Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.123 W Francis St.A86-95�lstOria(A� SP�1� 4 TEXT AMEND 2735-124-21-002 A86-95 y4kA. H+'s�ot« t,,i s? I i t +W'f A,�&W "jowt ti A� Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 City Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63850-041 Deposit -63855-042 Flat Fee _ -63860-043 HPC -63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit - MR011 Use Tax County Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63800-033 Deposit _ -63805-034 Flat Fee _ -63820-037 Zoning _ -63825-038 Board of Adjustment Referral Fees: 00113-63810-035 County Engineer 00115-63340-163 City Engineer 00123-63340-190 Housing _ 00125-63340-205 Environmental Health 00113-63815-036 County Clerk Sales: 00113-63830-039 County Code -69000-145 Copy Fees Other Total Name• Date- Check; 7�QQ Add O Project: 4 Case No: Phone: 9a -r - 3 GL� No. of Copies CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 7 /21/95 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2735-124-21-002 A86-95 STAFF MEMBER: ML PROJECT NAME: VICKERY SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION & TEXT AMENDMENT Project Address: 123 W FRANCIS Legal Address: APPLICANT: JAKE VICKERY Applicant Address: 100 S. SPRING ASPEN REPRESENTATIVE: SAME Representative Address/Phone: 925-3660 Aspen, CO 81611 FEES: PLANNING $ 2040 # APPS RECEIVED 1 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 2040 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: XX P&Z Meeting Date Y?t I�� th PUBLIC HEARING: <Y�S, NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO �, CC Meeting Date M,� 1 PUBLIC HEARING: CYOS, NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water City Electric Envir.Hlth. Zoning Parks Dept. Bldg Inspector Fire Marshal Holy Cross Mtn. Bell ACSD Energy Center School District Rocky Mtn NatGas CDOT Clean Air Board Open Space Board X Other HPl - Other DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE: -------------- ---------- ---------------- FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED:,,, _ ly -`1` INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Open Space Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: November 15, 1995 Mary Lackner Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Town Hall 135 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Vickery Historic Landmark Lot Split 123/129 West Francis Dear Mary, NOV 15 1995 1 A K E 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. x3 POST OFFICE BOX 12360 ASPEN, COLORA D081612 TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE ( 9 7 0 ) 9 2 5 - 3 6 6 0 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. 4FRestfullckery 0 evil COPL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Stan Clauson, City Community Development Director FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment - 2nd Reading of Ordinance 49, Series 1995 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'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. The new growth management regulations require lot splits to be reviewed by the Growth Management Commission; and 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 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 0 • 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 may or 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 • 0 will designate the amount of floor area attributable to each parcel. 7. How many 3,000 sq.ft. lots of record 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's request is subject 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. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the Historic Lot Split code amendment at second reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance 1O, Series 1995 "A" Application information "B" Code Review Criteria and staff responses 5 0 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'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 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 O, 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 ki • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager I/ THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: NIII D Stan Clauson, City Community Development Director Mary Lackner, Planner Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment - 1st Reading of Ordinance �LO, Series 1995 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. The new growth management regulations require lot splits to be reviewed by the Growth Management Commission; and 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 subject 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. E PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to read of Ordinance's , Series of 1995." "I move to approve the Historic Lot Split code amendment and at first reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance A111, Series 1995 "A" Application information "B" Code Review Criteria and staff responces C. • 0 ORDINANCE NO. I q (Series of 1995) An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado Amending Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, Land Use Regulations, to Create a Procedure for the creation of Historic Landmark Lot Splits by amending Sections 7-1003(A)(5) Subdivision Exemption, 8-105(A)(2)(e) GMQS Exemption, 5-201(D) Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district, and Section 7-607 Development in an H Historic Overlay District or Involving a Historic Landmark WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 of the Municipal Code provides that amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use Regulations", shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive from Jake Vickery an application for an amendment to the land use regulations, and reviewed and recommended for approval, certain text amendments to Chapter 24 relating to Sections 7-1003(A)(5) Subdivision Exemption, 8-105 (A) (2) (e) GMQS Exemption, 5-201(D) Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district, and Section 7-607 Development in an H Historic Overlay District or Involving a Historic Landmark; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment on August 8th, September 5th, and September 19, 1995 at which time the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to City Council by a vote of 