HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20030902 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES ROOM
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II~ MINUTES
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PARK PLACE (707 E. HYMAN) CONSOLIDATED
CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD, CONDITIONAL USE, AND
GMQS EXEMPTIONS FOR AH, Chris Bendon, continued from
8/19 -PLEASE BRING PACKET MATERIAL FROM 8/19
MEETING
B. MISCELLANEOUS CODE AMENDMENTS, Scott Woodford,
continued from 8/5
C. R-15 B ZONE DISTRICT WORK SESSION, C'hris Bendon
V. BOARD REPORTS
VI. ADJOURN
August 22, 2003
VIA HAND DELIVERY
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner
City of Aspen Corurnunity Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Park Place Garage Project
707 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Bendon:
I am writing this letter to express my concerns both as a neighbor of the Park
Place Garage Project (the "Project"), and as a full-time resident of Aspen. Please
distribute this letter to the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission as soon
as possible.
My concerns are as follows, and I believe, should be addressed fully by both the
Community Development Department (the "Department"), and the Planning and
Zoning Commission (the "Commission").
1. Zoning Variations
Although several exemptions from various City rules or plans are required to
P
approve the Project including specific language in the Aspen Area Community Plan, I
would like you to thoroughly consider the impact of granting a zoning variation.
Hyman Avenue between Spring and Original streets is primarily a residential
street with well maintained residences occupied with few exceptions by full-time
residents of Aspen. Building a garage would degrade the neighborhood in a way that
certainly was not anticipated by any of us.
When someone purchases a residence or other property in Aspen there is an
expectation that existing zoning will remain or that at least there will be no substantial
variation that will change the character of the neighborhood in a negative manner. I do
not think full-time residents should have their neighborhood degraded for the benefit of
non-residents for whom I believe the Project is being built. Your constituency is not
the non-residents, it is us who live in Aspen. I believe it is the primary obligation of
the Commission and the Department to protect our interests.
Perhaps the most telling remark made at the last meeting was made by a
gentleman who lives outside of Aspen. I paraphrase but his comment was that if you
do not like the garage move out of town. Fortunately, many of us would rather try to
prevent bad decisions from being made than move.
Finally, what assurance does anyone in Aspen have that his neighborhood is
safe from ad hoc zoning changes that will degrade the character of his neighborhood?
Where will the next garage be built, for it surely will be, if you embark on this
slippery slope?
2. Traffic
The potential traffic issue needs to be addressed in detail. Nothing was
submitted with the Department's memorandum from the Transportation Department
analyzing the potential impact on traffic. Traffic issue also will influence noise and
pollution.
Consideration must be given to the number of cars using the Benedict
Commons, the impact on Spring Street of added usage .in addition to the heavy usage
from RFTA and trucks going to City Market and the impact on Original Street which
is also Highway 82. Without a detailed analysis, a traffic mess could be created that is
not correctable after the fact.
Consideration also must be given to pedestrian safety which is already
problematic. A sidewalk is to be built to connect Spring to Original on the south side.
How safe will it be for pedestrians if there are two new garage entrances adjacent to
the existing Benedict Commons garage entrance? How less safe will crossing Spring,
Original or Hyman become with the increased traffic?
Will the City address these issues in detail? And can any decisions, preliminary
or otherwise, be made by the Commission until they are addressed?
IA
3. Experimentation
a. Approval of the Project requires a. leap of faith. We have only the
manufacturer's sales pitch about the quality of the system to be installed. Do we really
know that it is as good as the manufacturer claims? It is only being used in one
building in the United States.
b. What is known about the success .of condominiumized garages particularly in
small communities? What assurances are there that any public spaces will be available?
Will public -spaces only be available in the off-season when they are not needed?
What assurances are there that the building will be maintained when the .
developer leaves? I have severe reservations that 99 owners who can afford to spend
$125,000 to $150,000 for a parking space, and who do not live in the neighborhood
will care too much about the appearance of the Project or its impact on the
neighborhood.
c. If the building is not successful what other uses can it be used for?
