Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.320 W Main Lot Split & Office A024-01 f"\ CASE NUMBER PARCEL ill # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY (""', ',j A024-01 2735-124-41005 320 W. Main Sl. Historic Landmark Lot Split & Landmark C 320 W. Main Sl. Amy Guthrie Historic Landmark Lotsplit & Code Amendme W. Scott & Mary McDonald 09/10/01 ORD #40-2001 NOT APPROVED 02/06/03 D DRISCOLL ~ 1'""'\ ~ Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council Seutember 10, 2001 (", 26.7l0.l20(C), CONDITIONAL USES AND 26.710. 1 20(d) DIMBNSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ORDINANCE #40 Series of 200 I AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A RENEWED tERMQF OPERAtION FOR THE COMMERICALCOR.E AND LODdrNG<:;{:5MMISSION .. UNTIL DECEMBER 31,2006, DESCRIBINGtHECOMfOSITION, TERM AND QUALIFICATIONS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS,THEIR. . POWERS, AND DUTIES; PROVIDNG FORAP~E~SI3,Y PERSONS AGGRIEVED BY ACTIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE AND LODGING COMMISSIONANDESTABLISH1NtrRUt'ES<JP' .... ........>.......... PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWEbJ3Y TItE COMMEB-901,go~ AND LODGING COMMISSION IN EXERCISING ITSl1tJNC110NS Councilman Hershey moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman McCabe. The consent calendar is: 0\ · Ordinance #39, 2001 - Code Amendment- Mobile Home Park . .'i',,, : · Supplemental Budget Request - Historic inventory update · Ordinance #40, 200l-Renewed Term of the Commercial Core & Lodging Commission Roll call vote; Councilmembers Semrau, yes; McCabe, yes; Hershey, yes; Paulson, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2001 - Code Amendment Historic Lot Splits Office Zone Councilman' Semrau asked if there is a pressing reason to adopt this before the city looks at the entire historic preservation process. Julie Ann Woods, community development department, told Cquncil there is an applicant for this case. Amy Guthrie, community development dePartment, told Council this will extend historic landmark lot splits to the office district. Currently this is r"\ allowed in two residential zones only. This will not increase development , ." '. . rights or FAR. on these properties; it only allows a different type of 5 J... , r\ r-. r, 1"'""\ f"""l . Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council September 10,2001 ownership. This is an incentive for historic preservation. Ms. Guthrie reminded Council there wereconcems about the AnUs, which Council addressed at a work session. Staff is, drafting a memorandum to outline the proposals. Ms. Guthrie told Council she referred this back to the Historic Preservation Commission to see ifthey thought this code amendment was premature. The HPC likes this incentive and feels it may be extended to other zone districts. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Pat Hodgson urged Council not to~dopt thisordin~celilltil all information is in from the HPC consultants. Ms. Hodgson said there may be unforeseen circumstances. Mitch Haas said this is a good code amendment." .fIaas said property owners can accomplish the same end with very little review. TIlls would give more public input and more review. Sven Alstrom suggested the city look at solar access easements, which cdntrols a landowner's access to the sun and can also be used as a height control. Alstrom said solar access should be part of the city's land use code for every zone, not just historic lot splits. Ramona Markalunas submitted a letter from Don Fleisher. Ms. Markalunas said she feels this ordinance is confusing. Ms. Markalurias pointed out there are two other office zones on either side of the C-l zone. Ms. Markalunas said landmarked lots are the most historic and much thought should be given before allowing lot splits. Ms. Markalunas noted the city funded a consultant to advise the HPC on the various facets of historic preservation. Ms. Markalunas asked that this review of historic preservation procedures be ' allowed to reach its conClusiob.. " Georgeanne Waggaman agreed with Ms. Markailillas and that more research should go into whether lot splits be allowed.I3,ert Myrin, P&Z member, urged Council to take more time before adopting this code amendment. Mayor Klanderud read into the record letters from Helen Palmer and Bill Stirling both urging Council to take more time before adopting this ordinance. Mayor Klanderudc10sed the public hearing. Ms. Guthrie told Council staff does not anticipate changes to the lot split section of the land use code. Ms. Guthrie said the city's consultant feels the 6 ~ "", ., ~ 1'""'\ r'\ ,t"", r) Rel!ular Meetinl! Asuen City Council Seutember 10,2001 , lot split incentive is a good tool to deahvith the development pressures. Ms. Woods said staff will probably suggest the lot splits be extended to more zones in the city. Councilman McCabe said he does not feel there IS a pressing need to pass this right now. Mayor Klanderud asked the difference between existing legislation and this code amendment. Ms. Guthrie said if this code amendment is not approved, land owners still have a method to accomplish what they want. This has been an incentive property owners are attracted to' and staff has been trying to come up with incentives that do not cost the city cash money., This code amendment does not increase density, development right or floor area. Ms. Guthrie said the public and the HPC have the same goals. Councilman Hershey said one of the aspects of the histod~ preservation program he agrees with is the incentives. Councilman McCabe said he, too, is a proponent of new incentives; however, s~ffisstilllooking at the entire historic preservation prograttland other incentives., Councilman McCabe said he would like to see what comes out of the historic preservation study. Councilman Paulson agreed with delaying this code amendment and examining the unintended consequences. Councilman PaulsoI). said he would like to see what other zone districts this might apply to. Councilman Paulson said he would also like solar access examined. Councilman Paulson suggested stafflook at the condomiriiumization process to require more review. Councilman Paulson said the goal is to preserve historic properties. Councilman Semrau asked when the review of historic preservation processes will be done. Ms. Woods said it should be done by the end of this year. Mayor Klanderud said she supports this concept and would like to see it made part of the new historic preservation review. Councilman Semrau agreed this is a good program and encouraged staff to apply it to other zone districts and include keeping solar plane. Councilman Semrau said he would like staff to take several months and flesh out the concerns. , Councilman McCabe moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of200l, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Hershey. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Paulson, no; Semrau, no; Hershey, yes; McCabe, no; Mayor Klanderud, no. Motion NOT carried. . 7 t""'\ , 5o\ov t3~S MEMORANDUM HO~ii5 DfF'o~ V 4-1 TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ~\v"t \' Code Amendment to Section 26.480.030, Subdivision Exemptions, and Section 26.710.180, Office Zone District, Second Rea.ding of Ordinance #24, Series of 2001 (continued from August 27,2001) FROM: RE: DATE: September 10, 2001 SUMMARY: The Community Development Departriient ha.s received an application requesting a code amendment to extend the Historic Landmark Lot Split program, currently only available in two residential zone districts (R-6 and R-15A), to the Office zone district. The area of town that will be affected by the amendment is Main Street, from ih Street to Monarch Street. By way of explanation of the historic landmark lot split program, each zone district in Aspen has a minimum lot size assigned to it. Anyone subdividing a property must adhere to that minimum, except for landmarks, which may create smaller lots. Development rights and floor area are not increased in any way; an owner is simply allowed to sell off part of the land in a fee simple, rather than condominium transaction. Fee simple ownership is perceived to be more valuable, and this program has been very successful for our historic preservation efforts. Staff, HPC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend Council approve the code amendment. For your information, photographs of the properties potentially affected are attached to this memo. Please note that staff has added clarification to the language below regarding the way that floor area will be determined for these projects. Because floor area in the Office Zone District is based on the specific use of the parcel (i.e. residential vs. commercial), it is a somewhat more complex issue than in the zone districts that currently allow the historic landmark lot split and have just one floor area scale. ISSUES FROM FIRST READING- Staff has also made the amendment requested by Council striking the reference to providing an "Accessory Dwelling Unit" when mitigation is required and instead referring the reader to the lllenu of options provided in the Growth Management chapter of the Land Use 'Code, which includes providing an ADU or cash-in-lieu payment. Staff is currentlydra.fting amendments to the ADU (""'" .' n program, based on Council's direction,to more specifically detailthe circumstances under which an ADU, rather than payment in lieu, will be allowed. In response to other comments at First Reading, and following th,e recent discussion on the 515 Gillespie project and the confusion about how a floor area bonus may be used on a lot split project, staff has adjusted that language below, under the Subdivision exemption standards. In regard to Councilman Paulson's concerns about how this amendment may affect the work underway on the Historic Preservation Program, it is the staffs feeling that this is the type of incentive that is likely to be brought forward for other zone districts in the future, and it is an incentive that the majority of the HPC members support. Further, this approach moves us further toward reaching our infill goals as stated in the AACP. APPLICANT: Scott and Caroline MacDonald, represented by Bob Starodoj. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.310.020, 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. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The application is to amend Section 26.480.030 and Section 26.710.180 to read as follows, with text to be eliminated strickeR eet and text to be added underlined: Section 26.480.030(A)( 4) addresses the types of development eligible ror subdivision exemptions. Please note that staff has included corrections to citations in this passage that were not fixed during the most recent update of the Land Use Code. Section 26.480.030(A)(4), Subdivision Exemptions 4. Historic Landmark Lot Solit. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling, or for commercial development in the 0, Office zone district." The Historic LandmarkLot Split shall meet the requirements of section 2e.88.(}3{)(,1)(2) '26. 480. 030(A)(2) and(4). section 2e.l(}(}.(}5{)(,1)(2)(c) 26.470.070(C) for residential develooment .or (D) for commercial develooment and section 2e.72.{)!