Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.apz.20001017
AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2000 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES HL DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SANDUNES INITIAL CITY ZONING, Fred Jarman B. ASPEN VALLEY SKI CLUB PUD AMENDMENT FOR SIGN, Fred Jarman ~o~o,~o ~-~I ~D ~ C. 981 KING STREET DRAC VARIANCE FOR SECONDARY MASS, Nick Lelack A-/°4~ ~ 4-0 D. VARIOUS MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS, Chris ~-~ Bendon (continued from 10/3) ~o~.~ _~ ~ ~ 'c~d.o~v~ V. ADJOURN Joe t 1 �...ss • (� 1�1 641� k-2 \ Te f31 po �- 1 I Orr- / A . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director_, FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner RE: Sandunes L. P. Rezoning to R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Public Hearin DATE: October 17, 2000 APPLICANT: Susan H. Horsey REPRESENTATIVE: Jennifer M. Causing of Krabacher Law Offices LOCATION: 815 West Main Street ZONING: R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) in Pitkin County LOT SIZE: LOT 1 = 51,811 SQ. FT. LOT 2 = 209004 SQ. FT. CURRENT LAND USE: LOT 1 = VACANT LOT 2 = HOUSE AND BARN PROPOSED LAND USE: Rezoning to R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) in the City of Aspen SUMMARY: Applicant is proposing to annex the subject property into the City of Aspen and rezone the property to R-15. (See map) Rezoning to R-15 is the most appropriate zone district because of the surrounding neighborhood is already zoned R-15, and the lot would conform to most of the zone district's dimensional requirements. Northwestern view of the subject property (Lot 1) REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning - An application for amendments to the Land Use Code (such as this request for rezoning) or the official zone district map may be initiated by the persons and decision - making bodies identified in Section 26.304.040, and shall be processed in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedures' set forth at Chapter 26.304. Two steps are required. 1) a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and 2) a public hearing before the City Council to determine if the application meets standards for amendment to code text or official zone district map. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant, Susan Horsey, has submitted a petition for annexation into the City of Aspen and the petition has been accepted by the City Council as complete. The annexation process now requires a determination by City Council on the merits of annexing the property and that step has not been completed. Additionally, the annexation procedures require that the City designate appropriate zoning on newly annexed property within 90 days of the annexation. As part of the annexation process, the City of Aspen is required to assign an appropriate zone district to the subject property. This rezoning is a process initiated by City staff including participation from the applicant regarding applicable review standards and the appropriateness of the recommended zone district. Analysis performed by City staff indicates that the R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) zone district is the most appropriate zone district for this property and its location relative to the City of Aspen and surrounding neighborhood. R-15 ZONE DISTRICT PURPOSE The purpose of the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the R-15 zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite, which border Aspen Mountain, are also included in the R-15 zone district. Staff finds that the subject parcel meets these defining elements of the R-15 zone district indicated in the zone district's purpose. PARCEL LOCATION Uniquely, the parcel exists in Pitkin County (86%) and the City of Aspen (14%) under Pitkin County's R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) zone district (see map on font page). More specifically, the parcel is located at the western edge of Aspen city limits on Main Street right at the entrance to Aspen and visibly part of the City urban environment. The immediate surrounding properties have been developed in either Pitkin County's R-15 zone district or in the City's R-15, R/MF PUD, Office, AH PUD, and R-30 PUD zone districts (See zoning map below). The R-15 designation is the most compatible with the neighboring Pitkin County zoning, the surrounding area and its transition from higher density to lower density, and the nature of the immediate area. 2 ZONING The applicant proposes a single-family dwelling and an ADU on Lot 1 and a duplex in the future on Lot 2. Single- family dwellings are permitted uses in both jurisdictions, whereas duplexes are prohibited in the County under the current R-15 zoning. By annexing the property and rezoning to R-15, the applicant achieves more units not allowed in the county's R-15 zone district. In effect, this annexation allows the City to achieve greater residential density. Staff finds that this allowable increase in density is consistent with the AACP, which calls for higher density in the City. Additionally, the proposed single-family dwelling on Lot 1 and the duplex on Lot 2 requires GMQS mitigation in the form of cash —in - lieu, deed restriction of the main units, or ADUs which benefit the City. This will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. A caretaker dwelling unit (CDU) in the County would be approved in a manner similar to the ADU review and approval process in the City. However, only one (1) CDU would be required in the County whereas between two and three (2-3) ADUs would be required in the City — up to two for the duplex and one for the single-family dwelling. Staff again refers to the community plan that calls for increased densities. Review of the dimensional requirements for the R-15 zone district in both jurisdictions shows that the City is much more restrictive in terms of allowed uses. (Please see Exhibit D and E that contain Pitkin County's and the City of Aspen's allowable uses, uses allowed by special review, and prohibited uses in the R-15 zone district.) Other differences include a reduction in structure height. The County allows primary structures to be 28 feet in height while the City only allows 25 feet. A matrix is provided showing a comparison of dimensional requirements afforded by both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County for their respective R-15 zone districts. The City's Development Review Committee (DRC), which consists of at least one representative from each City Department, has reviewed the Sandunes L. P. annexation and rezoning request. A copy of the DRC report is attached for your review as Exhibit F. In summary, this key parcel should be developed in a manner consistent with the City's development provisions and in a manner compatible with the entrance to Aspen. Staff feels an 3 R-15 zone district designation achieves this end for a parcel located at the entrance to the original townsite of Aspen. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for the assignment of the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to Lots 1 and 2 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation located at 815 West Main Street, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. RECOMMENDED MOTION: (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. Series 2000 of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommending City Co cil approve an assignment of the R-15 (Moderate - Density Residential) Zone District for Lots 1 and 2 of the property to be known and dedicated as the Sandunes L. P. Annexation located at 815 West Main Street, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Parcel Location Exhibit C -- Development Application Exhibit D -- City of Aspen R-15 Zone District Exhibit E -- Comparative Ma x Exhibit F -- Resolution No. , Series 2000 EXHIBIT A Rezoning from R-15 (Pitkin County) to R-15 (City of Aspen) REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following review standards pursuant to Section 26.310.040 of the Aspen Land Use Code to determine if the application meets standards for amendment to code text or official zone district map: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding This proposal to assign the R-15 Zone District to this parcel is appropriate in that the purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses.. Lands in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite, which border Aspen Mountain, are also included in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district. The property subject to this request for a zoning designation is currently located in both Pitkin County (86%) and the City of Aspen (14%). Both portions of the property are zoned under the County's R-15 Zoning designation. However, as a result of this unique location of the property straddling both jurisdictions' boundaries, the City required the applicant /owner of the property to adhere to certain requirements of the City's R-15 zoning designation. More specifically, the applicant was required to adopt the City's Floor Area calculations for the permitted size of single-family dwellings as well as adopt the City's lighting code to go into effect on November 23, 2000. By the nature of these requests, coupled with the fact that this property is located on Main Street and surrounded by complementary zone districts, Staff finds this rezoning designation to R-15 to be a logical action. The proposed amendment to the official zone district map to change the subject property's zoning designation from R-15 in Pitkin County to R-15 in the City of Aspen is not in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. The amendment does not represent new land use policy or a change in land use policy for the City of Aspen. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding This zoning designation will promote desired increased density as indicated in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). The City's R-15 Zone District will allow a higher density regarding the number and type of units that could be placed on these lots than if the parcel remained in the County's R-15 Zone District. Additionally, it also allows a higher number of Accessory Dwellings Units than the County's R-15 designation. 5 It should be noted that if this property were to stay in the County, it would be developed at a lower density under current zoning and allow fewer affordable housing opportunities. Moreover, given the property's future likelihood of annexing into the City because of its location on the City of Aspen's Main Street, it would result in the City's infrastructure being stretched to serve existing lower density than could have been achieved if it were annexed at the present time and assigned an R-15 zoning classification. Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding As mentioned above in Staff s Findings for Review Standard A, the purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district is to provide areas for long-term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. This area of Aspen currently accommodates areas that include long-term residential purposes. Lands in the Moderate - Density Residential (R-15) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. The subject parcel is located adjacent to the Townsite of Aspen as well as in close proximity to the base of Aspen Mountain which is in concert with the purpose of the R-15 Zone District. More specifically, the subject parcel is located at the western edge of the city limits on Main Street. The immediate surrounding properties have been developed in either Pitkin County's R-15 zoning or in the City's more intensive R-15, R/MF PUD, Office, and R-30 PUD zoning across Castle Creek. Staff finds that the R-15 designation is the most compatible classification with the Pitkin County zoning, the surrounding area and its transition from higher density to lower density, and the nature of the immediate area. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding Lots 1 and 2 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation have existing individual access from 7th Street. Lot 2, which contains the applicant's current residence and is located in the City portion of the lot, has a private drive access from 7th Street. There is no intention of creating a curb cut off of Main Street to access this lot. Lot 1 is accessed via an existing 20' private road access easement across a neighboring property to the south from 7th Street. That same easement provides access to other parcels in the Adams Subdivision in Pitkin County as well as Lot 2. Under the City's R-15 Zone District and as a requirement of the pending subdivision exempt lot split, the applicant has a maximum buildout capability of three units for both lots. This could be in the form of a single-family dwelling and a duplex. Currently, there is one single- family dwelling on Lot 2. The applicant proposes to demolish this unit, construct one single- family unit on Lot 1 and construct a duplex on Lot 2. This will result in two additional units to the area, which will generate more traffic than currently exists. However Staff does not see this increase in vehicle generation to be a significant difference that what could be currently accommodated given the properties existing zone district. no i nere wily oe signirica.nt impact to the access of these two properties if and when the "Entrance to Aspen" is realized. It will effectively limit the ability of the applicant to directly access 7th Street from Main Street in the "Light Rail" scenario because 7th Street will be closed. In the event that this occurs, the applicant will have to reach the access to Lots 1 and 2 by routes other than the 7th and Main Street intersection. However, the "Entrance to Aspen" will not preclude or interfere with the actual access points themselves. Access, and the impacts as a result of the new entrance plan will remain the same if the property is rezoned or not. (The graphic above illustrates the "Entrance to Aspen" route in relation to Lots I and 2 of the Sandunes L. P. parcel.) E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding In return for the request by the applicant to receive City water service, the City requested the property annex into the City. Prior to this "Petition for Annexation," the City participated in an "advisory" role for a 50% Density Reduction Lot Split performed in the County. As a result, the City requested that the resulting Lots 1 and 2 be approved with the following conditions: 1) no development take place on the City portion of the parcel, 2) Sandunes L.P. adopt the City of Aspen's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lighting code requirements, 3) Sandunes L. P. grant -the City a fisherman's easement and entered into a curb, sidewalk and gutter agreement. These conditions remain in effect today. Staff finds that this request for the R-15 zoning designation for this property would not result in excess demand that would exceed the capacity of the City's public facilities. The existing single-family dwelling located on Lot 2 is currently served by City water and sewage disposal system utilities. As a result of the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on July 28t', 2000, the City Water Department Director, Phil Overynder, indicated that 1) a new Raw Water Agreement will be required for the lot; 2) two separate agreements will be required to show the applicable square footage on each lot; 3) service for the new lot can come from SH 82, but may need to be relocated based on the CDOT SH 82 realignment in the near future. Therefore it may be more feasible to receive service from 7 h Street; and 4) the current service tap for Lot 2 containing the old barn structure needs to be abandoned. 7 The Aspen Consolidated Waste District (ACWD) concluded that the existing sewer service lines are inadequate to allow proper additional flow from the new structure. It is therefore recommended that a new 8" service line be installed from 7th Street. Further discussion with the ACWD Director, Tom Bracewell, indicated that a connection configuration could be worked out for both lots but consideration should be given to current sewer service connected to Bruce Berger's cabin and the "Entrance to Aspen" plan and its effect on Main Street. Both Lots 1 and 2 are located within the City of Aspen Fire Protection District. The proposed residence on Lot 1 is greater than 5,000 sq. ft. and is therefore required to contain a full sprinkler system. Site drainage for both lots and their proposed development should not pose a problem for the area. The applicant has complied with the City of Aspen Engineering department's request for a full soils and drainage report to be submitted and analyzed prior to the application of a building permit. An existing irrigation ditch exists on Lot 1 on the Sandunes property. There are existing Raw Water Agreements with the City of Aspen for the use of the Si Johnson Ditch for irrigation purposes. As indicated above, 1) a new Raw Water Agreement will be required for the lot, and 2) two separate agreements will be required to show the applicable square footage on each lot. Additionally, the applicant is aware of potential future problems from irrigation seepage into basement development and that basements will only be approved in locations where this will not result in a seepage problem. The applicant understands that ditch access on Lots 1 and 2 shall be maintained and other surrounding ditch owners are relieved of responsibility for damage to the development caused by the ditch or seepage problems resulting from the ditch. Finally, the proposed development and zone designation will not further impact the City's ability to provide adequate parks, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff finds that the proposed zoning designation for Lots 1 and 2 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation meets this review standard. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding The applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence on Lot 1. This 51,811 sq. ft. lot is bordered by Castle Creek on its western property line. Lot 1 contains a considerable amount of square footage of steep slopes that extend from the flat portion designated for the residence down to Castle Creek. This slope is considered as a sensitive Castle Creek riparian area, which shall remain undisturbed, pristine, and untouched condition to allow for adequate drainage capability for activity above the top of slope. The applicant recently received Stream margin Review form the City of Aspen which required the applicant to locate all development at least 15 feet back from the top of slope in order to protect this sensitive riparian zone. The applicant understands that the City of Aspen Community Development Department. and Parks Department must review any proposed disturbance to the area below this top of slope. Staff finds that the applicant complies with the necessary requirements regarding development in close proximity to an environmentally sensitive area. 8 G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed zoning designation to the property and change to the official zone map is consistent with the surrounding area in character determined as compatibility with existing uses and the purpose of the R-15 zone district to provide areas for long-term residential purposes. As stated above, this area of Aspen currently accommodates areas that include long-term residential purposes. Lands in this zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. The subject parcel is located adjacent to the Townsite of Aspen as well as in close proximity to the base of Aspen Mountain which is in concert with the purpose of the R-15 Zone District. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding The annexation of this property into the City of Aspen has been the main catalyst for the initiation of this land use action. By the nature of the annexation process, the property must be assigned an appropriate zone district for the direction of future development on the property. The property immediately surrounding this newly annexed parcel is zoned R-15, R/MF PUD, AH PUD, Office, and R-30 PUD zoning across Castle Creek. Staff finds that the R-15 designation is the most compatible classification with the Pitkin County zoning, the surrounding area and its transition from higher density to lower density, and the nature of the immediate area. L Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not find that assigning this property the R-15 Zone District is in conflict with the public interest. Moreover, Staff finds that this designation allows the City to more effectively and efficiently serve additional density with its public infrastructure. This is an action which is in concert with the intention of the 2000 AACP and is a clearly appropriate designation given the purpose of the R-15 Zone District and the surrounding land uses and zone districts. EXHI$IT B PARCEL LOCATION 10 EXHIBIT F RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE R- 15 (MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE SANDUNES L. P. ANNEXATION LOCATED AT 815 WEST MAIN STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-123-17-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has been charged with assigning an appropriate zone district to Lots 1 and 2 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation, owned by Susan Horsey, located at 815 West Main Street, City of Aspen, Pitkin County; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has recommended assigning the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to Lots 1 and 2 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation for Lots 1 and 2 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation, owned by Susan Horsey, located at 815 West Main Street, City of Aspen, Pitkin County and forwards a recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval to City Council for assigning the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to Lots 1 and 2 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation, during a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 17, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, by a _ to _ L - _) vote, to City Council for the assignment of the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to Lots 1 and 2 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation; and, 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, assignment of the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to Lots 1 and 2 of the property known as the Sandunes L. P. Annexation is recommended to City Council for approval. Section 2: All commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 17, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Robert Blaich, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk CAMy Documents\Current Cases\Sandunes\SandunesRezone.doc 12 26.710.050 a a JD 26.710.O50 Mo%rat6-Density Residential (R-15). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential -15 areas for Iona tern residential purposes uric customary accessory� )Zone district is to provide institu- tional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses uses. Recreational and Lands in the Moderate' -Density Residential Included as conditional uses. �' CR-1�) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of. the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in the Moderate -Density Residential -1� zone district. (R ) distract. . B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate -Density Residen- tial (R-15) zone district. .0 1. Detached residential dwelling; 2. Duplex; 3. Farm buildings and uses, provided that all such buildings and storage areas are located least 100 feet from pre-existing dwellings on other lots; at 4. Home occupations; 5. Accessory buildings and uses; and 6. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040. C. Conditional uses. The i following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate - Density Residential (R-15) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: I. Parks and open use recreation site; 2. Public or private academic school; 3. Church; 4. Group home; 5. ChiId care center; 6. Museum; 7. Lodge, where indicated by designation as a Lodge Overlay District 26.710.310; (L) pursuant to Section (Asp= 4=) 3 710-50 APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Applicant: Susan H. Horsey 815 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Representative: B. Joseph Krabacher, Esq. Jennifer M. Causing, Esq. Krabacher Law Offices a Professional Corporation 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.6300 Property: Sandunes Lot Split Aspen, Colorado E � - 26.710.050 8. For properties which contain a historic landmark: bed and breakfast; boarding house; and two detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot with a minimum area of 15,000 square feet. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permit- ted and conditional uses in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district_ 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 15,000. 2. Minimum lot area ver dwellin; unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwelling: 15,000. b. Duplex: A duplex may be developed on a lot of 15,000 square feet that was subdivided as of April 28, 1975. Otherwise the duplex must be developed with a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit, unless the property contains a historic landmark, in which case a duplex or two detached residential dwellings may be developed with a mini- mum lot area of 7,500 square feet per unit. c. Bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feel'): 75. 4. Minimum front'vard setback (feet): f. Residential dwellings: 25. Accessory buildings and all other buildings: 30. 5. Minimum side vard setback (feet): 10. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): All buildings except residential dwellings and accessory buildings: 20. Residential dwellings: 10. Accessory buildings: 5. 