Finally, the above comments address only certain of my concerns. Others were
addressed by other attendees at the last Commission meeting, in the letter from Herb
Klein and in the letter from the Bell Mountain Residents. I am confident that you will
address our concerns thoroughly and not rely on vague assurances from the Developer.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cc. CITY C 0 LAIY'\) C 1 L_
3
Sincerely,
Scott M. Brown
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director of Community Development
FROM: Scott Woodford, City Plann& '
RE: LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS, PUBLIC HEARING; AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL
LAND USE CODE; RESOLUTION NO. 17, SERIES 2003
DATE: September 2, 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 following process is required action as described above:
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 Authority: City Council
BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Over the course of two previous meetings, the P&Z, has reviewed a series. of code amendments
proposed by staff. 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. The one remaining amendment to be accepted by the P&Z
relates to the Residential Design Standards pertaining to First Story Elements. This staff report only
includes discussion on the First Story Element, however, the Resolution contains all of the proposed
code amendments, which still need formal action by the P&Z (see page 2 of the report for discussion
on the changes to the First Story Element).
PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
The P&Z conducted informal straw vote acceptance of the proposed amendments at two public
hearings (except for the First Story Element Amendment).
STAFF COMMENTS:
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE; Staff finds that the following proposed Amendment to the
Land Use Code (and the other code amendments) complies with the applicable review criteria (see
Exhibit A for Staff Findings). The following is a review of the concerns of P&Z at the last meeting
and the proposed solution:
PAGE 1
Changes Since the Last Meeting: Per the direction from the P&Z at the August 5, 2003
meeting, staff has re-examined the First Story Element Residential Design Standard. To recap, the
P&Z was concerned about the possible height of a First Story Element, as there , is no height
restriction on these elements. The only current restriction is that it be one story, however, there is
nothing in the Code that would prevent a really tall first story.
So, staff proposes that the First Story Element contain a provision limiting the plate height to 9' — the
same height the Code already limits the linking element between the primary structure and the
secondary mass. This will ensure that there is a reasonable height limitation in place to prevent an
element from being more than- just a one-story element. Staff has added the new language in the
second sentence below:
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 is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first -
story element is projecting_ from. Assuming that the first story element includes
interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed nine (9J
feet, as measured to the plate height. A first -story element may be a porch raef-,
, or living space. Accessible space whether it is a deck,
porch, or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element, however,
accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not
be precluded.
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. 17, Series of 2003, for Amendments to the Land Use Code."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Amendments to the Land Use Code — Staff Findings
Exhibit B: Photo of First Story Element In Question
PAGE 2
RESOLUTION NO. 17,
(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, which was continued to.
August 5, 2003 and later to September 2, 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 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER
2003, THAT:
RP.( Linn 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 3
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 telecoininuni cation 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:
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 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 and scheduling.
Section 4:
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.
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 5:
That Section 26.410.020 (D) shall be amended as follows:
C. 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
PAGE 4
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 exemption, if granted, would:
1. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the
development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context
as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed
development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader
vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or,
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints.
Section 6:
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.
AHe
�IIIIIIIIIillilllllll . Yes.
MORE
Section 7:
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 street, in which case
the garage doors may be double
stall doors that are designed to
appear like single stall doors.
Section S:
That Section 26.410.040 (D) (2) shall be amended as follows:
PAGE 5
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 is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first -story element is projecting from.
Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story
element shall not exceed nine (9) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first -story element may
be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch, or enclosed area) shall
not be allowed over the first story element, however, accessible space over the remaining first
story elements on the front fagade shall not be precluded.
Section 9:
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 10:
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 11:
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),
• Reduction of open space requirements in CC zone district (Section 575.030(B)),
• Off-street parking requirements (Section 26.515.040),
PAGE 6
• 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 12•
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 13
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 14:
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
denies the application, or the applicant does not agree to the condition's 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
PAGE 7
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
26.304.060(E)(3)(a), (b), and (c) of the Municipal Code.
