HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.123 W Francis St.A86-95
'~
1""<.
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE COMPLETE:
7 /21/95 PARCEL ID AND CASE
2735-124-21-002
STAFF MEMBER:
VICKERY SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION & TEXT
123 W FRANCIS
NO.
A86-95
ML
AMENDMENT
PROJECT NAME:
project Address:
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: JAKE VICKERY
Applicant Address: 100 S. SPRING ASPEN
REPRESENTATIVE: SAME
Representative Address/Phone: 925-3660
Aspen. CO 81611
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$ 2040
$
$
$
$ 2040
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
1
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL:
1 STEP:
2 STEP: XX
P&Z Meeting Date ~t \'1 th
CC Meeting Date CdJ.3/l\Jov \5
I
PUBLIC HEARING: ~
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
PUBLIC HEARING: ~
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
DRC Meeting Date
----~----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space Board
Other HPc
Other
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD Xi
Energy Center
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
DUE:
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED: 11- jq -15 INITIAL:.K1L
_ City Atty
_ Housing
_ City Engineer
_ Open Space
_Zoning _Env. Health
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
,-.,
November 15,1995
"t15~
:n.. <:'" :::'\
,- ~.I
NOV 1 5 1995 ,
111
A K E
Cj\..:-;,.>-"'.-,,,;<
VICKERY
OEVELopr';fEN';
Mary Lackner
Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Town Hall
135 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81612
100 SOUTH SPRING ST. #3
POST OFFICE BOX 12360
ASPEN,COLORAD081612
TELEPHONE I FACSIMILE
(970) 925-3660
Re: Vickery Historic Landmark Lot Split
123/129 West Francis
Dear Mary,
Pursuant to Ordinance #49 Series of 1995, this letter is to request Subdivision
Exemption under Section 7-1003 (A) (5), GMQS Exemption under Section 8-105 (A)
(e), and Historic Lot Split Approval under Sections 5-201 (D) and 7-607 and other
applicable standards for proposed development at 123/129 West Francis as
represented in the May 8, 1995 Land Use Application and later amended at public
hearings on May 24, 1995 (HPC), June 20, 1995 (P&Z), and October 25, 1995 (HPC).
This request is made supplemental to and consolidated with the above referenced
application as amended. Please refer to that application for additional detail.
Please by advised that the HPC approved this site specific Historic Lot Split, as
amended, at a public hearing on October 25, 1995 using criteria in the Resolution for
Ordinance #49 of 1995 as passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on
September 19, 1995, conditional upon final adoption by the City Council which occurred
on November 13, 1995.
In summary, each lot shall be 5,250 square feet and the base allowable FAR (Duplex
FAR of 4, 170) has been distributed between the two lots as follows:
Lot A: 1,450 FARsf.* (This lot contains the historic resource.)
Lot B: 2.720 FARsf. (This lot does not contain the historic resource.)
Total: 4,170 FARsf.
. Note: An additional 500 FARsf bonus was also granted for Lot A by HPC.
Attached is a site plan showing the proposed division of the site. Please let me know if
you need any additional information. A preliminary draft of the Subdivision Exemption
Plat should be available for your review shortly. Thank you for your assistance in this
matter.
~f..
7~;ke~--1
1"""'\
rlV'la
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council AI ~
Amy Margerum, City Manager W . /'r /
stan Clauson, city Community Development Direct~
THRU:
THRU:
FROM:
Mary Lackner, Planner
Historic Landmark Lot split Text Amendment - 2nd Reading
of Ordinance 49, Series 1995
RE:
DATE:
November 13, 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking City approval to create a
Historic Landmark Lot Split provision in the Aspen Municipal Code.
This text amendment contemplates creating a Subdivision Exemption,
GMQS Exemption, changes the minimum lot area and width requirements
in the R-6 zone district,. and creates review standards for the Lot
Split. The Historic Landmark Lot Split would only be permitted in
the R-6 zone district. One result of the code amendment is that
all HPC bonuses and variances permitted for a historic landmark be
permitted on the newly created lot which contains the historic
landmark. No HPC bonuses or variances would be permitted on the
new lot that does not contain the historic structures.
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the applicant I s
request on three separate occasions and voted 5-1 on September 19th
to recommend approval of this text amendment to City Council.
APPLICANT: Jake Vickery.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The proposed Historic Lot Split text
amendment would be available on lots located in the R-6 zone
district, which are 9,000 sq. ft. to 12,000 sq. ft. in size, and
contain a historic landmark for which the whole parcel will be
landmarked. The lot split would enable one lot of 3,000 sq. ft. to
be created for the historic residence. The FAR of the total
development is restricted to the duplex FAR permitted on the
original lot. Except for the limitation of the allowable FAR, the
newly created lots shall be treated as lots of record. A code
amendment is also proposed for the minimum lot area and lot width
requirements of the R-6 zone to permit the creation of a 3,000
sq.ft., 30 foot wide parcel.
The applicant is also proposing to add a provision to Division 6
of the Aspen Municipal Code which deals with development involving
a historic landmark. This would give HPC review authority over the
design and layout of a historic landmark lot split development
proposal. This language also states, "Each lot shall have the
ability to receive the same variances and bonuses available to
similarly sized lot of record." Staff has recommended that this
/
,~
.~
language be eliminated from the code amendment.
The applicant is proposing that this lot split be reviewed and
approved at the administrative level by the Community Development
Director. The GMQS exemption is proposed not to be deducted from
the development pool.
In comparison, the Lot Split provisions presently available in the
Code are reviewed and approved by city council and the GMQS
exemption is deducted from the growth pool and are limited to one
new lot split per year. .
The applicant's submission materials are included in Exhibit "A".
CONSISTENCY WITH THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN: The AACP
encourages preservation incentives for historic structures, this
code amendment provides an additional incentive.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None.
CURRENT ISSUES: Staff conceptually supports the applicant's
proposal as it provides an additional historic preservation
incentive without increasing density. There are several areas of
concern staff has with the method in which the proposed code
amendment is drafted. The concerns are:
o the creation of non-conforming sized parcels in the R-
6 zone district;
o
the site plan review is only done by HPC.
management regulations require lot splits
by the Growth Management Commission; and
The new growth
to be reviewed
o although both parcels created by the lot split will be
historically designed, only the parcel with the historic
resource would be permitted to obtain any variances
available through HPC. Staff does not want the parcel
with the new residence to obtain any FAR bonus, site
coverage, setback, height variance, open space variances,
or landmark grant money.
These concerns were considered by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and they finally decided to forward this proposed
amendment to Council as the applicant had drafted.
At first reading, Council raised several issues that are addressed
as follows:
1. What happens if a lot between 9,000 and 12,000 sq. ft.
gets HPC variances to redevelop historic residence and
approvals to build a. second residence on the parcel, then
the owner requests a historic lot split after the
2
1"""\
t"",
development takes place?
Response: If there is a parcel with a historic resource, the
entire parcel is landmarked, regardless of the development
potential of the parcel. HPC takes into consideration the entire
lot and may grant variances to new development. The allowed floor
area does not change with the lot split. The criteria used by HPC
to determine whether a project obtains variances reads:
The proposed development is compatible in general design,
massing, and volume, scale, and site plan with designated
historic structures located on the parcel and with
development on adjacent parcels when the sUbject site is
in an "H", Historic Overlay District, or is adjacent to
an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where
proposed development would extend into front yard, side
yard, and rear yarrd setbacks, extend into the minimum
distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the
allowed site coverage by Up to 5%, HPC may grant such
variances after making a finding that such variation is
more compatbile in character with the historic landmark
and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord
with dimensional requirements. In no event shall
variations pursuant to this section exceed those
variations allowed under the cottage Infill Program for
detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to section
5-510 (B) (2) .
An applicant applying for a lot split after the parcel has been
developed would only result in an internal lot line and would not
affect surrounding parcels.
2. What are some examples of how a 12,000 sq. ft. parcel can
be split and what the resulting FAR would be on each
parcel?
Response: A 12,000 sq. ft. parcel can be split in any combination
of lot sizes as long as one parcel does not go below 3,000 sq. ft.
Such lot split combinations could be 3,000/9,000; 4,500/7,500;
6,000/6,000; etc. Regardless of the configuration of the. lot sizes
in the lot split, a 12,000 sq. ft. parcel would be restricted to
4,260 sq. ft. FAR total.
HPC will be responsible for distributing the FAR between the
parcels. They will take into consideration the size, width, and
configuration of the historic structure and determine what types
of additions this structure can accommodate without harming its
character. Then the remaining FAR and lot area will be utilized
by the second parcel.
The intent of this regulation is to provide property owners an
incentive to locate additional floor area onto a new residence
3
1"".
.~
instead of exploiting a historic resource.
3. What bonuses and variances are permitted by the HPC to
a historic landmark and what is the process to obtain
these?
Response: All variances and bonuses granted by HPC require public
notice. Public notice at HPC entails posting the property, mailing
to neighbors within 300 feet of the parcel, and notification in the
newspaper.