7. Maximum height (feet): 25. 8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): 10. 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement. 710-51 tam goo) 26.710.050 10. External floor area ratio (apvlies to conforminz and nonconforming lots of record) Lot Size Detached_Residentiai care Towable SFeet*-_ -- Q _D_ well f Square Feet) squareIot area80 ln , -: --_ ug to'a ma ;mum of 2 4p0_s care feet of floor area. - - .q _ _3;000 - 9,000 _ - . 2 400. square :feet of - fIoo E: area, 28 square .feet - - _-plus ;. floor area:for each -additional: IOa- square. feef m -. - -_ :Ior*area,-Aip to-'a-�ia um of .4,480 .square: -feet. -of.=-. 4,080 square -feet of floor area; p�Ius 7 square _feet of - floor- area. for each additional 100- square =feet in lot :area; -up a ma:X „-r,,,,,, of 500 square feet of floor 15,000 -50,000 = 4 50Q - square feet of floor area; plus::6. square feet- of :. . ,. floor area for each additi nal 300., sqi are _feet irt: Iot = - area,--• to .a maximum of 6,600 s uarefeet.offloor --- `P:.. _ q _ - ..area_ 50,000+_. square feet. off oor are :""1 :.2 square feet of _ fl oor area for. each-additional_100 squate...feet in. lot - area.. . *Total external floor area ratio for two detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot less than 20,000 square feet containing a historical landmark shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. (Does not apply to the R-30 zone district.) tASp= 4MY 710-52 26-710.060 :..: ot-Size-Dupleg (SgnareFeet) is %000.-15,000 4,500 square feet ot. floor area, plus 7- square feet of floor area for. each additional.:100 square feet rn for urea; :up: to a maximum of 4,920 squat feet -.of floor -- _ura= .50 WO - 4;92O :s+gnare feet- of : flo .r area plus 6 square feet -of M1i . - floor area =for each additional; LoO. square fear in -lot �feet: or.-- area,. ut :7;Q20 square feet= o .floor area, p�iis 3 square feet of floor area for each additional100 square feet in lot area_ `Total external floor area ratio for two detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot less than 20,000 square feet containing a historical landmark shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. 26.710.060 Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A) zone district is to provide areas for long t_rm residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institu- tion' uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lanus in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A) zone district are. similarly situated to those in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district and are lands annexed from Pitkin County from zone districts in which duplexes are a prohibited use. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate -Density Residen- tial 11-15A) zone district: 1- Detached residential dwelling; 2. Duplex, provided fifty (50) percent of the duplex units are restricted to affordable housing, 3. Farm buildings and use, provided that all such buildings and storage areas are located at least 100 feet from pre-existing dwellings on other lots; 4. Home occupations; 5. Accessory buildings and uses; 710-53 (Aspen .goo) 26-710.060 6. For properties which contain a historic landmark: two detached residential dwellings on a lot within a minimum lot size of thirteen thousand (13,000) square feet; and 7. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate - Density Residential (R-15A) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Parks, and open use recreation site; 2. Public and private academic school; 3. Church; . 4. Group home; 5. Child care center; and 6. Museum. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permit- ted and conditional uses in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 15,000. For lots created by Section 26.480.040(E) of this Code, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3,000. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwelling: 15,000. b. Duplex: A duplex may be developed on a lot of 15,000 square feet that was subdivided as of April 28, 1975. Otherwise the duplex must be developed with a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit, unless the property contains a historic landmark, in which case two detached residential dwellings may be developed with a minimum of 6,500 square feet per unit. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 75. For lots created by Section 26.480.040(E) of this Code, His- toric Landmark Lot Split: 30. 4. A minimum front yard setback (feet): Residential dwelling: 25. Accessory buildings and all other buildings: 30. 0 C) 710-54 i�: k � j'b ,'- �- 49 k .. �. M m ;z ;z z z �+bb c arq' o o a, k .4 `e �'" tp •• ?`' � �. • � ''�. � � A ;x, • � Q �. � as coo IZ.".' 0 00 or c �' • • o �' s ". '1 O O �A r N CA *A CA � W J� *0 ,r � '►� i� � C O C� � � O O j ltA ►� � � vi p O �+ ra .p ►,'�' �-r- � �n .p p ° Qr r0 Z F-+ O N C11 C!1 �+ N O O 1-+ O W O N CJ1 .1 CJi � ►-+ ►-+ Vl C!i ►-+ C!1 p ' � O � ►� O '� � o 0 0 W� o� O w fit, County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060 (E) being or representing an Applicant to the (firy of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first --class postage prepaid U.S. ylail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject as indicated on the attached list on the -, Lo � , , yn , 5 property, � ' day of � .� }� � , }�i (which is i �� j 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 ,vas posted and visible continuously from the �� /` day of �I %{ , 199_: (Must be posted for at leaf, ten 10 full days before the heaHng date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. F__ PUBLIC NOTICE ►RE: SANDUNES LP ESTABLISHMENT OF CITY ZONING TO R-15 NOTICE IS HEREBY GfVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to establish the zoning of the Sandunes Property after annexation into the City of Aspen. The property is commonly known as the Sandunes LP Parcel. The property is described as Lot 1, Sandunes LP Lot Split. For further information, contact Fred Jarman at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102, fredj@cI.aspen.co.us. s/Bob Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on September 30, 2000. (75082) 4cz7are Signed before me this day 0(4o�jr Eby. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: No P is �^ Notary Public's Signature MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director - FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner t'. RE: Aspen Valley Ski Club PUD Amendment - Public Hearin DATE: October 17, 2000 APPLICANT /OWNER: Aspen Winter Sports Foundation /AV S C REPRESENTATIVE: Mike Maple LOCATION: 300 AVSC Drive, Moore Family PUD CURRENT ZONING: PUB with PUD Overlay CURRENT LAND USE: Site of the Aspen Valley Ski Club PROPOSED LAND USE REQUEST: Insubstantial Amendment to the Planned Unit Development SUMMARY: Applicant wishes to obtain an insubstantial amendment to the Moore Family Planned 'Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of installing a 20' sq. ft. "Ski Gate" sign / banner in front of the Aspen Valley Ski Club that is larger than is allowed by Section 26.36 of the Aspen Land Use Code. REVIEW PROCEDURE An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing pursuant to Section 26.445.030(C) Step 3. The action by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered the final action, unless the decision is appealed. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant, Aspen Winter Sports Foundation /AVSC, represented by Mike Maple, requests an Insubstantial Amendment to the Moore Family Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of installing a 20 square foot "Ski Gate" sign / banner in front of the Aspen Valley Ski Club that is larger than is allowed by Section 26.510.130(C)(1)(c)(1) of the Aspen Land Use Code. The applicant is requesting to erect a freestanding 20 square foot sign which is double the size allowed for a recreation club by the Land Use Code Section 26.510.130(C)(1)(c)(1) which indicates that the area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed 10 square feet. The applicant has provided illustrative color photographs showing the size, proximity to the Club, and exact location of the proposed of the sign. Staff has reviewed the application and has no issue with allowing this sign to occur. Normally, a request of this type for an insubstantial amendment found to be consistent with the established Planned Unit Development is an administrative action with final approval granted by the Community Development Director. However, in this case, the City of Aspen Community Development Director and Deputy Director are both current and active members of the Aspen Valley Ski Club. As a result of their vested interest in the Club, they feel the Planning and Zoning Commission should make this decision regarding the "Ski Gate" sign / banner in front of the Aspen Valley Ski Club. Staff recommends approval of the proposed insubstantial amendment to the Moore Family Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of installing a 20 square foot "Ski Gate" sign / banner in front of the Aspen Valley Ski Club as proposed with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant shall erect the "Ski Gate" sign / banner with the exact proposed dimensions, color, lettering 'as indicated in the application; 2. That the applicant shall erect the "Ski Gate" sign / banner in the exact proposed location indicated in the application; 3. That the applicant is aware that any dimensions and location shall require Community Development Department; change to the proposed and approved sign additional review by the City of Aspen 4. That the applicant shall not illuminate the "Ski Gate" sign / banner in a manner that conflicts with the City of Aspen Lighting Code pursuant to Section 26.510.070. Specifically, 1) no sign shall be illuminated through the use of internal illumination, FA rear illumination, fluorescent illumination or neon or other gas tube illumination, except when used for indirect illumination and in such a manner as to not be directly exposed to public view; 5. That the applicant understands that the illumination of signs shall be designed, located, shielded and directed in such a manner that the light source is fixed and is not directly visible from, and does not cast glare or direct light from artificial illumination upon, any adjacent public right-of-way, surrounding property, residential property or motorist's vision; and 6. That the applicant is aware that the sign may be illuminated only during hours of normal operation pursuant to Section 26.510.130(C). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Insubstantial Amendment to the Moore Family Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of installing a 20' sq. ft. "Ski Gate" sign / banner in front of the Aspen Valley Ski Club. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 50 Series of 2000, approving the Insubstantial Amendment to the Moore Family Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of installing a 20' sq. ft. "Ski Gate" sign / banner in front of the Aspen Valley Ski Club. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Parcel Location Exhibit C -- Development Application and Photo Documentation Exhibit D -- Resolution No. �, Series 2000 3 EXHIBIT A AVSC PUD AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed AVSC sign will coincide with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and will be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. 4 d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding The nature of the application is a request to erect a sign, which is larger than allowed by the Land Use Code. In establishing a Final PUD, an applicant is given the opportunity to establish dimensional requirements for a specific site. No sign dimensional requirements were established as part of the original Moore Family PUD thereby requiring this review. Staff finds the proposed dimensional requirements for the subject sign are appropriate and compatible with the property and its current use. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Z The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding The proposed AVSC sign maintains a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the existing PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding Staff finds this criterion does not apply to this application. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. 5 b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding Staff finds this criterion does not apply to this application. S. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding Staff finds this criterion does not apply to this application. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and S, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding Staff finds this criterion does not apply to this application. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the pas4 or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Z. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. S. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed sign will be placed in such a manner to preserve public street orientation and the engagement of pedestrian and vehicular movement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well -designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. h 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding Staff finds the sign's design and location ensures compatibility of the existing landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing features of the subject property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes, which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding Staff finds the proposed sign compatible with the visual character of the city, appropriately relates to existing architecture of the Aspen Valley Ski Club, and specifically represents a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use of the building as a ski club. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 8 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding Staff finds that the applicant shall comply with the City Lighting Code. Further, the applicant shall not illuminate the "Ski Gate" sign in a manner that conflicts with the City of Aspen Lighting Code pursuant to Section 26.510.070. Specifically, 1) no sign shall be illuminated through the use of internal illumination, rear illumination, fluorescent illumination or neon or other gas tube illumination, except when used for indirect illumination and in such a manner as to not be directly exposed to public view and 2) Illumination of signs shall be designed, located, shielded and directed in such a manner that the light source is fixed and is not directly visible from, and does : not cast glare or direct light from artificial illumination upon, any adjacent public right-of-way, surrounding property, residential property or motorist's vision. The applicant is aware that the sign may be illuminated only during hours of normal operation pursuant to Section 26.510.130(C). Staff finds this criterion, established as conditions for approval for this application, to be met. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 3. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 4. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. S. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. E Staff Finding Staff finds this criterion does not apply to this application. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding Staff finds this criterion does not apply to this application. L Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle 10 paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. S. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding Staff finds this criterion does not apply to this application. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Z The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in - lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding Staff finds this criterion does not apply to this application. 11 EXHIBIT B PARCEL LOCATION N W E ® S Aspen Valley Sid Club Sign Insubstantial Amendment to Moore Famlly PUD October 1 T, 2000 top* T Parcel location for the proposed sign location indicated by the arrow above. 12 EXHIBIT D RESOLUTION N0. _50 (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMSSION APPROVING AN INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE MOORE FAMILY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ERECT A `SKI GATE' SIGN AT THE ASPEN VALLEY SKI CLUB, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-141-06-032 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Winter Sports Foundation, Inc (AVSC), represented by Mike Maple, for an insubstantial amendment to the Moore Family Planned Unit Development (PUD) to erect a one-sided "Ski Gate" sign on the Aspen Valley Ski Club property; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.445, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve an amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Staff, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the request for an insubstantial amendment to the Moore Family PUD and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Department, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 17, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a _ to _ ( - _) vote, an insubstantial amendment to the Moore Family Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of installing a 20' sq. ft. "Ski Gate" sign / banner in front of the Aspen Valley Ski Club; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the insubstantial amendment to the Moore Family Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of installing a 20' sq. ft. "Ski Gate" sign / banner in front of the Aspen Valley Ski Club is approved with the following conditions: 13 1. That the applicant shall erect the "Ski Gate" sign / banner with the exact proposed dimensions, color, lettering as indicated in the application; 2. That the applicant shall erect the "Ski Gate" sign / banner in the exact proposed location indicated in the application; 3. That the applicant is aware that any change to the proposed and approved sign dimensions and location shall require additional review by the City of Aspen Community Development Department; 4. That the applicant shall not illuminate the "Ski Gate" sign / banner in a manner that conflicts with the City of Aspen Lighting Code pursuant to Section 26.510.070. Specifically, 1) no sign shall be illuminated through the use of internal illumination, rear illumination, fluorescent illumination or neon or other gas tube illumination, except when used for indirect illumination and in such a manner as to not be directly exposed to public view; 5. That the applicant understands that the illumination of signs shall be designed, located, shielded and directed in such a manner that the light source is fixed and is not directly visible from, and does not cast glare or direct light from artificial illumination upon, any adjacent public right-of-way, surrounding property, residential property or motorist's vision; and 6. That the applicant is aware that the sign may be illuminated only during hours of normal operation pursuant to Section 26.510.130(C). �Petinn 2. All commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. �petinn 1-- This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 14 Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 17, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Robert Blaich, Chair CAMy Documents\Current Cases\PUD Amendment\AVSC\AVSCMemoPZ.doc 15 S�ge\ P"-5 10 / //s/C' 0 e " 00 A -,$I September 29, 2000 Dear Neighbor: Enclosed please find a notice for a public hearing of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission during which the Aspen Valley Ski/Snowboard Club will seek permission to place a sign in the center island of the AVSC Clubhouse parking lot. The Aspen Valley Ski/Snowboard Club proposes to install a sign modeled after an alpine Giant Slalom or Downhill gate. The sign will be made of fabric and is intended to evoke alpine images consistent with the oversized ski tip and ski pole that are integral to the architecture of the AVSC Clubhouse. A rendering of the proposed sign superimposed in a photograph of the landscaped island is enclosed for your review. We hope you will support our application to place an appropriate sign in front of this exciting building. Please call me at 920-1558 if you have any questions. Very Truly Yours, 7mi?eMap e Building Committee Chairman Aspen Valley Ski/Snowboard Club, Inc. P.O. Box C-3 Aspen, CO 81612 (970) 925-2720 (970) 925-5290 fax aysc@rof.net ff I MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner RE: 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision — Residential Design Standard Variance for Secondary Mass DATE: October 17, 2000 APPLICANT: FAR: Jeffrey Shoaf Existing: 3,000 square feet Proposed: 4,780 square feet REPRESENTATIVE: Allowed: 4,780 square feet Mark Hesselshwerdt LOCATION: 981 King Street CURRENT LAND USE: Duplex PROPOSED LAND USE: Duplex ZONING: R-6 REVIEW PROCEDURE The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: A) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, B) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, C) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a variance from the secondary mass Residential Design Standard. STAFF COMMENTS: Jeffrey Shoaf ("Applicant"), represented by Mark Hesselshwerdt, is requesting approval for a variance from the secondary mass Residential Design Standard for a new duplex to be located 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision. A duplex, including an employee unit deed restricted to Category 2, is currently located on the site and is proposed for demolition. Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(B) Building Form states that "the intent of the building form standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing..." Specifically, the Secondary Mass standard requires that all new structures shall locate at least 10 % of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. They - illustration demonstrates how a secondary mass may be connected to a principal building with a linking element. The Applicant previously requested a variance from this standard for the same property, but the Committee denied the variance request by a 3-2 vote. Staff recommended denial of that request finding that none of the review criteria were met. In both cases, the Applicant contends that Criteria C: clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints is met. The Applicant's argument is based on the fact that the owner of Lot 3 (who previously owned Lot 4), placed a restriction on Lot 4 that no development shall be located further east than the boundary between Lots 2 and 3. The purpose of the restriction is to protect his views across the eastern half of Lot 4. The dotted lines on the map show the approximate location of the "no development area", and the arrow shows the direction of the view from Lot 3 across Lot 4. The added benefit is that development will remain King Street Garnish Park away from Garrish Park. The restriction effectively reduces the development area to approximately 9,000 square feet on the western side of the lot. Staff agrees that the development restriction imposed by the Lot 3 owner (who is also the Applicant for the variance) "cinches down" the development a duplex to a more compact area. Nevertheless, Staff argued that the Applicant can meet the secondary mass standard on this lot through revised architectural design more suited to the site and in compliance with the standard in question. A few neighbors attended that public hearing speaking in support of the variance request. Staff believes the revised design meets the intent of the standard, and recommends approval of the request. The difference between the two designs is that the first proposal did not include any architectural features in the structure to break up the mass. In the revised design, the Applicant has attempted to create a subordinate connecting element that more effectively addresses this standard. Staff can support this variance because the connecting element is recessed and includes a lower roof line between the primary and secondary structures to clearly distinguish between the two masses. In addition, the Applicant has stated that different building materials will be used on the connecting element to further break up the primary and secondary masses. Recessing the connecting element, lowering the connecting elements roof line, and using different building materials will break up the building mass, thereby more effectively addressing this standard, Criteria B. In sum, Staff believes Criteria B: a more effective method of addressing standard in question is satisfied and the intent of this standard is met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the secondary mass Residential Design Standard variance for a property located 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No.A Series of 2000, approving the secondary mass Residential Design Standard varian e for a duplex at 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application EXHIBIT A 981 KING STREET REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Section 26.410.040(B)(1) Building Form - Secondary Mass. "All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. " In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding: Staff does not believe this criteria is met for the variance request. The 2000 AACP calls for the community to "Promote a standard of design that is of the highest quality and is compatible with the historic features of the community and environment." The secondary mass Residential Design Standard implements this goal and philosophy by requiring the mass of new structures to be broken up, and the architectural designs to both resemble the character of historic Aspen and to be harmonious with the existing built environment. Staff feels that the Applicant has attempted to meet the intent of this standard. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: The Applicant has attempted to create a subordinate connecting element that more effectively addresses this standard. Recessing the connecting element will break up the building mass, thereby addressing this standard. Only by recessing the linking element between the primary and secondary masses and lowering the roof line is the Applicant able to meet this standard. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: The subject lot is relatively flat, and will have a restriction placed on the property that prohibits development on most of the eastern half of the lot. The restriction effectively reduces the development area to approximately half of the lot. Nevertheless, property owners across town are able to meet this standard on similar lots with duplexes. Meeting this design criteria is a matter of architectural design and not dictated by constraints posed by the subject property. Staff does not believe this standard is met. A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE APPROVING A VARIANCE OF THE SECONDARY MASS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR A PARCEL LOCATED AT 981 KING STREET, LOT 49 ASTOR SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID # 2737-074-53-004 Resolution No. , Series of 2000 WHEREAS the applicant, Jeffrey Shoaf, represented by Mark Hesselshwerdt, has requested a variance from the secondary mass Residential Design Standard, Land Use Code Section 26.410.040, for the property located at 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS the Planning Staff, in a report dated October 17, 2000, recommended approval of the variance for secondary mass Residential Design Standard finding that Criteria B has been met; and, WHEREAS a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on October 17, 2000, at which the Committee considered and approved the variance from the secondary mass standard, by a vote of _ to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Appeal Committee: That the Residential Design Standard variance for secondary mass, Section 26.410.040, is approved for a duplex at 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final recorded Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A current Site Improvement Survey indicating the nature of all easements of record indicated on the property title commitment. d. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. e. A drawing representing the proj ect's architectural character. f. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. g. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The existing residential improvements located on the subject property are currently serviced by the District. Fees must be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications. h. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off -site replacement or mitigation of removed trees, if necessary. A completed curb, gutter, and sidewalk agreement. i. A completed agreement to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way. 2. The building permit plans shall reflect/indicate: a. Conformance with all aspects of the City's Residential Design Standards, unless variances have been granted. b. The dwelling units meet all applicable UBC requirements for light and air. c. An overhang shall cover each units' entrance designed to prevent snow and ice from falling on, or building -up on, the entrance. Snowmelt may also be used to prevent snow and ice from falling on, or building -up on, the entrance to each unit. d. A fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 4. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 5. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not within public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 6. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion for the Category 2 employee unit, a member of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall inspect the unit to determine if the unit complies with the representations made in the application, Housing Guidelines, and prior land use approvals for this property. The Applicant shall abide by the deed restriction for the deed restricted employee unit, which requires that it be occupied year around. 8. The final deed restriction be brought to the Housing Board for final input and approval. The deed restrictions for the two (2) affordable housing units shall comply with the Housing Board's final recommendation. 9. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 10. The applicant should provide separate utility taps and meters for each residential unit. 11. All utility meters and any, new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. 12. The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights -of -way from the appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox and landscaping from the City Streets Department. 13. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its regular meeting on the 171h day of October, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE: City Attorney ATTEST: Chair MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Design Review Appeal Committee FROM: Jeffrey S. Shoaf, Applicant DATE: September 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Response to Attachment 3, Minimum Submission Contents Paragraphs 1 and 2 Please be advised that I, Jeffrey S. Shoaf, do hereby request your cooperation with regard to my appointment of Mark P. Hesselschwerdt as my representative with respect to the development of 981 King Street, Aspen, Colorado (Legal Description: Lot #4, Astor Subdivision), in all matters relating to the project. Thank you. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. d ` Jeffrey . Shoa , pp ' cant Mark P. Hesselschwerdt, Representative 119 Neale Avenue 225 Cottonwood Lane Post Office Box 3123 Post Office Box 2522 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970/925-4501 970/925-9034 970/925-4513 (fax) 970/925-1401 (fax) 970/948-8444 (cell) Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM CJ gA—J-e% I N C= 0'Zr 1'7 Lot Area: Vfor (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may breduced Please refertheto areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Proposed: o Commercial net leasable: Existing: � Prpr posed: ,�-- Number of residential units: Existing Number of bedrooms: Existing: .g Proposed: .S Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Principal bldg. height: Access. bldg. height: On -Site parking: % Site coverage: % Open Space: Front Setback: Rear Setback: Combined F/R: W &-.5V Side Setback. S'T'* Side Setback: Combined Sides: ,Z O 00 Allowable: ,% Proposed: `�",7so Existing. .nLz: jA , �' Allowable: ZS �OCproposed:.�---5 7 Existing:S Allo•v Z _ Existing. Allowable: Proposed. ,'_Required: .3 Proposed: Existing. YXRe uired: D Proposed: / 2 ,# 77 Existing:2 f qgcp;- in © Required: Existing: g Proposed: .� v ye uired. Ezisting:�� 9 /0 Proposed: Z ____'_ Existing: ZU Required: ,d0 Proposed: /D p tS 4 Required:- Existing. y 3d Proposed.. 30 Existing: Zro G Required. g %'S Proposed: Z 0 CI Existing: 7 Required: / S'—Proposed:--7-?-- Proposed: 7� &• q Qe uired: ,5 Existing. Existing non -conformities or encroachments: V � t � I �Eff - �ff W ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: l . APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an a lic tion f9rS,., 981 L07 (hereinafter, THE PROJE ). .S•a ��1V�S 1 ON 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 45 (Series of 1999) 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 and/or 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 and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or 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 t a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ `ter ----which is for ZO 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. 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 associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director By: _ Date: Mailing Address: g:\support\forms\agrpayas.docq1--C T-Z-5- A5q t 2/27/99 C,,WyJTS�- 1 Old Republic National Tide .Insurance C0111pa7ly ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule A, Property Address: 981 KING STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: April 12, 2000 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Ensured: "ALTA." Owner's Policy 10-17-92 Proposed Insured: JEFFREY S. SHOAF Our Order No. Q380954-2 Cust. Ref.: 3. The es't ite or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered heron is tl a effectiv I e hereof v d in: car L 02,12W 1 S. The land referred to in this Co 'tment is described as follows: LOT 4, ASI'OR SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDED PLAT THEREOP RECORDED J UN 13 28. 1994 IN PLAT BOOK 34 AT PAGE 86. COUNTY OF PITKCN, STATE OP COLORADO. u4, a/ uv nru ua : oo rAA V'! Va'LSCS"L43 Lt%l`V tta■ - AI cs✓A+JL% ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-1 (Requirements) Our Order No. Q390954-2 The following are the requiremeuts to be complied with: Payinent to or for tfie account of the grantors or. mortgagors of the full comideration for the estate or interest co be insured. Proper instriunent(s) creatillg the t;6tate or i71tcreSt to be insured must be executed and duly fi1cd for. rccozd. to -wit: NOTE: ITEMS 1-4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED UPON RECEIPT OF AN APPROVED SURVEY AND A NOTARIZED FINAL LIEN AFFIDAVIT. t . CERTIFICATE Or RIGHT OF F-LRST REFUSAL IN COM.PLIANCB WITH THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL RECORDED DULY 26, 1995 IN BOOK 788 AT PAGE 208 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 383696. NOTE: THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCLATION. PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSOCIATION TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSMENTS ARE, CURRENT. EVTDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OP TILL TOWN OP ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE 13EBN SATISFIED. 3. GOOD AND SUFFICI EED FROM JOHN FULL TON TO JEFFRF.Y S. SHOAF CONVES'TNG SUBJECT PROPERTY . .., .... „Lai vo . oV rt&A V I UUL3o44J LA114L 111Lr, Aarr.11 ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No, Q380954-2 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights of claims- of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Disun-pamies, conflicts in body lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not Shown by the public records. 4. Any lieu, or right to a lieu, for Se. ices, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and TIot shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens encumbrances, adverse elairll$ or other.natters, it any, created, first appearing iu the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date tbt: proposed insured acquires Qr rc;cvrd tier value the estate or interesc or mortgage thereon covered. by this Commitment. 6. Taxes and assetismcnts not yet due or payable and specia) assessment~ not yet certified to the Treasurer's office. 7. Any unpaid luxes or assessments against said. land. 8_ Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any. 9. THE EFFECT OF TNCLUSTONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECTFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, FIRE PROTECTION. SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY WATER SERVICE OR STRBET iMPROVEMEfitT AREA.. 10, WATER RIGHTS OR CLAIMS TO WATBR RIGHTS. 11. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY TKL AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATBS AS RE&ERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 20, 1958 IN BOOK 1.85 AT PAGE 69. 12. TERMS, AGREEMENTS, PROVTSTONS, CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF WATER SUPPLY AND CESSPOOL EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED APRIL 17, 1967 IN BOOK 226 AT PAGE 293. 13. COVENANTS AS SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT .RECORDED MAY 14, 1980 )N '800.K 388 AT PAGE 850 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 223990. 14. TERMS, CONDITTONS, PROVISIONS, OBLIGATIONS, AND ALL MATTERS AS SET FORTH IN ORDINANC7E NO. 4, SERTES OF 19949 BY CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED AP tLL 11, U4/iV/UU WEI) 09:513 FAA H7U9ZD044J t,,At"jv LLL&-," tavau., a ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q380954-2 The policy or policies to be issued will conutin exceptions to the following unlesS the Same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1994 IN BOOK 747 AT PAGE 195, 15. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AND OBLTGATIONS .AS SET FORTH TN AMENDED SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RECORDED JUNE 28, 1994 IN BOOK 754 AT PAGE 397, AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RECORDED MAY 14, 1980 IN BOOK 388 AT PAGE 852 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 223991. 16. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT RLCORDL?D TUNB 28, 1994 IN BOOK 754 AT PAGE 4W. 17. EASEN ENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, AND ALL MATTERS AS DISCLOSED ON PLAT OF S'UPL T PROPERTY RECORDED MAY 14, 1980 IN PLAT BOOK 9 AT PAGE 67 A ND RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 34 AT PAGE 86. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED DULY 6, 1994 TN BOOK 754 AT PACE 878. 19. ACCESS IS LIMITED TO THE TERMS AGREEMENTS PROVISIONS C 66 DITIOTN ONOK 2AND T OBLIGATIONS OF ACCESS EASEMENT RECORDED NOBR 7 19 PAGE .562 A.S RECEPTION NO- 1.25845. MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee FROM: Jeffrey S. Shoaf and Mark P. Hesselschwerdt DATE: September 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Design Review Variance Request for Property located at 981 King Street - Aspen, Colorado (Legal Description: Lot #4, Astor Subdivision) Response to Attachment 3, Paragraph 7 and Attachment 4, Paragraph 6 The subject property was acquired in 1999 by John Fullerton, the adjoining neighbor to the northeast. He desires to restrict the redevelopment of the property in such a way as to preserve his existing view plane. Jeffrey Shoaf has a contractual interest to purchase said property. The restrictions that Mr. Shoaf and Mr. Fullerton have agreed to are as follows: 1. The height of the new development shall not exceed that of the existing structure. 2. The development shall be located no further east than the boundary between Lots 2 and 3 of Astor Subdivision to the north (see survey). With these restrictions and the City of Aspen's design standards in mind, we have developed what we feel is the best plan possible for 981 King Street. We have been able to meet or exceed every standard with the exception of the secondary massing standard. With respect AACP and the design standards, we are hereby requesting a variance for the following mitigating reasons as per Review Standard "C" . Please be advised that we have modified our original submission to create a secondary mass of garage/bedroom with a link as per DRAG and City staff input. 1. The approximately 43% of the lot bordering Garrish City Park is being retained as open space by concentrating the mass on -site to the western one-half, approximately where the current house is sited. This concession necessitates the compact massing proposed. 2. The new development will not be visible from King Street, thereby having a minimal impact on the public right-of-way. MEMO to Design Review Appeal Committee September 12, 2000 Page Two 3. The design and topography are such that, in the public realm (i.e., from the neighbor's view across the Roaring Fork River), the house will appear to be a low lying, unobtrusive, one-story structure surrounded by trees. Secondary massing would have no impact on these neighbors. 4. The future development is designed to meet the specific AACP goals to positively impact the neighborhood with a clear, quality and compact design. 5. We are hereby resubmitting to DRAC after creating a garage/bedroom secondary mass with a one-story link on the east elevation due to existing grade changes on the subject lot. In summary, Mr. Shoaf and Mr. Hesselschwerdt feel our proposed development meets the intent of the Aspen Area Community Plan in light of the fact that we have designed a quality project that is historically correct for the immediate neighborhood by being consistent with existing architecture and the natural environments. In deference to the goals of AACP, we believe what we are proposing is consistent with as well as enriches and enlivens the context of the neighborhood. Our proposed design has created significant spaces between our development and the neighboring t homes. We have also sited our development the maximum distance possible from adjoining Garrish City Park to the east as per the philosophy of AACP. Presently, there are no detached secondary masses to be found on -site or on the contiguous neighbors' properties. In fact, they all share with our proposed design the concept of an attached garage incorporated into the massing. We thank you for your review of Sincerely, Jeffrey . Shoa Mark P. Hesselschwerdt }� { xxj v'. 1 .�J`uRfiW� .�,Y,*+J �'`,`f, '"�.. ''' .�,• w�fr 1 tt�pi,a', 4f''C^t'*�"I ':txb�i"-3,`t;{v ,ttt,i�ih't1F^�iY}Stf;F' -l'st . ).•t t� . { V'a }„tSMr."tAslih�i t t Ccift . i T{M• ,�„q',4" o 1 '•�#�1P "R 3 . 11 1V`'r.2 i•k. ,ql' �h y yr��. t'. t1�, a..� gain l(i, R•. q�� 7 %tt j +l , i��'y''t ? ���'a .r �✓.;'. � `*}`t• !��`p��''7'r 'R� �.,ir5y :1°,d :t`i _ �";.f1.,w � 5\8P7'_':E! fi+ Vigil: dY'f`�4 •W'�Yd � � �V?@'fix f Y• ,�� �T.. ,l�j„ {:. ;t.�'t 1'�' � ii rl' ��t' ;q ���' �+� '4) t,n M'I' +"�"`F`tis"r �ir`IP. }�11v"t,y� }Il,l? �� i •�� � ., ,:�',1. � �Lp ?r~, �A' "� �`�.?�i i '�'.-�� �,r{ •) ex�k l• :..�fi! L =14 itt C t fl t jr!} , 4l IK " �0{4 ? �) t� ' t' 1i 4u��' n •t. �r'�.uxt<:>a'Fr' � .._.....�, ,,,...,,�••ta�,.�s'..>:"�"'; ,,�,�,�rt. ,t,�,� ..t .y,�.,�_. .. '� _;��, 1..... �, ��.�r.�3 t . _ �. � ��.a,�,. � x.� r�}��..,.����3si�3,l��k��'� r,; ��' _ .,±..~u,St<< , ',�,,, 1. r`. 1, ,r �'^. .. a, -... �f rr.l,''t'.� , � .-. .. .+ i ;"�'::.,,-�r�.,.. r /ry -:,. ,,,, .,. -,a ..ya. ty" i,-'SI 8•.Y': ;{` "ei "rWT1;. 7' �4. ii i'♦ t,",'�'•: t;• ;, t. •. •t�'...'. v.., ,.. ,.. .. '':;, ,{ ,.. Y:r_it.'., •, :, ;:,•: •\ rll .r.., ,,,� ,,I;h: ,5,+.' ,r6Yrk�;v�'�pt N '.fS}4• .t� v,t"'}v8 ,�4yj pit 1J5. �.: tir a .c)1�,r ,r'.',.))t ",t '� �. , 't t. 1. ,,1 l }.. .V,, '( .,�,!i '` �e �1_ ,1 .,.�'` :Ctiy_rt: t � ,!vIJ.. i. ,0`= "'1;11>rf,: ,.,. 'gi t � V,, ,J„'^Y �'.:li �� �`l•:mm, E 1?, 5.,. t!'. 1;.. �# ,<,>.��f�6`'.t�1t, �,5�,., r ], i'r,> , .�'f ,1 , l ' 1 •i, . , i {V, J � :�1 r•,.,ti.r. �' ..v `.,',i �t , ., �� �' ,. � 1;' , : ��t+, lx •i'•r' f. ' iil}, � & . 1 t rl,..i? � ' . tt',v S, `i,. , , p � t, . •.t.t,.. �; ...; ,t, r"..,*}i..'.nt!'.":.1 i ',',�Y ktr , ,., .�f.' F.i.}., ,.4 ,,).1. ,, ;-i }ti. ,r ��� :.4. .rm. n-.� 7, h''•. Sl k; f,. , .�':v, { t _ � 1'..:1 ., ..•..0 . •„'! ,. • r., C,.}. .\ ,.i. $ t `� .,'.'.: ,•.,.. ,: �. -, .... ,. )�.. , , Y rl. `i .' _,�k ., 'o,r�fi�Z ,f.,, � : S''� C� ,,. r.. ;, ':.: - I:,. ,:,, � ,,.C,,. •.,.•.,,,'-, .�.. :: , . t'+ct'i�'. -t,. 4 ,>a�•��,, x1', .� 9 ,.7, Chit•^n.f 'Vt): trt � ��/,Wt;:.tFi d� 7r l` 11, .J_ r;�S ,. ., ,,:, ,. .r .'.,. ,, ,...,,. ,, ,rr,T, {F, '.� 1. •,. „i iJ,P., Y.. •,r d, r, "; s:.,,v.: 1 ..r,'.;R ,.�j'' �, 1. ,tt, �(!+(� �.. �� .r.' �,. it t ,,., .�, ,'�.. .,. .1.. tij?. ,�i,. ,.. ..,a, ,, ...1 .t. lt-,.1,,,,,.,a.. �.�•". 1, „. .t. 1; ,,.. ,�Ii:'��f'^ .5 '{' ri k. vX 'r'(:�A.�, r, 11 r. A, �t, , •Q�^'i!�1'`:a�1 e�y, 1� -il M�''r;.i4v(S ,..ibt ,A�,,, •,.t i, t.l �t X.,; 1 )-I �`r :f ,t ;i7{ .,1 � r�. \. ••1 ..,.. ''+..,,. ,,.y- ;... ut „t� � �. y /_. :��.27 �� t'�' '� �dlt�un*"'M16 .Y :::1,, �,_. :- !, ,.tv+•i' 114.'1 1., i% :i 1 'c;. 5, r,• �,r+ .)'.,tf,'6b,,!^, ,1,,,,t.,,; ,,)�f�.A)1 .u. !? r'e.•rn,. r :iir�:.�i" `;'.}. �tuc f{ k.� ..� t ' T 1' '�>, , . a 4 k a 4 i 1 :i'h), ) ..t- n, i , AY, '} , l , � , ��, '. � .ti � t � � }Y-� ,,,,'''�� ,^wt�i,,ldr:.� .r e*, ,. n� , a t .< ,,,M„ 1 e r t ,, •..,r'- 1t n:i�t t+. ti' ',1, •', 21: .�•� i t, �#, .�,t ,..iVt .4.'� �laA c.�., , .�: r( ,d.i .� 'e'"' •7. %?�• ',!� �• .a..:,�v. Nn, ...,w.;," . a. :4 '.C. S. c7 C 1,P;v 'f d'k 1 �r � f .v , r f . ij1. 4 ii ' :i��:�5�!���� �� >, . :)it S .i ' a�, tl., . ,si C E `c4 e t •`� , i u 11'',,. �. , ...,1 ..,..;.::u•tu.:.. ,.....;tt,..,.lt, ...,.:..Ca,(v�.e�.r?.,,, r ...,.t`,.:. r.t_.r��t61,1 �\,,,ri`(stt.t�'t�`,,,+,�,.�ca+lttes�.,�v4�aa'�"e�� a ---_............. •.a>ua�w;nt4tTG52;?. �,?.'li!J,..��._.,Jr�,,�.b^i�t„�1�:•�i+x},t.,.,r3.c,rl..,�.a„>�irZ,,..:.,,fkx4,4�,l.rli(�tr•1,,.,�,�,:, ' 0 mI MIL s �03,r"4 hhm'rt,°,' •e, fi%'{�4'`.'s,,.!:'Ul �,t`rr"�:'v4 ,ttgt���y �r rr 1.. �t�.:����`�aaY.i1.��-wio•.'�'S�t B.'3ryfiT:ti4�K,�eS��-'4�yi 4 1 i?r'ry3ai} Ott• c � i `, - W" WWI. kv ti ikL 0 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } A SECTION 263.04.060 (E) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, pe sonally 40V I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day o lw_ (whit is days prior to the public hearing date of L 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 t l dayof �Wll . (tilust be posted for at leap �. days before the hearing date). A phot, (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this / 7 day WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission spit Notary Public 'IAA-, ) t-4- Notary Public's Signature or P" sz, P-0 -4-( cl CC CIA Cr 4" F-9 4-, ro P-1 .pw en O .Orkn tn P-j Q tn 00 Itz tj tj 146) z Wi ke� *fz � :t- � � tj Lo� 4 ZI... t Z ;ot . C.� Tw Z - F46) . t6) ;It ci Q Ln Q AAA It Q� 7 z I-W "4 P-4 "-A z Ifti ft. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner RE: Land Use Code Amendments — Public Hearing (Cont. from October 3, 2000) DATE: October 17, 2000 SUMMARY: This is a staff initiated set of Land Use Code amendments. The majority of amendments proposed by staff could be characterized as "clean-up" items and were passed by the Commission on October P. The remaining items were identified as needing more substantive discussion and were continued to this date. Staff has provided a brief description and analysis. on each item under the heading "Amendments." Staff will cover each of these in greater detail during the meeting. Each of these relate to a section of the proposed Resolution were the code language is provided. The proposed text in the Resolution shows code language to be added, removed, and not affected - signified as: Added., me d; not affected. Staff recommends the Commission consider each section individually. For each item the Commission can either amend the language during the meeting or direct staff to return with amended language in a revised Resolution. If desired, the Commission can "split" the Resolution sending certain portions forward and requesting additional analysis on others. AMENDMENTS: (Relate to sections of the proposed Resolution) Hotel Definition. (Section 1) The recent Lodge Preservation amendments allowed for an owner of a condominiumized LP lodge unit to occupy the unit for a time period not exceeding 6 months of each calendar year. This flexibility was contemplated as a new incentive for additional LP development and has been considered by LP developers as a financing tool. It is important for this discussion to differentiate lodges in the LP Overlay verses non -LP lodges. The vast majority of hotels and lodges in town are not in the LP system. The definition of a "Lodge" merely says "same as a Hotel" and the two terms are interchangeable. The Lodge definition provides, however, that Lodges in the LP Overlay have this additional flexibility, as was contemplated during the most recent LP amendments. The Hotel definition does not provide for the same owner use incentive and merely states that the units are "used by the general public on a short-term basis for a fee." During the Boomerang Lodge review, a request to interpret the term general public was made by the applicants in relation to a fractional ownership concept. The interpretation, which was appealed and upheld by City Council, determined that removing a unit from the short- term rental pool prevented the general public from using the units and would be in contravention of the definition. The Hotel definition appears to exclude owner use of their unit at any time. It is this policy that staff is seeking direction, especially with the potential for a significant number short-term properties to be affected by the decision. A request to clarify the manner in which owners of condominimized Hotel units can occupy their unit was raised by Gideon Kaufman. (See attached letter.) The specifics of Mr. Kaufman's issue were discussed briefly during the October 3rd meeting in which units at the recently condominiumized L' Auberge lodge were being incorrectly marketed as available for owner use 6 months of each year. The L'Auberge project in not in the LP Overlay. The definition of "Short -Term" is an occupancy period of one month or less. This was based upon taxing provisions for short-term hotel stays and is a parameter common throughout resort areas. The policy question is: can a unit owner stay in his/her own unit. And, if so, for how long. Staff believes that ownership of a lodge unit should include the ability to use the unit and believes the existing policy should be amended to allow for such stay and reflect an appropriate length of personal use. Staff is recommending several occupancy time periods for the Commission to consider. In speaking with a few lodge operators, both of LP and non -LP lodges, responses ranged from a two -week period, to one month, to three months, to 6 months as an appropriate time frame for owner use. Staff suggests a period of time related to the short-term definition be used for simplicity. Lastly, if substantive policies result from this discussion, they may be better located in a different section of the Land Use Code such as supplementary regulations. Currently, these policies reside in the definitions section