HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Code Simplifications and Amendments.A076-99A076-99
Land Use Code Ammendments-
Code Simplification
V�
C
PARCEL ID: DATE RCVD: 8/31199 # COPIES: 1 lip CASE NO AC
CASE NAME: Land Use Code Arnmendments- Code Simplification PLNRAStaff
PROJ ADDR: CASE TYPA Code Amendments STEPc
OWN/APP• City of Aspen Comm , D ly C/S/Z: HN,
Ar . ....... . ...
REF,,4=;7_ ADR: C/S/Z; I HN
FEES DUE FEES RCVD: STA
REFERRALS
REF:1 BY I
MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICE
REMARKSr-
CLOS41 77777 BY:
PLAT SUBMITD: r-
PLAT (BK,PG):
DATE OF FINAL ACI
CITY COUNCIL:]
Pz: I
DRAC: I
ADMIN:1
• •
V1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo
RE: Land Use Code Amendments
First Reading
DATE: April 26, 1999
SUMMARY: At the work session on the Land Use Code on March 1, 1999, staff
reviewed the numerous proposed changes to the Land Use Code that are a result of the
simplification process. With the assistance of the City Attorney, staff has worked to
make the land use code easier to use and simpler to understand and apply. The idea
behind this simplification is to ensure longevity; that is, the code can stand as the
framework for future amendments and changes in philosophy without ending up
complicating the code.
In staff s opinion, this simplification will build more public trust as it cleans up
ambiguous language which often puts the Director in a position of interpreting what was
meant. We believe the code now says what it should say, in clear understandable
language.
The code has also been formatted in-house which will make future amendments easier to
put in place immediately, vs. waiting for it to be codified someplace out of state.
The code, even as simplified, remains a code. It reads like a code, has legal implications
as do all codes. However, with the reorganization, the code is more logical and much
easier to follow.
The major changes the City Council will notice in this simplification is the format. It is
now much easier to find the applicable sections of the code. Likewise, the language has
been rewritten in laymen's terms wherever possible. We have included some drawings
which more clearly depict the intent of the language. We have taken the regulatory
language out of the definitions section and made definitions read as definitions.
There have also been some minor substantive changes in this re -write. Please refer to
Exhibit A, John Worcester's memo of March 1, 1999, which highlights these changes.
Finally, it should be clear to the City Council that this is just the first step in improving
the Land Use Code. Staff has numerous substantive changes that we will be proposing
throughout the remainder of the year which have already been included in our 1999 Work
Program. Please refer to John's memo, page 9 which highlights the areas which require
additional study.
Because of the numerous changes that have been made to the Code, staff will only
attempt to analyze the amendments as a whole rather than line by line. If there is specific
language which the City Council is not comfortable with, we would recommend that it be
addressed as a separate issue in a subsequent amendment process. Staff is very anxious
to begin using this document and hopes that the City Council will feel likewise.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
BACKGROUND: The simplification of the code has been underway for several years.
Staff finally brought the document before the City Council and the Planning and Zoning
Commission in a work session held March 1, 1999. Few Commissioners were present for
that work session, so staff also discussed it at the next P & Z meeting on March 8, 1999.
At that meeting, there was general consensus that the document was much improved and
there were few areas of concern. Staff then proceeded with scheduling the amendments
for public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The P & Z
recommended approval of the amendments, along with a few additional changes
recommended by staff, by a vote of _ to _ on April 6, 1999
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a
development application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be
reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval 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.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Please refer to John Worcester's
memo which highlights the procedure and amendments being proposed. One item which
John did not address in his memo is a revision which was made to the Nonconforming
section of the code. Please refer to Part 300 Nonconformities, Section 26.312.030 (F) (2)
Ability to restore. At the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
at the direction of Council, the code now reads that a nonconforming structure which is
purposefully demolished or destroyed must come into conformance with the current
provisions of the code. In order to provide some relief from this requirement, an
applicant could appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission through a Special Review
of the circumstances.
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION: At the public hearing on April Oh, staff proposed a few
additional changes to the code to address some issues which have recently come up.
These are addressed in more detail below.
2
Powers and Duties. The Design Review Appeals Committee is composed of three
members from the HPC and three members of the P & Z to hear appeals from the
Residential Design Standards, more commonly known as Ord. 30. The committee meets
once a month. Unfortunately, DRAC's meetings often get cancelled due to a lack of a
quorum, usually due to conflicts of interest. As a result, an applicant can be put off for up
to another month until the next available meeting date.
Currently, if an applicant has another land use related case before either the HPC or the
P&Z, that commission is allowed to serve as DRAC and make decisions on the case.
However, the language does not specify that an applicant can go directly to one or the
other commission with their appeal as a stand alone case.
In order to improve customer service, Staff recommends that this be modified to allow an
applicant to be given a choice such that they could go before the DRAC, the P&Z, or
HPC for review. This would reduce the amount of time it would take an applicant to get
a decision on their design without unduly holding up their building permit. In order to
clarify this, Staff and the Commission are making the following recommendations for
additional modification to the code:
Chapter 26.212 Planning and Zoning Commission, Section 26.212.010 Powers and
Duties, adding items (P) and (Q); and Chapter 26.220 HPC, Section 26.220.020 Powers
and Duties, items (J) and (K), both of which would read as follows (consistent with
DRAC duties):
• To hear, review and approve variances to the Residential Design
Guidelines, pursuant to Chapter 26.410;
• To hear and decide appeals from, and review any order, requirement,
decision, or determination made by, any administrative official charged
with the enforcement of Chapter 26.410, including appeals of
interpretation of the text of the Residential Design Standards. The
Commission may only grant relief from the Residential Design Standards.
A variance from the Residential Design Standards does not grant an
approval to vary other standards of this Chapter that may be provided by
another decision making administrative body.
Subdivision Exemptions for Lot Line Adjustments. In Chapter 26.480 Subdivision,
Section 26.480.030 Exemptions, an applicant is allowed to apply for an adjustment to a
lot line under certain conditions. Under Section 26.480.040 Procedures for review, it
clearly specifies that a lot line adjustment is an administrative procedure, signed off by
the Community Development Director. However, under the exemptions section,
condition (c), "It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship", is
rarely found to be the situation as more often than not, it is for the convenience of
neighboring property owners. As a result, the Director can rarely make this finding in
3
order to sign off on a revised plat. The alternative is that an applicant would then have to
go through a full-blown subdivision process in order to make a minor adjustment.
Most jurisdictions do have a process which allows minor modifications to lot lines and/or
plats through either an exemption process or "minor subdivision" review. Because the
city does not have a "minor subdivision" procedure, Staff and the Commission are
recommending that the code language to Section 26.480.030 Exemptions, Subsection (A)
(c). be deleted and condition (e) be modified as follows (new language in BOLD):
e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the
development rights, including any increase in FAR, or permitted
density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new
lot for resale or development. A plat note will be added to the
corrected plat indicating the purpose of the lot line adjustment and
the recognition that no additional FAR will be allowed with the
adjustment.
Staff believes that the above modifications will allow an administrative review to be
accomplished more easily, reducing the necessity for unnecessary subdivision review in
these cases. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that these
above -mentioned modifications be incorporated into the land use amendments as
proposed. These additional modifications are addressed in the proposed ordinance.
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations
And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A -I) standards for
the City Council's review of proposed amendments to the text of the Land Use Code.
These standards and staff s evaluation of the potential amendments relative to them are
provided below, with the standard in bold followed by the staff "response."
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this title.
RESPONSE: _Adoption of the proposed code amendments would not be in conflict with
any applicable portions of the Land Use Code. In fact, the amendments will help clarify
and minimize known conflicts in the existing code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any elements of
the AACP. The AACP is intended to be the guide for future development while the Land
Use Code is used as a tool to achieve that vision. To the best of staff s knowledge, the
amendments are consistent with the community's plan.