{)(G) 26.415.010(DJ of this Code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of nine thousand (9,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone di~trict or O. Office zone district. or a minimum of thirteen thousand (13,000) square feei and be located in the R-15A zone district. 2 ,-, n b. In the R-6 and R-15A zone districts. 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. In the Office zone district. the followinfl shall aDDly to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created throuflh the historic landmark lot sDlit. N?te that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption' Plat because the floor area will be affected bv the use established on the DrODertv: ' If all buildinfls on what was the fatherinfl Darcel remain wholly residential in use. the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If anv Dortion of a buildinfl on a lot created bvthe historic landmark lot sDlit is in commercial/office use. then the idlowed floorareti for that. lotshall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the tOne district. if the adiacent Darcel created bv the lot sDlit remains wholly in residenti~l use" then the floor area on that Darcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use accordinfl to the R-6 standards.. If there is commercial/office use on both newlv created lots. the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be aDv/ied. ' c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and 8enUS$S aFe aMy pcrmitted an the p(J1'eel that eanklins a .~isterie stru$re.unless variances or bonuses are aDDroved bv the HPC. The proposed amendment to section 26.710.180 is as follows: 26.710.180 Office (0). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial us~s along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permifled as of right in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Detached residential dwellings, multi-family dwellings; 2. Professional business offices; 3 '-'\ n 3. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; 4. Home occupations; 5. Group homes; 6. Accessory buildings and uses; 7. Dormitory; and 8. A mixed-use building(s) comprised of a residential dwelling unit and permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district so long as such conditional use has been approved subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425; and 9. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040. 10. Two detached residential dwellinf!s on a 9.000 SQuare foot lot containinf! a historic landmark. with mitif!ation for the units to be vrovided accordinf! to Section 26.470.070.B. Growth Manaf!ement Exemvtions. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Only for those structures that have received historic landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery, bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical instruments), music studio, restaurant, shop craft industry, visual arts gallery; provided, however, that (a) no more than two (2) such conditional uses shall be allowed in each structure, and (b) off-street parking is provided, with alley access for those conditional uses along Main Street; 2. Duplex residential dwelling, of :I'hieh olle unit, shall he. restrieted as affoFlklble !zaMSing te fila middle ineame price and eeeupeney guidelines. The aff31'dahk ,~,msiltg unit shall eampFise e minimum of ane thiFd (1/3) of the tet'fil fleor aPea af t!le duplex. In t.~e a1temaU'..e, bath may be free merkei units if an aceesaory dweUiltg unit shafl he pl'8:'ided fEr etleh unit . with mifif!ation for 'the units to be vrovided accordini to Section 26.470.070.B. Growth Manaf?ement Exemvdons. 3. Two (2) detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum area of 6, 000 square feet, of m~ich one unit shall he 4 (""'\ , .) rectrieted as Ilffal'dllbk heusing ta t.~e midd!e inear/le priee Ilnd aeeNfJllney' gHiddines. The a./J3F1illhk heusing unit shall eamprise a minimum olane thiFli (1/3) a/the tetlllflear area 01 the twa d;l'ellil~s. In t.~e a!temati,'e, bath may be free mllr/Eet units if an Ilooessary dl':elling unit s,~all be pl"8l'ided /-er eaeh unit; . with mitif!ation for the units to be vrovided accordinz to Section 26.470.070.B. Growth Manaf!emimt Exemvtions. 4. Child care center; 5. Commercial parking lot or parking structure that is independent of required off-street parking, provided that it is not located abutting Main Street; 6. Health andfitnessfacility; and 7. Lodge units and lodge units with kitchens. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000. For lots created bv Section 26.480.030. Historic Landmark Lot SvW: 3.000. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwelling: 6,000. b. Duplex: 3,000 per unit. c. Multi-family dwellings on lot between 6,000 and 9,000 square feet: Studio: 1,000. 1 bedroom; 1,200. 2 bedroom: 2,000. 3 bedroom: 3,000. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. d. Multi-family dwellings on lot of more than 9,000 square feet: Studio: 1,000. 1 bedroom; 1,250. 2 bedroom: 2.100. 3 bedroom: 3,630. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. e. Multi-family dwellings on a lot Oj27,000 square feet or less, when at least fifty percent (50%) of the units built on-site are restriCted as affordable housing: Studio: 500. 1 bedroom: 600. 2 bedroom: 1,000. 5 I""". ,-~ 3 bedroom: 1,500. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area. f Multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when one hundred percent (100%) of the units built 'on-site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 300. 1 bedroom: 400. 2 bedroom: 800. 3 bedroom: 1,200. 3+ bedrooms: One (J) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created bv Section 26.480.030. Historic Landmark Lot Solit: 30. The amendments to this section include allowing two detached homes on a 9,000 square foot lot as a permitted use. Currently, two detached houses are allowed as a conditional use for landmark lots as small as 6,000 square feet. The new permitted use is an incentive for historic preservation and is consistent withwhat is allowed in the neighboring R-6 zone district. This section is also amended to allow lots created by the landmark lot split program to be as small as 3,000 square feet, also consistent with the way lot splits are addressed in the residentialzone districts. REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.310, Amendments To The Land Use Code And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.314.040 provides nine (A-I) standards for City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed amendments to the text of the Land Use Code. These standards, an? staff's eVllluation of the amendment relative to them, are provided below. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. RESPONSE: Historic LandmarkLot Splits are curtel1t1y allowed in two residential zone districts; R-6 and R-15A. The goal of the lot split is to divide the mass that could be added onto a historic building into two or more struc~ures. The office zone district, the subject of this code amendment, is primarily located along Main Street, and there are four or five parcels that would likely be affected by this application. The goal of dividing up the allowed floor area is as beneficial in the Main Street neighborhood as it is in the neighborhoods where the lot split program currently exists. As part of this code amendment, language in the subdivision exemption and growth management exemption standards that states that the lot split is granted for the purpose of creating one additional single familv dwelling, which would be an obstacle to commercial office development on lot splits on Main Street, has been removed. Within the Office zone district, subdivision of a historic landmark property will be allowed for any use, commercial or residential. . 6 r'j ~ , Staff and the review boards find that there is, no negative effect from this code amendment and that it is in keeping with other stated goals and purposes in the Land Use Code. It creates no change to development rights, only an option for fee simple ownership rather than condominiumization, which has been viewed as an important historic preservation incentive. Staff finds that this standard is met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. ' RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan encourages infill development within the historic townsite. It also encourages efforts to maintain an active, mixed use character along Main Street and calls for the extension of the historic landmark lot split program to additional zone districts. Staff finds that this standard is met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment does not create new land uses, and does not specifically increase density since a duplex or two detached houses are already allowed on a 6,000 square foot lot in the office zone district as a conditional use. Staff finds that this standard is met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have any effect on traffic generation or road safety because, as stated above, the density is already envisioned in the zone district regulations. Staff finds that this standard is met. 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 code amendment is n9t.anticipated to have any additional effect on infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. Staff finds that this standard is met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not. anticipated to have a negative effect on the natural environment. Staff finds that this standard is met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. 7 ~, (") RESPONSE: Main Street was historically a residential area. Today, only the western portion of the street (from ih to 2nd Street) retains that character, becoming more commercial and lodge oriented as one travels east. The historic preservation design guidelines in regard to Main Street discuss the concept of preserving some of the patterns and characteristics of a residential area, while allowing for a mix of uses. The code amendment would support that goal by providing an incentive to break new construction down into structures that reflect a variety of building sizes. Staff finds that this standard is met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: Main Street has been negatively affected by traffic congestion. Any efforts to preserve a small scale, pedestrian orientation to the area, through the creation of some more modestly sized buildings, would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Staff finds that this standard is met. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in contlict with the public interest, and is in harmoQY with the purpOse and intent ofthis title. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment is in harmony with the public interest by providing an incentive for the successful preservation of historic buildings. There has been significant community input of late calling for more assistance and options for owners of designated properties. Staff finds that this standard is met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff, HPC, and P&Z recommend that Council approve the code amendment, finding that the review standards are met. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of2001." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance #24, Series of2001 A. Photographs of properties likely to be affected by the code amendment. 