The HPC has the authority to grant park dedication fee waivers and
the following dimensional requirements:
o Side, rear, and front yard setbacks
o Minimum required distance between buildings
o Maximum floor area may be exceeded up to 500 sq. ft.
o site coverage up to 5%
o On-site parking space variances
4. What type of public notice is given for this proposed lot
split?
Response: A public hearing is required at the Planning and Zoning
commission and City Council when a parcel is landmarked. A request
for a lot split mayor may not be made at the time an applicant is
seeking landmark designation on a parcel of land.
The proposed text amendment would require publication Of notice,
posting of notice, and mailing of notice, prior to the hearing at
HPC. This requirement is already set forth in section 6-
205(E) (4) (c) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
5. Do you anticipate an increase in lot splits as a result
of this text amendment?
Response: This amendment would increase the number of eligible
lots that can request lot split approval by 36, in the R-6 zone
district. Staff anticipates at the most about 10 of these parcels
would seek historic landmark lot split approval as most of these
parcels are fully developed.
6. Does HPC review and approve house plans on both lots even
if they are under separate ownership? What difficulties
may arise due to this?
Response: HPC will review the development for both lots, even if
they are proposed for development at different times. The lot that
does not contain the historic landmark will be reviewed for
compatibility and sensitivity to the historic structure on the
adjoining lot. During HPC's initial review for the Lot split, they
4
,-, ~
will designate the amount of floor area attributable to each
parcel.
7. How many 3,000 sq. ft. lots of reoord are there in the
City?
Response: There are 43 lots within the City of Aspen that are
between 3,000 and 4,499 sq. ft. In the R~6 zone district there are
14 lots in this size range and six of these are landmarked.
The applicant I s request is subj ect to the review standards of
Section 24-7-1102 which is included in Exhibit "B".
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning commission and staff
recommend approval of the applicant I s request as drafted in the
attached ordinance.
PROPOSED MOTION:
"I move to approve the Historic Lot Split code amendment at second
reading."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
Ordinance 1:], Series 1995
"A" Application information
"B" Code Review Criteria and staff responses
5
""'"
""'"
i: I
Exhibit B
Section 24-7-1102
Amendments to the Text of this Chapter and
to the Official Zone District Map
--------------------------------------------------------------~-
----------------------------------------------------------------
A. whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The applicant I s text am.endment changes are not in
conflict with any chapters of the code, but the revised method to
approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split is not consistent with the
original Lot Split procedure of the Code. The areas where there
may have been conflict (creating anon-conforming lot of less than
6,000 sq.ft.), are proposed to be corrected.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area comprehensive Plan.
Response: The AACP does not specifically address this type of
amendment. The proposed amendment will permit the Historic
. Preservation Committee design review authority over both lots
created by the lot split. This should represent better design in
a new residence that compliments the neighboring historic
structure.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The Historic Landmark Lot Split is proposed for only the
R-6 zone district, on parcels between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet.
There are 21 parcels in the R-6 zone district that are between
9,000 and 12,000 and on the historic inventory.
The applicant has proposed the code amendment to reflect a
development proposal he is contemplating for 123 W. Francis in the
R-6 zone district. The Aspen Municipal Code presently permits two
detached residential dwelling units in the R-6 zone district on a
lot of 9,000 sq. ft. or greater. Therefore, no additional density
is proposed by this text amendment only the form of ownership is
changing.
During the Planning and Zoning commission work session there was
some discussion that this code amendment should be expanded to
include other residential zone districts and to allow it on lots
of 6,000 sq. ft. in size in the R-6 zone district. The following
list identifies the special provisions available for historic
landmarks in the Office, R-15 and R/MF zone districts:
o Office zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
~
.~
approval.
o The R-15 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 15,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R/MF zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft., if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R-6 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval. .
Although staff believes that this historic preservation incentive
may provide protection for historic resources on some sensitive
parcels in the 0, R-15 and R/MF zone districts, we feel
uncomfortable expanding the lot split ability to a conditional use.
Should this code amendment be approved by the City, it may provide
a guide to look at these other zones and smaller R-6 parcels in the
future.
Since the proposed code amendment does not increase the allowed
density, staff believes it is consistent with this standard.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
Response: There should be no negative effect on traffic generation
or road safety, since the allowed density in the R-6 zone district
is not increasing as a result of this text amendment.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether
and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: Since there is no increase in the existing permitted
density on a parcel, there should be no increase in demands on
these public facilities. All development is still sUbject to the
mitigation required in the code (parks, housing, school district,
etc.) .
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
2
,-.,
~,
Response: Since this code amendment would only be available to
parcels in the R-6 zone district, impacts to the natural
environment should be minimal. The R-6 zone is located in a
relatively flat portion of the city limits and does not encroach
into floodplain, avalanche, rockfall, or steep slope areas.
The primary natural environment issue in the R-6 area is the
preservation of large trees and open irrigation ditches. Trees are
protected by other provisions in the Code.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the city of
Aspen.
Response: The creation of a 3,000 sq. ft lot in the R-6 zone
district can be considered consistent and compatible with the
historic nature of the city. Preserving and enhancing historic
resources is also compatible with the community character of the
City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
Response: The applicant can proceed with the proposed project
without this code amendment because he has obtained a GMQS
exemption and condominiumization from the city. The applicant is
not interested in the condominiumization form of ownership and has
proposed this code amendment to provide an alternative for the
creation of fee simple lots.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment would be consistent with the
public interest and is drafted to be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
3
/ ..~ '
'<!;
r"'l>.
VII' b
THRU:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and Council ^\\ ~
Amy Margerum, city Manager~ ~
stan Clauson, City Community Development Director ~
Mary Lackner, Planner
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment - 1st Reading
of Ordinance L/!L, Series 1995
DATE:
October 23, 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking city approval to create a
Historic Landmark Lot Split provision in the Aspen Municipal Code.
This text amendment contemplates creating a Subdivision Exemption,
GMQS Exemption, changes the minimum lot area and width requirements
in the R-6 zone district, and creates review standards for the Lot
Split. The Historic Landmark Lot Split would only be permitted in
the R-6 zone district. One result of the code amendment is that
all HPC bonuses and variances permitted for a historic landmark be
permitted on the newly created lot which contains the historic
landmark. No HPC bonuses or variances be permitted on the new lot
that does not contain the historic structures.
The Planning and Zoning commission considered the applicant's
request on three separate occasions and voted 5-1 on September 19th
to recommend approval of this text amendment to City Council.
APPLICANT: Jake Vickery:
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The proposed Historic Lot Split text
amendment would be available on lots located in the R-6 zone
district, which are 9,000 sq. ft. to 12,000 sq. ft. in size, and
contain a historic landmark of which the whole parcel will be
landmarked. The lot split would enable one lot of 3,000 sq. ft. to
be created for the historic residence. The FAR of the total
development is restricted to the duplex FAR permitted on the
original lot. Except for the limitation of the allowable FAR, the
newly created lots shall be treated as lots of record. A code
amendment is also proposed for the minimum lot area and lot width
requirements of the R-6 zone to permit the creation of a 3,000
sq.ft., 30 foot wide parcel.
The applicant is also proposing to add a provision to Division 6
of the Aspen Municipal Code which deals with development involving
a historic landmark. This would give HPC review authority over the
design and layout of a historic landmark lot split development
proposal. This language also states, "Each lot shall have the
ability to receive the same variances and bonuses available to
similarly sized lot of record." Staff has recommended that this
,"'"
,-.,
language be eliminated from the code amendment.
The applicant is proposing that this lot split be reviewed and
approved at the administrative level by the Community Development
Director. The GMQS exemption is proposed not to be deducted from
the development pool.
In comparison, the Lot Split provisions presently available in the
Code are reviewed and approved by city Council and the GMQS
exemption is deducted from the growth pool and are limited to one
new lot split per year.
The applicant's submission materials are included in Exhibit "A".
CONSISTENCY WITH THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN: The AACP
encourages preservation incentives for historic structures, this
code amendment provides an additional incentive.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None.
CURRENT ISSUES: Staff conceptually supports the applicant's
proposal as it provides an additional historic preservation
incentive without increasing density. There are several areas of
concern staff has with the method in which the proposed code
amendment is drafted. The concerns are:
o the creation of non-conforming sized parcels in the R-
6 zone district;
o
the site plan review is only done by HPC.
management regulations require lot splits
by the Growth Management Commission; and
The new growth
to be reviewed
o although both parcels created by the lot split will be
historically designed, only the parcel with the historic
resource would be permitted to obtain any variances
available through HPC. Staff does not want the parcel
with the new residence to obtain any FAR bonus, site
coverage, setback, height variance, open space variances,
or landmark grant money.
These concerns were considered by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and they finally decided to forward this proposed
amendment to Council as the applicant had drafted.
The applicant's request is subj ect to the review standards of
section 24-7-1102 which is included in Exhibit "B".
