HomeMy WebLinkAboutLacet Subdivision Amendment_Memo_6.9.20_Final
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020
City Council
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Garrett Larimer, Planner II
THROUGH: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE: June 1, 2020
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2020
RE: Resolution 26, Series of 2020 – Amendment of Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994
Continued from April 14, 2020
Applicants: Paulette Perkins and
Thomas Hext on behalf of the Lacet
Homeowners’ Association; 152 Haystack
Rd., Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Representative: Sarah Oates, Oates,
Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly &
Morrow, P.C.; 533 E Hopkins Ave.,
Aspen, CO 81611
Location: Lots 1-8, Lacet Subdivision
Current Zoning: Affordable Housing
(AH), Planned Development Overlay
(PD)
Summary: The applicant requests an
amendment of Resolution 58, Series of
1994. Resolution 58 was approved by a
previous Council to clarify categories of
development allowed in a 25’ buffer
between the building envelope of Lots 1,
2, 3, and 7 and the Riverside Subdivision.
Section 1 of Resolution 58 prohibited all
development except for underground
utilities and landscaping. The applicant is
requesting this section be stricken from
the resolution, and City Council approve
a revised list of allowable development in
that buffer.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020, amending Resolution No.
58, Series of 1994 by removing Section 1, and allowing for
the types of development in the 25’ buffer outlined in this
memo and the attached draft resolution.
Figure 1: Subdivision Location
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 2 of 7
UPDATE SINCE THE APRIL 14 HEARING:
Summary:
The Applicant has changed their request from the previous hearing. The updated request and letter from
the applicant are in Exhibit D. The Applicant also provided a video tour of the lots subject to the 25’ buffer
showing existing conditions for context.
At the first hearing, Council provided direction to the Applicant that the request was inconsistent with the
intent of the restricted 25’ buffer. Council did not support the requested amendment to the Resolution by
lifting the restriction on the buffer, as that may increase development allowances and associated impacts.
In response to Council’s direction, the Applicant has revised their request. The Applicant would like to
amend Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 by eliminating the development restrictions currently in place
and request an increase in development activities allowed in the 25’ buffer, while eliminating the most
intensive or disruptive activities.
The Applicant proposes to replace the existing restrictions in Section 1 with language allowing the following
development allowances:
- Utilities,
- Landscaping,
- Artwork,
- Flagpoles,
- Below grade soil stabilization and structural infrastructure (i.e. foundation footers, soil nails, and
similar infrastructure),
- Architectural projections up to 18 inches, such as, building eves, bay windows, etc.,
- Lightwells that are the minimum size required for emergency egress by building code,
- Above grade emergency egress stairs as required by building code,
- Landscaping walls that do not exceed 20 inches above or below grade
- Stormwater infrastructure,
- Energy efficiency or renewable energy production systems,
- Fences,
- Non-permanent features (i.e. patio equipment).
This list is more restrictive than the original proposal and what is typically permitted in setback areas. It
eliminates hot tubs and pools, paving for driveways or parking areas, trash and recycling enclosures, and
mechanical equipment from development typically permitted in setbacks in the Land Use Code.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff supports any solution that provides clarity on the types of development allowed in this area. Staff
continues to support eliminating the additional restriction on development in this buffer because the
development restrictions are no longer supported by the neighbors it was intended to protect, the
development restriction creates unnecessary complexity for staff and property owners, and the restriction
is inconsistent with development allowances in the Land Use Code.
Staff understands Council’s concern to increase development allowances that are inconsistent with a
previous Council decision. Staff supports the new request since it is more consistent with development
allowances in the Land Use Code and responds to Council direction by eliminating the more intensive
types of development.
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 3 of 7
The 25’ buffer is a significantly larger buffer than is provided by the Land Use Code for similar types of
development in the City. The combination of a large buffer and more restrictive list of development activities
reduces the impacts of the Lacet Subdivision development on the Riverside neighbors.
If Council believes the development allowances remain too permissive but supports an amendment to the
buffer development allowances, staff recommends Council negotiate an agreeable alternative with the
Applicant. Staff is supportive on any outcome that creates clarity on the types of development allowed in
this area.
Draft Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 is written approving the requested amendment in accordance with
the list of permitted activities outlined above.
ALTERNATIVES: Council may choose not to approve Resolution 26, Series of 2020, which would leave
Resolution 58, Series of 1994 and the development prohibitions of the 25’ buffer in place. Council may
negotiate or add additional conditions to the approval.
Note: The memo below is from the original hearing and remains unchanged.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The applicants request Resolution 58, Series of 1994 be amended, removing
restrictions on all development in a 25’ buffer between Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 and the Riverside Subdivision.
City Council is the final review authority.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEEDURE: The applicants request an amendment to a City
Council Resolution. This is one-step review by City Council. There are no Land Use Code criteria
associated with this request.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: The Lacet Subdivision is comprised of eight (8) lots and is zoned
Affordable Housing with a Planned Development overlay (AH/PD). Ordinance 18, Series of 1993 granted
Subdivision and other various reviews resulting in seven (7) free market single family residences (Lots 1-
7) and thirteen (13) deed restricted townhome units on Lot 8.
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 4 of 7
Figure 2: Lacet Subdivision (25' Buffer Highlighted)
During the public hearings for the original approval, neighbors in the Riverside Subdivision expressed
concern with the impacts of the proposed free-market development (Lots 1-7). To address neighbor
concerns, a 25’ buffer between the building envelopes of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 and the Riverside Subdivision
was agreed upon. This buffer was shown on the Plat and in the Subdivision Agreement, but the
development allowances or restrictions were not explicitly stated.