8 1""'\ f) EXHIBIT A 604 W. Main Street 430 W. Main Street 9 f""".. (j 320 W. Main Street 201 E. Main Street 10 ,-. r;Vl~ OVl VUe0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ' RE: Extension of the stay on the operation of Section 26.480.080 of the Municipal Code in regard to requests to de-list from the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," Second Reading of Ordinance No. 33, Series of 200 I DATE: September 10, 2001 BACKGROUND At a joint CouncillHPC worksession on February 7, 2001, the City Council directed staff to develop a "game plan" as to how we should proce~d with the HistoricInventory, as well as other aspects of the City's historic preserv~tion proram.. Consistent with that direction, staff presented a proposed strategy on February 20' , which received Council's support. Ordinance #10, Series of 2001, was subsequently adopted to suspend, for a period of six months, any requests to de-list from the current inventory to give Staff time to focus on the substantial task of overhauling the program. In conjunction with Debbie Abele, consultant to the City of Aspen, the Community Development Staff has been working to address several goals. These are: 1. Develop objective criteria as part ofthe City's Historic Preservation processes; 2. Inform / educate the public; 3. Develop new incentives and benefits of desigIlation; and 4. Develop appropriate code amendments to improve the regulations and processes in place to preserve our historic resources. ' Good progress has been made on all of these points and there has b~en a concerted effort to reach the community for feedback in a variety of ways. Following the very successful Community Forum, held on August l8'h, staff is beginning the process of preparing code amendments and scheduling hearings. It is hoped that the new program will be in place by the end of the year and that the HPC can recommence reviewing specific properties for the Inventory, based on recommendations by our consultant, in January 2002. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached ordinance suspending all actions on the inventory list for another six months. The Community Development Department will send a letter to owners of properties currently listed, as well as the properties proposed to be added, to inform them of the code amendment process that will be underway, and to let them know that we will begin holding hearings on their properties, using the new objective set of criteria, no later than February 27, 2002. There is an r"""'. i'J appeal process built into the Ordinance for property owners who are burdened by the delay in revisiting the Inventory. RECOMMENDED MOTION "1 move to adopt Ordinance #33, Series of2001." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Attachment: Ordinance No. 33, Series of2001 """,",--i (") r), RECEIVED"" b MEMORANDlXtl6 23 20m TO: Mayor and Council ASPEN I PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Code Amendment to Section 26.480.030, Subdivision Exemptions, and Section 26.710.180, Office Zone District, Second Reading of Ordinance #24, Series of2001 DATE: August 13,2001 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department has received an application requesting a code amendment to extend the Historic Landmark Lot Split program, currently only available in two residential zone districts (R-6 and R-15A), to the Office zone district. The area of town that will be affected by the amendment is Main Street, from 7th Street to Monarch Street. By way of explanation of the historic landmark lot split program, each zone district in Aspen has a minimum lot size assigned to it. Anyone subdividing a property must adhere to that minimum, except for landmarks, which may create smaller lots. Development rights and floor area are not increased in any way; ,an owner is simply allowed to sell off part of the land in a fee simple, rather than condominium transaction. Fee simple ownership is perceived to be more valuable, and this program has been very successful for our historic preservation efforts. Staff, HPC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend Council approve the code amendment. For your information, photographs of the properties potentially affected are attached to this memo. Please note that staff has added clarification to the language below regarding the way that floor area will be determined for these projects. Because floor area in the Office Zone District is based on the specific use of the parcel (Le. residential vs. commercial), it is a somewhat more complex issue than in the ne districts that currently allow the historic landmark lot split and have just one floor area cale. Staff has also made the amendment requested y Council at first reading, striking the option to provide an "Accessory Dwelling Unit" hen creating a duplex or two detached units and requiring instead a cash-in-lieu payment. And, following the recent discussion on the 515 Gillespie project, and the confusion about w a floor area bonus may be used on a lot split project, staff has adjusted that language below, under the Subdivision exemption standards. ,-.. ~ () , APPLICANT: Scott and Caroline MacDonald, rept~sel1ted by Bob Starodoj. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.310.020, 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 conditiong, or digapproval 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. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The application is to amend Section 26.480.030 and Section 26.710.180 to read as follows, with text to be eliminated Stiickellout arid text to be added underlined: Section 26.480.030(A)( 4) addresses the types of development eligible for subdivision exemptions. Please note that staff has included corrections to citations in this passage that were not fixed during the most recent update of the Land Use Code. Section 26.480.030(A)(4), Subdivision Exemptions 4. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling, or for commercial development in the 0, Office zone district." The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 2e.88.Q3()(.4)(2) 26.480.030(A)(2) and(4), section 26.!QQ.Q5!J(.4)(2)(c) 26.470.070(C) for residential development ,or (D) for commercial development and section 2e.72.Q!Q(G) 26.415.01O(D) of this Code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of nine thousand (9,000) square feet in size and be located in the R -6 zone district or 0, Office zone district. or a minimum of thirteen thousand (13.000) square fiet and be located in the R -15A zone district. b. In the R-6 and R-15A zone districts, the total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowedfor a duplex on the original parcel. The total FARfor each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the Office zone district, the followin~ shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created throu~h the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: If all buildinf<s on what was the fatherinf< parcel remain wholly residential in use. the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. 2 t""'\ ) n If any portion of a buildinf< on a lot crdded by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the ad;acent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use accordinf< to the R -6 standards.. If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC wuiarwes a."ld henw:es are enl)' permitted e."l tJ1e parcel that centaim; a kisteric struCRlI"e. unless variances or bonuses are approved by the HPC. The proposed amendment to section 26.710.180 is as follows: 26.710.180 Office (0). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a wcry as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. B. Permitted uses. Thefollowing uses are permitted as of right in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Detached residential dwellings, multi-family dwellings; 2. Professional business offices; 3. Accessory residential dwellings "restricted to affordable housing guidelines; 4. Home occupations; 5. Group homes; 6. Accessory buildings and uses; 7. Dormitory; and 3 1"""\ ii' ,I o 8. A mixed-use building(s) comprised of a residential dwelling unit and permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district so long as such conditional use has been approved subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425; and 9. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040. 10. Two detached residential dwellinf(s on a 9,000 square foot lot containinf( a historic landmark, of which one unit shall be reStricted as affordable housinf( to the middle income price and occupancy f!Uidelines.' The affordable housinf( unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the two {/wellinf(s. In the alternative, both may be free market units if a cash-in-lieu payment is made for each dwellinf( per the APCHA f(uidelines in effect at the time. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Only for those structures that have received historic landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery, bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical instruments), music studio, restaurant, shop craft industry, visual arts gallery; provided, however, that (a) no more than two (2) such conditional uses shall be allowed in each structure, and (b) offstreet parking is provided, with alley access for those conditional uses along Main Street; 2. Duplex residential dwelling, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the duplex. In the alte."nat-i~'e, hoth may he free ma.",Icet units if an accessory dwelling u.'1it shall he provided.fer ead unit; In the alternative; both may be free market units if a cash-in-lieu payment is made for each dwellinf( per the APCHA f(uidelines in effect at the time; 3. Two (2) detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum area of 6, 000 square feet, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum ofone-third(1/3) of the totalfloor area of the two dwellings. In the alternative, htJth may he fre~ marlfet units if an accessory dl'.'elling unit skat! he p."Gvided.fer eac.1q 'unit; In the aliernative, both may be .1.....".,'.. ...... ',' ,',_ ...., , . . free market units if a cash-in-lieu payment is made for each dwellinf( per the ApCHA f!Uidelines in effect at the time; 4. Child care center; 4 1""'\ ,......." 'j 5. Commercial parking lot or parkihg structure that is independent of required off-street parking, provided that it is not located abutting Main Street; 6. Health andfitnessfacility; and 7. Lodge units and lodge units with kitchens. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000. For lots created by Section 26. 480. 030, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3,000. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwelling: 6,000. b. Duplex: 3,000 per unit. c. Multi-family dwellings on lot between 6,000 and 9, 000 square feet: Studio: 1,000. 1 bedroom; 1,200. 2 bedroom: 2,000. 3 bedroom: 3,000. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. d. Multi-family dwellings on lot of more than 9,000 square feet: Studio: 1,000. 1 bedroom; 1,250. 2 bedroom: 2,100. 3 bedroom: 3,630. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. e. Multi-family dwellings on a lot of27, 000 squarefiet or less, when at least fifty percent (50%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 500. 1 bedroom: 600. 2 bedroom: 1,000. 3 bedroom: 1,500. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area. f Multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square fiet or less, when one hundred percent (100%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 300. 