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning commission and staff
recommend approval of the applicant's request as drafted in the
attached ordinance.
2
r-"
,-."
,
PROPOSED MOTION:
1995."
"I move to read of ordinance~, Series of
"I move to approve the Historic Lot Split code amendment and at
first reading."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
ordinance~, Series 1995
"A" Application information
"B" Code Review criteria and staff responces
3
.'-"
,-".
community development director in the form provided by
the community development director.
D. Review standards for all development in the "H," Historic
Overlay District, and all development involving historic landmarks.
L Development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, and
all Development involving historic landmarks. No approval
for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay
District, or involving historic landmarks shall be
granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following
standards are met.
(!)
b.
c.
The proposed development is compatible in general
design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan
with designated historic structures located on the
parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when
the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay
District, or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark.
For Historic Landmarks where proposed development
would extend into front yard, side yard and rear
yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance
between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed
floor area by up to 500 sq. ft. or the allowed site
coverage by up to 5%, HPC may grant such variances
after making a finding that such variation is more
compatible in character with the historic landmark
and the neighborhood, than would be development in
accord with dimensional requirements. In no event
shall variations pursuant to this section exceed
those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill
Program for detached accessory dwelling units,
pursuant to section 5-510(B) (2).
The proposed development reflects and is consistent
with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel
proposed for development; and
The proposed development enhances or does not
detract from the historic significance of designated
historic structures located on the parcel proposed
for development or adjacent parcels; and
The proposed development enhances or does not
diminish or detract from the architectural character
and integrity of a designated historic structure or
part thereof.
2. Addi tional development guidelines. The city council, upon
recommendation of the HPC, shall establish additional
guidelines for use by HPC in the review of all
development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, and
d.
5
.....
,-,
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Mary Lackner, P}anner
Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment
RE:
DATE:
September 5, ~995
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking City approval to create a
Historic Landmark Lot Split provision in the Aspen Municipal Code.
This text amendment contemplates creating a Subdivision Exemption,
GMQS Exemption, changes the minimum lot area and width requirements
in the R-6 zone district, and creates review standards for the Lot
Split. The Historic Landmark Lot Split would only be permitted in
the R-6 zone district.
The conunission conceptually reviewed the applicant I s request on
August 8th and recommended that staff come back with a more concise
method to permit a historic landmark lot split than was proposed
in the August 8th memorandum by staff.
Staff has revised its recommendation to mirror the amendment
proposed by the applicant. Staff is also reconunending that all
HPC bonuses and variances permitted for a historic landmark be
permitted on the newly created lot which contains the historic
landmark. Staff does not recommend that any HPC bonuses or
variances be permitted on the new lot that does not contain the
historic structures.
APPLICANT: Jake vickery.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The proposed Historic Lot Split text
amendment would be available on lots located in the R-6 zone
district, which are 9,000 sq.ft. to 12,000 sq.ft. in size, and
contain a historic landmark of which the whole parcel will be
landmarked. The lot split would enable one lot of 3,000 sq. ft. to
be created for the historic residence. The FAR of the total
development is restricted to the duplex FAR permitted on the
original lot. Except for the limitation of the allowable FAR, the
newly created lots shall be treated as lots of record. A code
amendment is also proposed for the minimum lot area and lot width
requirements of the R-6 zone to permit the creation of a 3,000
sq.ft., 30 foot wide parcel.
The applicant is also proposing to add a provision to Division 6
of the Aspen Municipal Code which deals with development involving
a historic landmark. This would give HPC review authority over the
design and layout of a historic landmark lot split development
proposal. This language also states, "Each lot shall have the
ability to receive the same variances and bonuses available to
similarly sized lot of record." Staff has recommended that this
<-<
... ,.
1""'\.
~
i .,
language be eliminated from the code amendment.
The applicant is proposing that this lot split be reviewed and
approved at the administrative level by the Community Development
Director. The GMQS exemption is proposed not to be deducted from
the development pool. Staff has revised its original
recommendation to permit this procedural review.
In comparison the Lot Split provisions presently available in the
Code are reviewed and approved by city Council and the GMQS
exemption is deducted from the growth pool and are limited to one
new lot split per year.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff conceptually supports the applicant's
proposal as it provides an additional historic preservation
incentive without increasing density. There are several areas of
concern staff has with the method in which the proposed code
amendment is drafted. Staff recommends the following changes to
the proposed code amendment to insure consistency with the existing
provisions of the code addressing lot splits.
Staff I S revised code changes are wri tten
recommendation section of this memorandum.
in the
staff
The applicant I s request is subject to the review standards of
section 24-7-1102 which follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The applicant I s text amendment changes are not in
conflict with any chapters of the code, but the revised method to
approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split is not consistent with the
original Lot Split procedure of the Code. The areas where there
may have been conflict (creating a non-conforming lot of less than
6,000 sq.ft.), are proposed to be corrected.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The AACP does not specifically address this type of
amendment. The proposed amendment will permit the Historic
Preservation Committee design review authority over both lots
created by the lot split. This should represent better design in
a new residence that compliments the neighboring historic
structure.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The Historic Landmark Lot Split is proposed for only the
2
,,,",,
".,...,
~
R-6 zone district, on parcels between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet.
There are 21 parcels in the R-6 zone district that are between
9,000 and 12,000 and on the historic inventory.
The applicant has proposed the code amendment to reflect a
development proposal he is contemplating for 123 W. Francis in the
R-6 zone district. The Aspen Municipal Code presently permits two
detached residential dwelling units in the R-6 zone district on a
lot of 9,000 sq. ft. or greater. Therefore, no additional density
is proposed by this text amendment only the form of ownership is
changing.
During the Planning and Zoning commission work session there was
some discussion that this code amendment should be expanded to
include other residential zone districts and to allow it on lots
of 6,000 sq. ft. in size in the R-6 zone district. The following
list identifies the special provisions available for historic
landmarks in the Office, R-15 and R/MF zone districts:
o Office zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R-15 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 15,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R/MF zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft., if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R-6 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling uni t.s on a lot of 6,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
Although staff believes that this historic preservation incentive
may provide protection for historic resources on some sensitive
parcels in the 0, R-15 and R/MF zone districts, we feel
uncomfortable expanding the lot split ability to a conditional use.
Should this code amendment be approved by the City, it may provide
a guide to look at these other zones and smaller R-6 parcels in the
future.
Since the proposed code amendment does not increase the allowed
,density, staff believes it is consistent with this standard.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
3
" ,joo
~
~
Response: There should be no negative effect on traffic generation
or road safety, since the allowed density in the R-6 zone district
is not increasing as a result of this text amendment.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether
and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: Since there is no increase in the existing permitted
density on a parcel, there should be no increase in demands on
these public facilities. All development is still sUbject to the
mitigation required in the code (parks, housing, school district,
etc.) .
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: Since this code amendment would only be available to
parcels in the R-6 zone district, impacts to the natural
environment should be minimal. The R-6 zone is located in a
relatively flat portion of the City limits and does not encroach
into floodplain, avalanche, rockfall, or steep slope areas.
The primary natural environment issue in the R-6 area is the
preservation of large trees and open irrigation ditches. Trees are
protected by other provisions in the Code.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
Response: The creation of a 3,000 sq.ft lot in the R-6 zone
district is consistent and compatible with the historic nature of
the City. Preserving and enhancing historic resources is also
compatible with the community character of the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
Response: The applicant can proceed with the proposed project
without this code amendment because he has obtained a GMQS
exemption and condominiumization from the City. The applicant is
not interested in the condominiumization form of ownership and has
proposed this code amendment to provide an alternative for the
creation of fee simple lots.
4
, .
,~
.~
r. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment would be consistent with the
public interest and is drafted to be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
STAFF RECOMMENDATrON: Staff recommends approval of the applicant I s
request as drafted below.
section 7-1003 Subdivision Exemption (add a new section section 7-
1003 (A) (5) .
5. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is
a designated historic landmark for the development of one
new single-family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot
Split shall meet the requirements of Section 7-
1003 (A) (2), section 8-105 (A) (2) (e), Section 7-607 and
the following standards:
1. The original parcel shall be between 9,000 and
12,000 square feet in size and is located in the R-
6 zone district.
2. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed
the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original
parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted
on the SUbdivision Exemption Plat.
3. The proposed development meets all dimensional
requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC
variances and bonuses are only permitted on the.
parcel which contains the historic structure.
section 8-105 GMQS Exemption (add new section 8-105 (A) (2) (e))
Planning Director approval.
e. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The construction of a new
single family dwelling on a lot created through a
Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 7-
1003 (A) (5) .
section 5-201 Medium Density Residential (R-6) would have the
following language added: .
1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000. For lots created
by section 8-105 (B) (2) (a) (1) (c) Historic Landmark Lot
Split: 3,000.
5
" -
"....,
~
3.
Minimum lot width (feet):
section a-105(B) (2) (a) (1) (c)
30.
