HomeMy WebLinkAboutLacet Subdivision Amendment_Memo_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: April 6, 2020
MEETING DATE: April 14, 2020
RE: Resolution 26, Series of 2020 – Amendment of Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994
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 resolution allowing for the 25’ buffer to
be subject to setback requirements in the
Land Use Code.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020, amending Resolution No.
58, Series of 1994 by removing Section 1, and clarifying the
25’ buffer is subject to setback requirements and
development limitations in the land use code.
Figure 1: Subdivision Location
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 2 of 5
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.
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:
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 3 of 5
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.
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,
Figure 3: Riverside Subdivision Neighboring Properties (In Blue)
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 4 of 5
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.
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.
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 5 of 5
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
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