HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.488 Castle Creek.A01399
J"""..
,""""".
, , .
"PAilC'EJ;)0:j2i:l;,.I;':i'('I:C:<.1 DATE ReVI>: I~" ',;,
:c' 'A'S'E';M'~.~;E'.i;'~8' "'" ...;" I"" ". ~'t :'" I.... ,'".
, ..:,',.~ "..t's' ...1.,... ..r.,;,:,( "',),1.. ..,\,..... .~
p~aJ,\.A;~.~R:).~ R8' ;:,';',:;l: ~';I ~';::i< '
'. . ,
~ COPlli~~:.;!5
-. " PI1R:J
C~OE:'':'OJ' III 'I :l:.l
~ nil. ,...... ..""
, .
C~SE .tvp:Jr-i;m :U""~~
STEPS:I
A~R': :\:~:} ": ,"~~C
:,,'
C/S'!Z:' /.~,::!m ~;C ~ H3: i . :PHN: p,-~: . :.'H6
cjs,'Z~ ':':)1.''::-:' "::0 H" (1' '! PHN H!.b fi..W.i
:,~~~p~ P':.I' J:"I'IJ~lm:.'p
,R~P. P;~:il PI::'!;:I
. ..; 'F~ES:~tiE~m'O eJ'
REFEr.iRA~Sr
..1 '
.ADB :Ka r.1 ",":"!:l:~
FeeS RC:vpil;;"U
. I ,.'.
,STA1:1
-
..
..
& ~
, .
, HE~~
Bvl
NOTICEtl! .
'r
.
.\ ."
DlJe~l
I !i'~"Nrl !""i~
1;.
~.,t"'''dri't1A.~'''-
. p~A'r:I~K.PGI:1
~ ..
. DATe ri~ FINAL AG,T,ION4 /.1 (~'J-:lf!:
:CITYCqUNCIL.C. J ".
"', '"'Pl:I '~""'l/II-/,V/~~..,
. ""; :BdA'1 '
~. ,
, 'OBAC:
AO~IN~
R~~~sl ..' '" rrh~'''f.,.
C~OS..riD,r . By,.1
.,' P~I';~~BfII~~D;,.I'
. . ,
.:
MEMORAN
Post-if" Fax Not. . . 7671 Date . ItOf ...
pages
To ^ . From..... A^,~
Co./Dept. CO.
Phone # Phone #
Fax # Fax #
"i
,........
TO:
Mayor and City Council
SUMMARY:
The owner of 488 Castle Creek Road, Paul Anderson, has applied to remove the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zoning designation from his .82 acre
parcel of/and currently developed with a single-family residence. The City's PUD
overlay is intended to provide zoning flexibility but also considers areas of steep
slope and reduces the allowable density accordingly. This slope consideration is
unique to parcels with a PUD overlay and does not apply to other single-family
properties.
Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney ~
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director _../ ,
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director..JA;<::>
Christopher Bendon, Planne~
488 Castle Creek Rezoning and Appeal of Code Interpretation
First Reading of Ordinance No.'t5, Series of 1999.
(<ro~1,1999 41A[~
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
The slope reduction for this parcel eliminates the possibility of applying for a lot split,
limiting the current development opportunities under current zoning to a single-
family residence or a duplex with one half deed restricted to affordable housing.
Removing the PUD designation would allow the property owner to apply for a Lot
Split. The 1980 City Council placed this PUD Overlay on the property to specifically
prohibit a Lot Split. The Planning and Zoning Commission also had concerns about
reviewing any eventual development on the parcel under a PUD review and
recommended denial of this rezoning application. Staff also recommends the PUD
Overlay not be removed from this parcel.
The owner is also appealing an interpretation of the Land Use Code made by the
Community Development Director. This interpretation concluded that Lot Split
parcels outside of the Original Aspen Townsite are not eligible for an exemption from
GMQS. (Please refer to Exhibit E.) The City Council should consider this appeal in
two ways: 1) is this a correct interpretation of the land use code; and, 2) even if it is a
correct interpretation, should he policy be changed?
Procedurally, the merits of an Ordinance must be considered at second reading.
Staff recommends this Ordinance be adopted upon first reading, establishing the
public hearing as November 8, 1999.
1
,1""""'\
1"'"'"\
BACKGROUND:
In I 980, the already developed parcel was annexed into the City of Aspen and
rezoned to the RI5-A zone district. The PUD overlay was placed on the property,
according to the Ordinance minutes, to specifically prohibit the ability to split the lot
and to ensure the existence of an employee unit on-site if the property were
redeveloped as a duplex. It is apparent that the 1980 City Council preferred the
community benefit of the parcel either remaining a single-family home or adding one
affordable unit over the development of two free-market lots. The Ordinance minutes
are attached as Exhibit C~
There have been changes in the neighborhood which lend support for higher density.
The development of Marolt Seasonal Housing, Twin Ridge, Castle Ridge, Water
Place Housing, and the expansion of the Hospital create a different circumstance than
existed in 1980. However, staff does not believe that a two lot single-family
subdivision should be considered "higher density."
There are also changes in the land use code. The single-family and duplex exemption
from GMQS requires either an ADU or payment of a housing mitigation fee. In
addition, there is a code amendment in progress to require mandatory occupancy deed
restrictions on ADU's provided as a requirement for a growth management
exemption.
