Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20030701 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 1, 2003 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. PuDIie II. MINUTES III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS, Scott Woodford, continued from 6/17 V. BOARD REPORTS VI. ADJOURN 1 � MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director of Community Development FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planner RE: LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS, PUBLIC HEARING; AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL LAND USE CODE; RESOLUTION NO. 1 J5 , SERIES 2003 DATE: July 1, 2003 REQUEST SUMMARY' The Community Development Department proposes amendments to Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code (hereinafter call the "Land Use Code"). REVIEW PROCESS: The Department requests approval of the following: 1) Amendments to the Land Use Code; According to Section 26.310.020, a public hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council are required for any proposed amendments to the Land Use Code. Final Review Authodly: Ci Council BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The following proposed code amendments are an accumulation of changes that staff has been compiling over the last year. Most changes are relatively minor and are, simply, clarifications or "clean up". of code language that staff, as well as Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, have found to be problematic in the past for one reason or another. None of the proposed amendments .contemplate any major shift in policy. PREVIOUS ACTIONS: None. STAFF COMMENTS: AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE; Staff finds that the proposed Amendments to the Land Use Code comply with the applicable review criteria (see Exhibit A for Staff Findings). The following is a list of the proposed code amendments, the issue necessitating the amendment, and the proposed solution (also see the resolution for proposed wording without strikeout and underline — the Section numbers below correspond to the Section numbers in the resolution): SECTION 1 - DEFINITIONS: Staff proposes adding definitions of antenna, monopole, whip antennae, and panel antennae (as shown below), which are all terms used in the Wireless Telecommunications section of the Code. Definitions of these terms would LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 assist in the review of wireless telecommunication proposals and help staff in better interpreting the wireless telecommunication ordinance. Antennae: Any structure, including but not limited to a monopole, tower, parabolic and/or disk shaped device in single or multiple combinations of either solid or mesh construction, intended for the purpose of receiving or transmitting communication to or from another antenna, device or orbiting satellite, as well as supporting equipment necessary to install or mount the antenna. Monopole: A wireless communication facility which consists of a mono -polar structure, erected to support wireless telecommunication antennas and connecting appurtenances. Antenna, Whip: A flexible rod antenna supported on a base insulator. Antenna, Panel: A flat surface antenna used to achieve transmission or reception from a specific direction. . SECTION 2 — DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMISSION: Staff proposes disbanding the Design Review Appeal Commission (DRAC) as a separate board. According to the Code, the DRAC is the board that is responsible for review of variances to Residential Design Standards. The entire Section 26.222 reference to the DRAG is proposed to be removed from the Code because most applicants seek variances to the Residential Design Standards in conjunction with other land use approval requests and choose to consolidate them in front of either the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) or the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z). Staff feels that this is a more efficient process and allows the reviewing entity to evaluate the entire package of the development proposal. Because of this, staff proposes that the responsibility for reviewing variances to the Residential Design Standards be either HPC or P&Z, depending on which board is reviewing other land use requests.. In the event that both boards are involved in the review, the applicant may choose which board they prefer to hear their case. SECTION 3 — COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES (RE -SUBMITTING DENIED APPLICATIONS): Staff proposes language below that would restrict the ability of an applicant to quickly resubmit an identical, or a very similar application, that has been recently denied by the City because this practice often results in unnecessary duplication of time and effort by the City staff, City Boards, and the public. According to the new provision, an applicant would have to wait at least one year until resubmitting the same project, however, it would also allow an applicant to resubmit an application earlier than that if the Community Development Director (CDD) feels that the applicant has adequately addressed the stated reasons for denial or if the project has been sufficiently enough changed from the denied project that it may qualify as a new application. (Section 26.304.060) F. Re -submittal of a previously denied application. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 After a final decision that results in the denial of a development application by the appropriate final approving body, an applicant wishing to re -submit the same plan for approval: 1. May not submit the same development application, or one substantially the same, as determined by the Community Development Director, for a period of one (1) year from the date of the.most recent ruling of denial; or 2. May submit a revised application that adequately addresses all of the stated reasons for denial. The Community Development Director shall determine whether a.) a new submittal adequately addresses all of the stated reasons for denial and can proceed with a submittal; or, b.) a new submittal is sufficientlX enough altered from the project denied by City Council that it qualifies as a new application for a different project. In either scenario, such application shall be treated as a new application for purposes of review, scheduling and fees SECTION 4 - COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEw PROCEDURES (SUBMITTING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS): Recently, there has been a growing trend of applicants submitting more than one land use application for different projects for the same property. The benefits to the applicant in this situation are that they have the ability to process two different applications at one time, for one property and then, if both are approved, be able to choose which one suits them better or - if one is ultimately denied - have a backup plan in place. The problems this creates for the City and its staff and boards, as well as for neighbors of the project, are the additional time and expense that it creates in processing two applications., the attendance of meetings, and the confusion that is created in trying to keep the two projects and their -issues separate. Because of these problems, staff proposes language below that the City will not accept more than one ,development application on any one property at the same time. A provision of the new regulation, however, is that if the Community Development Department Director feels there is a public benefit for waiving this requirement, she may do so. F. No Multiple Applications. The City of Aspen shall not accept or review more than one development application on andproperty concurrently. To submit a new application 'on a property, any active development application must be vacated Upon determining there is a public purpose to be served, the Community