and are not readily apparent to the reader. Subdivision for Open Space or future Affordable Housing. (Section 2) A request from Mitch Haas, on behalf of the Villas of Aspen Townhouses, is attached. This request is for a Land Use Code provision for creating parcels with no associated growth management allotments. Presently, the Subdivision regulations require an allotment or exemption from GMQS be acquired prior to, or in conjunction with, the review for Subdivision approval. The language in the Subdivision section is perfectly clear, although it was requested for interpretation, appealed, and upheld by the City Council. It is important to note that the Interpretation process does not allow for a discussion of `what should the Land Use Code sayT only `what does it now say?' In other words, just because an interpretation request was denied doesn't mean the idea has no merit. After determining that the interpretation was correct, City Council directed staff to investigate the notion of a new Subdivision process for creating open space or affordable housing parcels. Staff has provided language in the proposed Resolution that would enable such Subdivisions of land by providing a GMQS exemption process. Staff has modified the language provided by Mr. Haas but has retained the suggested substantive criteria. With respect to Open Space parcel creation, there currently is no practical way to convey a fee simple interest in a conservation parcel with the lack of a GMQS exemption process. However, there are other mechanisms to convey a conservation easement (to a land trust for example) that accommodate the same function of preserving natural land. Easements can be sold and maintenance responsibilities can be agreed upon without a City process or oversight. With respect to Affordable Housing parcel creation, there may be some value in having a process in which affordable housing parcels could be created. However, developers of those vacant properties would still be required to proceed through the PUD process and such a process may determine the Subdivision should have been accomplished in an alternative way. In addition, it would be difficult for staff to analyze the impacts of a yet -to -be -proposed development. With respect to both of these proposed methods of subdividing land, staff believes there could be unforeseen negatives and believes a more detailed plan for creating Open Space or a detailed plan for developing affordable housing would answer many of the questions this proposed code amendment raises. Staff does not believe the positive merits of this proposed language have been fully demonstrated and recommends the Commission strike Section #2 from the proposed resolution. Environmentally Sensitive Area Amendment (Section 3) This section institutes a procedure for amending an ESA approval where none has existed. Specifically, it allows the Community Development Director the ability to approve insubstantial amendments. The language was based on the administrative exemption criteria for Stream Margin development. Existing development within ESA's are eligible for an "exemption" by the Community Development Director according to a set of standards for each ESA. For example, development on the non -river side of a house along the river can be 3 approved by the Director if it does not increase the footprint of the building by a certain amount. If a project has been approved but not yet developed there is currently no exemption available for the applicant to change the development proposal without going back through the ESA Review with the Commission. This is true even if the change does not represent any increased impact on the ESA. This is also the only section of the Land Use Code that does not provide an amendment procedure. The proposed language would allow for an amendment of an approval as long as the changes were in compliance with the exemption criteria. Affordable Housing Zone District (Section 4) The Affordable Housing Zone District requires development proposals to proceed through a PUD review to determine the appropriate dimensional regulations for that particular parcel. The PUD regulations were amended in 1999 to include density as part of the dimensions that are set forth in the final development plan. Previously, although the PUD regulations did not allow for density to be varied, the AH Zone District allow density to be increased upon Special Review. In a round -about way, this accomplished the same flexibility to vary density in a development review. Now that the PUD allows for density variations, the Special Review density provision is redundant. Most of the dimensional "requirements" of the AH Zone District are "to be determined during PUD Review." The question now is whether or not a "density guide" should be established or if the code should merely allow any level of density to be proposed. Likewise for Floor Area, there is currently an FAR chart and a requirement to proceed through Special Review to use more than 85% of that allowance. This again is redundant assuming that all dimensions of a project are established through adoption of a PUD development plan. Staff is proposing to eliminate this FAR Special Review provision. The FAR chart has also posed some difficulties for certain properties. The FAR increases as a "stepped" rate as opposed to a "sliding scale" as all other Zone Districts. Therefore, there can be great differences in the allowable FAR between two properties of similar size if each falls on either side of the steps. For example, a property of 25,001 square feet is allowed 5,000 square feet of development less than a property of 25,000 square feet. To address this issue, staff is questioning whether a FAR guide could be utilized to de-emphasize the steps in the FAR chart. This would provide developers with greater flexibility in proposing dimensional standards that related to a site, as opposed to a chart. 4 APPLICANT: City of Aspen Community Development Department. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered these code amendments. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. The Commission shall recommend by Resolution at a duly noticed public hearing City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the text amendment. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Letters from Gideon Kaufman and Mitch Hass are attached as Exhibit `B." RECOMMENDATION: Several of these sections need to be amended prior to passing the Resolution. The Hotel definition, for example, has several proposed regulations and there may yet additional ways to suggest this section read. The Commission can either amend the language during the meeting or direct staff to return with amended language in a revised . Resolution. Also, the Commission can split the Resolution sending certain portions forward and requesting additional analysis on others. Staff does not recommend approval of the Subdivision exemption process, Section 2. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend City Council amend the Land Use Code, as described in Resolution No 00-,11�7 eliminating section 2." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Exhibit B -- Staff Comments Letters of text amendment requests. W RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. Resolution No. 00-� WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission proposed amendments to the text of the Land Use Code, as described herein, pursuant to Section 26.212; and, WHEREAS, the amendments proposed relate to Sections 26.104.100, 26.210, 26.304, 26.4355 26.4705 26.480, 26.510, 26.575, 26.590, 26.710.110 the Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed Land Use Code amendments on September 5,' 2000, continued the hearing to October 3, 2000, and continued to October 17, 2000, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a to L-�, City Council adopt the proposed amendments the text of the Land Use Code, as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the Aspen City Council amend the Land Use Code of the Municipal Code, as follows: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.104.100 — Definitions — by adding and s#iking language as follows: Hotel. A building containing three (3) or more individual rooms, without kitchens, used for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for a fee, with or without meals, and which has common reservation and cleaning services, combined utilities, and on -site management and reception services. Owners of condominiumized Hotel units may occupy their unit for no more than one short-term period of each calendar year. Or Owners of condominiumized Hotel units may not occupy their unit for consecutive short-term periods. Or Hotel units, including condominiumized Hotel units, must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for at least nine months of each calendar year. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.470.070 — growth management exemptions — by adding and s#ig language as follows: 26.470.070 N. Subdivision to create Open Space or Future Affordable Housing. The Subdivision of land for the purpose of creating anOpen Space parcel or a parcel for the future development of Affordable Housing shall be exempt from the _scoring and competition procedures of Growth Management provided City Council determines, at a public hearing, that the following criteria are met: 1. General. a) The Growth Management Exemption is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. b) The Growth Management Exemption shall only be considered in conjunction with a Subdivision request and, if necessary, a rezoning request. 2. For Open Space: a) The land shall be permanently deed restricted to prohibit future development. b) There has been a favorable recommendation from the Parks Department for the permanent preservation of the proposed parcel. c) The Subdivision complies with the provisions of Section 26.480 Subdivision. d) The land is, or is proposed to be, included in a zone district conducive to the preservation of open space. e) As part of the Subdivision Agreement there is proposed an acceptable maintenance plan for the open space parcel that identifies the responsible parties and the recorded permanent deed restriction is noted. 3. For future Affordable Housing: a) The land shall be permanently deed restricted to prohibit future development other than permanently affordable residential dwellings meeting the requirements set forth by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, at the time of development. b) The resulting parcel is conducive to the development of affordable housing. c) The Subdivision complies with the provisions of Section 26.480 Subdivision. P&Z Reso 00-',page 2 d) The land is, or is proposed to be, included in a zone district conducive to the development of Affordable Housing. e) As part of the Subdivision Agreement and the Final Subdivision plat, it is expressly noted that the property has no development rights, no growth management allotments, and development of any sort is prohibited without acquiring an appropriate development order. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.435 — Environmentally Sensitive Areas — by adding and stFik4ng language as follows: 26.435.100 Amendment of an ESA Development Order. A. Insubstantial Amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for development within an Environmentally Sensitive Area may be authorized by the Community Development Director if: 1. The Development Order is valid and there is substantial compliance with the conditions of approval. 2. The Development Order is either remaining in conformance with the review criteria set forth for the specific ESA or it is demonstrated that the Development Order is in compliance with any amendments to the ESA criteria. 3. The change is in conformance with the exemption criteria for the specific ESA, as provided in this Section, considering the Development Order as a completed development for the purposes of evaluating the change. 4. The change is in compliance with all other portions of this Title. B. Other Amendments. All other amendments to an approved development order for development within an Environmentally Sensitive Area shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and procedures of this Section. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.710.110 — Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development Zone District - by adding and s#iking language as follows: D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall be established by adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan and shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Planned Unit Development: A:���1� llll slf1R (e u/PI D) zone, diotrint- 1. Minimum Lot Size. 2. Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit. 3. Maximum allowable density. e P&Z Reso 00-&,,page 3 4. Minimum lot width. 5. Minimum front yard. 6. Minimum side yard. 7. Minimum rear yard. 8. Maximum site coverage. 9. Maximum height (including view planes). 