4
•
•
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood
characteristics.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments are not site specific to a particular
neighborhood. The amendments will clarify the intent of the code and requirements of
zone districts and land uses. Staff believes the amendment would result in more
consistency in land use decisions, which will ultimately be compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment will not have any effect on traffic
generation.
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: The proposed amendments would not have an effect on infrastructure or
infrastructure capacities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not have an effect on the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendments present a more reasonable and
rational approach to the functioning of the land use code.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments are not site specific, but will affect the entire
community equally.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
•
RESPONSE: Staff believes that the proposed amendments would serve the public
interest and be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council recommend approval
of Ordinance No. , Series of 1999 Amendments to the Land Use Code on First
Reading.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of Ordinance No. ,
Series of 1999 on First Reading, and hereby establish the Second Reading and public
hearing on this ordinance on May 10, 1999."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Memo from John Worcester dated March 1, 1999
Exhibit B - Land Use Code, as amended (previously distributed in binder format)
Exhibit C — P&Z Resolution No. 99-
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. , Series of 1999
g:\planning\aspen\cases\text\codeamendcc.doc
T
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo
RE: Land Use Code Amendments
Second Reading —Public Hearing
DATE: May 10, 1999
4-1-0 0 a,
SUMMARY: At the work session on the Land Use Code on March 1, 1999, staff
reviewed the numerous proposed changes to the Land Use Code that are a result of the
simplification process. With the assistance of the City Attorney, staff has worked to
make the land use code easier to use and simpler to understand and apply. The idea
behind this simplification is to ensure longevity; that is, the code can stand as the
framework for future amendments and changes in philosophy without ending up
complicating the code.
In staff s opinion, this simplification will build more public trust as it cleans up
ambiguous language which often puts the Director in a position of interpreting what was
meant. We believe the code now says what it should say, in clear understandable
language.
The code has also been formatted in-house which will make future amendments easier to
put in place immediately, vs. waiting for it to be codified someplace out of state.
The code, even as simplified, remains a code. It reads like a code, has legal implications
as do all codes. However, with the reorganization, the code is more logical and much
easier to follow.
/• The major changes the City Council will notice in this simplification is the format. It is
2 . C.lc.r/�.,�.a, now much easier to find the applicable sections of the code. Likewise, the language has
3 Y been rewrittgp in laymen's terms wherever possible. We have included some drawings
which more clearly depict the intent of the language. We have taken the regulatory
���',6"' language out of the definitions section and made definitions read as definitions.
aQt�i l. hs r3
There have also been some minor substantive changes in this re -write. Please refer to
Exhibit A, John Worcester's memo of March 1, 1999, which highlights these changes.
Finally, it should be clear to the City Council that this is just the first step in improving
the Land Use Coddt Staff has numerous substantive changes that we will be proposing
1
throughout the remainder of the year which have already been included in our 1999 Work
Program. Please refer to John's memo, page 9 that highlights the areas which require
additional study.
Because of the numerous changes that have been made to the Code, staff will only
attempt to analyze the amendments as a whole rather than line by line. If there is specific
language which the City Council is not comfortable with, we would recommend that it be
addressed as a separate issue in a subsequent amendment process, Staff is very anxious
to begin using this document and hopes that the City Council will feel likewise.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
BACKGROUND: The simplification of the code has been underway for several years.
Staff finally brought the document before the City Council and the Planning and Zoning
Commission in a work session held March 1, 1999. Few Commissioners were present for
that work session, so staff also discussed it at the next P & Z meeting on March 8, 1999.
At that meeting, there was general consensus that the document was much improved and
there were few areas of concern. Staff then proceeded with scheduling the amendments
for public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The P & Z
recommended approval of the amendments, along with a few additional changes
recommended by staff, by a vote of 5 to 0 on April 6, 1999
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a
development application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be
reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval 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.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Please refer to John Worcester's
memo which highlights the procedure and amendments being proposed. One item which
John did not address in his memo is a revision which was made to the Nonconforming
section of the code. Please refer to Part 300 Nonconformities, Section 26.312.030 (F) (2)
Ability to restore. At the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
at the direction of Council, the code now reads that a nonconforming structure which is
purposefully demolished or destroyed must come into conformance with the current
GC
provisions of the code. In order to provide some relief from this requirement, an
applicant could appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission through a Special Review
of the circumstances.
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION: At the public hearing on April 6`h, staff proposed a few
additional changes to the code to address some issues which have recently come up.
These are addressed in more detail below.
14
•
V
Powers and Duties. The Design Review Appeals Committee is composed of three
members from the HPC and three members of the P & Z to hear appeals from the
Residential Design Standards, more commonly known as Ord. 30. The committee meets
once a month. Unfortunately. DRAC's meetings often get cancelled due to a lack of a
quorum, usually due to conflicts of interest. As a result, an applicant can be put off for up
to another month until the next available meeting date.
I Currently, if an applicant has another land use related case before either the HPC or the
P&Z. that commission is allowed to serve as DRAC and make decisions on the case.
However, the language does not specify that an applicant can go directly to one or the
other commission with their appeal as a stand alone case.
In order to improve customer service, Staff recommends that this be modified to allow an
applicant to be given a choice such that they could go before the DRAC, the P&Z, or
HPC for review. This would reduce the amount of time it would take an applicant to get
a decision on their design without unduly holding up their building permit. In order to
clarify this, Staff and the Commission are making the following recommendations for
additional modification to the code:
Chapter 26.212 Planning and Zoning Commission, Section 26 212.010 Powers and
Duties, adding items (P) and (Q); and Chapter 26.220 HPC, Section 26.220.020 Powers
and Duties, items (J) and (K), both of which would read as follows (consistent with
DRAC duties):
• To hear, review and approve variances to the Residential Design
Guidelines, pursuant to Chapter 26.410;
• To hear and decide appeals from, and review any order, requirement,
decision, or determination made by, any administrative official charged
with the enforcement of Chapter 26.410, including appeals of
interpretation of the text of the Residential Design Standards. The
Commission may only grant relief from the Residential Design Standards.
A variance from the Residential Design Standards does not grant an
approval to vary other standards of this Chapter that may be provided by
another decision making administrative body.
Subdivision Exemptions for Lot Line Adjustments. In Chapter 26.480 Subdivision,
Section 26.480.030 Exemptions, an applicant is allowed to apply for an adjustment to a
lot line under certain conditions. Under Section 26.480.040 Procedures for review, it
clearly specifies that a lot line adjustment is an administrative procedure, signed off by
the Community Development Director. However, under the exemptions section,
condition (c), "It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship", is
rarely found to be the situation as more often than not, it is for the convenience of
neighboring property owners. As a result, the Director can rarely make this finding in.
3
order to sign off on a revised plat. The alternative is that an applicant would then have to
go through a full-blown subdivision process in order to make a minor adjustment.
Most jurisdictions do have a process which allows minor modifications to lot lines and/or
plats through either an exemption process or "minor subdivision" review. Because the
city does not have a "minor subdivision" procedure, Staff and the Commission are
recommending that the code language to Section 26.480.030 Exemptions, Subsection (A)
(c). be deleted and condition (e) be modified as follows (new language in BOLD):
e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the
development rights, including any increase in FAR, or permitted
density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new
lot for resale or development. A plat note will be added to the
corrected plat indicating the purpose of the lot line adjustment and
the recognition that no additional FAR will be allowed with the
adjustment.
Staff believes that the above modifications will allow an administrative review to be
accomplished more easily, reducing the necessity for unnecessary subdivision review in
these cases. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that these
above -mentioned modifications be incorporated into the land use amendments as
proposed. These above -noted modifications will be incorporated into the final Land Use
Code, upon approval of Ordinance 10, Series of 1999.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Because many of the land use code provisions dealing with
housing issues have been moved to the Housing Guidelines, Council will need to adopt
the Housing Guidelines simultaneously with the Land Use Code Revisions. The first
reading on the Housing Guidelines has also been scheduled for May 10". Staff is
recommending that the council adopt the land use code revisions, but that they not
become effective until July 1, 1999 or until 15 days after approval of the final Housing
Guidelines, whichever comes later. This will ensure adequate time for coordination with
the Housing office and recodification of the simplified code.