60. For lots created by
Historic Landmark Lot split:
Add section 7-607 to Division 7 Development in an H, Historic
Overlay District or involving a Historic Landmark to read:
A. Historic Landmark Lot split. The development of all lots
created pursuant to section 7-1003 (A) (5) shall be
reviewed by HPC at a public hearing.
6
/""'1,
!""'J
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT
R6 SMALL LANDMARK LOTS
June 18, 1995
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE
In the R6 Zone, for lots of 9,000 SF or greater containing Historical Landmarks, where
the code permits the construction of two single family residences, lots so developed
may be split provided that the allowable aggregate FAR of the two resulting lots be
limited to the FAR that is otherwise allowable for the parent lot The allowable FAR shall
be apportioned between the two lots by site specific development plan. For such newly
created lots only, the minimum lots size for lots containing historical landmarks shall be
3,000 sf and the minimum lot width shall be 30 feet Except for these reductions and the
restriction on aggregate allowable FAR, the newly created lots shall have the same
rights and restrictions of similarly sized lots of record. No new unit of density shall be
created by such lot split Such lot split shall be exempt from the subdivision process
and exempt from GMQS by the Community Development Director. All such lot splits
and development on such lots shall be subject to the review and approval of the HPC.
~.
~
.,-.,
,
.
TO: MARY LACKNER
ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RE: APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
PROJECT: 123 WEST FRANCIS
APPLICANT: JAKE VICKERY
DATE: JUNE 18, 1995
This letter is to request Subdivision Exemption under Section 7-1003 for proposed
development at 123 West Francis as represented in the May 8, 1995 Land Use
Application. This request is made supplemental to and consolidated to that application,
Please refer to that application for additional detail. It is made contingent upon the
approval of the associated proposed text amendment
Our intention is to develop the historical cottage on building site "A" and to sell off the
building site "B" for development by someone else,
The maximum allowable FAR (Duplex FAR) has been distributed by the attached site
specific development plan which is dated May 8, 1995 and which received Conceptual
Approval by the HPC on May 24, 1995,
Respectfully,
Jake Vickery
1""\
!""'>,
111
A K E
September 13,1995
VICKERY
Mark Lackner I Amy Amidon
Aspen Community Development Department
City Hall
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
100 SOUTH SPRiNG S1. #3
POST OFFICE BOX 12360
ASPEN,COLORAD081612
TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE
(970) 925-3660
RE: HISTORICAL LOT SPLIT
MAPPING AND RESEARCH SUMMARY
Dear Mary I Amy,
Please find attached the final draft of the research this office has prepared in connection
with the "Historical Lot Split". Conclusions are summarized on the first page and a data
sheet is also provided,
I reiterate the following key points in support of this code amendment:
. No growth either in FAR or Dwelling Units is created,
. Purpose is to simplify and improve method of ownership of Landmarks,
. Provides additional preservation incentive and tool.
. Encourages houses with smaller masses and more authentic preservation,
. Historical Lots will have on average approximately 75% of the allowable FAR of Lots
of Record (10% below Ordinance 35).
. Average site area per dwelling unit is a minimum of 4,500 sq. ft. (R6 non-historical
development standard).
. Minimum Historical Lot size will be 3,000 sq. ft. (R6 Landmark standard).
. All development subject to HPC review.
I hope this information is helpful in moving this issue forward. Please let me know if I
can answer any questions.
Res~.
Jake Vickery
t"""\
.t";
The newly created lots would act as if they were lots of record in their underlying zone
except that the base allowable FAR of the 2 lots combined could not exceed that of a
duplex of the fathering lot, that no additional unit of density could be created, and that
the second unit and lot split be exempt from growth management and subdivision review
by community development director. Development on both lots is subject to HPC
review.
All bonuses available to the fathering duplex lot would be available to each of the newly
created lots per HPC finding of increased compatibility, It would also be contingent upon
HPC review as required for changes to a landmark.
Le, for a 9,000 sf lot this would be a base allowable FAR of 2,040 (4,080 FARsf /2) .
By comparison, an equivalent existing lot of record of 4,500 sf has an base allowable
single family FARsf of 2,820, a reduction of 780 allowable FARsf, All existing landmark
incentives would still apply.
In such cases involving a lot split, the FAR total of both lots would be limited to the total
allowed for a duplex prior to subdivision and distributed to each lot (equally or unequally)
by the Subdivision Agreement. q CDO ~ 0 f> '()
/J('" , \'1.,00 \'
There are approximately 56 parcels on the historical inventory which might be effected
by this code amendment. Approximately 28 of these parcels are currently Landmarked,
These numbers are deemed to be accurate to 5-10%, This includes all zones. The
Zones where this code amendment seem to make the most sense at the R6, RMF, 0,
and ~-\S- 4 F10,
*.
.- .
!.
I"!""\.
III
~
J Ii. K E
--------
~
-
Q)
Q)
.c
en
Ii r- eo L() '" <t co Ol '" ~
- L() r- '" L() co ~ 0 <t L()
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"
.
+ 0 eo eo . eo <t '" eo '" 0
'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"
'"
'"
..
....
en r- ~ eo eo L() '" L() CO ~
en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"
en.
....
....
,
'" . .
'"
'"
",-
....
en 0 Ol Ol '" '" CO ~ '" '" L()
en ~ ~ ~ ~ '"
"'"
'"
....
, .
'" .
'" .
'"
...
en r- <t ~ '" Ol ~ Ol '" '"
en ~ '" ~ '" '"
en
ai
,
'"
'"
'"
..- .
en 1> '" ~ '" ! '" .. 0 L() eo '"
en ~ '" '" ~ ~ '" '" '" CO
"'"
'" ti
'" !
en '"
, '"
'"
.... <D
,
en en L() .. '" L() 0 L() 0 r- ..
!!! C) en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"
~ Z en
Z "?- !
..J '"
< Z '"
z :3 '"
< 11. .;
~ -
W en CO eo <t '" CO Ol Ol <t '"
0 a:: ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ '" <t
:J
l- I- of
Z 0
W '" .
W '"
> I- '" .
2!; :E ..;
..J 0
< a::
~ <
a:: ~ ~ "" "" ""
0 0 - - -
I- W '" CO CO CO
tI) ~ ., E E E
:E ~ - "" "0 "" "0 "" "0
CO - - -
> 0 CO C co c co c
z E CO E CO E CO
w w ., ..J ..J ..J
N "0 , Ii "0 ~ "0 , Ii
11. ~ iii c c - c c c c -
tI) < co 0 0 CO 0 CO 0 ~
< .., ..J Z I- ..J Z ..J Z
~
CD
c>
'"
a.
"".....,
,--,
ASPEN HISTORICAL INVENTORY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTURE/PLANNING
9/10/95
Conclusions to Research (1993 data):
1. 606 single family properties in Aspen Townsite (1995 - from Assessor)
2. Approximately 50 duplex properties (1995 - from Assessor)
3, Duplexes equal approximately 8.5% of total single family / duplex ownership
4, Inventory properties in R6 zone: 135, 57 are Landmarks (42%)
Inventory properties in 0 zone: 38, 24 are Landmarks (63%)
Inventory properties is all C zones: 48, 26 are Landmarks (54%)
Inventory properties in RMF zone: 18, 1 is Landmark (6%)
Inventory properties in all other zones: 12, 1 is Landmark: (8%)
Total Inventory properties (16 excluded): 251,109 are Landmarks (43%)
6. Minimum lot size in CC, C1, NC zones is 3,000 sf. All other zones: 6,000 or more
7, 54% of all Inventory is in R6 zone,
8. 82% of residential Inventory is in R6 zone (taking out 86 office/commercial Inventory)
9, 96,6% of residential Landmarks are in R6 zone (taking out 50 Commercial
Landmarks).
10. 19% of R6 Inventory is "non-conforming" (below 6,000 square feet of lot area),
11. 28% of R6 Inventory is between 9,000 and 11,999 square feet of lot area.
Please see attached data sheet.
ra
J A K E
--------
o
Sheet1
,-"
,. .,
111
.-.,
ASPEN HISTORICAL INVENTORY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTURE/PLANNING
9/10/95
DATA SHEET
J A K E
----.----
Lot Area (s.1.)
3,000-5,999 6,000-8,999 9,000-11,999
12,000+
Total
Landmark
11
19
17
10
57
Non-Landmark
15
35
20
8
78
Total
26
54
37
18
135
% Total/Total
0.19
0.40
0.28
0.13
1.00
Page 1
,,,,,,,",
,-.,
Exhibit B
section 24-7-1102
Amendments to the Text of this Chapter and
to the Official Zone District Hap
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The applicant I s text amendment changes are not in
conflict with any chapters of the code, but the revised method to
approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split is not consistent with the
original Lot Split procedure of the Code. The areas where there
may have been conflict (creating a non-conforming lot of less than
6,000 sq.ft.), are proposed to be corrected.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area comprehensive Plan.