10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot. 11. Minimum percent open space required for the building site. 12. Trash access area. 13. Allowable Floor Area. 14. Minimum off-street parking spaces. 15. Other dimensions determined necessary to establish through the PUD process. 7 44 nisvrum lot rren nQi• dwelling unit (nir'1lGiue Feet . 1 Iq�'�]laNL1f"1 �yC+t PY1'I't�] Z�ry ZY1lT• 3,000 P etaGhead' .TZ squara feat 1 / •• • • • • s • • . •Knorl PRO r • •• Ali • • •• • • • a • •10.15albm . • • • • . / • 19 �'C7QISf V� badrnnm• onn• 2-l. �a�rnnmo• Ong 0) h@dr-enm per- nnn square faot o f �ot arn� • giiK1V iVV4 v� �...- �-�-- page 4 %miiiOOiOOIkVj ••HIM. III wral• M. P.R.trar.-• • • •• Nwoolf'r. • 111 .-• • • •• • • • • •. . =7J. • • •• . - • II�S.iI�•SiI•r �rTi J:Si)A all • •• • • ♦ • • - • • • - • rmWexodam• • -121 1 . • • .w / 9 VINIAI I MI M. • • . • • •• - • • • - • • • • • • • • • •• . • • W.- M. • • - • r - • • • 11 Im rMLOF.M."• MUM• • Raw r•• •-• • • • • • .• • • rexa 1 ♦ �i i� ♦ • • ♦ • ♦ ♦ • • - r•• • - • • • Mumma0191 • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • - • r • • • • • . m WHOM .- • .• .••• •.. r .• • -. •.- • -• •. _ _ _ OUR .. . MR .- 0.. .. .- - r.. • -. - • . • . TAW Note #1: The maximum allowable density permitted in this zone shall be established by adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan by using the following table applied to the proposed fathering parcel as aguide: wv� Wr7 A Unit Type Minimum Lot Area* per unit Minimum Lot Area* per unit Minimum Lot Area* per unit Dormitory - - 300 Studio 300 1000 400 One Bedroom 400 1250 500 Two Bedroom 800 2100 1000 Three Bedroom 1200 3630 1500 3+ Bedrooms 400/Bedroom 1000/Bedroom 500/Bedroom *Lot Area as defined in the Land Use Code. Note #2: The allowable floor area permitted in this zone ;red shall be established by adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan by using the following table —:aalll-be applied to the proposed fathering parcel as a guide: Peer area . Lot Area* Allowable Floor Area Ratio 0--15,000 square feet 1.1:1 15,001--25,000 square feet 1:1 25,001-43,560 square feet .8:1 >1 acre--3 acres .6:1 >3 acres--6 acres .36:1 >6 acres .3:1 * Lot Area as defined in the Land Use Code. Section 5: Pursuant to Section 26.310.050 of the Municipal Code, the adoption of this resolution by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered a pending ordinance. APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on October 17, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Robert Blaich, Chair CAhome\Chris\CASES\land use code\ 10_17_amendments.doc P&Z Reso 00 page 7 r ' EXHIBIT A AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the proposed code amendments are in conflict with any applicable portions of this title or the Municipal Code. The purposes of the amendments are to provide greater clarity in current regulations. There are a few substantive amendments that are proposed and staff does not believe these represent any conflicts with other code sections. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The amendments are designed to address the goals and policies set forth in the recently adopted AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text amendment. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: This text amendment will not, itself, introduce additional demands on public services. In actual development review, impacts associated with infrastructure capabilities are considered. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Comments 1 Staff Finding:_ The code amendments will not result in any adverse impacts on the natural environment. When actual development applications are reviewed, the impacts on surrounding natural environment are considered. Staff does not believe these amendments represent any change in the importance placed on development impacts. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The code amendments themselves will not affect community character and that determination will be considered during actual development review. Staff believes the amendments are consistent and compatible with the City's character. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: This criteria applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment. L Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with tlae public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: The purposes of these amendments are to provide mechanisms to achieve community goals that were specifically adopted to address the public interest, namely the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff believes these amendments promote the purpose and intent of this Title and is in harmony with the public interest. Staff Comments 2 HAAS LAND PLANNING LLG 4 April 4, 2000 Ms. Sarah Oates, Aspen Zoning Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Code Amendment & Council Direction Dear Sarah: On January 24, 2000 City Council upheld a Community Development Director's Code Interpretation related to the relationship between Sections 26.480.020(B) and 26.470.070. The interpretation request asked whether a property owner could subdivide a single lot into two lots (one with the existing development, provided compliance with all dimensional requirements would not be compromised, and the other vacant) and concurrently rezone the vacant portion to AH/PUD without previously receiving any GMQS allocations. This scenario included a caveat whereby the subdivider would have to willingly restrict, by plat note and/or other legally acceptable mechanism, the newly created lot such that it could only be developed in accordance with and under the provisions of the AH/PUD zone district. In their decision to uphold the Community Development Director's interpretation, Council also saw fit to direct staff to pursue a code amendment that would allow a subdivision with an affordable housing zoning designation to be approved prior to GTMQS allotments, provided the approval is legally binding in terms of providing affordable housing at a future time. Because more than two months have passed since Council gave staff this direction and no steps have been taken toward this end, I have decided to try kick-starting the process, so to speak, by offering the following language for your use in processing a code amendment. Addition of a new Section 26.470.070(N): N. Subdivision to Create of a Single Lot for Open Space or Future Affordable Housing Development. The act of subdividing a single lot from a fathering parcel shall be exempt from the growth management competition and scoring procedures provided City Council determines, at a public hearing, that the following criteria are met: 1. For Open Space: a. There shall be a favorable recommendation from the Parks Department or Open Space Board, as applicable, for the creation of the proposed open space lot or parcel. 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 • ASPEN, COLORADO • (970) 925-7819 • FAx (970) 925-7395 Ms. Sarah Oates April, 2000 Page 2 of 3 b. The subdivision shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 26.480, Subdivision. c. Acceptable measures for the continued maintenance and upkeep of the created open space lot or parcel shall have been agreed upon by the subdivider, the City Council, and the City Attorney prior to approval. d. A final plat for the lot open space shall be prepared at the subdivider's expense and approved by the City prior to its recordation. A subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be prepared, approved and recorded concurrently with the plat, if deemed necessary or advisable by the City Attorney. e. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective" annual development allotment or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings. 2. For Future Affordable Housing Development: a. A property owner may subdivide a single developed lot or parcel into two lots provided the subdivision results in the developed portion residing on a single lot which continues to comply with all applicable dimensional requirements, and the vacant lot is zoned for future development under the terms of the affordable housing/planned unit development (AH/PUD) zone district. b. The subdivision shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 26.480, Subdivision. c. The vacant lot shall be restricted by plat note or other legally acceptable, guaranteeing mechanism such that it can only be developed in accordance with the rules, procedures and provisions of the AH/PUD zone district, as may be amended from time to time. The restrictions shall also stipulate that the subject lot cannot be rezoned to eliminate the AH/PUD designation unless approved by City Council based on compelling reasons and changed conditions. d. The vacant, AH/PUD lot shall have no development rights associated with it unless allotted or exempted as part of an AH/PUD development plan pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). e. This G?VIQS Exemption shall apply only to the creation through subdivision of the vacant, AH/PUD lot. No granting or exempting of affordable or free market residential development allotments is either expressed or implied by the approval of a GMQS Exemption pursuant to this section. All otherwise required approvals for the AH/PUD development of the created lot shall still apply. f. City Council may require such reasonable conditions of approval as it deems necessary. g. A final plat for the AH/PUD lot shall be prepared at the subdivider's expense and approved by the City prior to its recordation. A I . n Ms. Sarah Oates April, 2000 Page 3 of 3 subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be prepared, approved and recorded concurrently with the plat, if deemed necessary or advisable by the City Attorney. h. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotment or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings. However, any exemptions granted for the eventual development of the lot under the AH/PUD zone district shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotment and from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings, as required. Please review my various memos written in route to the interpretation request and appeal for background information as to why this amendment is desirable (I can supply copies, if needed). The above -suggested language is just a quickly drafted version of the type of amendment envisioned. Of course, it will be up to the Community Development Department to decide what is appropriate for proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. I would greatly appreciate your keeping me abreast of any progress with regard to - processing an amendment pursuant to City Council's direction. Hopefully, you will find my suggested language to be more or less acceptable as well as helpful in getting the process moving forward. I can be contacted at the phone number provided on the bottom of this letter's first page. Truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC f Mitch Haas, AICP Owner cc: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Nancy Hinrichs, Villa of Aspen Townhouses cAmy documentskity applicationswillaAmend JUL.. 11. ZUUU 1. �JFM NAUrMAN & I't I tKSUN iNu ILib r L BROOKK A. PIMRSON LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON 1. KAUI"MAN• JENN►FER MAE HOSERMAN"' KA'UPr►�[AN SL pE"iERSON, P.C. OF COUNSEL: 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 30S HAL S. DISHLER'" ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 .. AJ iN oaio n July 11, 2000 -ALSO AGNIM D IN TUAi A FACS1141LE TgANSMISSIO TELEPHONE (970) 925.6166 FACSIMILE (970) 925.1090 Mr. Chris Hendon Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Code Interpretation Dear Chris: Pursuant to our meetings and telephone conversations, I write this letter to confirm that the Planning office will be bringing forward a Code amendment or Code interpretation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to address the issue you and I discussed concerning condominiumizatioa of lodges. As you know, in the LP Zone District, there is specific language that permits the owner of a condominiumized lodge unit to occupy his condominium six months out of the year. In the LTR and other conforming Lodge Zone Districts, the specific language of the LP Zone District is not present. it was my understanding that the City would adopt similar language to the LP Zone language so that it is clear that an owner could occupy his unit. if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Otherwise, I will look forward to this matter being discussed when the Planning Office brings forward its Code interpretations or amendments. Sincerely, KAUFMAN & PFTFRSON, P.C. A Profe Tonal Corporation G • Gideo Kaufman GK/bw ACTION: Amendment to the Land Use Code Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 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 facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. 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.