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations
And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A -I) standards for
the Citv Council's review of proposed amendments to the text of the Land Use Code.
These standards and staff s evaluation of the potential amendments relative to them are
provided below, with the standard in bold followed by the staff "response."
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this title.
RESPONSE: Adoption of the proposed code amendments would not be in conflict with
any applicable portions of the Land Use Code. In fact, the amendments will help clarify
and minimize known conflicts in the existing code.
ld
C,
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any elements of
the AACP. The AACP is intended to be the guide for future development while the Land
Use Code is used as a tool to achieve that vision. To the best of staff s knowledge, the
amendments are consistent with the community's plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood
characteristics.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments are not site specific to a particular
neighborhood. The amendments will clarify the intent of the code and requirements of
zone districts and land uses. Staff believes the amendment would result in more
consistency in land use decisions, which will ultimately be compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment will not have any effect on traffic
generation.
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: The proposed amendments would not have an effect on infrastructure or
infrastructure capacities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not have an effect on the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendments present a more reasonable and
rational approach to the functioning of the land use code.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments are not site specific, but will affect the entire
community equally.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RESPONSE: Staff believes that the proposed amendments would serve the public
interest and be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council recommend approval
of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1999 Amendments to the Land Use Code on Second
Reading.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 10,
Series of 1999 Amendments to the Land Use Code."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Memo from John Worcester dated March 1, 1999
Exhibit B - Land Use Code, as amended (previously distributed in binder format)
Exhibit C - P&Z Resolution No. 99- 06
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1999
g:\planning\aspen\cases\tcxt\codeamcndec2nd.doc
R
f'
City o/ A.Den
Memorandum Cft Attorney'. once
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission, Mayor, and Members of Council
FROM: City Manager
City Attorney's Office
Community Development Office
DATE: March 1,1999
RE: Re -codification of the Land Use Code
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Please find enclosed a draft copy of the Aspen Land Use Code which has been re -codified in an
effort to simplify it and make it more "user-friendly." Staff is scheduled to meet in a joint session
with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 1, 1999 to review the
proposed changes to the Land Use Code. This memo is intended to give you a background, reasons
for suggesting a re -codification of the Land Use Code, and to explain the proposed changes that are
reflected in the draft document.
Background: We have all heard the complaints from citizens that the Aspen Land Use Code is
too complicated, hard to read, cumbersome to use, unintelligible, contradictory, and too long. We
have also heard that the procedures and processes set forth in the Land Use Code to obtain
development approvals are too cumbersome, contradictory and unclear, expensive to follow,
counterproductive, and simply take too long to complete.
City Council has, for a number of years, asked staff to simplify the code. This goal has been
identified as a high priority for Council since 1995 when it budgeted $10,000.00 for the 1996 fiscal
year to hire an outside consultant to help work on the project. For a variety of reasons, not the least
of which was the big task involved in re -codification, it has taken staff over two years to get to this
point.
Jed Caswall, the former Aspen City Attorney, was retained to review the entire Land Use Code,
prioritize areas that needed to be changed, survey current users of the Code to identify reasons for
the current dissatisfaction with the Code, and to suggest ways to simplify the Code. In March, 1996,
a public meeting was held with a number of land use planners, architects, and other users of the
Code to elicit comments on ways to improve the Code. At that meeting a number of conclusions
i
were reached which helpSuide the work of re -codification. The 0 important points (not in any
order of importance) were as follows:
* The Code is complicated for two basic reasons: (a) it is extremely difficult to read;
and (b) the procedures required for development approval are too complex and cumbersome. The
solution to the first problem is simply to reformat the Code, combine sections, re -write confusing or
conflicting sections, re -organize the chapters and sections, add a good index, and generally make it
more understandable. The solution to the second problem is to make substantive changes to the
Code to simplify the process and procedures required of applicants.
* The Code should continue to be written with professionals in mind. The Code can
be written so that it can be understood, but must function as a "land use code" which necessarily
introduces jargon and legal concepts, procedures, and regulations that are not part of the average
citizens' daily life. If a document needs to be written so the average citizen can understand the
process, it should be a separate document written specifically with that audienco in mind.
* The reason the Code is so complicated with respect to process and procedures is
that Aspen, unlike most municipalities its size, has decided to regulate a significant number of
issues. Few communities the size of Aspen have regulations for historic preservation, growth
management, environmentally sensitive areas (8040 green line, stream margin, etc.), or the number
of regulations relating to development mitigation (affordable housing, parks, school districts), and
design review. Few, if any, communities the size of Aspen have the number of zone districts that
are defined in the Land Use Code. (There are twenty-eight zone or overlay districts in Aspen, not
counting SPA'S, PUD's, and historical overlay districts! Ten for residential development alone.)
* The initial focus of any attempt to simplify the Code should try to avoid making
substantive changes. Combining proposed changes that merely make the Code user-friendly with
proposed substantive changes will hold up the effort while all the stakeholders in Aspen debate the
merits of the substantive changes. Identify substantive changes that would make the Code simpler,
but start with as many non -controversial changes as possible. Once the Code is easier to read and
understand, then a commitment to make important substantive changes, one at a time, is necessary.
A wholesale effort to substantively change the Code will cause interest groups to oppose various
changes, or the final product will be more complicated than the existing Code. Most people simply
do not understand the Code today because it cannot be comprehensively read in its present form.
* All land use codes need to be re -codified (and re -written) periodically. Any set of
laws or a code that is constantly updated, amended, and revised needs to be reviewed in its entirety
periodically. As amendments are proposed and adopted, few of them get properly integrated into
the existing code. This leads to confusing and conflicting regulations and procedures, duplicative
language and sections, a lack of proper cross referencing, and a worthless index. Anyone who tried
to read the state's uniform election code before its recent re -codification will understand the
problem.
Changes to the format of the Code: The first reaction that everyone who opens the proposed re -
codified Code should have is that it looks different. It has the appearance of being organized in
some logical fashion and individual sections and paragraphs can be easily read. You will note that
the re -codified Code uses bold, underlined, and italic letters. Paragraphs, sections, and subsections
are indented in outline form. Each page contains not only a page number, but a reference to the
N
Code section printed on page, and the date the page was revi o help keep the Code book
current). Whole paragrap s of incomprehensible verbiage were r�tCced to simple mathematical
equations or drawings. These were simple, albeit tedious, changes which make finding and reading
the appropriate regulations immeasurably easier than our current Code. These changes alone should
go a long way to address the complaints about our current Code being too difficult to read and
understand.
The next major formatting change was the re -organization of the Code. You will note that the Code
has been separated into seven "Parts." Each Part of the Code attempts to gather different chapters
and sections of the Code into logical groupings. Not a very innovative concept, but one that is
nonetheless lacking in our current Code. (The Housing Replacement ordinance, for instance, is not
even in the Land Use Code. It was codified in a totally separate Chapter of the Municipal Code.) As
important as an index is, a new user of the Land Use Code should be able to find what they are
looking for by reading through the Table of Contents. Chapters within each Part have been
organized similarly. Thus, for example, Part 300 which sets forth various chapters on General
Procedures and Regulations, starts with regulations of general applicability, followed by regulations
that may affect all development applications, and then those regulations of general applicability, but
of specific interest. Much of the time involved in producing this draft of the re -codified Code was
spent reorganizing paragraphs, sections, and chapters by moving them around to more logical Parts
and Chapters of the Code.
Highlight of uroaosed changes to the Code. This section of the memo attempts to point out the
major changes made to the language of the Code. Pointing out all the changes would be next to
impossible without writing a treatise as long as the Code itself. Each chapter of our existing Code
has been saved showing the changes made to them with highlighted text or str-ikethe gh characters.