Response: The AACP does not specifically address this type of
amendment. The proposed amendment will permit the Historic
. Preservation Committee design review authority over both lots
created by the lot split. This should represent better design in
a new residence that compliments the neighboring historic
structure.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible .with
surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The Historic Landmark Lot Split is proposed for only the
R-6 zone district, on parcels between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet.
There are 21 parcels in the R-6 zone district that are between
9,000 and 12,000 and on the historic inventory.
The applicant has proposed the code amendment to reflect a
development proposal he is contemplating for 123 W. Francis in the
R-6 zone district. The Aspen Municipal Code presently permits two
detached residential dwelling units in the R-6 zone district on a
lot of 9,000 sq. ft. or greater. Therefore, no additional density
is proposed by this text amendment only the form of ownership is
changing.
During the Planning and Zoning Commission wor~ session there was
some discussion that this code amendment should be expanded to
include other residential zone districts and to allow it on lots
of 6,000 sq. ft. in size in the R-6 zone district. The following
list identifies the special provisions available for historic
landmarks in the Office, R-15 and R/MF zone districts:
o Office zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
1""'.
.,.-.,.
approval.
o The R-15 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 15,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R/MF zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft., if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R-6 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
Although staff believes that this historic preservation incentive
may provide protection for historic resources on some sensitive
parcels in the 0, R-15 and R/MF zone districts, we feel
uncomfortable expanding the lot split ability to a conditional use.
Should this code amendment be approved by the city, it may provide
a guide to look at these other zones and smaller R-6 parcels in the
future.
Since the proposed code amendment does not increase the allowed
density, staff believes it is consistent with this standard.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
Response: There should be no negative effect on traffic generation
or road safety, since the allowed density in the R-6 zone district
is not increasing as a result of this text amendment.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether
and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including
])ut not limited to transportation f.acilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: Since there is no increase in the existing permitted
density on a parcel, there should be no increase in demands on
these public facilities. All development is still subject to the
mitigation required in the code (parks, housing, school district,
etc.) .
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
2
1"',
~,
Response: Since this code amendment would only be available to
parcels in the R-6 zone district, impacts to the natural
environment should be minimal. The R-6 zone is located in a
relatively flat portion of the City limits and does not encroach
into floodplain, avalanche, rockfall, or steep slope areas.
The primary natural environment issue in the R-6 area is the
preservation of large trees and open irrigation ditches. Trees are
protected by other provisions in the Code.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
Response: The creation of a 3,000 sq. ft lot in the R-6 zone
district can be considered consistent and compatible with the
historic nature of the city. Preserving and enhancing historic
resources is also compatible with the community character of the
City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
Response: The applicant can proceed with the proposed project
without this code amendment because he has obtained a GMQS
exemption and condominiumization from the city. The applicant is
not interested in the condominiumization form of ownership and has
proposed this code amendment to provide an alternative for the
creation of fee simple lots.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment would be consistent with the
public interest and is drafted to be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
3
"......,
~
/Vlv-
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE
REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing. will be held on Monday, November 13, 1995
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 Jake Vickery, requesting to
amend the text of the following sections of the Aspen Land Use Code to create a Historic Landmark
Lot Split provision:
1. 24-7-1003(A)(5), Subdivision Exemption;
2. 24-8-105(A)(2)( e), GMQS Exemption;
3, 24-5-201(D), Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district;
4. 24-7-607, Development in an Historic Overlay District or Involving a Historic Landmark.
For further information, contact Mary Lackner at the AspenJPitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5106
s1John Bennett. Mavor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on October 28, 1995
City of Aspen Account
':,/
>
"
1"""1
r-..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning commission
FROM:
Mary Lackner, planner
RE:
Historic Landmark Code Amendment Resolution
DATE:
September 19, 1995
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution for
the Jake vickery text amendment proposal.
The commission will need to vote on this resolution. If there is
discussion please move it onto the regular agenda.
pa.ssed. 5" - I
f"""'\
.~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Mary Lackner, Planner
RE:
Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment
DATE:
August 22, 1995
================================================================
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking city approval to create a
Historic Landmark Lot Split provision in the Aspen Municipal Code.
This text amendment contemplates creating a Subdivision Exemption,
GMQS Exemption, changes the minimum lot area and width requirements
in the R-6 zone district, and creates review standards for the Lot
Split. The Historic Landmark Lot Split would only be permitted in
the R-6 zone district.
The Commission conceptually reviewed the applicant's request on
August 8th and recommended that staff come back with a more concise
method to permit a historic landmark lot split than was proposed
in the August 8th memorandum by staff.
Staff has revised its recommendation to mirror the amendment
proposed by the applicant. Staff is also recommending that all
HPC bonuses and variances permitted for a historic landmark be
permitted on the newly created lot which contains the historic
landmark. Staff does not recommend that any HPC bonuses or
variances be permitted on the new lot that does not contain the
historic structures.
APPLICANT: Jake Vickery.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The proposed Historic Lot Split text
amendment would be available on lots located in the R-6 zone
district, which are 9,000 sq. ft. to 12,000 sq. ft. in size, and
contain a historic landmark of which the whole parcel will be
landmarked. The lot split would enable one lot of 3,000 sq. ft. to
be created for the historic residence. The FAR of the total
development is restricted to the duplex FAR permitted on the
original lot. Except for the limitation of the allowable FAR, the
newly created lots shall be treated as lots of record. A code
amendment is also proposed for the minimum lot area and lot width
requirements of the R-6 zone to permit the creation of a 3,000
sq.ft., 30 foot wide parcel.
The applicant is also proposing to add a provision to Division 6
of the Aspen Municipal Code which deals with development involving
a historic landmark. This would give HPC review authority over the
design and layout of a historic landmark lot split development
proposal. This language also states, "Each lot shall have the
ability to receive the same variances and bonuses available to
similarly sized lot of record." Staff has recommended that this
.1""'\
.,-,
language be eliminated from the code amendment.
The applicant is proposing that this lot split be reviewed and
approved at the administrative level by the Community Development
Director. The GMQS exemption is proposed not to be deducted from
the development pool. Staff has revised its original
recommendation to permit this procedural review.
In comparison the Lot Split provisions presently available in the
Code are reviewed and approved by City Council and the GMQS
exemption is deducted from the growth pool and are limited to one
new lot split per year.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff conceptually supports the applicant I s
proposal as it provides an additional historic preservation
incentive without increasing density. There are several areas of
concern staff has with the method in which the proposed code
amendment is drafted. Staff recommends the following changes to
the proposed code amendment to insure consistency with the existing
provisions of the code addressing lot splits.
Staff's revised code changes are written
recommendation section of this memorandum.
in the
staff
The applicant's request is subj ect to the review standards of
Section 24-7-1102 which follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The applicant I s text amendment changes are not in
conflict with any chapters of the code, but the revised method to
approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split is not consistent with the
original Lot Split procedure of the Code. The areas where there
may have been conflict (creating a non-conforming lot of less than
6,000 sq.ft.), are proposed to be corrected.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The AACP does not specifically address this type of
amendment. The proposed amendment will permit the Historic
Preservation Committee design review authority over both lots
created by the lot split. This should represent better design in
a new residence that compliments the neighboring historic
structure.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The Historic Landmark Lot Split is proposed for only the
2
1"""\
,-,
R-6 zone district, on parcels between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet.
There are 21 parcels in the R-6 zone district that are between
9,000 and 12,000 and on the historic inventory.
The applicant has proposed the code amendment to reflect a
development proposal he is contemplating for 123 W. Francis in the
R-6 zone district. The Aspen Municipal Code presently permits two
detached residential dwelling units in the R-6 zone district on a
lot of 9,000 sq. ft. or greater. Therefore, no additional density
is proposed by this text amendment only the form of ownership is
changing.
During the Planning and Zoning Commission work session there was
some discussion that this code amendment should be expanded to
include other residential zone districts and to allow it on lots
of 6,000 sq. ft. in size in the R-6 z.one district. The following
list identifies the special provisions available for historic
landmarks in the Office, R-15 and R/MF zone districts:
o Office zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R-15 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 15,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R/MF zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft., if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R-6 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
Although staff believes that this historic preservation incentive
may provide protection for historic resources on some sensitive
parcels in the 0, R-15 and R/MF zone districts, we feel
uncomfortable expanding the lot split ability toa conditional use.
Should this code amendment be approved by the City, it may provide
a guide to look at these other zones and smaller R-6 parcels in the
future.
Since the proposed code amendment does not increase the allowed
density, staff believes it is consistent with this standard.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
3
.,-..,
~
Response: There should be no negative effect on traffic generation
or road safety, since the allowed density in the R-6 zone district
is not increasing as a result of this text amendment.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether
and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, includinq
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewaqe
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emerqency medical facilities.
Response: Since there is no increase in the existing permitted
density on a parcel, there should be no increase in demands on
these public facilities. All development is still subject to the
mitigation required in the code (parks, housing, school district,
etc.) .