5-1; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendment will be consistent with the public welfare and purposes and intent of 0 • Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code and will: o provide a historic preservation incentive to create non- conforming sized parcels and allow fee simple ownership of these lots; o be available to approximately 21 parcels in the R-6 zone district; o permit a lot split on parcels between 9,000 sq.ft. and 12,000 sq.ft., in the R-6 zone district, with Planning Director approval; o provide the Historic Preservation Committee all physical planning review authority over both parcels created in the Historic Landmark Lot Split; o permit the Historic Preservation Committee to grant historic variances to the parcel that contains the historic landmark, no variances will be permitted on parcel proposed for the new residence; and o provide an incentive to Historic Landmarks by not restricting the number of these lot splits per year, nor by taking them out of the specified growth pool. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: Section 7-1003 "Subdivision Exemption" of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby recommended to be amended by the addition of a new section (A)(5), to read as follows: 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: 2 a. The original parcel shall be between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet in size and is located in the R- 6 zone district. b. 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. C. 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 2• Section 8-105 "GMQS Exemption" of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby recommended to be amended by the inclusion of a new paragraph 8-105(A) (2) (e) which shall read as follows: 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 3 Section 5-201 "Medium Density Residential (R-6)" of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby recommended to be amended by repealing and reenacting the following Sections to 5-201(D): 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000. For lots created by Section 8-105(A) (2) (e) Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3,000. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by Section 8-105(A)(2)(e) Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. 3 0 • Section 4 Article 7 "Development Review Standards" of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby recommended to be amended by the addition of Section 7-607 to "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. Section 5• This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7: A public hearing on this Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1995 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of 4 general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1995. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1995. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk ord.cc.textamend.historic 5 John Bennett, Mayor • 0 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. 1. 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. aThe 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). b. The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development; and C. 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 d. 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. Additional 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 5 • • TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Mary Lackner, Planner Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment September 5, 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 proposed by the applicant. Staff is also HPC bonuses and variances permitted for a permitted on the newly created lot which landmark. Staff does not recommend that variances be permitted on the new lot that historic structures. APPLICANT: Jake Vickery. mirror the amendment recommending that all historic landmark be contains the historic any HPC bonuses or does not contain the 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. 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's revised 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'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 F i 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. 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, 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 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). S. 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 0 • 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by Section 8-105(B) (2) (a) (1) (c) Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. 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. 11 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 0 September 13, 1995 Mark Lackner / Amy Amidon Aspen Community Development Department City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: HISTORICAL LOT SPLIT MAPPING AND RESEARCH SUMMARY Dear Mary / Amy, • RCHITECT km I'VtiI UPI R I &1A I.'1nn 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. hope this information is helpful in moving this issue forward. Please let me know if I can answer any questions. Respectfully �06 Jake Vickery 0 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. i.e. 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. a � _ C° 6 \2 ; C \ 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, O, and q- 1,5 Q Q �� Q) L U) r-- U-) CO ti to M N [j cDD (fl T O O N Nr LO TI' T T T N + CD O CO CO CD d N CO N O N ' CDT CO CO LO M "5'aii to CO Qi ra T r 1 O O Q r Lo CA CD,' O O Cn M M co M N O f,. O CD } ti T T N N O T T ! O M N N co CA :. CQ o ti Os N M y' OM LO N co m cn (O LO � p O O � � (D to OT y O N >- Z J Z Z 'e ag Cp (O CD � N (D N V O I I— H ~ C Z = M Q � U a O y t Y Y (~n Y tm E O E E Z> d E c a c a £ c d Y N y c c + c c :° c c � y a O (0 O O O N to J O Z O F- O; N m J O Z O F- � A K 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 O 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. 0 Sheet1 • ASPEN HISTORICAL INVENTORY ANALYSIS SUMMARY JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTUREIPLANNING 9/10/95 DATA SHEET Lot Area (s.f.) 3,000-5,999 6,000-8,999 9,000-11,999 12,000+ Total Zone: R6 .