirect r Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner &M 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. 1 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: 1. 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 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 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 08.46 FAX 1 970 945 5848 SCHRUESER GORDON METER IR OOP CER77FIG47i4'3N OF OWNERSHIP Know all men by these presents that the P00regmn0te C0Adbrnirrlum Assocratift Inc. and alt unit owners, are the owners of the real Pmperty Axated in Pr7Ain County, Cok,,u , dax bed as foflows- A parcel of Arnie+' Ming a pant of 6000 anent Lot 4 of SwiAnnn 11. ToernsNp 10 South, RMge 83 fist of the 6th P.Mv said parcel is MOM ffj* described cos fo&wj Bsninnrng at a paint from Wkkh the Northwest gamer of Section 11, To rrstaip 10 South, '7&"9e 85 West of the 6th PM. bowv Al 64'1444" W 2.35,3 33 feet thence N 29'77'410"E 8980 t0e4; tAmee N 60'43'40" W 60.57 feet thence N 29'17'00'E 72.2E feat thence S 60"4,3710'E 311.07 feet: thence S 'M'00' W 19..3!0 feet; thence N 89:75100' W 29Gt.30 feat to the pout Of beginning; contai#** 0.619 axis Mwe or k= AAD A A"d Of /avid begPWag at a point fmm which the Atvihwesf comer of Section 11, Townsh4P 10 South, Range 85 MMt of the 614 PY bears S 29'17'OO' w 9.71 treat. and N 64'14'44' W 2.J533J fee4• tliesmce N 4824'11' W 84596 beet- thence N 11'5654* W 149.77 treat thence N 30'04633' E 195.92 feet thmenca aAavr� the sou M&* r+0t-of-w0r &0 of Cobnmb .State Homy 82 S 50'48aO E 3M70 feet; theurce S 187190140' W 176.89 feet to a paint on the nnrt Orly property Avee of the Pomeyvnote CandamirWvms• trance cmfinepng 0bn9 said Prpperfy Lone N 60'4.3'00' W 311.07 fee& tAerrce S 29'170' W 72M feet;- thence 3 W43VO'E 65!57 feet thmm S 28'17'o10" W 77:4!9 feet to the P001 of begaru9 cOftfb Wh9 1.854 acres more mrs ore or Ae AND A parcel of lmd beginning at a P"t from WAich the NAWtf w&W carver of Sechon 11, Township 10 S, Rouge 85 Neat of Me 6th P.Ai bears N 8r35'00' W 14,41 feet and N 64'14'44' W 2.,3UJJ feet,- thence 5 424'11'E 17.59 Alec thence S 89'4121'E 259.10 feet thence N 78M,00"E 11.66 feet to a pant on the southerly property tine of the PW7M9VVnate Condwn wma thence a" said propernr l&re N 89'35 00' W 275.89 feet to the paint of beQvrerie% caRtasor V 0.070 acres more or less. LESS A pmresl of tall Deginneng at p point favrr+ whkh the Mbhrtfrwest corner of 5ectlon 71, Tomship 10 South, Range 85 fast of ft 6th P.At bears N 6414144' W 2„35.3.3.3 feet- thence N 29'1700'F A71 feat; thence S 48'24'11'E 72.91 feat- BMW N 8,935100” W 14.47 feet to the point of b&gk=reg cantoyrring 61.26 square feet rr7we or At= Able: VVs Plat amwM Ct AMAOMM AMP Of,pOAIEGRANTE FAST APAA7A&-Aff3 BLAIIDA'vYi A recorded in Plat Book 4 of Pop 105, i ri"7 CoMty Records. �.- - -_ Jon P, hwairck For the purpose of aWYerentiating the different zone oFsfricts on this parcel, a dividing tine paruilel to then fArgrhway 82 right—of way, measured' perpend+cuAmr 120.00' from the Htphwa y 82 right-of wavy, shaff Separate the Pork and Residenhai Alulti-Fomi/y Zones, the portion of the parce/ within this 120.00' distance from Highway $2 shgi/ remain Park, the rlen7aMf&r of the pave/ within City junsdAchon shah be rersav'red to Residencivi Atulti—FbMhY_ This aoftrng Ane does not create o separate lot of record. .1 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 Jasmine Tygre,Vice-Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk Ordinance No. 32, Series 1997 Page 6 s 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 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. RECOMMENDED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 15, 1997. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Ay Attorney Y Jasmine Vice-Chair ATTEST: Ja kie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk 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 Lowenstern 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 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 150 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: FARMERS MARKET TEXT/CODE AMENDMENT 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 'e Lothian puty City Clerk 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission , n THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director , Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director V 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 1 Y allows