These chapters are available upon request to anyone that is interested in seeing the actual changes.
Most of the proposed changes to the Code are not substantive. Those that are substantive are
pointed out below. Substantive changes that staff has identified as advisable, but which are not
included in this current draft are discussed at the end of this memo. The substantive changes that
are in the current draft are being proposed either because they could not be avoided, or are not
considered controversial. Those that could not be avoided are generally those that were needed to
implement past Code interpretations of the Community Development Department Director in
accordance with his/her responsibilities to do so under the Code, those that were needed to correct
conflicting language in the Code, those that implement the clear intent of the existing Code, or
changes to process and procedures which improve and simplify the process. Again, this memo
attempts to highlight these changes below.
Part 100 — General Provisions:
This part of the Code has been almost entirely re -written, particularly the definitions contained in
Section 26.104.100. Most of the existing terms were re -written in their entirety, new terms were
added, and others were deleted (there are a number of terms defined in the existing Code which do
not appear anywhere else in the Code). A good deal of time and attention was given to this section
in the re -codification since this section of the current Code is the source of much of the confusion in
trying to understand the Code. Many of the existing definitions contain substantive regulatory
provisions which do not belong in a definitions section. That is, users of a code do not normally
turn to a definitions section to find regulatory language. Only those readers that know regulatory
3
language can be found is definitions section are likely to tum that section. In essence, the
definitions section was used in the past as a "dumping ground" for substantive regulatory language
that didn't seem to fit elsewhere in the Code.
In the draft re -codification, all regulatory language was removed from the definitions section and
replaced in the appropriate section within the Code that deals with the subject matter or in the
"Supplementary Regulations" section (Part 500).
The following definitions were added to the Code: Affordable housing guidelines; artists studio;
Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP); Aspen metropolitan (metro) area; category housing; child
care center; eave point; essential public facility; farmers market; flood hazard area; flooding; HPC;
historic significance; non -conforming lot or parcel; plat; principal building; reconstruction;
recreational vehicle; rehabilitation; relocation; renovation; residential multi -family housing;
specially planned area (SPA); scale; street, private; street, public; street, unopened; tattoo parlor;
wireless telecommunications (TCC).
Th. following definitions were deleted from the Code: base flood; character; bath facilities; BOA;
compatible; final plat; grade, finished; housing replacement program; parcel of land; shop craft
industry; special flood hazard area; vet clinic.
Other changes relating to definitions result from the attempt throughout the new Code to make
reference to the Affordable Housing Guidelines instead of either restating a regulation in the Land
Use Code or defining terms and methods of calculations that should more properly be included in
the AH Guidelines, as amended from time to time. For example, the definition of a "working
resident" has been taken out of the Code and the reader is referred to the AH Guidelines. The added
advantage of this effort is that the City Council and the BOCC will have an opportunity to review
these definitions, methods, and regulations as part of their annual review of the AH Guidelines and
to ensure that the City and County regulations for affordable housing are consistent in the
metropolitan area without having to continuously and simultaneously amend all relevant portions of
the Land Use Code.
The following definitions were changed in a substantive manner:
Demolition
Current = Demolition means to tear down completely, to do away with or to raze. For the purposes
of this definition a building shall be deemed to be demolished if less than fifty (50) percent of the
existing primarily residential structure remains in place. Renovation shall not be considered
demolition. The removal of a dwelling unit in a multi -family structure shall be considered
demolition.
Proposed = To raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy fifty percent (50%) or more of an existing
structure as measured by exterior surface wall area, also the removal of a dwelling unit in a multi-
family building or its conversion to non-residential use.
Lodge
4
Current = Lodge means aleding within the Lodge Preservation ay (LP) district or a
building presently zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) containing threeePor more individual rooms
for the purpose of providing lodging facilities on a short or long-term basis, for compensation,
with or without meals, and which has common facilities for reservation and cleaning services and
on -site management and reception. A lodge may include kitchens within individual rental units.
Proposed = Same as hotel, except that lodge rooms in a lodge may have a kitchen in certain zone
districts and may be rented on a long term basis.
Remodel
Current = Remodeling means any act which changes one or more of the exterior architectural
features of a structure designated as a H, Historic Overlay District.
Proposed = A construction project comprising revisions within or to elements of an existing
structure, as distinct from additions to an existing structure.
Top of slope
Current = Top of slope means a point or a line connecting at least three (3) points determined by
the point of intersection of two fifty foot lines, one line being the level of the existing grade above
the slope and the other line being the angle of the existing slope, both lines measured on a site
section drawing.
Proposed = A line generally running somewhat parallel to a stream or river from which
development must be setback and which delineates the bank of the river or stream or other riparian
area as determined by the City Engineer.
Anyone attempting to compare the existing Code definitions with the proposed definitions should
read the new definitions together with Chapter 26.575, "Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations"
in order to fully understand the changes being proposed.
Part 200 — Administration — Decision Making Bodies
Not too many changes were made to the chapters of this part. Some of the duties of the decision -
making bodies were amended to reflect changes made over the years in the Code, but never
codified in this part.
Part 300 — General Procedures and Regulations.
This section of the proposed Code received significant attention and time. The attempt in
recodifying this Part was to make uniform the general procedures that apply to all development
applications, to simplify and clarify the language used to describe the general procedures, and to re-
write the Part in a more logical sequence. It is this Part in the existing Code which has caused the
most confusion and complaints about conflicting requirements, onerous and redundant procedural
requirements, and lack of clarity.
5
Chapter 26.304 has bee*most entirely re -written. Duties of •Community Development
Department, the applicant, and decision -making bodies are spelled out much more clearly. Included
in this chapter is a description of the usual steps required of all applicants from the time they file an
application to the time they receive a development order (and are eligible to apply for a building
permit).
Section 26.304.060(B)(1) was added to grant the Community Development Director authority to
alter the usual review procedures when appropriate. The operative language is that the Director may
modify the procedures for reviewing development plans and applications to combine or modify
such procedures where more than one development approval is being sought simultaneously and
such "modification or combination would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of
time, expense and clarity." All public noticing requirements for combined or modified procedures
would still be required as if a full review procedure was being followed.
Section 26.3G1.060(B)(2) was also added provide greater flexibility in t},e approval process. This
section authorizes the Community Development Director zq) schedule a "sketch plan review" with
anv combination of boards and the City Council either before or after an application for land use
approval is submitted. The idea here is to allow various boards and commissions and the City
Council to schedule a new type of meeting with the applicant and interested members of the public
to review an application before it gets too far into our normal development review process. This
new meeting may be very useful in reviewing complex or potentially controversial projects, or
projects which one can anticipate will generate a lot of community interest. The sketch plan review,
if it is suggested by the Community Development Director, would have to take place before any
other formal review steps are taken on the application, would require full public notice, and the
record of the proceedings would become part of the formal record of the application review process.
At the conclusion of a sketch plan review, everyone in attendance would be given an opportunity to
discuss the proposed project application with the applicant, but no formal decisions by any decision
makers would be allowed.
Chapter 26.308 and other portions of the Code relating to "vested rights" has been rewritten for
enhanced clarity. A major substantive change is the fact that the proposed Code would enable
practically all development approvals to automatically receive a vested right. No longer will an
applicant be required to apply for vested rights and thereafter proceed under a different set of
procedures to formalize the vested rights. The trade-off for this automatic receipt of vested rights is
that all applications for development that are entitled to vested rights would be required to follow
certain procedural steps to perfect the vested rights. (All resolutions and ordinances would be
required to contain the "magic words" that create vested rights, all resolutions and ordinances
would need to be published by the City Clerk in accordance with the state statute relating to vested
rights, and applicants would receive a formal "development order" spelling out their rights.) None
of these additional steps or requirements should be significantly noticeable to applicants. In
addition, this Chapter sets forth regulations and standards for extension and exemptions from the
expiration of development orders.