�, Landmark 11 19 17 10 57 Non -Landmark 15 35 20 8 78 Total 26 54 37 18 135 % Total/Total 1 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 Map A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: The applicant'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 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 O, 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 ,q I L' 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 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5106 s/John Bennett, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on October 28, 1995 City of Aspen Account 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. 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 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's revised 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'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 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 O, 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 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 • • 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 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 E • 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by Section 5-105(B) (2) (a) (1) (c) Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. 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. 0 • • YCO)i_:Il _k,Ipill; I 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 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." 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. 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's text amendment, with staff 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 • • 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 O, R-15 and R/MF zone districts, we feel uncomfortable expanding the lot split ability to a conditional use. 3 • E 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. 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. 9 u • 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'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 November 14, 1977 pursuant to Section 7-1003 (A) (2) shall be exempted from the growth management and scoring procedures by the Growth Management 7ommission if the following standards are met: kP a � 4 ^S t' k� l .�P 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 parcel is a designated historic landmark. The historic landmark is located on the lot which is less than 6,000 sq.ft. 3. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed \� the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. 4. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The only HPC variance permitted for the Historic Landmark Lot Split are setback variances found to 5 0 • be required by the HPC. 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, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, drainage control, transportation and fire protection impacts shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Growth Management Commission. 7. The compatibility of the project's site design with surrounding projects and its appropriateness for the site shall be demonstrated, including but not limited to consideration of the quality and character of existing and proposed landscaping and open space, parking considerations, and the amount of site coverage by buildings. 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. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by Section 8-105(B) (2) (a) (1) (c) Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. 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. C: • • July 21, 1995 1 A K e Mary Lackner Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena 100 SOUTH SPRING ST #3 POST OFFICE BOX 12360 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ASPEN.COLORADO81612 TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE (9701 9 2 5 - 3 6 6 0 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. Res e tfully, �/� E Jake Vickery 7-1004 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. B. 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. B. 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_a#-a�notes. M ;,I' Lf-. 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 J 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 Slit The split of a lot that is a desianated historic landmark creating no more than 2 lots, both lots conforming to the requirements of the underlying zoning district and the applicant commits that any new lot for which development is proposed will contain an accessory dwelling unit Sec. 8-105 GMQS Exemptions add new Section 8-105 (a) (ii) (e) (4) @ - I ° 5 A� (2 �c 4 The construction of a single family residence on a lot created through an Historical Lot Split pursuant to Section 7-1003(A)(5). 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 7-1003(~A)(3): 3,000. revise Section 5-201 (D) (3) 3. Minimum Lot Width (feet): 60. For lots created by 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 Application for Historical Lot Split shall be reviewed pursuant to Sec 7 - 6001. The aggregate allowable FAR for both lots shall not exceed that otherwise allowed for the parent parcel and apportioned by a site specific development plan Each lot shall have the ability to receive the same variances and bonuses available to similarly sized lots of record. Such lot split and development on all lots so created shall be reviewed by HPC. 0 • Sheet1 ALLOWABLE R-6 FAR 8/8/95 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 July 21, 1995 A K E Mary Lackner Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena ""' R'''RI B(I\ I "` Aspen, Colorado 81611` 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 Condom iniization. Condom inimiaztion 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, Jal Vickery • la j'�tiaQ Criaa. 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 lic this item as previously Commission needsed as a to table this hearing thisreq request until August the Planning 8th. cr MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Historic Landmark Lot Split Code Amendment - Work Session 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 code 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. 4 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 r�� A 11 ' • 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 V. 