1 bedroom: 400. 5 1"""\ ~ 2 bedroom: 800. 3 bedroom: 1,200. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created bv Section 26.480.030, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. The amendments to this section include allowing two detached homes on a 9,000 square foot lot as a permitted use. Currently, two detached houses are allowed as a conditional use for landmark lots as small as 6,000 square feet. The new permitted use is an incentive for historic preservation and is consistent with what is allowed in the neighboring R-6 zone district. This section is also amended to allow lots created by the landmark lot split program to be as small as 3,000 square feet, also consistent with the way lot splits are addressed in the residential zone districts. REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.310, Amendments To The Land Use Code And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.314.040 provides nine (A-I) standards for City Council and 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 amendment relative to them, are provided below. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. RESPONSE: Historic Landmark Lot Splits are currently allowed in two residential zone districts; R-6 and R-15A. The goal of the lot split is to divide the mass that could be added onto a historic building into two or more structures. The office zone district, the subject of this code amendment, is primarily located along Main Street, and there are four or five parcels that would likely be affected by this application. The goal of dividing up the allowed floor area is as benefIcial in the Main Street neighborhood as it is in the neighborhoods where the lot split program currently exists. As part of this code amendment, language in the subdivision exemption and growth management exemption standards that states that the lot split is granted for the purpose of creating one additional single family dwelling, which would be an obstacle to commercial office development on lot splits on Main Street, has been removed. Within the Office zone district, subdivision of a historic landmark property will be allowed for any use, commercial or residential. Staff and the review boards find that there is no negative effect from this code amendment and that it is in keeping with other stated goals and purposes in the Land Use Code. It creates no change to development rights, only an option for fee simple ownership rather than condominiumization, which has been viewed as an important historic preservation incentive. Staff finds that this standard is met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with, all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 6 1""\ n RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan encourages infill development within the historic townsite. It also encourages efforts to maintain an active, mixed use character along Main Street and calls for the extension of the historic landnlark lot split program to additional zone districts. Staff finds that this standard is met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment does not create new lan~ uses, and does not specifically increase density since a duplex or twd detached houses are already allowed on a 6,000 square foot lot in the office zone district as a conditional use. Staff finds that this standard is met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have any effect on traffic generation or road safety because, as stated above, the density is already envisioned in the zone district regulations. Staff finds that this standard is met. 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 code amendment is not anticipated to have any additional effect on infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. Staff finds that this standard is met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have a negative effect on the natural environment. Staff finds that this standard is met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen: RESPONSE: Main Street was historically a residential area. Today, only the western portion of the street (from 7th to 2nd Street) ret:;lins that character, becoming more commercial and lodge oriented as one travels east. ' The historic preservation design guidelines in regard to Main Street discuss the concept of preserving some of the patterns and characteristics of a residential area, while allowing for a mix of uses. The code amendment would support that goal by providing an incentive to break new construction down into structures that reflect a variety of building sizes. Staff finds that this standard is met. 7 (""', r""'\ , H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: Main Street has been negatively affected by traffic congestion. Any efforts to preserve a small scale, pedestrian orientation to the area, through the creation of some more modestly sized buildings, would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Staff finds that this standard is met. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in confli~t with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent 'of this title. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment is in hannony with the public interest by providing an incentive for the successful preservation of historic buildings. There has been significant community input of late calling. for more assistance and options for owners of designated properties. Staff finds that this standard is met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff, HPC, and P&Z recommend that Council approve the code amendment, finding that the review standards irre met. ' RECOMMENDED MOTION:") move to adopt Ordinance #24,Sedes of2001." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance #24, Series of2001 A. Photographs of properties likely to be affected by the code amendment. 8 (""', ,-, , ; EXHIBIT A 604 W. Main Street 430 W. Main Street 9 f""'., ,-" ~........ [9 320 W. Main Street 201 E. Main Street 10 t) MEMORANDUM (""\ \ "'\tlr - TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Direct~ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Code Amendment to Section 26.480.030, Subdivision Exemptions, and Section 26.710.180, Office Zone District, First Reading of Ordinance #14, Series of2001 ' DATE: July 9, 2001 SUMMARY: The Community Development Departinent has received an application requesting a code amendment to extend the Historic Landmark Lot Split program, currently only available in two residential zone districts (R-6 andR-15A), to the Office zone district. The area of town that will be affected by the amendment is Main Street, from 7th Street to Monarch Street. By way of explanation of the historic landmark lot split program, each zone district in Aspen has a minimum lot size assigned to it. Anyone subdividing a property must adhere to that minimum, except for landmarks, which may create smaller lots. Development rights and floor area are not increased in any way; an owner is simply allowed to sell off part of the land in a fee simple, rather than condominium trans,a, ction. Fee simple .. '...... ......l........... ownership is perceived to be more valuable, and this program has been very successful for our historic preservation efforts. Staff, HPC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend Council approve the code amendment. For your information, photographs of the properties potentially affected are attached to this memo. APPLICANT: Scott and Caroline MacDonald, represented by Bob Starodoj. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.310.020, Procedure for Amendment, a development application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recomn1el1ded 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. r- r"\ ~",';,I/ , PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The application is to amend Section, 26.480.030 and Section 26.710.180 to read as follows, with text to be eliminated stricken out and text to be added underlined: Section 26.480.030(A)( 4) addresses the types of development eligible for subdivision exemptions. Please note that staff has included corrections to citations in this passage that were not fixed during the most recent update of the Land Use Code. Section 26.480.030(A)(4), Subdivision Exemptions 4. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling, or for commercial development in the "0, Office Zone District." The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.88.Q3Q(A)(2) 26.480. 030(A) (2) and(4), section 26.! QQ. Q5Q~1)(2)(c) 26.470. 070(C) for residential development ,or (D) for commercial development and section 26.72. Q! Q(G) 26.415.01 O(D) of this Code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of nine thousand (9,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or 0, Office zone district, or a minimum of thirteen thousand (13,000) square feet and be located in the R-15A 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. In the "0, Office Zone District, "total FARshallnot exceed the maximum floor area allowed for the proposed use on the orif<inal parcel. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. The proposed amendment to section 26.710.180 is as follows: 26.710.180 Office (0). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character offormer residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Office (0) zone district: 2 1""\ 1. Detached residential dwellings, multi-family dwellings; 2. Professional business offices; 3. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; 4. Home occupations; 5. Group homes; 6. Accessory buildings and uses; 7. Dormitory; and 8. A mixed-use building(s) comprised of a residential dwelling unit and permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district so long as such conditional use has been approved subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425; and 9. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040. 10. Two detached residential dwellinf!;s on a 9,000 square foot lot containinf!; a historic landmark. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Only for those structures that have received historic landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery, bed and brealifast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical instruments), music studio, restaurant, shop craft industry, visual arts gallery; provided, however, that (a) no more than two (2) such conditional uses shall be allowed in each structu~e, and (b) off-street parking is provided, with alley access for those conditional uses along Main Street; 2. Duplex residential dwelling, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the duplex. 1n the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be providedfor each unit; 3. Two (2) detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum area of6, 000 square feet, of which one unit shall be 3 t) r--. to', restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the totalfloor area of the two dwellings. In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be providedfor each unit; 4. Child care center; 5. Commercial parking lot or parking structure that is independent of required off-street parking, provided that it is not located abutting Main Street; 6. Health andfltnessfacility; and 7. Lodge units and lodge units with kitchens. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000. For lots created by Section 26.480.030, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3,000. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwelling: 6,000. b. Duplex: 3,000 per unit. c. Multi-family dwellings on lot between 6,000 and 9, 000 square feet: Studio: 1,000. 1 bedroom; 1,200. 2 bedroom: 2,000. 3 bedroom: 3,000. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. d. Multi-family dwellings on lot of more than 9,000 square feet: Studio: 1,000. 1 bedroom; 1,250. 2 bedroom: 2,100. 3 bedroom: 3,630. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. e. Multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when at least fifty percent (50%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 500. 1 bedroom: 600. 2 bedroom: 1,000. 3 bedroom: 1,500. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 500 square fiet of lot area. 4 .~ ;l f Multi-family dwellings on a lot of27, 000 square feet or less, when one hundred percent (100%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 300. I bedroom: 400. 2 bedroom: 800. 3 bedroom: 1,200. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by Section 26.480.030, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. The amendments to this section include allowing two detached homes on a 9,000 square foot lot as a permitted use. Currently, two detached houses are allowed as a conditional use for landmark lots as small as 6,000 square feet. ' The new permitted use is an incentive for historic preservation and is consistent with what is allowed in the neighboring R-6 zone district. This section is, also amended to allow lots created by the landmark lot split program to be as small as 3,000 square feet, also consistent with the way lot splits are addressed in the resid~ntial zone districts. REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.310, Amendments To The Land Use Code And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.314.040 provides nine (A-I) standards for City Council and 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 amendment relative to them, are provided below. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. RESPONSE: Historic Landmark Lot Splits are currently allowed in two residential zone districts; R-6 and R-15A. The goal of the lot split is to divide the mass that could be added onto a historic building into two or more structures. The office zone district, the subject of this code lljIlendment, is primarily located along Main Street, and there are four or five parcels that would likely be affected by this application. To date, the lot split provision has applied only to residential areas. The goal of dividing up the allowed floor area is as beneficial in the Main Street neighborhood as it is in the West End. As a result, language in the subdivision exemption and growth management exemption standards that states that the lot split is granted for the purpose of creating one additional single family dwelling has been removed as part of this code amendment. Within the Office zone district, subdivision of a historic landmark property will be allowed for any use, commercial or residential. Staff and the review boards find that there is, no negative effect from this code amendment and that it is keeping with other stated goals and purposes in the Land Use 5 /"",. if n. Code. It creates no change to development rights, only an option for fee simple ownership rather than condominiumization, which has been viewed as an important historic preservation incentive. Staff finds that this standard is met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan encourages infill development within the historic townsite. It also encourages efforts to maintain an active, mixed use character along Main Street and calls for the extension of the historic landmark lot split program to additional zone districts. Staff finds that this standard is met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment does not create new land uses, and does not specifically increase density since a duplex or two detached houses are already allowed on a 6,000 square foot lot in the office zone district as a conditional use. Staff finds that this standard is met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have any effect on traffic generation or road safety because, as stated above, the density is already envisioned in the zone district regulations. Staff finds that this standard is met. 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 ~apacity 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 code amendment is not anticipated to have any additional effect on infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. Staff finds that this standard is met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have a negative effect on the natural environment. Staff finds that this standard is met. G. Whether the proposed a,mendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: Main Street was historically a residential area. Today, only the western portion of the street (from 7th to 2nd Street) retains that character, becoming more commercial and lodge oriented as one travels east. 6 ,1""\ ~, 'f... <,9i The historic preservation design guidelines in regard to Main Street discuss the concept of preserving some of the patterns and characteristics of a residential area, while allowing for a mix of uses. The code amendment would support that goal by providing an incentive to break new construction down into struCtures that reflect a variety of building sizes. Staff finds that this standard is met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: Main Street has been negatively affected by traffic congestion. Any efforts to preserve a small scale, pedestrian orientation to the area, through the creation of some more modestly sized buildings, would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Staff finds that this standard is met. 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: The proposed amendment is in harmony with the public interest by providing an incentive for the successful preservation of historic buildings. There has been significant community input of late calling for more assistance and options for owners of designated properties. Staff finds that this standard is m~t. RECOMMENDATION: Staff, HPC, and P&Z recommend that Council approve the code amendment, finding that the review standards are met. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance #1:i Series of2001, on First Reading." Exhibits: 7tl- ordinance~, Series of2001 A. Photographs of properties likely to be affected by the code amendment. 7 ~ ,~, ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~7D lA). MCf\\I\, ~ ~\.A IA~ ( '7 , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ,200~ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) 55. County of Pitkin ) I, ,~ wl~ \ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to t le City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certt:'" thelt [ ha\'c compiled with the public notice rcqulrcments of Section 26.304.060 lEl i)!-lhc A:;pl:n Lanel USe Codc iillhc fu[kJ\vill~ tl1~Hll1tT 'K-'PUhlil'WiOil oll/olic,,: By the publlcation in the lcgalnoticc >cction of an otlicial paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) (bys prior to thc public heanng. A copy oflhe publicaliol/ is uliuched herelo, Posting ofno!ice: By posting of notice, \vhich forrn \\\15 obtained fronl the' Conm1UrUty Dcvdopment Department, which was made of suitable, . ) waterproofmatenals, whIch was not less than twenty-two (22) Inches wIde' and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the Pllblic hearing and was continllously visible from the _fay of ,200_, to and including the date and time ofthl! public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ) _ lvlailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) ~. ("", Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the pl"anning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. , )~ ~b" The foregoing "Affidavit ot'Notice" was acknowledged betare me thi!P'" dav \)t'_~_____ 200..:t..b\ _J,<?-- ~ ;;"___~.:r:-,~ _"-.____ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFfICiAL SEAL ----'", , ',... ~'b'"j;llllfcN&rlCE' ".,',.. ',<,. RE: 320.VlJ1~fi{Sl2GI?~~~:~t;1~'~c'hearirlg NOnCE'lS):!, T', ," "'"'''' , '" will be l1~Jd on Wednesday. June ,12,',2002 at a --:7;:;:meetirlg t6 egin at5:00)l':nl.!?eI~~ ,the Aspe~ Historic P eservation "C?Wl11l~~19l:)., ,~()un,~d Cha~bers, ity Hall,13Q'S:'q~~.J!~:?t:" J\s~n;l~ c'Onsideran app)icatlon, %_t.lRm.I~t~J}Y,w,~,Sc nct" Mary'Caroline~c[j,onat4"re_qu~~ln?, appr~ 0u fora, S' ~4:t Sideyar(i's~tb:a;~~ varl(l1l~e,.9!!ih~., ";",deda;""a:"res'ult or a proposed lot split.: Ine u'; ',." "..........---"-'-H":tiO:w'1Jr~n St and IS d'S': -pro'berlYa~s ~~~:t~~p,a~]OC'k"4~;-tiw'-~~d''(6'wr(s)0'; scrl_~...;..,."_.,_-...,.__,.".;"_..,;..",,,,,,,,,,,,,",_,._...__,__~5J/;;";"2":"_':";''''''''''' of Aspen ] ~'A~~Gth at For further mformatlo /cdrttact _ my u rle ~the ASpen/ P;t\{ln^Co munlty Development De-- partment, 130 S Galen $t, Aspen, CO (970) 9'2Q. 5096 amy~cl aspen c us s/$uzannah ReId, Chair '. -. A;pen Hlsto_~ICrr~~~r,~~~~f?;5liddf^:' Publi5he(\_,iJl):!,~,~})'en}:lm~~ ?n.,~~" <:... (8773) -- ",,,,,.',,,,,~'i>"'''''''NI.;l>{!(~ ._.. M--~W';; COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IVI; commiSSion expires: 11}':;'"3) ;:).~ '3. S'u Notary Pubiic ATTACHMENTS: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL o (') 1.[.-. · MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, DeputyPlanning Director~ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Code Amendment to Section 26.480.030, Subdivision Exemptions, and Section 26.710.180, Office Zone District- PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 5, 2001 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department has received an application requesting a code amendment to extend the Historic Landmark Lot Split program, currently only available in two residential zone districts (R-6 and R-15A), to the Office Zone District. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application on June 5, 2001, and indicated concerns with the effect of the amendment in light of work underway with the Infill Committee. The Board asked staff to advise them whether there was a way, in the current code, to accomplish the subdivision of the property owned by the applicant. Staff has met as a group and discussed the situation. It is our opinion that the only process available would be to review the development as a "PUD, Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Review," allowable for lots under 27,000 square feet. That process allows for variances from certain dimensional requirements, such as minimum lot size. We have concerns about whether such an action would be appropriate, since the PUD is designed for projects with "substantial public benefit." The subdivision of this property is not more beneficial to the community than subdivision of other historic properties along Main Street. Staff would not want to see this pun process for small lots misused, as it is intended to deal with projects such as the DRACO 100% affordable housing application, which has clear advantages for the town as a whole. It is our recommendation that the Planning and Zoning Commission support the code amendment as proposed. It is difficult to speculate what might come out of the Infill Committee, but we do not believe that this code amendment will in any way tie the hands of that group. The type of uses generally permitted on properties in the Office Zone District is not changing, and small lots are being permitted to be split off, which is much of the intent of the infill discussion. If the Planning and Zoning Commission will not recommend approval for the code amendment, the applicant has the option of proceeding to Council with the P&Z's recommendation of denial, or to pursue condominiumization, an already allowed process for transferring ownership of part of their property. A ~ Please note that staff has attached photographs of the properties potentially affected by the code amendment for P&Z's reference. APPLICANT: Scott and Caroline MacDonald, represented by Bob Starodoj. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.310.020, 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. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The application is to amend Section 26.480.030 and Section 26.710.180 to read as follows, with text tobe eliminated stricken out and text to be added underlined: Section 26.480.030.A.4 addresses the types of development eligible for subdivision exemptions. Please note that staff has included corrections to citations in this passage that were not fixed during the most recent update of the Land Use Code. Section 26.480.030.A.4, Subdivision Exemptions 4. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmarkfor the development of one new single-family dwelling, or for commercial development in the "0, Office Zone District." The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.&8. !J](')(A) (2) 26.480. OlO.A.2 and 4, section 26.] (,)0 050(.1)(2)(c) 26.470.070. C for residential development, or D for commercial development and section 26. 72. (')](')(G) 26.415.010.D of this Code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of nine thousand (9,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or 0, Office Zone district, or a minimum of thirteen thousand (13,000) square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowedfor a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the "0, Office Zone District, " total FAR shall not exceed the maximum floor area allowed for the proposed use on the orif<inal parcel. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. 2 (""', n The proposed amendment to section 26.110.186 is as follows: 26.710.180 Office (0). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character offormer residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Detached residential dwellings, multi-family dwellings; 2. Professional business offices; 3. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; 4. Home occupations; 5. Group homes; 6. Accessory buildings and uses; 7. Dormitory; and 8. A mixed-use building(s) comprised of a residential dwelling unit and permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district so long as such conditional use has been approved subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425; and 9. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040. 10. Two detached residential dwellinzs on a 9,000 square foot lot containinz a historic landmark. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Only for those structures that have received historic landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery, bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical instruments), music studio, 3 t""\ t""\ F ;! restaurant, shop craft industry, visual arts gallery; provided, however, that (a) no more than two (2) such conditional uses shall be allowed in each structure, and (b) offstreet parking is provided, with alley access for those conditional uses along Main Street; 2. Duplex residential dwelling, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the to tal floor area of the duplex, In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be providedfor each unit; 3. Two (2) detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the two dwellings. In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit; 4. Child care center; 5. Commercial parking lot or parking structure that is independent of required offstreet parking, provided that it is not located abutting Main Street; 6. Health and fitness facility; and 7. Lodge units and lodge units with kitchens, D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000. For lots created by Section 26.480.030, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3,000. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwelling: 6,000. b. Duplex: 3,000 per unit. c. Multif'amily dwellings on lot between 6,000 and 9, 000 square feet: Studio: 1,000. 1 bedroom; 1,200. 2 bedroom: 2,000. 3 bedroom: 3,000. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. d. Multif'amily dwellings on lot of more than 9,000 square feet: Studio: 1,000. 4 r') ~ \ ;"1, 1 bedroom; 1,250. 2 bedroom: 2,100. 3 bedroom: 3,630. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. e. Multi-family dwellings on a lot of27,000 square feet or less, when at least fifty percent (50%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 500. 1 bedroom: 600. 2 bedroom: 1,000. 3 bedroom: 1,500. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area. f Multi-family dwellings on a lot of27,000 square feet or less, when one hundred percent (100%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 300. 1 bedroom: 400. 2 bedroom: 800. 3 bedroom: 1,200. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by Section 26.480.030, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. The amendments to this section include allowing two detached homes on a 9,000 square foot lot as a permitted use. Currently, two detached hou.ses are allowed as a conditional use for landmark lots as small as 6,000 square feet. The new permitted use is an incentive for historic preservation and is consistent with what is allowed in the neighboring R-6 zone district. This section is also amended to allow lots created by the landmark lot split program to be as small as 3,000 square feet, also consistent with the way lot splits are addressed in the residential zone districts. REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.310, Amendments To The Land Use Code And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.314.040 provides nine (A-I) standards for City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed amendments to the text of the Land Use Code. These standards, and staffs evaluation of the amendment relative to them, are provided below. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. RESPONSE: Historic Landmark Lot Splits are currently allowed in two residential zone districts; R-6 and R-15A. The goal of the lot split is to divide the mass that could be added onto a historic building into two or more structures. 5 f') I') The office zone district, the subject of this code amendment, is primarily located along Main Street, as are the four or five parcels that would be affected by the application. While the goal of dividing up the allowed floor area is as beneficial in this neighborhood as it is in the West End for instance, there is currently language in the subdivision exemption and growth management exemption standards that states that the lot split is granted for the purpose of creating one additional single family dwelling. Since the goal of the office zone district is to provide space for office and commercial uses, locking a property into a residential use in this neighborhood could be considered in conflict with the land use code. The amendment shown above allows for the subdivision of the property for any use, commercial or residential. After much debate, staff has come to the conclusion that there is no negative effect from this code amendment. It is creating no change to development rights, only an option for fee simple ownership rather than condominiumization, which has been viewed as an important historic preservation incentive. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan encourages infill development within the historic townsite. It also encourages efforts to maintain an active, mixed use character along Main Street and calls for the extension of the historic landmark lot split program to additional zone districts. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment does not create new land uses, and does not specifically increase density since a duplex or two detached houses are already allowed on a 6,000 square foot lot in the office zone district as a conditional use. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have any effect on traffic generation or road safety because, as stated above, the density is already envisioned in the zone district regulations. 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 code amendment is not anticipated to have any additional 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. 6 r'1 (") ,> RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have any additional 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 code amendment is not anticipated to have a negative effect on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: Main Street was historically a residential area. Today, only the western portion of the street (from 7th to 2nd Street) retains that character, becoming more commercial and lodge oriented as one travels east. The historic preservation design guidelines in regard to Main Street discuss the concept of preserving some of the patterns and characteristics of a residential area, while allowing for a mix of uses. The code amendment would support that goal by providing an incentive to break new construction down into structures that reflect a variety of building Sizes. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: Main Street has been negatively affected by traffic congestion. Any efforts to preserve a small scale, pedestrian orientation to the area would be beneficial to the neighborhood. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in confli~t with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment is in harmony with the public interest by providing an incentive for the successful preservation of historic buildings. There has been significant community input of late calling for more assistance and options for owners of designated properties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend Council approval of the code amendment, finding that the review standards are met." RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #~eries of 2001, finding that the review standards have been met." Exhibits: ') ') _ Resolution N~eries of2001 A. Photographs of properties likely to be affected by the code amendment. 7 f"""\ RESOLUTION OF l'HE ASPENPLANN'ING,AN'D ZONIN'G COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO tlIE FOLLO'\VING SECTIONS OF THE ASPEN LAND USE CODE: SECTION 26.480.030, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS AND SECTION 26.710.180, OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT Resolution No. 22, Series of2001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has received an application from Scott and Caroline MacDonald for a code amendment to allow historic landmark lot splits in the "0, Office Zone District;" and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.310.020, 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; and WHEREAS, the review standards for a text amendment are stated in Section 26.314.