4. Historic Preser-vation 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 pennit(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. S_pecial 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 detennination 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
conformance with the following criteria:
1. Conformance with the applicable Review Standards of Section 26.575.130(F)
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).
PAGE 8
Section 15:
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 9
Section 16:
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 it meets one of the
following criteria:
• The lighting is fully shielded and the point light source is not visible
beyond the boundaries of the property in which it is. located; or
• The lighting is otherwise approved in Section 27.575.150 (K).
(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.
PAGE 10
(f) Pole mounted fixtures shall be limited to two light sources per pole.
(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 treasured 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 flagpole 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 17-
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 it meets on of the
following criteria:
• The lighting- is used to illuminate above grade decks or balconies, is
fully shielded, and the point light source is not visible beyond the
boundaries of the property in which it is located; or,
• The lighting is fully recessed into a roof soffit, fully shielded, and is not
visible beyond the boundaries of the property in which it is located; or,
• The lighting 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).
PAGE 11
(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
a) 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.
Cnn*inn � Q•
That Section 26.575.150 (G) Street Lighting Standards (Outdoor Lighting) shall be
amended as follows:
G. Reserved.
Section 19:
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.
PAGE 12
Section 20:
That Section 26.575.150 (K) Review Standards (Outdoor Lighting) shall be amended as
follows:
K. Review Standards.
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 21: .
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 22:
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 September 2, 2003.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
PAGE 13
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE
Section. 26.310.040 - Standards fo7' 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. 4
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Staff is unaware of any portions of the Title that the application is in conflict with.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
. Community Plan.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I 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: I DOES IT COMPLY? I 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: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
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? YES
Staff finds that the proposed amendments will not result in demands on public
facilities or exceed capacity of any public facilities.
PAGE 14
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: DOES IT COMPLY? . 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.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY?, I 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? I YES
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 15
7�1' �,a fi.d *3° .. t. . "x '` � 4 .. - � r ':,..:, La^�r'p. _rry�., g►`.tj d#V
1t �� �� �t � ai'`' gA4b�ga€ � r.* r •:,.�'� ,� S ,sue st��Y�►'
t
�:. �'-: ",c�. � tM i w i - # ,yzq.^,. � ° • ` '� a*•� �;.� } .. Y fLi` r_ — rY t A �^'t'`al! �t� a•
+ �' a a ' ��"." S # fit` � � a ` t �,. � �,•gr,. <
`" �,/s�• d: N '' '�'� � `� . ;. � 4 ,a Alt {y '""14
3 ems,} �a-. :. ,..,,s..�. a. q+�tl'� r-, .d't'� J Ai`"
'e � � � 7 i< 1 j" a9'r � -�i RY t ♦ • � ._, t P gPPPPP
RI-
x(- {p�y{�«r. }Yid�yjlY)��'I'�. t `�Y} M ?jP+{L 7g+rp Y{'"�{{jj 66 '■j aJnI ry$/ t Q 'L'•^r{1.�
S'.nft`!., G �71"` t► 4. �t,�„ _ e d s N{'1T C i f•.•..s .+r
W
�. .