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: Since this code amendment would only be available to
parcels in the R-6 zone district, impacts to the natural
environment should be minimal. The R-6 zone is located in a
relatively flat portion of the City limits and does not encroach
into floodplain, avalanche, rockfall, or steep slope areas.
The primary natural environment issue in the R-6 area is the
preservation of large trees and open irrigation ditches. Trees are
protected by other provisions in the Code.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
Response: The creation of a 3,000 sq. ft lot in the R-6 zone
district is consistent and compatible with the historic nature of
the city. Preserving and enhancing historic resources is also
compatible with the community character of the city of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been chanqed conditions affectinq the
subject parcel or the surrounding neiqhborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
Response: The applicant can proceed with the proposed project
without this code amendment because he has obtained a GMQS
exemption and condominiumization from the City. The applicant is
not interested inthecondominiumization form of ownership and has
proposed this code amendment to provide an al ternati ve for the
creation of fee simple lots.
4
,-..,
,'-"
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment would be consistent with the
public interest and is drafted to be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant's
request as drafted below.
section 7-1003 Subdivision Exemption (add a new section Section 7-
1003 (A) (5) .
5. Historic LandlDark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is
a designated historic landmark for the development of one
new sinqle-family dwellinq. The Historic Landmark Lot
Split shall meet the requirements of section 7-
1003 (Al (2l, section 8-105 (A) (2) (e), section 7-607 and
the followinq standards:
1. The original parcel shall be between 9,000 and
12,000 square feet in size and is located in the R-
6 zone district.
2. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed
the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original
parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted
on the Subdivision Exemption Plat.
3. The proposed development meets all dimensional
requirements of the underlyinq zone district. HPC
variances and bonuses are only permitted on the
parcel which 'contains the historic structure.
section 8-105 GMQS Exemption (add new section 8-105(A) (2) (e))
Planning Director approval.
e. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The construction of a new
sinqle family dwelling on a lot created throuqh a
Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 7-
1003 (Al (5) .
section 5-201 Medium Density Residential (R-6) would have the
following language added:
1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000. For lots created
by Section 8-105(B) (2) (a) (1) (c) Historic Landmark Lot
Split: 3,000.
5
,-.,
r-.
3.
Minimum lot width (feet):
Section8-105(B) (2) (a) (1) (c)
30.
60 . For lots created by
Historic Landmark Lot Split:
Add Section 7-607 to Division 7 Development in an H, Historic
Overlay District or involving a Historic Landmark to read:
A. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The development of all lots
created pursuant to Section 7-1003 (A) (5) shall be
reviewed by HPC at a public hearing.
6
,-
I~
"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Mary Lackner, Planner
RE:
Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment
DATE:
August 8, 1995
================================================================
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking City approval to create a
Historic Landmark Lot Split provision in the Aspen Municipal Code.
This text amendment contemplates creating a Subdivision Exemption,
GMQS Exemption, changes the minimum lot area and width requirements
in the R-6 zone district, and creates review standards for the Lot
Split. The Historc Landmark Lot Split would only be permitted in
the R-6 zone district.
The Commission conceptually reviewed the applicant's request in a
work session setting on June 20th. The P&Z was generally favorable
to the concept of creating an incentive for historic landmark lot
splits.
APPLICANT: Jake Vickery.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The proposed Historic Lot Split text
amendment would be available on lots located in the R-6 zone
district, which are 9,000 sq.ft. to 12,000 sq.ft. in size, and
contain a historic landmark of which the whole parcel will be
landmarked. The lot split would enable one lot of 3,000 sq. ft. to
be created for the historic residence. The FAR of the total
development is restricted to the duplex FAR permitted on the
original lot. Except for the limitation of the allowable FAR, the
newly created lots shall be treated as lots of record. A code
amendment is also proposed for the minimum lot area and lot width
requirements of the R-6 zone to permit the creation of a 3,000
sq.ft., 30 foot wide parcel.
The applicant is also proposing to add a provision to Division 6
of the Aspen Municipal Code which deals with development involving
a historic landmark. This would give HPC review authority over the
design and layout of a historic landlllark lot split development
proposal. This language also states, "Each lot shall have the
ability to receive the same variances and bonuses available to
similarly sized lot of record."
The applicant is proposing that this lot split be reviewed and
approved at the administrative level by the Community Development
Director. The GMQS exemption is proposed NOT to be deducted from
the development pool. ---
In comparison the Lot Split provisions presently available in the
Code are reviewed and approved by City Council and the GMQS
r'1
r":
exemption is deducted from the growth pool and are limited to one
new lot split per year.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff conceptually supports the applicant's
proposal as it provides an additional historic preservation
incentive without increasing density. There are several areas of
concern staff has with the method in which the proposed code
amendment is drafted. Staff recommends the following changes to
the proposed code amendment to insure consistency with the existing
provisions of the code addressing lot splits.
Staff agrees with the applicant to make this a GMQS exemption that
does not come out of the growth pool, but staff believes it needs
to be granted by the Growth Management commission, not the
Community Development Director.
It was also discussed by Planning staff and generally agreed upon
that the historic landmark FAR bonus not be available for the
historic landmark lot split. The reasoning is that since it is a
GMQS exemption that is not limited to one a year and the historic
landmark lot split is creating a non-conforming lot, additional FAR
should not be granted to the parcel. Should an applicant wish to
obtain the FAR bonus, they would have to go through the lot split
procedure of Section 24-7-1003 (A) (2) and GMQS Exemption of Section
24-8-105(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Staff does not agree with the applicant's statement ""Each lot
shall have the ability to receive the same variances and bonuses
available to similarly sized lot of record." We recommend language
that would permit only setback variances to be granted to the
parcels, and not FAR or site coverage variances.
Staff's recommended code changes are written in the staff
recommendation section of this memorandum.
The applicant's request is subject to the review standards of
Section 24-7-1102 which follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The applicant I s text amendment, with staff I s recommended
changes, is not in conflict with any chapters of the code. The
areas where there may have been conflict (creating a non-conforming
lot of less than 6,000 sq.ft.), are proposed to be corrected.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The AACP does not specifically address this type of
amendment. The proposed amendment will permit the Historic
Preservation Committee design review authority over both lots
2
!""r,
~
created by the lot
a new residence
structure.
split. This should represent better design in
that compliments the neighboring historic
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surroundinq zone districts and land uses, considerinq
existinq land use and neiqhborhood characteristics.
Response: The Historic Landmark Lot Split is proposed for only the
R-6 zone district, on parcels between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet.
There are 21 parcels in the R-6 zone district that are between
9,000 and 12,000 and on the historic inventory.
The applicant has proposed the code amendment to reflect a
development proposal he is contemplating for 123 W. Francis in the
R-6 zone district. The Aspen Municipal Code presently permits two
detached residential dwelling units in the R-6 zone district on a
lot of 9,000 sq.ft. or greater. Therefore, no additional density
is proposed by this text amendment only the form of ownership is
changing.
During the Planning and Zoning Commission work session there was
some discussion that this code amendment should be expanded to
include other residential zone districts and to allow it on lots
of 6,000 sq. ft. in size in the R-6 zone district. The following
list identifies the special provisions available for historic
landmarks in the Office, R-15 and R/MF zone districts:
o Office zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R-15 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 15,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R/MF zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft., if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R-6 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq. ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
Although staff believes that this historic preservation incentive
may provide protection for historic resources on some sensitive
parcels in the 0, R-15 and R/MF zone districts, we feel
uncomfortable expanding the lot split ability to a conditional use.
3
~
,-,
Should this code amendment be approved by the City, it may provide
a guide to look at these other zones and smaller R-6 parcels in the
future.
Since the proposed code amendment does not increase the allowed
density, staff believes it is consistent with this standard.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
qeneration and road safety.
Response: There should be no negative effect on traffic generation
or road safety, since the allowed density in the R-6 zone district
is not increasing as a result of this text amendment.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether
and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, includinq
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewaqe
facilities, water supply, parks, drainaqe, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: Since there is no increase in the existing permitted
density on a parcel, there should be no increase in demands on
these public facilities. All development is still subject to the
mitigation required in the code (parks, housing, school district,
etc.) .
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: Since this code amendment would only be available to
parcels in the R-6 zone district, impacts to the natural
environment should be minimal. The. R-6 zone is located in a
relatively flat portion of the City limits and does not encroach
into floodplain, avalanche, rockfall, or steep slope areas.
The primary natural environment issue in the R-6 area is the
preservation of large trees and open irrigation ditches. Trees are
protected by other provisions in the Code, but will need to be
addressed in the site development plan reviewed by the Growth
Management Commission.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
Response: The creation of a 3,000 sq. ft lot in the R-6 zone
district is consistent and compatible with the historic nature of
the City. Preserving and enhancing historic resources is also
compatible with the community character of the City of Aspen.
4
(""'>
.""'"