multi-family buildings. The Aspen Country Inn is zoned AH1-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 i 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 30 006'33"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 18 009'00"W 30.96 feet;thence N 89°41'21"W 259.10 feet;thence N 48024'11"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 29 017'00"E 86.80 feet;thence N 60°43'00"W 60.57 feet;thence N 29°17'00"E 72.28 feet; S 60 043'00"E 311.07 feet;thence S 18°09'00"W 19.30 feet;thence N 89 035'00"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 a 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 Finding: This zone change is not in conflict with the public interest. CPlanning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 1995 Page 12 Ely: Th alue of the operty would be different, but ,ey ould be able to ick a rural and remote. value is a point of view, would probably de ase. rie\1-would like to ake a rhotion on the Said b/Stephens 1041 azard Revie and zonin ,plopli at ion to recom end den' of the 1041 haz - review based on Sections-808 and 3-805 C2 of the i in County Land Use,z'de nd recomme90 approval of rezonlng�of both 40 acr pa els from RS-30,td the R/R ( ral/Rerp6te) \one dist i t, recognizing that the ca i use is pre luded undar current circums des due to`10 constraints but that�tr sfer of developm/ t rights may be pursued su 'ect to sp I review. �'� Harper: I second the rr*on. Hatfield: I would",ike to include in to,motion that the slopes`exceed the,30% graoe'also. Gu �rie: I gree to this`Flari)�ation. �X \ ' i Harp r: 'i.second the,amendrment to the motion. \ Krawzoff: All) ,savor? All were in avor except Jack`I�atfeld wh pposed. otion passed four one. Hari I voted against, s because I was re ( concerned abo ttr�t rezoni issue, ev t ugh I approv of the one district. I n't ink it meets tei of the e. I think it is cony'dt with applic le sectiof the and Us ode. l 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 lop 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 er✓ation (RC) designation. The key phrase is that the objective is to preserve these lams 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 lanfs 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 pip Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 1995 Page 14 the structure in with the background and use berms to do some screening. The applicant plans on keeping 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 clarification 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? PP 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 the-fire MMT may no e a e o m I will disco tirther wi a fire jai. Scott Writer. This is not a driving lane but a sidewalk 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 !ighting 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 equipment to turn aroun no to the review by the BOCC, a1Zd ' there is a major_prob em, 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. AJI mw -v 4i There are urrently 52 p hint/ -paces ava�able to the Pomegr ate East apartments of which e � located n t e adjacent ICC Ian . The are also three si s the Pomegranate loca don e adjac t prope as ell as a dump er7ad significant areas of l scaping which help scre e sub* ct property fr d Highway e existing structure encroaches�to the 20 foot arterial highway setba -(for structure . The e� g parkin areas also encroach into the 10 oot arterial highway,setba (for all us ). In fact, wa right-of-way in th Curren configuration. ation. there e papkmg spaces within�6Q to 65 feet of the �h y The dum 'er is within 45 fe�tt of the Highway right-o-,way. /' The B and of_ justment reviewed this a lication on June 1995 and has approv d variance nece$�ary to acco od'ate the applicants' p osal(except for e identification s' whi is to/be located off site, and 'r which little information has been provided). ONLILENTS: The a pl�ati6n was referred th following rejrral FERRAL AGENCY p �ICC have of provided ag cies. The County Attom Colorado Department/of Transportation,. 1 p written,comrents. The cowmen of the other referr4 agen es are incorp ate�in the propriate sections of�hrs memo. Their summ , memos are so attache or refere ce. y Environmental Health Department` /2) County Engineer 3)Zoning(Mice Country-,Attorney 5) C, two ado Departmeq�of Transportation 6)N1a�6Qn Creek Club Management PLANNING STAFF CONLYIENTS: 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 similar to the existing use on the property. Staff feels the AR-2 zone district is the most appropriate zoning for this property regardless of whether the other aspects of this proposal are approved. 