Development Director may waive this limitation. SECTION 5 — AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAPS: A provision is proposed to clarify that an ordinance establishing or changing a zone district is the final authority in situations when there are disputes about the correct zoning of a property. For example, if a property owner feels their property is zoned one way and the zoning map indicates it is another zoning, then the official method to determine the correct zoning is to consult the original ordinance. The proposed language follows: LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 26.310.085 Disputes about zoning of a property. In cases where there is a dispute as to the correct zoning of a property, the ordinance gpproving or establishing the zoning shall be the final authority and not the official zone district map. SECTION 6 — RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (REVISIONS TO THE REVIEW CRITERIA): This Section will be changed to represent that the P&Z or HPC are the appropriate bodies for review of variances to the Residential Design Standards and removal of reference to the Design Review Appeal Commission, which would cease to exist as a city board. In addition, staff has proposed changing the review criteria for a variance to the Residential Design Standards, which both staff and the P&Z have felt have been difficult to administer in the past. The old review criteria is: (1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Instead of requiring that a variance prove that it is compliant with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and that it more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standards responds to, as is the case now, staff has added new criteria as worded below: C. Variances. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, may be granted by the Design Review Appeal Geffh-nittee as established in Chapters-222 Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission if the-roject is subject to the requirements of Section 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use reviews by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. In the event that land use reviews are required by two different boards, the applicant may choose which board they wish to conduct the review. An applicant who desires an exemption from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate, and the deciding board shall find, that the exception, if granted, would: 1. Provide a more appropriate pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard; or, 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints. SECTION 7 — RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS ACCESSED FROM AN ALLEY OR PRIVATE ROAD): For some odd reason, the LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 word "waffle" is codified in this section when it should be the word "traffic". Staff proposes changing it to reflect the true intention. Second, staff has added the provision below allowing the use of double stall doors for garages that are located off of an alley or private road, as long as they are designed to appear like single stall doors (i.e. with a separating, differently shaded or textured material in the center dividing the door into visually appearing separated stalls). Currently, the Code requires single stall doors only for garages accessed in this manner. The proposed code language: PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and. automobile wale traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports -on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1. For all residential uses, parking, garages, and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road if one exists. The gara e doors shall be single stall doors, or double stall doors designed to appear like single stall doors IIIIIIIIIillilllllli�l o l SECTION 8 — RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS THAT DO NOT HAVE ACCESS FROM AN ALLEY) • A change is proposed that will allow double stall garage doors for garages that are not visible from a public street (see ' language below).. For garages that are accessed via a private driveway and not a private road or alley, the Code requires that the garage doors be single stall only. Recently, the city had a request by a homeowner in the Cemetery Lane area who wished to have a double stall garage door for his garage that was accessed via a private driveway. Since. it was clear that the garage was not visible from the street, a variance to this Residential Design Standard was sought and approved by the P&Z. Staff feels that it is appropriate to allow a double stall garage doors for garages that are not visible from the public or private street. If a proposed garage is visible from any street (public or private), then the requirement will still be that the garage doors are single stall only. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 f. The garage doors shall be single stall doors., unless the garage doors are not visible from any public right-of-way or private street, in which case the garage doors may be double stall doors. =�M9 �� ��SN I� SECTION 9 - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (ONE-STORY ELEMENT): A modification to this design standard is recommended in order to help better achieve the . objective of the requirement, which is to help break up the mass of a structure. In addition to proposing that the name be changed to "First -Story Element" to more accurately describe the intent of the standard, staff proposes that the words "roof' in porch roof and "architectural projection" be stricken from the standard as we believe that those elements, by themselves, do not achieve the intent of the standard. Staff believes that the intent of the standard is to have a one-story portion on the first floor of the structure extend forward towards the street in order to help reduce the mass of a structure and to address the street better. Consider the recent proposal for the Modernist style house in the Top of Mill Subdivision that initially requested a variance to this standard with a cantilevered, porch roof. The applicant later widened the porch roof to technically meet the standard (because the standard in the Code specifically stated that a porch roof could qualify as a qualifying element), but did not, in staff s opinion achieve the intent of the standard. To deter this possibility in the future, staff has re -written the standard so that it better implies that the first story element be part of the building or a porch (which would require a roof per the Code definition of porch) and not offer small porch roofs, or architectural projections as an option to meet the standard. In addition, a minimum depth of 6' has been added so that any first story element is sufficiently projected from the front fagade and so we do not end up with something that is only a 6" projection from the front fagade (as an example) and which would have no appreciable impact in reducing the building mass. Also, language has been added disallowing walk -out access on top of a first story element (a recent project proposed to do this) because a railing would then be required, which would begin to imply a second story and have the effect of creating more than just a first floor, one-story effect. 2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first -story street -facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width and the .depth of which shall be at least six (6) feet. For example, a first -story element may be a porch , or living space. Accessible living space (whether it is a deck, porch, or enclosed area) over the first LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 story element shall not be allowed. SECTION 10 — DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITE AND STRUCTURES (FAR BONUS) The proposed additional language below is merely a clarification that an FAR bonus may be awarded by the HPC to a project with merit in protecting a historic resource, at time of Major Development or with a lot split review. Currently, the Code does not state that it is allowed with a lot split review. 