Chapter 26.310 — Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map has been
simplified and the procedures clarified. The main substantive change to this Chapter is the addition
of Section 26.310.020(C) which authorizes the City Council to adopt amendments to the Code by
emergency ordinance when it is deemed appropriate. The existing Code ignores this basic City
Council power set forth in the City Charter. By adding this section, the Code makes clear that the
6
City Council may adoptleergency ordinances, even when thevend the Land Use Code.
Another major change is Section 26.310.05 which spells out in greater detail the "pending
ordinance doctrine" which has been the source of some confusion in the past.
Chapter 26.314 — "Variances," was amended to allow the HPC or the P&Z to grant variances, but
only when the Community Development Director authorizes such action because an application
will be reviewed by one of those bodies as part of a consolidated application process. Thus, for
example, if an application is to be reviewed by the P&Z for a stream margin review the Community
Development Director may authorize the P&Z to review a variance request at the same time and
avoid having the application reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. In that the BoA may have
particular expertise in these matters, applicants may appeal an adverse variance decision by the
P&Z to the BoA.
Chapter 26.316 — "Appeals," was re -written to clarify and make uniform all the various appeal
provisions of the existing Code. In this fashion, any person desiring to appeal an administrative
decision can quickly refer to a single section of the Code for the proper procedure. The procedures
for differing appeals was also made uniform.
Part 400 — Development Review Standards and Procedures. This section of the re -codified
Code contains all the procedures and standards of review specific to particular applications for
development. Each Chapter has been re -written to eliminate conflicting language, to clarify the
requisite procedures, and whenever possible, to make uniform the procedures required.
Chapter 26.410 — "Residential Design Standards" has not been significantly changed as that chapter
is currently under review by staff and the P&Z for amendments.
Chapters 26.415 and 420 — "Historic Preservation," were completely rewritten to clarify and
simplify the procedures and language. The final hearing before the HPC for any significant
development, including demolition or partial demolition, will require notice by publication, posting
and mailing to neighbors. In addition, new language was added to ensure City Council is notified of
HPC actions prior to the expiration of the appeal period.
Chapter 26.435 — "Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas" was re -written to clarify the
procedures, and to include the substantive review standards for each type of development within
this Chapter (mountain plane views, Hallam Lake, stream margin, and 8040). The current
requirement that property owners dedicate a trail easement to the City as a condition of approval for
a stream margin review has been deleted as it is legally indefensible in most cases.
Chapter 26.470 — "GMQS" has been completely re -written, but no major substantive changes have
been made. This chapter is a consolidated version of two separate chapters in our current Code:
residential GMQS and Commercial GMQS. There really is no reason to have these separated. It
merely adds redundant language to the Code, and leads to confusion as to the different requirements
of the chapters according to whether the development is residential or commercial.
Chapter 26.480 — "Subdivisions" was re -written and major sections relating to Engineering
standards were eliminated. The Engineering standards, which have little relevance to most
development applications in the City, have been moved to a separate Chapter devoted entirely to
these Engineering Department standards and procedures. (See Chapter 26.580 — Supplementary
Regulations — Engineerinopartment.) Section 26.480.090 was r*d significantly to make the
Code conform to the state's condominiumization statutes.
Part 500 — Supplementary Regulations. This part of the proposed Code includes a consolidation
of existing supplementary regulations, regulatory language deleted from many of the definitions in
the existing Code, regulatory language deleted from the zoning districts, and miscellaneous
regulations found throughout the existing Code. By combining and consolidating much of the
regulatory language now found throughout various sections and chapters in our existing Code, it
will be possible to do "one stop shopping" for answers. For example, a reader of our current Code
must read multiple sections of the existing Code (if s/he can find them) to get answers relating to
accessory dwelling units, parking requirements, and affordable housing mitigation requirements.
Hopefully, the proposed Code will eliminate this problem by consolidating all of these subjects
under proper chapters and sections.
Please note that "Off-street parking requirements," "affordable housing," "accessory dwelling
units," and the "resident multi -family replacement program," can now be found in their own
chapters or sections of the Code.
Chapter 26.575 — "Miscellaneous Supplementary Regulations" contain a number of new sections.
These sections were created primarily to combine regulatory language found throughout our
existing Code and to locate them in one simple -to -find chapter.
Part 600 — Impact Fees and Dedications. The Park and School Lands dedication sections were
consolidated into this separate part for ease of use. The affordable housing impact fee section found
in the existing Code has been deleted. The fee structure and methodol . gy for calculating the
affordable housing impact fee will be inserted in the Affordable Housing Guidelines. It was felt by
staff that this makes sense as so many other substantive provisions are now being proposed to be
located in the AH Guidelines. The added advantage beside a "one stop" place to find All
regulations is that this will provide the City Council and the BOCC an opportunity to review these
regulations on an annual basis as part of the annual review of the AH Guidelines.
The Park Development impact fee was amended to include the potential for affordable
housing and Historic landmarked properties to be exempt from the fees. The current code allows the
City Council to waive the fees if it wishes to help subsidize an AH project or to provide an
additional incentive for historic landmarking.
Part 700 — Zone Districts. Although staff was tempted to make many changes to this part of the
Code, no major substantive changes are proposed at this time. Most of the changes proposed are
attempts to make this part of the code easier to read. As mentioned above, regulatory language
found in the existing zone district chapters were moved and consolidated in the "Supplementary
Regulations" Chapter of the Code. Many of the dimensional requirement charts contained in the
existing Code are duplicative of other charts found in prior sections of the Code. Whenever
possible, these charts were deleted and cross referenced to identical charts found earlier in the Code.
This eliminates many pages and helps to clarify the Code requirements.
The requirements for the AHIPUD zone district were greatly simplified. The 70% affordable
housing requirement was clarified by specifically stating that the 70% figure refers to the project's
8
total bedrooms as oppo400 units. The category mix that is reed will be set forth in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines.
Additional Substantive Changes suggested for future action.
There are a number of substantive changes to the Code which staff, P&Z, and the City Council have
discussed in recent months. Some of these amendments should pro- ' 3e additional opportunities for
simplifying the Code. In addition, as staff and the public work wish a re -codified version of the
Code, other changes which are identified that would simplify either regulatory language or
procedures, will be brought to Council for consideration. Such presumably minor changes to the
Code will be much easier to propose as it will be much easier for staff to review and analyze all
such proposals. Part of the problem in the recent past has been a reluctance by anyone to change the
existing Code for fear that a small change in one part of the Code would have unforeseen
consequences to other sections. There has also been the feeling that since the Code has been
scheduled for a major re -codification, minor changes could wait.
Following is a list of amendments to Code provisions that are currently under active consideration
or which staff would like to propose in the near future:
*Accessory Dwelling Units (presented to P&Z in work session; awaiting
scheduled joint work session between P&Z and CC --1st quarter)
*Growth Management Quota System (3rd and 4th quarter)
*Historic Preservation Program (includes Inventory and Guidelines: 1 st through
4th quarters)
*Design Review Standards aka Ord. 30 (1 st quarter)
*Takings determination standards and procedures (city attorney T-s work program)
*Consolidate SPA and PUD chapters of the code (general LUC revisions --1st
through 4th quarters)
*Lodge preservation Amendments (presented to P&Z in work session; awaiting
scheduled joint work session between P&Z and CC --1st and 2nd quarters)
*Outdoor Lighting Regulations (1 st quarter)
*FAR, Height, and dimensional requirements regulations (3rd and 4th quarters)
AACP Follow-up regulation amendments (1 st through 4th quarters as well as
2000 work program)
Conclusion. The re -codification of the Code that is being proposed should go a long way to
satisfy critics of our current Code. The formatting changes alone should make the Code easier to
use and read. The many re -writes that occurred to whole chapters of the Code should help make the
Code easier to understand and implement in a consistent and fair fashion. The proposed changes to
review procedures should help streamline application reviews by staff and decision -making bodies
and eliminate due process errors. There is a continuing commitment by staff to continue finding
ways to simplify the Code whenever possible. By adopting the proposed re -codified Code, future
amendments to simplify the Code will be easier to identify and recommend to Council.