3 i 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 AACP and the Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan. AACP: The AACP 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. Hi,hwav 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. 4 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-2, 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. 4. 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 significant 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 property. As a result, there is no question as to the long-term appropriateness of the 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 6 location meets their criteria. Further, the County Engineer indicates that MCC may be constructing an access drive onto F ighwav 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 j� meeting. iV a r P1 t'A en en .�� The Major Plat amendment is nece ary in order to allow the applicants to add acreage to the subject property from the adjacn�t M lands. This action will also eliminate the non-conforming size status of the property(both the_ -2 and AR-2 zone districts re lit e a 2 acre minimum lot size). The existing prop includes,26,970 square feet pr"619 acres. The applicants propose to increase�t ie \ total lot area 78 756 s uare feet or 1.81 acr Ito a total of 105,7' 6 s uare feet or 2.43 acres. The q � q areas whic are being exchanged are depicted on Map 2 in the application. The bulk of the lands being y� added the subject property are lo'at,-d between the existing building-i4d the Hiahwav right-of-wav, tho there is also a sianificant axea��q the west of the building which is being absorbed into the bject property. There is aisgdvery small area(149 square feet)which is being added to the MCC I�e from the subject property. Se4ttion 3-1809 ovides a subdivision exempt%gn.for major plat amendments provided the following criteria are c plied with: A. Amendments shall be cansistent and compatible with the surrounding'neighborhood. Response: Generally;the property being deeded"Aver to-the Pomegranate from MCC, is rand that is already used by the Pomegranate and been sc�,u'sed for years. For example, virtually the entire pa kind area and associated driveways for the Ppmegranate are located on l nds,owned by MCChe Pomegranate has also done significant landscaping on MCC lands and has ma�iftiained'diese areas for years. The proposed amendment will result in Pomegranate caning lands\which they have the greatest stake in maintaining and caring for. The subject property is also relatively, isolated from the su", riding neighborhood. The property is bordered on the north by Iiighway 82 and the'east by Maroon Creek. The rest of the site is surrounded by the Maroon Creek Club gacourse. The proposed plat amendment \ will have no negative iirpact on the surrounding'neighborhood. B. Additional communi impacts resulting from the amendment s ll be completely mitigated by the applican 7 V 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 Hedrich Jon & Meredith- P.O. Box 111 1240 Thornapple Ln =r aspen, CO 81612 Northbrook, IL 60062 P Zoline Open Space Parcel Hartnett George & Mariame Hedrich Virginia E. Trust City of .aspen 240 Old Farm Road 1240 Thornapple La 130 S. Galena Northfield, IL 60093 Northbrook, IL. 60062 Aspen, CO 81611 maroon Creek LLC Pomegranate Development Co. �Unnesota Rubber Co. 10 Club Circle "Wallen Kathleen C/O c/o Ann Jacobson 3630 Wooddale avenue -Aspen, CO 81611 901 Southridge Terrace Northfield, IL 60093 Minneapolis, :M 55416 Boyd Gail Bronson Wr=tzr Russell Scott & Suzanne HOg°' Alberta D 7 Pine Valley Lane p,0, Box 9705 Trustee of Alberta. Trust Newport Beach, CA 92660-6503 1301 Thomas Pl Aspen, CO 81612 Fort Worth, TS 76107 WWI Ns Erickson Wendy S. Trust Williams Gin--y L Nicholson John J -rickson James A 160 Cherry Street Guild Mgmt Corp P.O. Box 400 Denver, CO 80220 9911 W PICO Blvd Path A Aspen, CO 81612 Los Angeles CA 90035 Williams Genevieve Lee Gary Barbara Elizabeth Diamond Sara Jean 299 Fillmore P.O. Box 7877 PO Box 4627 Denver, CO 80206 Aspen, CO 81612-7877 Aspen CO 81612 Zoline, Joseph T Walhart Realty Company Bartholow Ted & Cynthia 900 Stage .Rd Wallen William IV 3837 Caruth Aspen CO 81611 PO Box 2484 Dallas, TX 75225 Aspen CO 81612 Pomegranate Homeowners Assoc 720 E. Hyman Ave Aspen CO 81611 ;. w t