- Rl yY,rl
,a •;'I� • � •°r• t. .� �tea. � " �= .� _ � + S�?� t t *i'td•'.r� •1
t
� :Y• +. ' ,d `` • ` ,r, T A .. ti... •e.t.:.r^'•+T '1} t � ~`5���• dti� i1,. . A b t
• .p r t ( . t. pms. 4 c` , a s ..,2.•,,m....�� ra»zt' � x k,t•�
a,w;' �.,t�-� � ` ' �'1' i �r I•.�=a>. �tr li,� � ° ��'� R t• �r+ $ � �`{
n
y7
} � 'g• ats; t�
use r 7a"
Ty iii ^sy
�.. ...1 -a f t` .t: ••., s sa4T`. «i 4. + �.p,h
.nf ,•' ` •�.�r'!' �' °St 4` .a� k
e i a
r
AW
•y.1 N �1,i"s.�'",'rr
t ..v.4r 1 a *•�r �.tJ� ^xe � it �1k V.;C.tw"�! 4�%. •, �' • in "/� x s�-� 4 � a\ ..�� �' � � i
x .. �'. •Y � r' t�Y' `.. 1,% ^I. rr'� � fry 'rlR �� � "� �w � % "�! t �1 sY as
l e
Zt t °55�•' �e��.'�ri�41s«j�.."�S.<.�4 .r4►;` `�.�` c^:� `iF� .i:�9 .�. ° s{3� .�+� � 1��JPT• _ `tJ` ,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Conunission
THRU. Joyce Allgaie77,oininunity Development Deputy Director
FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range Planner
RE: R-15B Zone District Work Session
DATE: September 2, 2003
SUMMARY:
Staff scheduled this work session to gain some direction on the R15-B Zone District.
During discussions of the Infill Ordinance with City Council, questions regarding the R-
15B Zone District were raised. A few residents of the zone were interested in the City
exploring changes to the use and floor area limitations of the zone. (No changes are
proposed in the Infill Ordinance.) Staff encouraged the residents to approach the City as
an organized neighborhood with specific zoning proposals.
Brooke Peterson, an owner in the R-15B neighborhood, distributed a letter 'to
homeowners and is prepared to discuss the results with the P&Z.
Work Session Question: In order to initiate a code amendment, at least 50% of the
affected owners must apply. The City (the Planning Director, P&Z, or City Council) may
also initiate a code amendment. The question for P&Z is: Should the City initiate a
code amendment process for the R-1 SB zone district? If so, how should the zone be
amended?
BACKGROUND:
The R-15B Zone District neighborhood is comprised of three subdivisions: Aspen Grove
accessed from McSkimining Road, and Knowlwood and Eastwood accessed from
Roaring Fork Drive. The area was annexed into the City in 1987 and assigned to a newly
created zone district — RI 5-B. This zone differs from standard RI as follows:
• Duplexes are not permitted
• ADUs are not permitted (cash -in -lieu is the only option)
• Substantially less FAR is permitted (about 70% of the standard R-15)
• "Slope reduction" not applied (slope reduction reduces allowable FAR if steep
slopes exist on the parcel)
• Residential Design Standards do not apply to this zone.
• The garage FAR exemption is 500 square feet (250 exempt, next 250 half exempt
in all other zones)
• 8040 Greenline Review is not required in this zone.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A — Letter from Brooke Peterson sent to neighbors
Exhibit B — Map
1
A -
A S P E N B L U E S K Y
H O L D 1 N G S , L L C
To: My Neighbors and Friends in the
R-15B Zone District
Re: R-15B Zone District
Date: July 17, 2003
As many of you know, I live at 0222 Roaring Fork Drive. Diane and I have lived at that
address for almost twenty one (21) years. Both of us, and Rea, our Golden, love the neighborhood
for a variety or reasons which I suspect all of you'know.
I am writing to all of you because of the discussions that have been occurring in the City
regarding the "infill" program. As you may recall, when the Aspen Grove, Eastwood and Knollwood
neighborhoods were annexed into the City of Aspen in the late 1980's, we agreed to accept a lower
Floor Area Ratio for our properties, in return for the City prohibiting duplexes and affordable
dwelling units in the zone district. Thus, the R-15B zone district was created. This decision was
made before the City instituted an affordable housing impact fee, if one did not provide an affordable
dwelling unit, at the time of any major reconstruction or new construction. Residents in our zone
district could only pay the impact fee. I personally know of people in the R-15B zone district that
this fee severely impacted.