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). The Floor Area Bonus may be approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split review. No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. SECTION 11 — DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITE AND STRUCTURES APPEALS OF HPC DECISIONS) In cases when there is an appeal of an HPC decision, to City Council, the current code provision requires that the Chair, Vice -Chair, or other member of HPC is present at the appeal hearing. Staff has removed the provision requiring their presence at the appeal hearing because the meeting is not a true public hearing and they would not be able to speak even if they wished to, so it seems pointless to require their presence (the Council reviews the existing record in these appeal cases). Members of HPC may attend the meeting out of interest. D. City Council. action on appeal or call up. The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm. the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding there was a denial of due process, or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but not limited to: l . Reversing the decision. 2. Altering the conditions of approval. 3. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. SECTION 12 — SPECIAL REvIEW: Staff proposes altering the rules related to the allowed height of wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment because staff feels that the current wording is confusing. The general philosophy behind the change, is that there will be a set height limit for wireless antennae both if it is attached to a structure or LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 not, which would-be unchanged from what the Code currently allows. If it is on a building, then an antennae may rise up 5' (for a panel antenna) or 10' higher (for a whip antenna) than the highest portion of the roof. Both types of antenna may rise up higher than those dimensions if the CDD feels that it is adequately screened. If the CDD feels that it cannot be adequately screened, then the applicant must request approval for the additional height through Special Review in front of the P&Z (Sections 13, 15, and 16 below also pertain to the above proposed change to height review). In the applicability section of Special Review, there is a list of what can be reviewed by Special Review. In this Section, staff has added a line that allows requests for antennae higher than what the Code allows to be reviewed as a Special Review. The Special Review section will also have criteria_ for the P&Z in reviewing those taller structures (see Section 13). 26.430.030 Applicability. Special review shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen designated for special review by the following Chapters or Sections of this Title: • Dimensional requirements (Chapter 26.710 - Zone Districts), • Replacement of non -conforming structures (Chapter 26.312), • Reduction of open space requirements in CC zone district (Section 575.030(B)), • Off-street parking requirements (Section 26.515.040), • Reductions in the dimensions of utility/trash service areas (Section 26.575.060)1 • Subdivision standards (Section 26.480.050), • Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards (Section 26.520), • Wireless Telecommunications facilities and/or equipment Section 26.575.130) SECTION 13 — SPECIAL REVIEW:. Section 13 provides criteria ' to the P&Z for reviewing requests for additional height for antennae over what the Code allows. The criteria used for review is proposed to be the criteria that exists in the Wireless Telecommunications section of the Code found in Section 26.575.130 (F) and which includes criteria such as setbacks, architectural compatibility, compatibility with the natural environment, screening, and lighting and signage. Staff believes that this criteria is sufficient to allow the proper analysis by P&Z of whether taller antennae than allowed is compatible and screened well enough. Wireless Telecommunications facilities andlor equipment. Whenever a special review is conducted to appeal the decision of the Community Development Director regarding_proposed wireless telecommunications service facility or equipment or to determine a proposed increase in the allowed height of a wireless telecommunications facility and/or equipment, it shall be considered in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 26.575.130(C)(6) (Wireless LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 8 Telecommunication services facilities and equipment) SECTION 14 — STREAM MARGIN REVIEW: In a previous code amendment, a sentence in the Stream Margin Review section was printed twice. This amendment strikes one of those sentences. C. Stream Margin Review Standards. No development shall be permitted within the Stream Margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: No development shall b 'tt ,a the Stfeafn v � viV V111 V111. J11tA.11 l/V UV1111166<JC.1 within SECTION 15 — WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: This section adds language to the Code requiring Special Review as the . proper method to request a variance from the review standards for height of wireless telecommunications facilities. Previously, it was done by a conditional use. All such requests will be reviewed by P&Z, unless the project is located on an historic property or in a historic district, in which case HPC would review the request. C. Procedure. 1. General Pursuant to Section 26.304.020, the applicant shall conduct a pre -application conference with staff of the Community Development Department. The planner shall then prepare a pre -application summary describing the submission requirements and any other pertinent land use material, the fees associated with the review(s), and the review process in general. 2. Administrative Review. After the pre -application summary is received by the applicant, said applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff and the Community Development Director, respectively.. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, the Community Development Director shall find the submitted development application consistent with the provisions, requirements and standards of this Chapter. 3. Appeal of Director's Determination. The Community Development Director may apply reasonable conditions to the approval as deemed necessary to insure conformance with applicable review criteria in Section 26.575.130 (F.). If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment does not LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 9 comply with the review criteria and denies the application, or the applicant does not agree to the conditions of approval determined by the Community Development Director, the applicant may apply for eandifienal use Special Review (Section 26.430) review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or, if applicable, by the City's Historic Preservation Commission and such application must be made within fifteen (15) calendar days of the day on which the Community Development Director's decision is rendered. All appeals shall require public hearings, and shall be noticed b the he applicant in accordance with Section 26.304.060(E)(3 (a), (b), and (c) of the Municipal Code. 4. Historic Preservation Commission Review. Proposals for the location of wireless telecommunication services facilities or equipment on any historic site or structure, or within any historic district shall be reviewed by the City's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Review of applications for wireless telecommunication services facilities and/or equipment by the HPC shall replace the need for review by the Community Development Director. Likewise, if the Historic Preservation Commission determines that the proposed wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment does not comply with the review criteria and denies the application, or the applicant does not agree to the conditions of approval determined by the Historic Preservation Commission, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council and such appeal must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the day on which the Historic Preservation Commission's decision is rendered. All appeals shall require public hearings, and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a), (b), and (c) of the Municipal Code. 5. Building Permit A building permit application cannot be filed unless and until final land use approval has been granted and a Development Order has been issued. When applying for building permit(s), the applicant shall submit a signed letter acknowledging receipt of the decision granting land use approval and his/her agreement with all conditions of approval, as well as a copy of the signed document granting the land use approval for the subject building permit application. 