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
Response: The applicant can proceed with the proposed project
without this code amendment because he has obtained a GMQS
exemption and condominiumization from the City. The applicant is
not interested in the condominiumization form of ownership and has
proposed this code amendment to provide an alternative for the
creation of fee simple lots.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment would be consistent with the
public interest and is drafted to be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter, if staff's recommendations are
incorporated into the text amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant I s
request with several changes.
GMQS Exemption by the Growth Management Commission:
Addition of a new section 24-8-105(B) (2) (a) (1) (c) which states:
(c) Historic Landmark Lot Split. The development of one
detached residential dwelling on a lot within the
original mapped Aspen Townsite, formed by a lot split
granted subsequent to Novem]:)er 14, 1977 pursuant to
Section 7-1003(A) (2) shall be exempted from the growth
management and sdoring procedures by the Growth
Management Commission if the following standards are met:
.~
,,4'l<..~
~,~:-,
JII~
1.
2.
. ~'t,,~
~\): ~~{-~~
'f,..-r..
V
__> 3.
4.
The original parcel shall be between 9,000 and
12,000 square feet in size and is located in the R-
6 zone district.
The parcel is a designated historic landmark. The
historic landmark is located on the lot which is
less than 6,000 sq.ft.
The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed ..~
the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original ~~
parcel. ~~ ~\.;.
The proposed development meets all dimen~onal ~~
requirements of the underlying zone district. The ~
only HPC variance permitted for the Historic
Landmark Lot Split are setback variances found to
5
~
~,
be required by the SPC.
5. The historic landmark FAR bonus is not permitted on
any lot created by the Historic Landmark Lot Split.
6. The development's water supply, sewaqe treatment,
solid waste disposal, drainaqe control,
transportation and fire protection impacts shall be
mitiqated to the satisfaction of the Growth
Manaqement Commission.
7. The compatibility of the project's site desiqn with
surroundinq projects and its appropriateness for the
site shall be demonstrated, includinq but not
limited to consideration of the quality and
character of existinq and proposed landscapinq and
open space, parkinq considerations, and the amount
of site coveraqe by buildings.
Section 5-201 Medium Density Residential (R-6) would have the
following language added:
L Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000. For lots created
by Section 8-105 (B) (2) (a) (1) (c) Historic Landmark Lot
Split: 3,000.
3.
Minimum lot width (feet):
Section 8-105 (B) (2) (a) (1) (c)
30.
60. For lots created by
Historic Landmark Lot Split:
Add Section 7-607 to Division 7 Development in an H, Historic
Overlay District or inVOlving a Historic Landmark to read:
A. Historic Landmark Lot split. The development of all lots
created pursuant to Section 8-105(B) (2) (a) (1) (c) shall
be reviewed by HPC.
6
o
)
,
./
("!'\
~
111
July 21, 1995
A K E
VICKERY
Mary Lackner
Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
100 SOUTH SPRING ST. n
POST OFFICE BOX 12360
A5PEN.COLORAD081612
TELEPHONE I FACSIMILE
(970) 925-3660
RE: TEXT AMENDMENT FOR SMALL HISTORICAL LANDMARK LOTS
Dear Mary,
Please consider this our formal application for the attached text amendment Attached
is a check for $2,040.00.
This text amendment is framed to address only the R6 zone (Section 5-201). Further it
is framed only for Historically Landmarked parcels. This is done to simplify processing
and to relate directly to what is already permitted by the code,
This text amendment proposes a change to the GMQS Exemption by Planning Director
(Section 8-105) and the Subdivision Exemption by Planning Director (Section 7-1003),
This is requested because this text amendment does not result in the creation of any
new units of density and only effects the method of ownership of units which are
currently allowed by right, are currently exempt from GMQS, and can currently be
owned as Condominiums,
Although the Code currently permits the creation of these smaller single family
residences, it does not provide a mechanism for individual ownership of them except
, ~
through Condomi~tion. Condominimi<lztfpn in this circumstance can be awkward
and involved at best and results in no parliclilar benefit to the public realm, This code
amendment attempts to offer options to this situation allowing a simple lot split and
individual ownership of each of the smaller houses and the "lots" they are on,
Such site specific development is already fully reviewed by the Planning Director, HPC,
P&Z, and the City Engineer and no increase or decrease in the "level of review" would
result from this amendment Further, there is no additional impact to the Public Realm
from this proposed text amendment Further, this text amendment supports and
enhances various elements of both the AACP and Historical Preservation,
Data base and mapping work through the City Mapping Department has shown that the
number of effected parcels is approximately 21. This would include parcels already
developed as duplexes or engorged single family residences. Please see attached
information for more detail on this research,
Re~UIIY,
Jake Vickery
(:: (." ,'~ ~ ' i: . ,_' " ,: .
c;:~">';~:~_::";'~',~':i'j';" I
-? .- :"'\.. /
A:l~ ~,.
~:f'.
/
./"
)
-)
/
/"""">
,'-"
1-1 004 APPLICATION
A 6-202 General Information: Please see attached information and the Development
Application for 123 West Francis dated May 8, 1995 for additional detail.
8. Precise wording of the proposed amendment: Effected sections of the Code are
attached and precise wording is shown for each individual section.
C, No Amendment to the Zone Map is requested,
7-1102 SPECIFIC REPLIES TO REVIEW STANDARDS
A This proposal is consistent with the Code and does not conflict with any portions of
the Code,
8. This proposal is consistent with the AACP. It attempts to stimulate and encourage
the creation of smaller units of density, smaller modules of massing, and smaller free
market houses presumably more available for ownership by local families, In addition it
supports and enhances Historical Preservation, Please see.4'~~i:leel-notes. dYI./21'IL,.
C, There is no change of use or density with this text amendment. Development is
consistent with what is already permitted and existing in the R6 zone and the
neighborhood,
D. There are no increased effects on traffic generation or road safety associated with
this amendment.
E, There are no increased impacts on public facilities.
F. There are no increased impacts on the natural environment associated with this
amendment.
G. This text amendment is not only consistent and compatible with the community
character but strives to enhance it.
H, This code amendment is to encourage individual single family ownership and the
creation of smaller units of density and smaller individuated building masses to balance
the predominance of larger ones now being created,
I. This amendment supports the public interest and is in harmony with the Code,
,
/
/ !~
/' HISTORIC lOT SPLIT
) PROPOSED CODE CHANGES
/ Jake Vickery Architects
/ 7-21-95
~
Sec. 7-1003 Subdivision Exemptions (by planning director)
add new Section 7-1003(A)(5)
5, Historic Lot Split The solit of a lot that is a designated historic landmark creating
no more than 2 lots both lots conforming to the reauirements of the underlying
zoning district and the applicant commits that any new lot for which development
is oroposed will contain an accessory dwelling unit
Sec. 8-105 GMQS Exemptions
add new Section 8-105 (a) (ii) (e) (W,)
~ ,
4, The construction of a single family residence on a lot created throUl;lh an
Historical Lot Split pursuant to Section 7-1003IA)15),
!3-loS-CA) (z)(<:.)
Sec. 5-201 Medium Density Residential (R-6)
revise Section 5-201 (D) (1)
) 1, Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000, For lots created by Historical Lot Split
pursuant to 7-1003IA)(3): 3000.
revise Section 5-201 (D) (3)
3, Minimum Lot Width (feet): 60, For lots created bv Historical Lot Split pursuant to
Section 7-1003(A)(3): 30.
DIVISON 7. DEVELOPMENT IN AN H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT ON
INVOLVING A HISTORIC LANDMARK
add Section Sec 7-607
Sec. 7 - 607 Historic Lot Split
A Review Standards Apolication for Histori~al Lot Split shall be reviewed
oursuant to Sec, 7 - 6001, The aggreQate allowable FAR for both lots shall not
exceed that otherwise allowed for the parent parcel and aooortioned by a site
soecific development plan Each lot shall have the ability to receive the same
variances and bonuses available to similarly sized lots of record Such lot solit
and develooment on 'all lots so created shall be reviewed by HPC.
;
"
. /
,-..,
.~
Sheet1
ALLOWABLE R.6 FAR
8/8/951 I
JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS
LOT S.F. SF FAR DPLX FAR
3,000 2,400 n/a
420
4,500 2,820 n/a
420
6,000 3,240 360 3,600
210 240
7,500 3,450 390 3,840
210 240
9,000 3,660 420 4,080
90 90
10,500 3,750 420 4,170
90 90 .
12,000 3,840 420 4,260
5,250 3,075 3,375
Page 1
i'*'.
.,-"
rII
July 21, 1995
A K E
VICKERY
Mary Lackner
Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
100 SOUTH SPRING ST. #3
POST OFFICE BOX 12360
ASPEN,COLORAD081612
TELEPHONE I FACSIMILE
(970) 925-3660
RE: TEXT AMENDMENT FOR SMALL HISTORICAL LANDMARK LOTS
Dear Mary,
Please consider this our formal application for the attached text amendment. Attached
is a check for $2,040.00.