Accordingly, this effort should be viewed as a necessary first step. The City's land use code will
never be "simple," but it should not be needlessly cumbersome, confusing, and conflicting.
9
In its continuing effort tAke the Code user friendly to non-prof4onals that occasionally delve
into land use planning issues, the Community Development Department will undertake to write and
make available educational brochures that explain the more complicated areas of our land use code.
If anyone has a question regarding the proposed re -codification of the Code before, during, or after
any meeting scheduled to discuss the proposed amendments, please do not hesitate to contact
anyone in the Community Development Department or the City Attorney's Office.
JPW-02/25/99-N.-I,city\cityatty\land-use\final\memo.doc
10
26.100.050 •
(d) paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee.
d. All development not classified as "tourist accommodations," "residential" or "commercial and office"
development. All development not limited by the provision of Section 26.100.040 shall be exempt from the
growth management competition and scoring procedures.
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 26.88.030(A)(5).
3. Community Development Director exemptions that are deducted from the pool of annual development
allotments and from the metro area development ceilings. The enlargement of an historic landmark that develops.
on a maximum cumulative basis, not more than one residential dwelling or three hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast,
boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. Although exempt from competition, units exempted by the
Community Development Director pursuant to this section shall be deducted from the respective annual
development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.100.040 and from the metro area development ceilings
established pursuant to Section 26.100.030.
B. Exemption by Growth Management Commission.
1. General.
a. Application for exemption. No development shall be considered for an exemption by the Growth
Management Commission until a completed application for exemption has been submitted to the Community
Development Director.
b. Procedure. After the Community Development Director has determined that the application for exemption
is complete, pursuant to Section 26.52.050, the application shall be forwarded to the Growth Management
commission °or review and consideration at a hearing, for which notice has been given pursuant to Section
26.52.060(E)�3)(a). After considering the request, the Growth Management Commission shall approve, approve
with conditions or deny the application for exemption, based on the application's compliance with all applicable
standards. In the event that there are insufficient allotments available to accommodate all applications for exempt
development, a random drawing shall be held in accordance with the standards of Section 26.100.060(B).
2. Growth Management Commission exemptions that are not deducted from the pool of annual development
allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. The following exemptions shall not be deducted from
the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.100.040 or from the metro
area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.100.030.
a. Historic landmarks.
(1) Exempt development.
(a) Enlargements for additional dwelling and tourist accommodations units. The enlargement of an
historic landmark that develops more than one residential dwelling or more than three (3) hotel, motel, lodge,
bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units shall be exempted from the growth management
competition and scoring procedures by the Growth Management Commission if all of the standards of Section
26.100.050(B)(2)(a)(2) are met-
(b) Enlargements for mixed -use development. The enlargement of an historic landmark for mixed -use
as a commercial, office or lodge development and that adds a residential dwelling unit, that increases the building's
or parcel's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage shall be exempted from the growth
management competition and scoring procedures by the Growth Management Commission if all of the standards
of Section 26.100.050(B)(2)(a)(2) are met.
(2) Standards for historic landmark exemptions. To be eligible for the historic landmark exemptions
of this section, the applicant shall demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's
community impacts will be addressed as follows:
(am= 586) 670
10 C.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission 71
10
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ` �.
RE: Land Use Code Amendments
DATE: April 6, 1999
� 1
SUMMARY: At the work session on the Land Use Code on March 8, 1999, staff
yg reviewed the numerous proposed changes to the Land Use Code which are a result of the
simplification process. With the assistance of the City Attorney, staff has worked to
make the land use code easier to use and simpler to understand and apply. The idea
behind this simplification is to ensure longevity; that is, the code can stand as the
framework for future amendments and changes in philosophy without ending up p� z�•c
complicating the code.
In staff s opinion, this simplification will build more public trust as it cleans up
ambiguous language which often puts the Director in a position of interpreting what was tZ Z
meant. We believe the code now says what it should say, in clear understandable f " I L
language.
The code has also been formatted in-house which will make future amendments easier to
put in place immediately, vs. waiting for it to be codified someplace out of state.
The code, even as simplified, remains a code. It reads like a code, has legal implications S
as do all codes. However, with the reorganization, the code is more logical and much
easier to follow.
The major changes the Commission will notice in this simplification is the format. It is IT
/
now much easier to find the applicable sections of the code. Likewise, the language has �.
been rewritten in laymen's terms wherever possible. We have included some drawings
which more clearly depict the intent of the language. We have taken the regulatory
language out of the definitions section and made definitions read as definitions.
There have also been some minor substantive changes in this re -write. Please refer to
Exhibit A, John Worcester's memo of March 1, 1999, which highlights these changes.
Finally, it should be clear to the Commission that this is just the first step in improving
the Land Use Code. Staff has numerous substantive changes that we will be proposing
throughout the remainder of the year which have already been included in our 1999 Work
Program. Please refer to John's memo, page 9 which highlights the areas which require
additional study.
Because of the numerous changes that have been made to the Code, staff will only
attempt to analyze the amendments as a whole rather than line by line. If there is specific
language which the Commission is not comfortable with, we would recommend that it be
addressed as a separate issue in a subsequent amendment process. Staff is very anxious
to begin using this document and hopes that the Commission and Council will feel
likewise.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
BACKGROUND: The simplification of the code has been underway for several years.
Staff finally brought the document before the City Council and the Planning and Zoning
Commission in a work session held March 1, 1999. Few Commissioners were present for
that work session, so staff also discussed it at the next P & Z meeting on March 8, 1999.
At that meeting, there was general consensus that the document was much improved and
there were few areas of concern. Staff then proceeded with scheduling these amendments
for public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a
development application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be
reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval 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. The Planning and Zoning Commission must make a recommendation to
City Council on the proposed amendments.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Please refer to John Worcester's
memo which highlights the procedure and amendments being proposed.
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations
And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A -I) standards for
the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed amendments to the text of the
Land Use Code. These standards and staff s evaluation of the potential amendments
relative to them are provided below, with the standard in bold followed by the staff
"response."
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this title.
RESPONSE: Adoption of the proposed code amendments would not be in conflict with
any applicable portions of the Land Use Code. In fact, the amendments will help clarify
and minimize known conflicts in the existing code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
2
•
•
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any elements of
the AACP. The AACP is intended to be the guide for future development while the Land
Use Code is used as a tool to achieve that vision. To the best of staff s knowledge, the
amendments are consistent with the community's plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood
characteristics.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments are not site specific to a particular
neighborhood. The amendments will clarify the intent of the code and requirements of
zone districts and land uses. Staff believes the amendment would result in more
consistency in land use decisions, which will ultimately be compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment will not have any effect on traffic
generation.
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: The proposed amendments would not have an effect on infrastructure or
infrastructure capacities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not have an effect on the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the existing code is more compatible with Aspen's
"characters", but the proposed amendments present a more reasonable and rational
approach to the functioning of the land use code.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
•
•
RESPONSE: There has been no significant change in Aspen's general character. The
proposed amendments are not site specific, but will affect the entire community equally.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RESPONSE: Staff believes that the proposed amendments would serve the public
interest and be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of Resolution 99-_D_�, Amendments to the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of Resolution 99-a.