6. Special Review. An application requesting a variance from the review standards for height of wireless telecommunications service facilities and/or equipment, or an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 10 Review. Such Special Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: l . Conformance with the applicable Review Standards of Section 26.575.130(D. 2. If the facility or equipment is located on property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or within any historic district, then the Applicable standards of Chapter 26.415 (Development Involving the Inven'toryof Historic Sites and Structures or, which occurs in an "H" Historic Overlay District) shall apply. SECTION 16 — WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: This Section details the specific height requirements for wireless telecommunications equipment and walks you through the process for requesting a taller height .(see Section 12 for general philosophy of the change). 2. Height. The following restrictions shall ap 1plyy: a f}i iiiding i ee theanterma ecnd—suppert system fe panel &Rtenfia shall net i WaRsi i walls. Wireless telecommunication services facilities and/or equipment not attached to a building shall not exceed thirty-five 3 5) feet in height or the maximum permissible height of the given zone district, whichever is more restrictive. b. * If the building itself exeeeds the height lifnitafiens of the zene, and sueb. exeess height was legally established • •> > . Whenever a wireless telecommunication services antenna is attached to a building roofs the antenna and' support system for panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet above the highest portion of that roof, including parapet walls, and the antenna and support system for whip antennas shall not exceed ten (10feet above the highest portion of that roof, including_ parapet walls c. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 11 ease aft administ- The Community Development Director may approve of a taller antenna height than stipulated above in b.) if it is their determination that it is suitably camouflaged, in which case an administrative approval may be rg_anted. d. , . If the Community Development Director determines that an antenna taller than stipulated above in (b.) cannot be suitably camouflaged, then the additional height of the antenna shall be reviewed pursuant to the process and standards (in addition to the standards of this Section) of Section 26.430 (Special Review). e. Support and/or switching equipment shall be located inside the building, unless it can be fuller screened from view as provided in the "Screening" standards (26.475.130 26.575.130 (F) 5)) below. SECTION 17 — OUTDOOR LIGHTING (NON-RESIDENTIAL): Staff has discovered that there are contradictory sections of the lighting ordinance. In both the Residential and Non -Residential section (E and F of Section .26.575.150) of the ordinance, it states that lighting shall be 12' in height or less, unless it meets one of a set of criteria, which includes being fully shielded, non-adjustable, lighting for parking purposes, and lighting for building mounted signage or for the fagade (among others). Then, in Section K (Review Standards) of the same section, it states that outdoor residential and commercial lighting may be 12' in height or more, but only if it is approved by the P&Z through Special Review. To correct this, staff proposes changing both Section E and F, so that lighting still must be 12' in height or less, but if it is located on above grade decks or balconies and is fully shielded or built into a roof soffit and fully shielded, then it may be allowed without Special Review approval. The thinking here is that if the lighting is fully shielded that it should be allowed on areas of a building higher than 12' because the impact should not be any greater than if it is 12' in height or lower. Special Review approval will continue to be required for commercial parking and vehicle circulation areas with lighting up to 20' and residential and commercial lighting with heights higher than 12' that may be necessary due to safety requirements, building design, or extenuating circumstances (See Section 21 for specific section of the Code relating to what is allowed with Special Review approval). E. Non -Residential Lighting Standards. The following lighting standards shall be LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 12 applicable to all non-residential properties including mixed uses: (a) Outdoor lighting used to illuminate parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering areas, or buildings shall. conform to the definition for "fully. shielded light fixtures" and. be designed, arranged and screened so that the point light source shall not be visible from adjoining lots or streets. No portion of the bulb or direct lamp image may be visible beyond a distance equal to or greater than twice the mounting height of the fixture. For example, for a fixture with a mounting height of twelve (12) feet, no portion of the bulb or direct lamp image may be visible from twenty-four (24) feet away in any direction. The light level shall not exceed 10 foot-candles as measured three feet above finished grade. Exemptions may be requested for areas with high commercial, pedestrian, or vehicular activity up to a maximum of 20 foot-candles. (b) Outdoor lighting shall be 12 ft. or less in height unless the lighting is either located on above- trade decks or balconies and is fully shielded; built into a roof soffit and fully shielded; or is otherwise approved in Section 27.575.150 LK)• Him (c) All light sources which are not fully shielded shall use other than a clear lens material as the primary lens material to enclose the light bulb so as to minimize glare from that point light source. Exceptions may be allowed where there is a demonstrated benefit for the community determined through the exemption process listed in this section. (d) High Intensity Discharge (HID) light sources are allowed with a maximum wattage of 175 high pressure sodium (HPS) and 175 watt metal halide (coated lamp — 3,000 degrees Kelvin). Standards for other HID light sources may be established by the City for new technology consistent with the above restrictions. (e) Spacing for security and parking lot light fixtures that are pole mounted shall be no less than 75 ft. apart. Decorative fixtures (which are also fully shielded) are allowed to maintain a 50 ft. fixture spacing. Wall mounted fixture spacing for security lighting shall be no less than 50 ft. measured horizontally. Decorative fixtures directed back toward a building face shall be exempt from this spacing requirement when shielded and shall not exceed 50 watts. Decorative fixtures that are not shielded shall maintain a minimum spacing of 25 ft. and shall not exceed 50 watts. Where security lighting is a combination of pole and wall mounted fixtures, minimum spacing shall be 75 ft. and a maximum of 150 ft. Pole mounted fixtures shall be limited to two light sources per pole. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 13 (g) Mixed use areas that include residential occupancies shall comply with the residential standards on those floors or areas that are more than 50% residential based on square footage of uses. (h) Up -lighting is only permitted if the light distribution from the fixture is effectively contained by an overhanging architectural or landscaping element. Such elements may include awnings, dense shrubs, or year-round tree canopies, which can functionally contain or limit illumination of the sky. In these cases the fixture spacing is limited to one fixture per 150 sq. ft. of area (as measured in a horizontal plane) and a total lamp wattage within a fixture of 3 5 watts. (i) Up -lighting of flags is permitted with a limit of two fixtures per flag pole with a maximum of 150 watts each. The fixtures must be shielded such that the point source is not visible outside of a 15-ft. radius. (j) Outdoor vending, such as gas stations, require approval for lighting. Lighting shall not exceed a maximum of 20 candles under the canopy. SECTION 18 — OUTDOOR LIGHTING (RESIDENTIAL): This section proposes the same change as above, only to the Residential portion of the lighting ordinance. Additionally, staff has added changed section (c.) below so that if a light is not fully shielded then it must be enclosed with a material other than a clear material and that the light source may not be visible from an adjacent property. Currently, the provision allows unshielded lights as long as they "minimize" the glare as opposed to the above proposal of not allowing any light to be visible. F. Residential Lighting Standards. The following lighting standards shall be applicable to residential properties: (a.) Outdoor lighting shall be 12 ft. or less in height unless the lighting is located on above grade decks or balconies and is fully shielded, built into a roof soffit and fully shielded, or is otherwise, approved in Section 27.575.150 (K): WeRLAW1. kV (b.) .Outdoor lighting with HID light sources in excess of 35 watts (bulb or lamp) shall be prohibited. In addition, incandescent light sources including halogen shall not exceed 50 watts. c.) All light sources that are not fully shielded shall use material other than a LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 14 clear lens material. to enclose the light source, as the pfimafy lens m4efial, . The point light source shall not be visible from adjacent properties. (d.) Landscape lighting is limited to 35 watts per fixture per 150 sq. ft. of landscaped area (as measured in a horizontal plane). (e.) Security lights shall be restricted as follows: 1. The point light source shall not be visible from adjoining lots or streets. 2. Flood lights must be controlled by a switch or preferably a motion sensor activated only by motion within owners property. 3. Timer controlled flood lights shall be prohibited. 4. Photo -cell lights shall be allowed under the following circumstances:. a) At primary points of entrance (e.g. front entries) or in critical common, areas for commercial and multi -family properties; b) Where the light sources are fully -shielded by opaque material (i.e. the fixture -illuminates the area but is not itself visibly bright); and c) The light source or fluorescent (or compact fluorescent) to eliminate excess electricity consumption. 5. Lights must be fully shielded, down directed and screened from adjacent properties in a manner that limits light trespass to .1 of a foot candle as. measured at the property line. 6. Light intensity shall not exceed 10 foot-candles measured 3 ft. above finished grade. 7. No light fixture shall be greater than 12 feet in height. Exceptions are: a) Tree mounted fully shielded, downward directed lights using a light of 25 watts or less, and b) Building mounted flood lights fully shielded, downward directed lights using a light of 50 watts or less. (f.) Motion sensor lights may be permitted, but only where the sensor is triggered by motion within the owner's property lines. (g.) Light trespass at property lines should not exceed .1 of a foot-candle as measured at the brightest point. SECTION 19 — OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Staff proposes removing the reference to Street Lighting Standards in Section 26.575.150 (G) because it is already covered in Section (H) of the lighting ordinance under Municipal Lighting (see below). LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 15 G. Reserved. SECTION 20 — OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Municipal lighting is currently in the Code as an Exemption, meaning that such lighting is not subject to the requirements of the lighting ordinance. Staff believes that municipal lighting, such as traffic control devices, street lights, and construction lights should be exempt from meeting the ordinance because of the difficulties of meeting the ordinance and still providing their necessary life and safety functions. It should be noted, however, that this action will not preclude City projects from meeting the lighting ordinance (City affordable housing, for example) unless Council found it to be necessary for pubic health, safety or welfare. 2.. Municipal Lighting. Municipal lighting installed for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare, including but not limited to traffic control devices, exng streetlights, and construction lighting. , SECTION 21 — OUTDOOR LIGHTING: In accordance with Section 17 above, staff proposes removing (K) (c) from Section 26.575.150 of the Code. This refers to lighting on above -grade decks or balconies that is higher than 12' and which currently requires Special Review approval by P&Z. As stated in Section 17, staff feels that, as long as its fully shielded, such lighting should be able to be as high on the structure as necessary. K. Review Standards. 1. Height. Outdoor residential and commercial lighting shall be twelve (12) feet or less above grade in height. Special review by the Planning and Zoning Commission may allow lighting of a greater height under the following circumstances: a. A fixture at a greater height is required due to safety, building design, or extenuating circumstances in which case the light shall be fully shielded with a non adjustable mounting; or b. Lighting for commercial parking and vehicle circulation areas may have a maximum height of 20 feet above grade and shall be fully shielded c. Lighting en above gfade deeks of ,Y.Iieh shall be f6ily shielded. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 16 STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendments to the Land Use Code as put forth in the attached resolution and described above. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. I , Series of 2003, for Amendments to the Land Use Code." ATTACHMENTS' Exhibit A: Amendments to the Land Use Code — Staff Findings LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 17 RESOLUTION NO. I S, (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: 26.104.100 — DEFINITIONS; 26.222 — DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMISSION; 26.304 — COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES; 26.310 — AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP; 26.410 — RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS; 26.415 — DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING THE APPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT IN AN "H", HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT; 26.430.030 — SPECIAL REVIEW; 26.435.040 - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW; 26.575.150 — OUTDOOR LIGHTING; 26.575.130 — WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department proposed an application for an amendment to Title 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Aspen Municipal Code, applications to amend the text of Title 26 shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Department and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by the City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, . WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 1, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard the recommendation of the Community Development Director, took public comment and approved these amendments to the Aspen Land Use Code, by a to-� vote; and, WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable development review standards and that the approval for the amendment is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 15` DAY OF DULY 2003, THAT: Section 1: 'Section 26.104.100, Definitions, which section describes the meaning of terms used in the Land Use Code, shall add the following terms and definitions: PAGE 18 Antennae: Any structure, including but not limited to a monopole, tower, parabolic and/or disk shaped device in single or multiple combinations of either solid or mesh construction, intended for the purpose of receiving or transmitting communication to or from another antenna, device or orbiting satellite, as well as supporting equipment necessary to install or mount the antenna. Monopole: A wireless communication facility which consists of a monopolar structure, erected to support wireless telecommunication antennas and connecting appurtenances. Whip antenna: A flexible rod antenna supported on a base insulator. Panel antenna: A flat surface antenna used to achieve transmission or reception from a specific direction. Section 2: That the entire Section 26.222 shall be removed. Section 3• Add Section 26.304.060 (F), as follows: F. Re -submittal of a previously denied application. After a final decision that results in the denial of a development application by the appropriate final approving body, an applicant wishing to re -submit the same plan for approval: 2. May not submit the same development application, or one substantially the same, as determined by the Community Development Director, for a period of one (1) year from the date of the most recent ruling of denial; or 3. May submit'a revised application that adequately addresses all of the stated reasons for denial. The Community Development Director shall determine. whether a.) a new submittal adequately addresses all of the stated reasons for denial and can proceed with a submittal; or, b.) a new submittal is sufficiently enough altered from the project denied by City Council that it qualifies as a new application for a different project. In either scenario, such application shall be treated as a new application for purposes of review, scheduling, and fees. Section 4: That Section 3.04.040.030 (F) shall be amended as follows: F. No Multiple Applications. The City of Aspen shall not accept or review more than one development application, on any one property concurrently. To submit a new application on a property, any active development application must be vacated. Upon determining there is a public purpose to be served, the Community Development Director may waive this limitation. Section 5: That Section 26.310.085 (Amendments to the Official Zone District Maps) shall -be added as follows: 26.310.085 Disputes about zoning of a property. PAGE 19 In cases where there is a dispute as to the correct zoning of a property, the ordinance approving or establishing the zoning shall be the final .authority and not the official zone district map. Section 6: That Section 26.410.020 (D) shall be amended as follows: . D. Variances. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Section 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use reviews by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires an exemption from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate, and the deciding board shall find, that the exception, if granted, would: 1. Provide a more appropriate pattern of development considering the context in . which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard; or, 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints. Section 7: That Section 26.410.040 (C) (1) shall be amended as follows: C. PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1. For all residential uses, parking, garages, and carports shall be accessed from an alley, or private road if one exists. The garage doors shall be single stall doors, or double stall doors designed to appear like single stall doors. IIIIIIIIIilliilllip l BMW 1 1 Section 8• That Section 26.410.040 (C) (2) (f.) shall be amended as follows: f. The garage doors shall be single stall doors= unless the garage doors are not visible from any public right- of-way or private street, in which case the garage doors may be PAGE 20 double stall doors. Section 9 That Section 26.410.040 (D) (2) shall be amended as follows: 2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first -story street -facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width and the depth of which shall be at least six (6) feet. For example, a first -story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible living space (whether it is a deck, porch, or enclosed area) over the first story element shall not be allowed. Section 10: That Section 26.415.110 (E.) (3) (Development of Historic Landmark Site and Structures) shall be amended as follows: 3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.415.070(D). The Floor Area Bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split review. No development application that includes a request for a Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. Section 11: That Section 26.415.120 (D) (Development of Historic Landmark Site and Structures) shall be amended as follows: D. City Council action on appeal or call up: The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding there was a denial of due process, or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction, or abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but not limited to: 1. Reversing the decision. 2. Altering the conditions of approval. 3. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. Section 12: That Section 26.430.030 Applicability (Special Review) shall be amended as follows: 26.430.030 Applicability. Special review shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen designated for special. review by the following Chapters or Sections of this Title: • Dimensional requirements (Chapter 26.710 - Zone Districts), • Replacement of non -conforming structures (Chapter 26.312), PAGE 21 • Reduction of open space requirements in CC zone district (Section 575.030(B)), • Off-street parking requirements (Section 26.515.040), • Reductions in the dimensions of utility/trash service areas (Section 26.575.060), • Subdivision standards (Section 26.480.050), • Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards (Section 26.520), • Wireless Telecommunications facilities and/or equipment (Section 26.575.130) Section 13: That Section 26.430.040 Review Standards for Special Review shall be amended as follows: I. Wireless Telecommunications facilities and/or equipment. Whenever a special review is conducted to appeal the decision of the Community Development Director regarding a proposed wireless telecommunications service facility or equipment or to determine a proposed increase in the allowed height of a wireless telecommunications facility and/or equipment, it shall be considered in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 26.575.130(C)(6) (Wireless Telecommunication services facilities and equipment) Section 14: That Section 26.435.040 (C) shall be amended as follows: C. Stream Margin Review Standards. No development shall be permitted within the Stream Margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: Section 15: That Section 26.575.130 (C) Procedure (Wireless Telecommunications) shall be amended as follows: C. Procedure. 