Shortly after, a land use application requesting clarifications on types of allowed development in the 25’
buffer was pursued and City Council approved Resolution 58, Series of 1994, providing clarification on
development allowances and restrictions. Resolution #58 contained the following language:
1. No permanent improvements of any sort whatsoever, other than underground utility lines, may be built,
constructed or placed in the twenty-five foot buffer spaces between the building envelopes of Lots 1, 2, 3,
and 7 and Riverside Subdivision (all as shown on the Plat and the Subdivision Agreement). The buffer spaces
may not be paved or improved other than by landscaping. Nor shall any of the following types items be
allowed in the buffer spaces: building eaves, architectural projections, balconies, fire escapes, uncovered
porches, slabs, patios, walkways and steps, fences and walls.
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 5 of 7
2. All other spaces shown in the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat outside of the building envelopes shall be
subject to those restrictions applicable to setbacks under the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, except as
otherwise specifically indicated in the Subdivision Agreement or the Plat.
Since approval of Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 various improvements have been constructed in the
25’ buffer that are consistent with development typically allowed in setbacks, but not allowed per Resolution
No. 58. Many of these improvements received building permits, and include items like retaining walls,
patios, etc.
The applicant, on behalf of the Lacet Subdivision Homeowners Association, requests City Council amend
Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 and eliminate the prohibition on development in the 25’ buffer area.
DISCUSSION: Planning staff acknowledges the 25’ buffer is unique and creates complexity for the
subdivision. Typically, development allowances and limitations are specified in the Subdivision and
Planned Development (PD) approval documents. The Lacet Subdivision approval documents did not
provide any detail for restrictions on this area. Resolution No. 58 provided clarity on the intent of the buffer
area, but was not an amendment to the PD. That the restrictions in Resolution 58 were not memorialized
in the PD agreement for the subdivision creates confusions and a lack of clarity for property owners and
City staff as to the parameters for development activities within the subdivision. Given that, planning Staff,
in coordination with the City Attorney’s office, agree that amending Resolution 58 is the appropriate
response to the applicant’s request, not amending the PD.
The zoning of adjacent neighborhoods is Medium Density Residential (R-6) and Moderate Density
Residential (R-15). Generally, each of those zone districts have ten (10) foot side and rear yard setbacks.
The 25’ buffer is larger than comparable side and rear yard setbacks in the surrounding neighborhood and
similar residential development patterns in Aspen.
Figure 3: Riverside Subdivision Neighboring Properties (In Blue)
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 6 of 7
It’s clear in the minutes and documents from the original public hearings there were neighborhood
concerns over the impacts of the Lacet Subdivision. This concern is not shared by current owners of the
adjacent properties. All adjacent property owners from the Riverside Subdivision, including the owners of
1205, 1228, and 1230 Riverside Drive and 610 and 611 Fred Lane provided letters supporting applying
setback regulations to the 25’ buffer, the letters are included in Exhibit C.
Support from the current adjacent property owners is an important factor for Staff in considering the
proposed amendment. The restriction in Resolution 58 was a response to neighbor sentiment at that time.
Current sentiment of adjacent property owners, as expressed in the letters of support, is that if the 25’
setback remains, permitting development in the buffer that’s consistent with current setback regulations is
appropriate and would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
Staff’s position is a 25’ setback provides adequate buffer between properties, limits impacts to adjacent
property owners, and development allowed in this setback would not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood. Section 26.575.020 allows the following types of development (subject to conditions) in
setbacks: utilities, artwork, foundation footers or below grade soil stabilization infrastructure, building eves,
bay windows, window sills and similar architectural projections, lightwells (minimum size meeting code
requirements), exterior mounted fire escapes (as required by code), patios and walkways (or similar
features that do not exceed six (6) inches above or below the ground), retaining walls (or similar structures
that do not exceed 30” above or below grade), drainage infrastructure, hot tubs or pools (subject to
additional restrictions), HVAC equipment, energy efficiency or renewable energy production systems,
fences, and other non-permanent features (i.e. patio equipment).
Staff supports the proposed amendment, with the condition that all pedestrian, ditch, and utility easements
in the subdivision are not affected by this amendment. If the 25’ buffer is treated as a standard setback,
that’s consistent with the previous City Council’s desire to create increased buffer between this subdivision
and the Riverside Subdivision. This is supported by current neighborhood sentiment and is consistent with
development restrictions throughout Aspen for residential development. If all areas outside of building
envelopes on all lots in the Lacet Subdivision are treated as setbacks, it creates more clarity for the owners
of these properties and allows for more consistent application of development regulations by the City of
Aspen.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: None.
ALTERNATIVES: Council may choose not to approve Resolution 26, Series of 2020, which would leave
Resolution 58, Series of 1994 and the development prohibitions of the 25’ buffer in place. Council may
add additional conditions to the approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 26, Series of 2020, with conditions.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
PROPOSED MOTION: The draft Resolution is written in the affirmative, approving the requested
amendment. If city Council agrees with staff’s recommendation and seeks to approve the requested land
use reviews, the following motion should be used:
“I move to approve Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020, amending Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 by
eliminating the prohibition on development in a 25’ buffer, instead treating all areas outside of the building
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 7 of 7
envelopes as setbacks, subject to Section 26.575.020 of the Land Use Code, as amended from time to
time.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Resolution 58, Series of 1994
Exhibit B – Public Comment
Exhibit C – Application
Exhibit D – Public Noticing Affidavit