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has consulted with the Historic Preservation Commissi~n and, in a report prepared by Amy Guthrie, dated June 19, 2001, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval of the amendment; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 19, 2001, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission considered .the recommendation made by the Community Development Director, took and considered public testimony and recommended, by a vote of 5 to 0, that City Council approve the text amendment finding that the review standards are met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends Council amend Section 26.480.030, Subdivision Exemptions, and Section 26.710.180, Office Zone District to read as follows: Section 26.480.030.A.4, Subdivision Exemptions 4. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling, or for commercial development in the "0, Office Zone District." The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26. 480. 030.A. 2 and 4, section 26.470.070.C for 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 456617 07/18/2001 12:01P RESOLUTI DRVIS SILVI 1 of 5 R 25.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 1""\ residential development ,or D for commercial development and section 26.415.010.D of this Code, and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of nine thousand (9,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or 0, Office Zone district, or a minimum of thirteen thousand (13,000) square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowedfor a duplex on the original parcel. The total FARfor each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the "0, Office Zone District, " total FAR shall not exceed the maximum floor area allowed for the proposed use on the original parcel. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. 26.710.180 Office (0). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. ' . B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Detached residential dwellings, multi-family dwellings; 2. Professional business offices; 3. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; 4. Home occupations; 5. Group homes; 6. Accessory buildings and uses; 7. Dormitory; and 8. A mixed-use building(s) comprised of a residential dwelling unit and permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district so long as such conditional 111111I1111I11111111111111I11111111111111I1111111111111 456617 07/18/2001 12:01P RESOLUTI DAVIS 5ILVI 2 of 5 R 25.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ~ . use has been approved subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425; and 9. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040. 10. Two detached residential dwellings on a 9,000 square foot lot containing a historic landmark. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as in the Office (0) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Only for those structures that have received historic landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery, bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical instruments), music studio, restaurant, shop craft industry, visual arts gallery; provided, however, that (a) no more than two (2) such conditional uses shall be allowed in each structure, and (b) o.ff-street parking is provided, with alley access for those conditional uses along Main Street; 2. Duplex residential dwelling, .of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the duplex. In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be providedfor each unit; 3. Two (2) detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum area of 6, 000 square feet, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the two dwellings. In the alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be providedfor each unit; 4. Child care center; 5. Commercial parking lot or parking structure that is independent of required o.ff-street parking, provided that it is not located abutting Main Street; 6. Health and fitness facility; and 7. Lodge units and lodge units with kitchens. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000. For lots created by Section 26.480.030, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3,000. /1111111111111111111111111111 111/1111111111111111I11111 456617 07/18/2001 12:011' RESOLOTIDRvrs SaLVI 3 of 5 R 25.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO f"""'.\ 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwelling: 6,000. b. Duplex: 3,000 per unit. c. Multi-family dwellings on lot between 6,000 and 9, 000 square feet: Studio: 1,000. 1 bedroom; 1,200. 2 bedroom: 2,000. 3 bedroom: 3,000. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. d Multi-family dwellings on lot of more than 9,000 square feet: Studio: 1,000. 1 bedroom; 1,250. 2 bedroom: 2,100. 3 bedroom: 3,630. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. e. Multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when at least/ifty percent (50%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 500. 1 bedroom: 600. 2 bedroom: 1,000. 3 bedroom: 1,500. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 500 squareftet of lot area. f Multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when one hundred percent (100%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing: Studio: 300. 1 bedroom: 400. 2 bedroom: 800. 3 bedroom: 1,200. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (fier): 60. For lots created by Section 26.480.030, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30. 1111111111111111I11111111111111111111111111111111111111 456617 07/18/2001 12:01P RESOLUTI ORVIS SILVI 4 of 5 R 25.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO /""'Ii r) APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 19,2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: "- CityO~ ) Jf Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: : planning/aspenlresos. doc/p&z/officelotspl itamend 111111I111111111I111111111I11111111111111I1111111111111 456617 07/18/2001 12:01P ~ESOLUTI ORVIS SILVI 5 of 5 R 25.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO t""\, ,........, , j EXHIBIT A 604 W. Main Street 430 W. Main Street 8 J f'"'\, f) 320 W. Main Street 201 E. Main Street 9 "--...-..-,.-'.....,- -._,_.--'----_........_-_......_..._-,-~.^-~.,""---,._'.-~',-~._~-------~-_._,---~ -. ~." ' '''''-''''' i~,i~;~~.,~o<=ih.&-:;~~d;~~.-~t-.=~~0~~.g~~:&~~~Ev.:ft~~:~~~1~~r:~~~~~~~~~-I~:.;...~.~.o;;::-:r7~~~~m>~!.~;i~~i.~~ r"\ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU:' Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director ~ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Historic LandmarkJot Split Code Amendment- Referral Comment RE: DAT~:' May 23, 2001 SUMMARY: Currently,historic landn1arklot splits are allowed in only two residential zone districts; R-6 and R-15A. An application has been submitted to amend the land use code to allow landmark lot splits in the Office Zone district, which is primarily the Main Street Historic District. The code amendment will be reviewed by the Planriing and Zoning Commission and City Council. The HPC is asked to provide comments for those boards to consider. Staff has some concerns about the timing of this ainenchmint, given our current effort to look at our program holistically, overhauling the ordinance and incentive program, however, the owner has the right to bring forward an application now. The board should be awarethJl.t, in the R-6 andR-15Azol1e districts, two detached homes on a lot of at least 9,000 square feet is a use by right for landmarks, so the only effect of the lot split is tp change the form pf ownership (fee simple ys. condominiums.) In the . Office zone district, two detached dwellings are allowed on a lot as small as 6,000 square feet as a conditionaiuse, meaning that there is an additional review process required to determine if the, density is appropriate. We may want to consider elimina1ing the conditional use; and making two detached houses allowed by right, as an additional incentive. ' (. ,. "...,., ~ County of Pitkin } } } 55. AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 26.304.060(E) State of Colorado I, -- ~a\M.e..s L),^d +- , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: I. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the _ day of ,200_ (which is _ days prior to the public hearing date of ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the _ day of , 200_, to the --.:.... day of , 200_. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. '3. Pv.k),sl-toed Y\ohc..e '~~<-"":., ,. PilBEl(NO""ctr" ... ", ..~.." , ..', s~1. ".. ~~'A-2b \V:.rA1N ST.llISrORrC LAN!'MARKLOT > .',:;:.<-'NOll~f:JS'I:IE~Y ~"th~t apu~nc: hearing ",., will 00 h~1ClonWednesday;~ptembef 26:'20<)1 'f'- a.t/&:'m~l~t(':t~''6'eilri'~t~:OO-l>~!D'''~~~)~~ . ~pen " ,Hlsto1!~,'_r~~rv,a~,9,r1\,C'?m:n:!,!,s~Jo:n; , <:oufI<:i1",. ,s"Clfy J{illr,)~O'~" ~_ale_na S!;; _ - "ASpen;1"", t~':applil:atip~~~~,'?~~@:f,~Y: W. S~o~ta:n ",Cal'?lI~e M4>Ona1d r'AAuest. ingappflWi\I' ,', '" ,a):lrst5'!~c~din~~,!#:~pllt an'~ an~tsl(ieyal'(:r, set~_c~ var~nl:;e- fort!te '<ex1si:\Jig:no~s'g:, ,!hC P'rot>enyJs l~t~-at)20 '. "W 'MalnSt~ ana Is descrlbedasJ.;Ots N-P, Block -t1,City'an(lT6~~sltforAi~'h'~-^":':""_"'''''' , ,""',',C .'"" 'For, ~hE!( irirdfn:i:ai:lo~,'~o!:lt_a~t_AiriY (jlltllrle~t the':Aspen7PiJ.ldn""C9~-I11,!ll!ifY' pevelopine~t" oepartmell.t~, ,~~~:}~aI~,~~ ,~t~,.Asp,e~;~?J~7,~), .; - 920'5096; amY8@Cr.alIpen;'CO;~~ .._ ':-,:: :" ,,: 'i}^:,'.'7-,::>'"T<'{'F/,,:,,:,;;.'7~wWSU2:anlUlh"R~cl, 'Ch31r : <,;,' -\'A-gPeri ltfstorl~'PresetvlltiO~ c;?iltpl~I,~n '-""':','.'ii~:.; rlibUs-lied In The_ASpeII TImes 'on'septem~r 8, ~" .. '76480) , Signature Signed before me this day of 200_. by WITNESS MY HAND Ai'ID OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: Notary Public ___ .I r""'. ~, AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE: CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 3'20 IAI MC?)\(/\ 1;/0/02- ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEAIU1'lG DATE: ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) T, ~ ~ ~ '(J --5, l- r 1 V\ elf- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that T have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ~blic'aflon o/notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official ,paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen(15) " days prior to the public hearing. A copy 0/ the publication is attached hereto. ----'-- Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obta0ed from the) 0"" ComrrlUnity Development Department, which was made of suitable, ) waterPtoof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches ,vide ',. and t'.venty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not , :) ~les~ thanqne inch in height Said notice was posted at least ten (10) days 0, prior to. the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ da.y of )'-';1:""""" ';,;!f " .',200_, to and including the date and time of the public ''''''?../( heanpg.' A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto:' ~~--z::;:.zZ~ _ Mailing o/notice. By the mailing ofa notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid ' U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at leastfifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to.any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service' district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date 6fthe public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. J ) (continued on next page) ~, ,~ Rezoning or le;,,1 amendmenl. \Vhenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Tttle, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulaciorl."or otherwise, the requirement of an aCCLLrate survey map or other sllfficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (I 5) days prior to the public hearing on sllch amendments. ~~I, co-~i- nature ' ,,", ...' . . iL T~e foregoin,g ,'-Affidav, it of Notice" was acknowledged before m~ day 01 A (i)r'.:::.