1. General Pursuant to Section 26.304.020, the applicant shall conduct a pre -application conference with staff of the Community Development Department. The planner shall then prepare a pre - application summary describing the submission requirements and any other pertinent land use material, the fees associated with the review(s), and the review process in general. 2. Administrative Review. After the pre -application summary is received by the applicant, said applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff and the Community Development Director, respectively. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, the Community Development Director shall find the submitted development application consistent with the provisions, requirements and standards of this Chapter. 3. Appeal of Director's Determination. The Community Development _Director may apply reasonable conditions to the approval as deemed necessary to insure conformance with applicable review criteria in Section 26.575.130 (F.). If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment does not comply with the review criteria and PAGE 22 denies the application, or the applicant does not agree to.the conditions of approval determined by the Community Development Director, the applicant may apply for Special Review (Section 26.430 by the Planning and Zoning Commission or, if applicable, .by the - City's Historic Preservation Commission and such application must be made within fifteen (15) calendar days of the day on which the Community Development Director's decision is rendered. All appeals shall require public hearings, and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with Section 26304.060(E)(3)(a), (b), and (c) of the Municipal Code. 4. Historic Preservation Commission Review. Proposals for the location of wireless telecommunication services facilities or equipment on any historic site or structure, or within any historic district shall be reviewed by the City's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Review of applications for wireless telecommunication services facilities and/or equipment by the HPC shall replace the need for review by the Community Development Director. Likewise, if the Historic Preservation Commission determines that the proposed wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment does not comply with the review. criteria and denies the application, or the applicant does not agree to the conditions, of approval determined by the Historic Preservation Commission, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council and such appeal must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the day on which the Historic Preservation Commission's decision is rendered. All appeals shall require public hearings, and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a), (b), and (c) of the Municipal Code. 5. Building- Permit A building permit application cannot be filed unless and until final land use approval has been granted and a Development Order has been issued. When applying for building permit(s), the applicant shall submit a signed letter acknowledging receipt of the decision granting land use approval and his/her agreement with all conditions of approval, as well as a Icopy of the signed document granting the land use approval for the subject building permit application. 6. Special Review. An application requesting a variance . from the review standards for height of wireless telecommunications service facilities and/or equipment, or an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review. Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark; on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. Such Special Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on confonnance with the following criteria: 1. Conformance with the applicable Review Standards of Section 26.575.130(F). PAGE 23 2. If the facility or equipment is located on property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or within any historic district, then the applicable standards of Chapter 26.415 (Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or which occurs in an "H" Historic Overlay District) shall apply. SPrtinn 16-- That Section 26.575.130 (F) (2) Review Standards (Wireless Telecommunications - Height) shall be amended as follows: 2. Height. The following restrictions shall apply: a. Wireless telecommunication services facilities and/or equipment not attached to a building shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height or the maximum permissible height of the given zone district, whichever is more restrictive. b. Whenever a wireless telecommunication services antenna is attached to a building roof, the antenna and support system for panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet above the highest portion of that roof, including parapet walls, and the antenna and support system for whip antennas shall not exceed ten (10) feet above the highest portion of that roof, including parapet walls. c. The Community Development Director may approve of a taller antenna height than stipulated above in (b.) if it is their determination that it is suitably camouflaged, in which case an administrative approval may be granted. d. If the Community Development Director determines that an antenna taller than stipulated above in .(b.) cannot be suitably camouflaged, then the additional height of the antenna shall be reviewed pursuant to the process and standards (in addition to the standards of this Section) of Section 26.430 (Special Review). e. Support and/or switching equipment shall be located inside the building, unless it can be fully screened from view as provided in the "Screening" standards (26.475.130 26.575.130 (F)(5)) below. PAGE 24 Section 17: Section 26.575.150 (E) Non -Residential Lighting (Outdoor Lighting), shall be amended as follows: E. Non -Residential Lighting Standards. The following lighting standards shall be applicable to all non-residential properties including mixed uses: (a) Outdoor lighting used to illuminate parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering areas, or buildings. shall conform to the definition for "fully shielded light fixtures" and be designed, arranged and screened so that the point light source shall not be visible from adjoining lots or streets. No portion of the bulb or direct. lamp image may be visible beyond a distance equal to or greater than twice the mounting height of the fixture. For example, for a fixture with a mounting height of twelve (12) feet, no portion of the bulb or direct lamp image may be visible from twenty-four (24) feet away in any direction. The light level shall not exceed 10 foot-candles as measured three feet above finished grade. Exemptions may be requested for areas with high commercial, pedestrian, or vehicular activity up to a maximum of 20 foot-candles. (b) Outdoor lighting shall be 12 ft. or less in height unless the lighting is either located on above -grade decks or balconies and is fully shielded; built into a roof soffit and fully shielded; or is otherwise approved in Section 27.575.150 (K)• (c) Ali light sources which are not fully shielded shall use other than a clear lens material as the primary lens material to enclose the light bulb- so as to minimize glare from that point light source. Exceptions may be allowed where there is a demonstrated benefit for the community determined through the exemption process listed in this section. (d) High Intensity Discharge (HID) light sources are allowed with a maximum wattage of 175 high pressure sodium (HPS) and 175 watt metal halide (coated lamp - 3,000 degrees Kelvin). Standards for other HID light sources may be established by the City for new technology consistent with the above restrictions. (e) Spacing