IWye 11.11I7.�1
Exhibit A - Memo from John Worcester dated March 1, 1999
Exhibit B - Land Use Code, as amended (previously distributed in binder format)
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution 99-06
g:\planning\aspen\cases\text\cudeiiiiiend.doc
4
LAND USE REGULATIONS
El
NEW CODE
TITLE OF SECTION
PRIOR CODE
PART 100
GENERAL PROVISIONS
26.04
26.110.010
Authority and Title
26.04.010
26.04.020
26.110.020
Purpose
26.04.030
26.110.030
Comprehensive Community Plan
26.110.040
Applicability and Penalty
26.120
26.110.050
Void Permits
26.110.060
Emergencies
26.110.070
Land Use Application Fees - Zoning Fees
26.04.060
26.04.070
26.04.080
26.110.080
Rules of Construction
26.04.090
26.110.090
Reserved
26.110.100
Definitions
26.04.100
PART 200
ADMINISTRATION - DECISION
MAKING BODIES
26.208
City Council
26.08
26.212
Planning and Zoning Commission
26.12
26.216
Board of Adjustment
26.16
26.220
Historic Preservation Commission
26.20
26.222
Design Review Appeal Committee
26.22
26.226
Growth Management Commission
26.26
PART 300
GENERAL PROCEDURES AND
REGULATIONS
26.304
Common Development Review Procedures
26.52
26.306
Interpretations of Title
26.112
26.308
Vested Property Rights and Takings
Determination
26.310
Amendments to the Land Use Regulations
26.92
and Official Zone District Map
26.312
Nonconformities
26.104
26.314
Variances
26.108
26.316
Appeals
26.116
•
•
PART 400 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
26.404
Development Permitted As of Right
26.56.020
26.410
Residential Design Standards
26.58
26.415
Development in H
26.72
26.420
Historic Overlay District and Landmarks
26.76
26.425
Conditional Uses
26.60
26.430
Special Review
26.64
26.435
ESA
26.68
26.440
SPA
26.80
26.445
PUD
26.84
26.450
Temporary Uses
26.96
26.470
GMQS
26.100
26.102
26.480
Subdivision
26.88
PART 500
SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
26.510
Signs
26.36
26.515
Off -Parking
26.32
26.520
Affordable Housing and Accessory
26.40.090
Dwelling Units
25.530
Resident Multi -Family Replacement
20.08
Program
26.575
Miscellaneous Supplementary Regulations
26.40
575.010
- General
575.020
- Calculations and Measurements
575.030
- Open Space
575.040
- Yards
575.050
- Fenc--s
575.060
- Utility/Trash Service Areas
575.070
- Use Square Footage Limitations
26.40.040
575.080
- Child Care Center or Home
575.090
- Home Occupations
575.100
- Landscape Maintenance
26.40.100
575.110
- Building Envelopes
575.120
- Satellite Dishes
26.40.110
575.130
- Lighting
26.40.080
575.140
- Accessory Uses and Accessory
Structures
575.150
- Kitchens in Lodge Units
26.40.050
575.160
- Dormitory
575.170
- Fuel Storage Tanks
26.40.080
•
•
575.180
- Restaurant
575.190
- Farmers' Market
575.200
- Group Homes
26.580
Engineering Department Regulations
26.590
Timeshares
PART 600
IMPACT FEES AND DEDICATIONS
26.610.
Park Development Impact Fees
26.44
26.620
Affordable Housing Impact Fee
26.48
26.630
School Impact Dedication
PART 700
ZONING DISTRICTS
26.28
26.710
Zone Districts
26.28
710.010
- General Purpose
26.28.010
710.020
- Zone Districts Established
26.28.020
710.022
- Zoning of Lands Containing More Than
One Underlying Zone District
710.024
- Zoning of Vacated Areas
710.030
- Official Zone District Map
26.28.030
710.040
- R-6
26.28.040
710.050
- R-15
26.28.050
710.060
- R-15A
26.28.060
710.070
- R-15B
26.28.070
710.080
- R-30
26.28.080
710.090
- R/MF
26.28.090
710.100
- R-MFA
26.28.100
710.110
- AH 1 /PUD
26.28.110
710.120
- MHP
26.28.120
710.130
- RR
26.28.130
710.140
- CC
26.28.140
710.150
- C-1
26.28.150
710.160
- S/C/I
26.28.160
710.170
- NC
26.28.170
710.180
- O
26.28.180
710.190
- L/TR
26.28.190
710.200
- CL
26.28.200
710.210
-
710.220
- C
26.28.220
710.230
- A
26.28.230
710.240
- P
26.28.240
710.250
- PUB
26.28.250
710.260
- OS
26.28.260
710.270
- W P
26.28.270
710.280
- T
26.28.280
•
•
•
•
710.290
- D
26.28.290
710.300
- GCS
26.28.300
710.310
- L
26.28.310
710.320
- LP
26.28.320
•
•
LAND USE REGULATIONS
is
PRIOR CODE
TITLE OF SECTION
NEW CODE
26.04
GENERAL PROVISIONS
26.04.010
Short Title
26.104.010
26.04.020
Authority
26.104.010
26.04.030
Purpose
26.104.020
Comprehensive Plan
26.104.030
26.04.040
Applicability
26.104.040
26.04.050
Minimum Requirements
Void Permits
26.104.050
Emergencies
26.104.060
26.04.060
Land Use Application Fees
26.104.070
26.04.070
Historic Preservation Application Fees
26.104.070
26.04.080
Zoning Fees
26.104.070
26.04.090
Rules of Construction
26.104.080
26.04.100
Definitions
26.1 10.100
DECISIONMAKING
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
26.08
CITY COUNCIL
26.208
26.12
P & Z
26.212
26.16
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
26.216
26.20
HPC
26.220
26.22
DRAC
26.222
26.24
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
26.210
26.26
GMC
26.226
26.28
ZONE DISTRICTS
26.710
26.28.010
General Purpose
26.710.010
26.28.020
Zone Districts Established
26.710.020
Zoning of Land Containing More Than
26.710.022
One Underlying Zone District
Zoning of Vacated Areas
26.710.024
26.28.030
Official Zone District Map
26.710.030
26.28.040
R-6
26.710.040
26.28.050
R-15
26.710.050
26.28.060
R-15A
26.710.060
26.28.070
R-15B
26.710.070
26.28.080
R-30
26.710.080
26.28.090
R/MF
26.710.090
•
•
26.28.100
R/MFA
26.710.100
26.28.1.10
AH I /PUD
26.710.110
26.28.120
MHP
26.710.120
26.28.130
RR
26.710.130
26.28.140
CC
26.710.140
26.28.150
C-1
26.710.150
26.28.160
S/C/l
26.710.160
26.28.170
NC
26.710.170
26.28.180
O
26.710.180
26.28.1.90
L/TR
26.710.190
26.28.200
CL
26.710.200
26.28.220
C
26.710.220
26.28.230
A
26.710.230
26.28.240
P
26.710.240
26.28.250
PUB
26.710.250
26.28.260
OS
26.710.260
26.28.270
W P
26.710.270
26.28.280
T
26.710.280
26.28.290
D
26.710.290
26.28.300
GCS
26.710.300
26.28.310
L
26.710.310
26.28.320
LP
26.710.320
26.32
Off -Street Parking
26.515
26.36
Signs
26.510
26.40
Supplementary Regulations
26.500
26.40.020
Zoning of Vacated Land
26.710.024
26.40.040
Use Square Footage Limitations
26.575.070
26.40.050
Kitchens in Lodge Units
26.575.150
26.40.070
Zoning of Lands Containing More Than
26.710.022
One Underlying Zone District
26.40.080
Miscellaneous Provisions
- Fuel Storage Tanks
26.575.170
- Lights
26.575.130
26.40.090
Accessory Dwelling Units
26.520
26.40.100
Landscaping Maintenance
26.575.100
26.40.110
Satellite Dish Antennas
26.575.120
26.44
Park Development Impact Fee
26.610
26.48
Affordable Housing Impact Fee
26.620
0
•
C]
26.52
Common Development Review
26.304
Procedures
26.56
Development Review Standards
26.400
26.56.010
Purpose
26.56.020
Development Permitted As of Right
26.404
26.58
Residential Design Standards
26.410
26.60
Conditional Uses
26.425
26.64
Special Review
26.430
26.68
ESA
26.435
26.72
Development in H
26.415
26.76
H Overlay & Landmarks
26.420
26.80
SPA
26.440
26.84
PUD
26.445
26.88
Subdivision
26.480
26.92
Amendments to Land Use Regulations
26.310
and Official Zone District Map
26.96
Temporary Uses
26.450
26.100
GMQS
26.470
26.102
GMQS - Commercial and Office
26.470
Development
26.104
Nonconformities
26.312
26.108
Variances
26.314
26.112
Interpretations of Title
26.306
26.116
Appeals From Administrative Action
26.316
26.120
Enforcement
26.104.040
• i�
Land Use Code Presentation March 1 \ )
Overall Goal:
To build CC and P/Z confidence in City Planning Department.