\ "=c-' 200 ~, by -ac~S ,hl ~-::..::.:'---- -,',', -:",~.,:~"'::'--:" ~"'.:~:,.~:";;;~~uc NOTICE ~N-b~~~'L9T - . D~trj RE.: 320 W. MAIN ST. Hl~!ORlC , "",, -', ::' _, COU~ APLlT AND VARIANCES , N that a publiC hearing, ,In IV ;.O,T..'C.E.,.,'S".".H,E"R, ~B"YGl~"d'M,,:y.'.8.. 2002' at a R'~ Hill be he\don Wedn SY'before the Aspen Cal 'lleel:ing to, begin at. 5: .-t:~mission," CouncilT1, .. "', 'I PreservatlOn" - , S As""n to Hlst?rC, ,'.,' Hall 13 S, Galena t., "-'" ti Chambe~s" SI~Y . ~tio submitted by W. Scott \I con_Si(I~~,_an.a'P~hc Doo:aldreguesting appro- 1 and Mary, Carohne \',1c k'LotSplit including a I valf6r a Historic Landmari:ui.d a: waiver of the 500SQU3.re loot fAR bt:UScarrrage house,': The' parking required lor 520 W. MaIn St. and is ~e- property is locate~ at lock 44, City and Townslt~ iibedasLotsNP,B"_,, ,r sc , " .' ': ,,'-.' ,:" ~:...' ...-:":-, ":::'~ ":',:,:'" "":', "':."'" ,...'" """ ",:, '..", t of Aspen.' .. _r, contact Amy Gut~!I:~, for lu~ther informatlon~unitYbeve\opment oe: the" Aspen/~lt\dn ~om St Aspen; CO (970) 92().. . :partment, I S. Gaena u~i' " . 5096. amyg ,i.asp, n.co':s/5 i.iz ,no',h R,',ld. Ch.a,',,' , .'nCommisslon As n Historic Preservatlo April \3,'2002. Th A Pen Times on _12!bliS~~~J.:__ e s" _.__ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My cJ~n expires: ~" Notary Public ATTACHlVlENTS: COPY OF THE PUPl,.JCATJON PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNlvlENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED B UdAlL \ ) #r C61' ~ . ~u . ~ ~o- 001'6 ~ ~~cP _ 6 /lb ) lY\~0 r"', t'EfVED MAt{ 1 6 2001 CO ASPEN I ~" ^ ," MMUNITY DEVELOPMENi ....-- y/ ~ I " .:i. #, r"1 LAND USE ApPLICATION 0 7, "PROJECT: Name: ApPLICANT: Name' i \ .j...... l .. Phone #: q '-{?> REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check all that apply): o Conditional Use D Conceptual PUD o Special Review D Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) o Design Review Appyal D Conceptual SPA o GMQSAllotment D Final SPA(& SPA Amendment) o GMQS Exemption D Subdivision o ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream D Subdivision Exemption (includes Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Mountain View Plane 1KI Lot Split o Lot Line Adjustment D Temporary Use D TextlMap Amendment D Conceptual Historic Devt. D Final Historic Development D Minor Historic Devt. D Historic Demolition D Historic Designation D Small Lodge Conversion! Expansion D Other: EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Cj cY07) -:5c; tt Lv t l;..J ~ tGu 0 oi e t,"" c.l,/\ -Pel r .,f'5d e \11 1v1~! (\.h S"Uj')A ( cJI i')/)..l \c:tL, ! (y ,~~ 1\ ' J'l . e<;4 n ol.AJ.: e \\ v' -- '\ , V PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) ! o-t- <'0\ ~ , e..o.c..h \0+ i}..ilth C\ . J c .JAecJ d cuel \ ' -Q)u <) Have you attached the following? o Pre-Application Conference Summary o Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement o Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form o Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents o Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents o Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application , 012 nrv'\ I U eell 1 l- i, \'11 I~ <':"~(;,A C oJ; FEES DUE: $ . .'JI" . t) n ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and McU6Y\qj) ot .(o..,,,,,,iv..., l ",cl (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: \ 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for "Y2.0 l.ue;-r f'..-{c:z \ I' S+ (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings andlor approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission andlor City Council to enable the Planning Commission andlor City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ I, ,2-D b, or, which is for {p hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs 'exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $205.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associ~ted with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASpEN APPLICANT By: ,~ By:~iL~~ ~) Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director Date: tj ilJi J; /' -;>';> ,'?' J .:::.- <_,,{:..)U I Mailing Address: ~-W lJJ e;.."t. ( /'--10l I ;" '5 t-- g: \support\forms\agrpayas.doc 1/10/01 1+Sf'<'z-IV) ,(J:.) '6' {Co II , I {1 1- () - 0; 2./:; .8?- Y'3 ... . ,~ n Aspen/Pitkin community Development Department Minimum Submission Contents 1. From: W. Scott and Mary Caroline McDonald 320 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, 81611 970-925-8743 Authorized agent to act on behalf of the applicant: Bob Starodoj 514 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 970-925-7000 2. Property: 320 West Main Street, Lots N, 0, and P, Block 44 in the City of Aspen. 3. Attachment: owners, McDonald Family Trust (W.Scott and M. Caroline McDonald) property owned free and clear. Pitkin County Title, Inc. Phone # 970-925-1766 Policy # 128-053602, RIS # 393917, 360741,723/164 and #360740723/163 Easement: City of Aspen electric, see Title policy 4. Attatched Vicinity map. 5&6 Survey: no change to site map 7. Proposal: a code amendment to the text for Historic landmark lot splits exemptions to include the office zone district The Project, 320 West Main Street to split into two 4,500 square foot parcels, each with an Historical dwelling. The, permitted accessory dwelling, the carriage house is located at 316 West Main Street, on lot N and the Eastern half of Lot 0, block 44. 320 West Main is located on lot P and the Western half of Lot O. !'F ("""., ,t"""\ ~CHEDULE A-OWNER'S POLICY , CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY PCT-7159A December 29, 1992 @4:10 PM AMOUNT OF INSURANCE $1,2136,66700 POLICY NUMBER 128-053602 1. NAME OF INSURED: W. SCOTT MCDONALD AND MARY CAROLINE MCDONALD AS TRUSTEES OF THE MCDONALD FAMILY TRUST REVOCABLE TRUST ESTABliSHED DECEMER 24,1992 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLiCY Is: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICy VESTED IN: W. SCOTT MCDONALD AND MARY CAROLINE MCDONALD AS TRUSTEES OF THE MCDONALD FAMILY TRUST REVOCABLE TRUST ESTABLISHED DECEMER 24,1992 ' 4, THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS' '", LOTS N, 0 AND P, BLOCK 44, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INc. 601 E HOPKINS A VB. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-1766/ (970)-925-6527 FAX THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER bN THE COVER SHEET , ~ r"1 r") SCHEDULE B-OwNERS CASE NUMBER PCT-7159A DATE OF POLICY December 29,1992 @4:10 PM POLICY NUMBER 128-053602 THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records, 3, Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records, 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5, Water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Taxes for the year 92 not yet due or payable, 7, Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 129 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired tei any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws", 8, Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Easement Agreement as set forth in instrument recorded December 11, 1986 in Book 524 at Page 964, ' 9. Any loss or damage resulting from Encroachment of Retaining Walls as shown in Survey prepared and conducted by Aspen and conducted by Aspen Survey Engineers as Job No. 18234; 'dated March 2, 1990. 10, Deed of Trust from: Alan J, Shada, Jacqueline G, Shada, William J. Shada, Warmland Highlands, A General Partnership ./ To the Public Trustee of the County of pj.ti<fn For the use of : Calumet Federal ~n9s and Loan Association of Chicago , To secure: $ 500,000.00 /' V'I S Jl. ~1 ~1 1'1 Dated: March 23,1990 ,. '\ 1r J I J I Recorded: March 30, 19~n Book 617 at Page 280 Reception No. : 321361 11, Deed of Trust from: W. Scott McDonald and Ma.J;ll"Caroline McDonald, Trustees of the McDonald Famiiy Trust Revocable Trust Executed December 24, 1 r:! To the Public Trustee of the County of 1'.' in For the use of: Edward Goldzimer To secure: $133,667.00 // Dated: December 29, 1992 / Recorded: December 29)492 in Book 699 at Page 152 Reception No, : 352356/ (\sit ~bl4-1 1;;t 3/1 G/4 (Continued) . f"""', .' POLICY NO. 128-053602 CASE NO, PCT-7159A t"') SCHEDULE B-OWNERS --EXCEPTIONS--CONTINUED-- 12. Deed of Trust from: W. Scott McDonald and Mary C~,o~onald, Trustees of the McDonald Family Trust Revocable Truste Executed December 24, 1992 .,.../.. To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin ",./~ For the use of: Alan J, Shada and Jacqu<;>l(r1e G. Shada, Trustees of the Shada Family Trust Dated March 25, 1991 // To secure: $47,000.00 // Dated: December 29,1992 ../ / Recorded: December 29,1992 in Book 699 at Page 154 Reception No. : 352357 EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED NONE ARE HEREBY bMITIED, (I S::W '~loOl4-0 113/ }lP'S , . " cr lfl - r ti ~ A "t"\. ?/?9/9~O.!.l.~b9 F:ec: ~;~_ ':)0 ,*352354 1_.. --::' p": tki n Cnty Cl.ef'f(, SilvIa DavlS, 1 '" BK 699 PG 147 Doc $.00 STATE OF _COLORADO } } ss COUNTY OF PITKIN---1 AFFIDAVIT (For Property of Trust) W. SCOTT MCDONALD AND MARY CAROLINE MCDONALD, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, upon oath depose(s) and say(s): 1. Affiant(s) is/are (one of the) trustees of the hereinafter named Trust and as such has/have authority to execute and to record this affidavit. 2. "THE MCDONALD FAMILY TRUST REVOCABLE TRUST ESTABLISHED DECEMBER 24, 1992" is the name of the trust which may acquire, convey, encumber, lease, and otherwise deal with interest in real property in said name. 3. The names and addresses of all the trustees who are represented by such name are; NAME W. SCOTT MCDONALD MARY G..l\ROLINE MCDONALD ADDRESS ..., /' 4? , ...." /j "'Z. /,":,t".../e ,~S-C;( //..;'-1' T /-l ;;'/'';'" ..., " d {> ~~ / {, I Z. I' f~, ;,;.... /u.' C-'" L. '-_ L.'3"1,~! 4. Any _ (two, tl1,!;6e, ~z..L of the above named trustees or any of the following other 'persons or entities may convey, encumber, lease or otherwise deal with any interest in property acquired or held in the name of said trust: 5. This affidavi t is executed and recorded pursuant to the provisions of Title 38, Article 30, Section 166 of Colorado /f~~fte~t;~u~~'j~~/ ~~ed. /) /) 1 /1' t\ I" I (/ 1"~~~~~;f~:~s~i{';;P'~7~~' ~~LINE'~N~D, '<-1 j~-\ /1 PI}?j"!'" TRUSTEE Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29TH day of DECEMBER 1992. Witness my hand and official seal. J my corrrnission expires: , - ,,)\\d /I ,i <~- <y ::-- t' \, ,..t \ :.,'.)' ':~ oj '/ i Joy s. Higens/Notary Publio My Commission exp"es 4122194 601 East Hopkins Aspen. Colorado 81611 .