Secondly, and I believe more importantly, I have had a number of friends and neighbors in
our zone district question the economic and political fairness of a limitation on the size of a home
in the R-15B zone district when homes across Highway 82 in the Riverside subdivision may in some
cases be Twenty Five Percent (25%) larger on a similar sized lot. I am aware of more than one real
estate sale in the R-15B zone district that failed, not because the buyer wanted to build a bigger home
but because for the same amount of money, he at least had the opportunity to build a larger home or
expand an existing home in another zone district. When these issues were raised at the City Council
meeting on infill by myself and others, the response we received was that the impact fee
was to stay in place, but that the City Council was more than willing to examine the Floor Area Ratio
issue, if sufficient people in the zone district were concerned.
Because of these issues, and because I would like to add on to my home, but am prohibited
from doing so not by lot size, but by the zoning, I volunteered to take an informal poll of the
neighborhood to see how much interest, if any, there might be seeking to having our zoning changed
to allow homes in our zone district of a similar size to those in the R-15 zone district. This would
allow larger homes on the larger lots, but it would not necessarily mean that affordable dwelling
units and duplexes would also be allowed. I would appreciate it if you could email me your thoughts
to brookeQaspen-blue-sky. com, or drop me a short note to my offices at 302 East Hopkins Aspen
Colorado 81611. If there is sufficient interest in pursuing the zoning change, I will initiate the
Post Office Box 8238 Aspen, Colorado 8 1 612 Telephone: 1-970-544-0499 Fax: 1-970-544-0488
A S P E N B L U E S K Y
R-15BLetter HOLDINGS, LLC
Page2
process with the City, in which event all of you will be appropriately notified so you can voice your
own opinions to City Council.
Diane and I hope you are all having a great summer. See you around the neighborhood.
Yours ve
1
Bro ke
Post Office Box 8238 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Telephone: 1-970-544-0499 Fax: I -970-544-0488
U
wd■
•
1
11(O 01
5/6120AM
`-�
i
3
7/6120AN
' o
l�
I I
/
Av
It
^ 10
•
to
i i 11
5 9
11
15
10
' 4 16
P
S . i'C(
9 2
1/
17 o r
7
i18 J
' 17 19 L
ti 5
'
6
= I
f 4� 0C`�,Q2
'J
O ��
9� �c
5
4/612
1 • ' 2
moll TF
Q3, l/ F
r 4
14 4/612(
%� 6
3/6120A
,
(2
ASPEN
CEMETERY (2
u -
s<< •
�
11
7
R
Z a.
O o
'o
10 o
�C J
9 10 11
-}c
' 19
9
T
A 5 6j/
9
4
it 5A 19
sr4F000i �'.'
DRIVE
( • -
r 5417
I 30
WESTVIEN
10
79
ze
E
1 � A 6
SUED
KNOU 0OO _.
T
s ts• =o•
Ito 7 T
2 BLOCK 1 1
Y
. r. a ♦
r'
sO�.�Lb• `�
.�-•--•- T
26
SA16? 7 `1.
- 11
CUTh 4NP _ �_ (' 6 . �` .�
THE 1Ek4TlON •.
73 7j R•OARING FORK
-�..
5
CI Ty OF
�yi
HF A
4SPEN
9 10.
7y 77 7/SUBD.
16 �T to
zo
't..
1$ rI,
,3
i
gym"
HIGHWAY
K
L 00
S 8 D.
1
z J .
I S
, z
•'•���
CLO IC
Sw/COR SE 1/4NEI/4
V3905A� (LOTS) SEC•IB(KIMBERLY)
C +�;
t
(-1/6120AM �2/1S120AIA
C4C CqH
4
TOR HE NO PEX4T(ON
Cl Ty OF
ASPEN
-
- CITY
OF A=PEAI
THIS Asp APPROVAL
fH
COUA,C,LI GROPE - EAS PA SEO THEY OF ASpC 0p0'KNOLLw,
4A DAY O11 K,AI COV�Y AAI1+fXAT,O
YO R
COLOrtA(
•��.
CITY CL ER K