To do so in a light, comfortable environment.
Leadership:
• Take CC into Box, show them around, and lead them out of the Box.
Address frustrations up front and start fresh.
Keep everyone on track of not discussing merits of substantive changes.
Ensure substantive issues will be considered in the future.
Meeting Framework:
• JA introduction.
• John presentation of changes with Q&A between Boards and staff.
• Summary of substantive follow-up items.
• JA Next Steps — ask to go ahead with hearings.
Outcome Goals:
1) Direction to proceed with public hearings or do another WS.
2) Complement on process and leadership from Boards.
Introduction - JA
Purpose and Value: This is why we're here
• To re -organize the land use code so it will be: Simple, easy to use, to understand, and
to apply. 2
• Longevity: Build code framework for future amendments, changes in philosophy.
Amendments won't destroy code.
• Quality: Coordination with City Attorney = trust that code is legally defensible. The
language of shall, will, may. The procedures of vesting, takings, remedies, etc.
• Public trust: I don't want to be forced to make interpretations. I want the code to say
what it means.
• In -House Simplification = Cheaper, higher quality
• In -House printing = Cheaper, quicker, and more accurate. S S ¢,, s-•„ {� �Q , �' c „t-; .,.
Frustrations: I'm honest, I care, I share Council's frustrations, and I want this to
be done right and done with expedience.
This project has been a desire of Council's for some time and the process has been very
slow. I know this frustrates you and it frustrates me. My first day here I was handed the
land use code. My second day here I started complaining about its lack +rganization,
tough to understand language, and general confusion.
We haven't gotten to this point as quickly as we wanted. This frustrates me and I know it
reduces your confidence in my department. I want you to know 1 -personally �ha� -fit 47 Cb Qp,�
committed to completing the land use code in a quality and timely manner. I can't do
much about the way this has dra ged on in the past, but I can promise that staff is
working hard on this code andqill complete it. o prou
nt to rnouvE . — shed a tear here.
My personal Goal: This is how I'm going to lead you through this.
�to clearly express the community's land use hilosophy, policies, and
a�► procedures in a easy to find, and simple to understand way. i fir. ��tv�h --,.'
• CP • I want you to not have to worry about the code and have full confidence in the code,
fie, and in the planning department in implementing the land use philosophies of
the community.
• — fyou per
: This isoe person relied onto keep us on trackJfl- 01-1
First, John has bee n`xcellentand should be acknowledged for his efforts. Soy this Ca 4T." .
We have used John as a consultant. This has worked better than our experience with our
i' first consultant. -7L11�
v� \o'er 4� —4- t fi. c� 4 �o s
Benefits of Using John: `� �+
w r� DZ
� • Vested interest in outcome and personal knowledge of how code works. iiry
c�t • In house commi�xcation 4?,� 46 +G,k i
r 0 ` u .• Quality of work — attention to more legal issues and general readability. �4
sf� n Q
Strategy: These are the ways in which changthe code and
Disclaimer:
This code will remain a code. It will read like a code, have legal implications, and will
put you to sleep. X goal is to make this code function as well as a code can.
Format:
Visual Example: alphabet soup vs. organized text. °,t47
1 $
• This is the same regulation. w
O 0 • SSDD = Same Shit — but you can find it and understand it.
1��'
ample: Definitions:2~ language does not have to be cumbersome, confusing, repetitious, redundant,1uplicative.�re possible, we have eliminated rambling language without changing meaning.
l'P �d
0
i
0
Provide examples and diagrams for better explanations
Visual Example: Eave point Definition and diagram
3 • Plain language is better than code and pictures are worth a thousand words. e 4'•
Attorney -speak example: why don't they just say what they mean.
• Again: same regulation (no substantive changes) but easier to understand.
Jam, Separate language purposes: -)
Placement of regulatory language in the right location
q on • Definitions just define terms.
4n,.,- e-�,� ` • Regulatory language controls uses.
• Existing code mixes text purposes and leads to confusion.
Minor Substantive Changes in this Re -Write �.
• Some sections either didn't function well, have been requested to be amended, have
been amended through interpretation, or are altogether missing.
• These changes will be presented individually to keep everyone informed through the
'�```J process. �
R-lUentify
are coming back with rounds of substantive changes delineated in our work
S �+�
ram.
Morr additional changed to be brought bac� emphasize they are to be identified,
discussed.
For example: The City defines areas of Environmental Sensitivity (ESA's) where /
particular attention is given to development and most applications go to the /
Commission. Some types of development in these areas, however, are exempt from a
full review. The existing code does not specifically describe the process for that
exemption, so staff has consistently treated these cases as administrative reviews by
mimicking procedure in other sections. So, as part of this re -write, staff is inserting
this administrative review procedure.
Another example: The provisions of Title 20, Housing Replacement Program, currently
sit outside of the land use code for no apparent reason. These provisions are land use
and are inserted into the land use code with this re -write.
Follow-up Major Substantive Changes
These are the larger substantive changes to the land use code already identified and
included in out work ro r (Sre.L-
isua grap is - Item and progress
• The changes being contemplated that do represent significant philosophical e .�• FR �'
amendments.
• ei1'�se hanges are important. So important that full consideration should be given to
the specific topic. 3, A lr_
• The -or anization of the code can and should be completed on its own. (don't putt` S
e r
bricks in t e ac pack) -�
• Re -organizing the code, in no way, limits the ability to make substantive changes in
the future. In fact, the new structure will allow for changes to occur with more ease.
John's Memo
Q&A between Board and staff.
JA — Next steps — Should we schedule another WS, or go to public hearings?
I would like to proceed to public hearings on this. It may take some time to complete the
full review with the two Boards, but my goal is to complete the process by t-1 �� Z,-Z
as
Key Words — Say these over and over
Organization
Simple
Easy to Use
Understandable
Quality
Work Program
Fl
Rumplestiltskin
Mary Roberts, 10: 3/25/99 Re: Housing 90delines
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:21:41 -0700 (MST)
X-Sender: maryr@commons
To: Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us>
From: Mary Roberts <maryr@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Re: Housing guidelines
Cc: amym@ci.aspen.co.us, johnw@ci.aspen.co.us, davet@ci.aspen.co.us,
cindyc@ci.aspen.co.us
Hi Julie Ann: I believe the reason the City Council did not adopt the
revised guidelines was related to getting more information about pricing in
the RO category. We are now reviewing a just -completed appraisal analysis
which will help address this issue. I know the City Council has scheduled
a
review of the housing long range plan for April 7th and perhaps we can
cover
the RO question at that time also. The Housing Board will be reviewing
(first reading) the 1999 Housing Guidelines at their meeting that same
evening. Is it appropriate for the Land Use Code and 1999 Housing
Guidelines to be concurrently reviewed by City Council? I think the timing
will work .... I'll discuss with Dave when he gets back from vacation next
week. Let me know if the concurrent review is feasible. Thanks. Mary
At 11:30 AM 3/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Hey Housing guys!!
>I have our Land use code going to public hearing before the P&Z on april
>6th. You may recall that we took out all the housing standards in the code
>and refer to the Housing guidelines in effect. I understand from our last
>meeting with council that these guidelines were never adopted by council.
>Dave, I thought you indoicated they wouold be forthcoming. What is your
>timing? It would be best to have those adopted before CC pases the final
>ordinace on the LUC. Please give me an update ASAP so I can notice for
>council LUC review accordingly. thanks. JA.
Printed for Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen_co.us> 1