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 rest 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. • • 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. • 0 re: Ownership of historical properties DRAFT by: Jake Vickery date: 1-12-95 landcon1.doc 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. 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 two smaller houses can be built on 9,000 sf then one smaller house (particularly if 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. 1'-10 0 10 20 IS 0 CITY MONUMENT NW. CORNER BLOCK 49 i !.3 75.09 CITY MONUMENT NW. LEGEND AND NOTES `` CORNER BLOCK 56 HORIZONTAL CONTROL BEARINGS BASED ON FOUND CITY MONUMENTS AS SHOWN N 75-09.11-W FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED SURVEY CONTROL UTILITY BOX / FENCE WOOD OR METAL TITLE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY: LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY ORDER NO. 0371110 DATED: 11/09/95 / ALL EASEMENTS NOTED IN TITLE COMMITMENT ARE SHOWN SHEDS ENCROACH INTO ALLEY / ALL ENCROACHMENTS INTO PUBLIC R.O.W. WILL BE REMOVED AT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURES TO BE RELOCATED OR DEMOLISHED / THE TWO LOTS HAVE A TOTAL OF 4 170 SO. FT. OF F.A.R. APPORTIONED AS SHOW HEREON IN ADDITION LOT A HAS AN ADDITIONAL 500 $0. FT. F.A.R. BOUNS FROM H.P.C. CONIFER TREES / /i147 0�), J 3 � o � P � ^ It` o I I / L VICINITY MAP NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT ON THIS PLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT, IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. THE CERTIFICATION IS VOID IF NOT WET STAMPED WITH THE SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR. VICKERY HISTORIC LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF LOT 8, AND ALL OF LOTS C D AND E, BLOCK 56, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUN'fY COLORADO. CONTAINING 10,500 SO. FT. •/- (0.241 ACRES) R 0. W.- WFST FR A/VCI �4.2 m CERT!IFICATION'OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT HAROLD QUAM, VERINICA M. MARTIN, CARROLL QUAM, AND LORRIE CRUMLEY BEING THE OWNERS OF CERTAIN LAND IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST ONE-HALF OF LOT B, AND ALL OF LOTS C,D AND E, BLOCK 56, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. HAVE BY THESE PRESENTS LAID OUT, PLATTED THE SAME INTO LOTS A AND B, VICKERY HISTORIC LOT SPLIT. OWNER: OWNER: HAROLD QUAM VERINICA M. MARTIN OWNER: OWNER: CARROLL QUAM LORRIE CRUMLEY STATE OF ) )SS COUNTY OF ) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE THIS _ DAY OF , 1995, BY HAROLD QUAM. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF )SS COUNTY OF ) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE THIS ___ DAY OF 1995, BY VERINICA M. MARTIN. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF ) )SS COUNTY OF ) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE THIS — DAY OF 995, BY CARROLL QUAM, AlTNESS(MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY CO" SSION EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF — )SS COUNTY OF ) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE THIS _ DAY OF 1995, BY LORRIE CRUMLEY. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE JOHN HOWORTH HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A SURVEY WAS PERFORMED UNDER MY DIRECTION AN6 SUPERVISION OF THE HEREON DESCRIBED PROPERTY CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, AND THAT A BUILDINGS WERE FOUND TO BE LOCATED THEREON, AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF THE BOUNDARY LINES, UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS AND EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THE TITLE COMMITMENT NOTED HEREON ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN ON THIS MAP, AND THE MAP ACCURATELY AND SUBSTANTIALLY DEPICTS THE LOCATION AND HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND INDIVIDUAL UNITS AND THE UNIT DESIGNATIONS THEREOF. THIS SURVEY WAS PREFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COLORADO REVISED STATUTES 1973, TITLE 38, ARTICLE 51. SURVEY PRECISION GREATER THAN 1:10,000. SIGNED: JOHN HOWORTH P.L.S. 25947 TITLE CERTIFICATE THE UNDERSIGNED, A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY REGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS IN PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO�( DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PERSONS LISTED AS OWNERS ON THIS 1'LAT DO HOLD FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE WITHIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPT TH06E LISTED ON THE OWNERS CERTIFICATE. ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE THE FACTS STATED ON THIS PLAT ARE TRUE THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, NOR AN OPINION OF TITLE NOR A GUARANTEE OF TITLE, AND IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, NEITHER ASSUMES NOR WILL BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY WHATSOEVER ON ANY STATEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN, LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY 533 EAS,Ta,,HOPKINS ASPEN, `0 81611 SIGNED: BY: STATE OF COLORADO ) )ec COUNTY OF PITKIN ) THE FOREGOING TITLE CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 1995 BY _. OF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC CITY ENGINEERS APPROVAL THIS PLAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN DEPARTMENT " OF ENGINEERING THIS _ DAY OF 1994. 0 CITY ENGINEER HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVAL THIS PLAT WAS APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN THIS DAY OF 1995. CHAIRMAN PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVAL THIS PLAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF TY ASPEN COLORADO SIGNED THIS AY OF 1995. PLANNING DIRECTOR 4 +Lm lob CLERK AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE 1 1 1 THIS PLAT WAS ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK li j�JlCI T� T V t4� dfflfMS of AND RECORDER 0' CLOCK, OF M. THISNTY OF DAY STATE OF COLORADO AT 1995, AN6 RECORDED q r�roo.� �spe n P�dhf"tI _ IN PLAT BOOK _ AT PAGE AS RECEPTION NUMBER q,,A Zon( GZMM15S('*A 3 PfCI FI«I CLERK ANII RECORDER l� Qesolv�itY+ 9S- _. 4� rtordeJ ,:, 'i�esf: / P laa io�� li ��� � 11, e• Rcco I've . U( S1 SPw,��J '" ° d n<<o�<<<�j 1-is �) �� cIt'�' PREPARED BY M k�" ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE/FAX (970) 925-3816 DATE JOB 12/95 25107A