for security and parking lot light fixtures that are pole mounted shall be no less than 75 ft. apart. Decorative fixtures (which are also fully shielded) are allowed to maintain a 50 ft. fixture spacing. Wall mounted fixture spacing for security lighting shall be no less than 50 ft. measured horizontally. Decorative fixtures directed back toward a building face shall be exempt from this spacing requirement when shielded and shall not exceed 50 watts. Decorative fixtures that are not shielded shall maintain a minimum spacing of 25 ft. and shall not exceed 50 watts. Where security lighting is a combination of pole and wall mounted fixtures, minimum spacing shall be 75 ft. and a maximum of 150 ft. (f) Pole mounted fixtures shall be limited to two light sources per pole. PAGE 25 (g) Mixed use areas that include residential occupancies shall comply with the residential standards on those floors or, areas that are more than 50% residential based on square footage of uses. (h) Up -lighting is only permitted if the light distribution from the fixture is effectively contained by an overhanging architectural or landscaping element. Such elements may include awnings, dense shrubs, or year-round tree canopies, which can functionally contain or limit illumination of the sky. In these cases the fixture spacing is limited to one fixture per 150 sq. ft. of area (as measured in a horizontal plane) and a total lamp wattage within a fixture of 35 watts. (i) Up -lighting of flags is permitted with a limit of two fixtures per flag pole with a maximum of 150 watts each. The fixtures must be shielded such that the point source is not visible outside of a 15-ft. radius. (j) Outdoor vending, such as gas stations, require approval for lighting. Lighting shall not exceed a maximum of 20 candles under the canopy. Section 18: That Section 26.575.150 (F) Residential Lighting (Outdoor Lighting), shall be amended as follows: F. Residential Lighting Standards. The following lighting standards shall be applicable to residential properties: (a.) Outdoor lighting shall be 12 ft. or less in height unless the lighting is located on above grade decks or balconies and is fully shielded, built into a roof soffit and fully shielded, or is otherwise approved in Section 27.575.150 (K): (b.) Outdoor lighting with HID light sources in excess of 35 watts (bulb or lamp) shall be prohibited. In addition, incandescent light sources including halogen shall not exceed 50 watts. (c.) All light sources that are not fully shielded shall use material other than a clear lens material to enclose the light source. The point light source shall not be visible from adjacent properties. (d.) Landscape lighting is limited to 35 watts per fixture per 150 sq. ft. of landscaped area (as measured in a horizontal plane). (e.) Security lights shall be restricted as follows: 1. The point light source shall not be visible from, adjoining lots or streets. 2. Flood lights must be controlled by a switch or preferably a motion sensor activated only by motion within owners property. 3. Timer controlled flood lights shall be prohibited. PAGE 26 4. Photo -cell lights shall be allowed under the following circumstances: a.) At primary points of entrance (e.g. front entries) or in critical common areas for commercial and multi -family properties; b.) Where the light sources are fully -shielded by opaque material (i.e. the fixture illuminates the area but is not itself visibly bright); and c.) The light source or fluorescent (or compact fluorescent) to eliminate excess electricity consumption. 5. Lights must be fully shielded, down directed and screened from adjacent properties in a manner that limits light trespass to . i of a foot candle as measured at the property line. 6. Light intensity shall not exceed 10 -foot-candles measured 3 ft. above finished grade. 7. No light fixture shall be greater than 12 feet in height. Exceptions are: a.) Tree mounted fully shielded, downward directed lights using a light of 25 watts or less, and c) Building mounted flood lights fully shielded, downward directed lights using a light of 50 watts or less. (f.) Motion sensor lights may be permitted, but only where the sensor is triggered by motion within the owner's property.lines. (g.) Light trespass at property lines should not exceed .1 of a foot-candle as measured at the brightest point. Section 19: That Section 26.575.150 (G) Street Lighting Standards (Outdoor Lighting) shall be amended as follows: G. Reserved. Section 20: That Section 26.575.150 (H) (2) Exemptions (Outdoor Lighting) shall 'be amended as follows: 2. Municipal Lighting. Municipal lighting installed for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare, including but not limited to traffic control devices, streetlights, and construction lighting. Section 21 That Section 26.575.150 (K) Review Standards (Outdoor Lighting) shall be amended as follows: K. Review Standards. PAGE 27 L Height. Outdoor residential and commercial lighting shall be twelve (12) feet or less above grade in height. Special review by the Planning and Zoning Commission may allow lighting of a greater height under the following circumstances: a.) A fixture at a greater height is required due to safety, building design, or extenuating 'circumstances in which case the light shall be fully shielded with a non adjustable mounting; or b.) Lighting for commercial parking and vehicle circulation areas may have a maximum height of 20 feet above grade and shall be fully shielded Section 22 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 23: 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 July 1, 2003. Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 1, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair EXHIBIT A AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE Section 26.310.040 - Standards for Review of an Amendment to the Text of Title 26• In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff is unaware of any portions of the Title that the application is in conflict with. PAGE 28 B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the Land Use Code is largely in compliance with the elements of the AACP and that none of the amendments proposed in this application would affect that compliance. C., Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed amendments apply city-wide and are proposed to help make better land use decisions which are compatible with the existing zone districts, land uses, and neighborhood characteristics. Staff finds that the amendments are in compliance with .the provision above. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING:, I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A Staff does not believe that any of the proposed amendments will have any impact — positive or negative — on the 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 public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Staff finds that the proposed amendments will not result in demands on public facilities or exceed capacity of any public facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts to the natural environment as a result of the proposed code amendments. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff finds that the proposed amendments will result in Code provisions that will continue to protect and be consistent and compatible with the established community character. PAGE 29 H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The majority of the proposed amendments are in response to problems that the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff have experienced in administering sections of the Code and are, simply, in need of clarification. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? IYES Staff finds that the proposed amendments will not be in conflict with the public interest and, in fact, will help to protect the public interest and will be in harmony with the intent of this Title. PAGE 30