This text amendment is framed to address only the R6 zone (Section 5-201), Further it
is framed only for Historically Landmarked parcels, This is done to simplify processing
and to relate directly to what is already permitted by the code.
This text amendment proposes a change to the GMQS Exemption by Planning Director
(Section 8-105) and the Subdivision Exemption by Planning Director (Section 7-1003).
This is requested because this text amendment does not result in the creation of any
new units of density and only effects the method of ownership of units which are
currently allowed by right, are currently exempt from GMQS, and can currently be
owned as Condominiums.
Although the Code currently permits the creation of these smaller single family
residences, it does not provide a mechanism for individual ownership of them except
through Condominiization. Condominimiaztion in this circumstance can be awkward
and involved at best and results in no particular benefit to the public realm. This code
amendment attempts to offer options to this situation allowing a simple lot split and
individual ownership of each of the smaller houses and the "lots" they are on,
Such site specific development is already fully reviewed by the Planning Director, HPC,
P&Z, and the City Engineer and no increase or decrease in the "level of review" would
result from this amendment. Further, there is no additional impact to the Public Realm
from this proposed text amendment. Further, this text amendment supports and
enhances various elements of both the AACP and Historical Preservation.
Data base and mapping work through the City Mapping Department has shown that the
number of effected parcels is approximately 21. This would include parcels already
developed as duplexes or engorged single family residences. Please see attached
information for more detail on this research.
Respectfully,
Ja~kery
,-,
1>otafid ~
-
-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning commission
FROM:
Mary Lackner, Planner
RE:
Vickery Code Amendment - Historic Lot Split
DATE:
July 18, 1995
~==~====-~======================================================
Staff did not receive requested information on this code amendment
prior to the date needed to review it ,for the P&Z packet. Since
this item was previously noticed as a pUblic hearing for July 18th,
the Planning commission needs to table this request until August
8th.
...
^
.~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning commission
FROM:
Mary Lackner, Planner
Historic Landmark Lot Split Code Amendment - Work Session
RE:
DATE:
June 20, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: Jake Vickery is seeking the Planning Commissions input
on a proposed code amendment. Exhibit A includes a copy of the
applicant's conceptual focus for a code amendment for a lot split
available for historically landmarked properties.
The cocie amendment would permit a lot split on a historically
landmarked parcel that splits the parcel in lots smaller that the
minimum lot area of the zone district.
ISSUES: There are several issues that the Planning commission may
want to consider that are associated with this text amendment:
1. Recommendations from the Aspen Area Community Plan
stemmed the recent revisions to the residential GMQS
program that has limited lot splits within the City of
Aspen to one a year. The applicant's proposed code
amendment would amend the GMQS requirement and exempt
historic properties from the limitation of lot splits.
2. The applicant's proposal would permit the creation of a
non-conforming sized lot. (FAR analysis)
3. The Land Use Code presently permits the applicant to
develop the project but it is subject to the
condominiumization requirements. Staff believes this
procedure is a loop-hole and would prefer to see set
standards in a lot split procedure.
4. The best scenario for this code amendment is for the R-
6 zone district and specifically the 123 W Francis
project. The R-6 zone district permits two detached
residential dwelling units on a 9,000 sq. ft. parcel. The
applicant can condominiumize a property but cannot
subdivide the parcel to separately sell the two free
market units. This code amendment would permit a parcel
that is permitted to build two separate units by right
and to subdivide them though subdivision and GMQS
exemptions. ~
5. The applicant will provide a large map indicating all
parcels that could potentially take advantage of this
proposed code amendment. This map will be available at
the meeting.
..
~
~
RECOMMENDATION: This is a work session and no complete application
has been submitted to the Planning Office for this request to be
officially acted on. Therefore, staff is requesting that the
Commission conceptually discuss the applicant's proposal, identify
pro's and con's, and provide the applicant feedback on the request.
'"'
2
1""\
,.-,
TO: MARY LACKNER
FROM: JAKE VICKERY
RE: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT
DATE: JUNE 14, 1995
A CODE AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF "RECEIVING SITES"
FOR HISTORICAL LANDMARKS. SUCH "RECEIVING SITES" WOULD BE
BETWEEN 3,000 AND 5,999 SF AND BE RESTRICTED AS TO THEIR MAXIMUM
FAR.
The purpose of this code amendment is to facilitate the following:
. increase to flexibility of dealing with historical resources
. increase the incentives given to landmarks to encourage new landmarks
. offset the renovation cost of historical structures
. encourage more responsible and authentic restoration efforts and strategies
. provide "designated" receiving sites for "orphan" historical structures
. reduce the amount of demolition
. simplify methods of ownership of historical properties
l
.~ ': '~~ui\\~
,~~J~
~,fI-~
1)1'
In addition its effect is to create more smaller houses and fewer larger houses. Smaller
units of density have less impact than larger units of density. These smaller houses, the
creation of which is all but non-existent, woUld better serve the needs of local residents
and are a counter measure to the production and existence of empty larger houses.
They balance the mix and fabric and are more in scale with traditional and historical
character. Smaller houses have more potential availability for local family ownership,
NOTES:
. focus is on method of ownership, the re$t is consistent with existing rights
. condominiumization is a lot of legal red tape and expense
. produce more little houses, offset production of larger houses
. creating two fee simple ownerships is cleaner and simpler
. FAR would be apportioned
. no additional FAR or ownership units are proposed based of existing code
. small ownership units are preferable to larger ownership units
. condominium plats and documents cost legal and surveying costs which make little
since for 2 units rather than the intended 10 or more units.
. less preferable method of ownership with renovation costs are involved.
. discourage duplexes: jointed together forms are less desirable than singular
separated individual forms,
..
1",
I~
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT
R-6 LOT SPLIT FOR LOTS LARGER THAN 9,000 SF (6,000 SF FOR
HISTORICAL LANDMARKS)
5-8-95
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE
In the R6 Zone, for lots of 9,000 sf or greater (or 6,000 sf or greater for properties
containing historical landmarks) where the code permits the construction of two single
family residences, such lots so developed may be split provided that the allowable
aggregate FAR of the two resulting lots be limited to the allowable duplex FAR of the
parent lot For such newly created lots only, the minimum lot size shall be reduced to
4,500 (3,000 sf for properties containing historical landmarks) and the minimum lot width
shall be reduced to 45 feet (30 feet for lots containing historical properties), Except for
the reduction on allowable FAR, the newly created lots shall be treated as lots of record,
No new unit of density shall be created by such lot split Such lot splits shall be exempt
from the subdivision process and exempt from GMQS by the community development
director. Where the property involves a landmark, (All) such lot splits shall be subject to
the approval of the HPC.
.
.
" -
f'""".
.~
re: Ownership of historical properties
by: Jake Vickery
landcon1,doc
DRAFT
date: 1-12-95
This letter is to request consideration for a code change reducing the minimum lot size
and width for lots in the R6 zone containing an historical landmark,
BACKGROUND
Currently, the code, in the R6 zone, allows the following:
1, Two single family units or a duplex can be built on a on a lot of 9,000 sf or greater
provided their total FAR does not exceed that of a duplex, Minimum lot area
per unit in this case is 4,500 sf.
2. Two single family units or a duplex can be built on a lot of 6,000 sf or greater
provided their total FAR does not exceed that of a duplex if the property
contains an historical landmark, Minimum lot area per unit in this case is 3,000,
3, Lots of record containing historical landmarks need not meet minimum lot area
requirement of it's zone district Receiving sites for historical landmarks of
4,500 sf (or even 3,000 sf) would be consistent with this general principle,
4. Currently, the only way that the two smaller houses can be owned individually is by
a condominium form of ownership. Condominium ownership in this case of 2
units which are totally separate houses is unnecessarily complicated,
cumbersome, and expensive, requiring establishment of common elements,
home owner's association, incorporation, declarations; bylaws, plats, etc.
5. Currently, a two unit lot split is exempt from Subdivision regulations and GMQS.
6, A full subdivision lot split requires 6,000 sf per lot with an aggregate allowable FAR
of both lots combined of 6,480 FARsf.
REQUEST
WHEREAS lots of 4,500 sf are common in the R6 zone, the minimum lot area per
smaller house is currently set at 4,500 (3,000 for properties containing historical
landmarks), the average FAR of such a house would be approximately 2,040 FARsf. (for
a 9,000 sf lot) and WHEREAS this scale of house is desirable for the community in lieu
of large houses and more accessible and practical for local ownership (smaller
increments of ownership being less expensive), and whereas this is consistent with the
AACP and HPC programs;
'*
THEREFORE it would follow that if 1ltl2 smaller houses can be built on 9,000 sf then Q.O.g
smaller house (partrcularlyif historically landmarked) should be able to be built on (or
relocated to) a "receiving" lot of 4,500 sf. (3000?) and the minimum lot width should be
adjusted accordingly to 45 feet (30?) subject to HPC review.