The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended denial of this
rezoning application. Their primary concern was not the possible increased density
on the parcel but the ability to review a development proposal in more detail. By
keeping the PUD Overlay in place, issues related to access from Castle Creek Road
and the configuration of development on the parcel were noted as issues that could be
addressed through a PUD review.
ApPLICANT:
Paul Anderson, represented by Stan Clauson.
LOCATION:
488 Castle Creek Road. (See attached location map.)
ZoNING:
Current-.
Proposed'
RI5-A-PUD. (Moderate Density Residential.)
RI5-A.
LOT SIZE:
35,895 square feet or .82 acres.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family. (A duplex with one side as an RO is also allowed and provides an
exemption from GMQS.)
2
~
,,-,
PROPOSED LAND USE:
No development is proposed in this application. A future Lot Split to allow two
single-family homes or a single-family residence and a duplex would be possible with
a rezoning to remove the PUD.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
City Council has not previously considered this rezoning request.
REVIEw PROCEDURE:
Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a
public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City
Council. City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
application at a public hearing.
Code Interpretation. City Council shall affirm, reverse, or modify the decision with or
without conditions during a public hearing or may take action upon such appeal in
conjunction with a land use application.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit A. An analysis of
the zoning is provided as Exhibit B. City 'Council minutes from the initial zoning in
1980 have been attached as Exhibit C. A copy of the R15-A Zone District provisions
have been included as Exhibit D. An interpretation of the Land Use Code is attached
as Exhibit E. The application is attached as Exhibit F.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council deny this rezoning request. Staff recommends City
Council uphold the code interpretation made by the Planning Director.
Procedurally, an Ordinance must be judged on second reading. First reading of an'
Ordinance establishes a public hearing agenda and the process for judging an
Ordinance. Staff is recommending the Ordinance be passed on first reading and
considered on its merits during second reading.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: .
"I move to adopt Ordinance No. 1/5, Series of 1999, upon first reading."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Zoning Analysis and Summary
Exhibit C "- 1980 Rezoning Minutes
Exhibit D -- RI5-A Zone District provisions
Exhibit E -- Director's Code Interpretation
Exhibit F -- Application
3
, ,.
'\.,", ....,
o<l',":. \.
" ~'" . ~ """', )1)
'~,~', ,'if ~ /;
, , (\\ . .'1.......... Vl"'t l..Jl'
'.,'. /,-co--i ' a- W fi;,'- _.II,
" '. -,I ,,~, ~ Y ------Ji:!fv'
~ ~""""'__ "...--",;:t'J ,~" ~\ ~~,\J~l '{81], Q QJ~~
" , ,_, _ _.__ ,___--</---,-"'R' J i "Ill rfTr;;\1J;I/
,r'" '_,_ --~_/' _~..r-- 1 '- ,-fl[J1 ._,
/i ''i;' -- ------- -if - ~ "," f;/ 00' 0 fl'; , '
;:/ (I " PI '/ n C \,)! ',",-:{~[2.[t.J,it). ~ ".'/0
/ 'II. ,_", l1i I W ..," "
_ d ' --,. --"'"
..'-' I (" ' , - ',' ~c - -""'-'
I~:;,'(::.......-----\ U cT q, f~/i.. '):
') 6A~d,)i \ _,_ d \ !l'1J)~~.II,--:..:..-}!ll
1 . /___( 13 r" ..,P-, - ~ f?i1 "ij ·
:'9j/ ~1( Lb \ \ I .to () <d !:.~j!~1
, \\ ~ " \' )o'~~ S:;;k\~
o .lit''''- 1 \1 " . - - \, 0 ' '
./ ; I \ '\ \ \' " -- .
",.-- \........>' \ \ ,,", ._,.
",,_ ~ f ,.'
.... l / I "'.. )'1' \ \:-, df~:>" 11Ii:1t. ~
..:.tj v . _",' n' '\.. ~""'''I'', 1 "'" '1ic'(1
\\ \ . J"'"' '> · " y. .,e'
,6... v\.-\ \\ /-.'-' // ' c;,:;g~~;~'?"f:::3/ (0 a'l,
\v \ ,'; '" """,,,..0
':,~\\ -c:?}~~._:.;~\ \\ :::,~,:~.".:.,~-~~.~ fj.)i'~' >f M't,.~~~~\~(l <:~ ~ '
II \ "''' 1 I , <\"" "1' \\
\, \~> \, <fC'\ \i'~C:' ._:" \' ~"?J' L 0!>'/ >~,,!? "",J=l
, ~ \\ \ \~p"'-) ) -~ I" ,/</ t'>J/<'~'"
,'-~ \I",~ <$: ..., ',1 "",/. /~ )1
'--- ....-,-" , ."" -", .//
,.'_ \..<'J" ~ ".. '" . ..., II ',~ .] /(/
, .. ~.>/ ',.. \,
[5 " '" " i\.
r-. <?," ",-,,"~' I,) tf) " ;\\
c::1 \M ,;;( l<' '" ',ft,'" < .
;:36 IcJ /, ;~?- $.. " ':'~'Th\\\\\
i@,/I:) Pi"" !j':~_.-----,.---__0 ) .
A^ "'" ~ x",- /.I., .
"IJ'?T" t =--Q
_..q)'j:( 5,63 -- ;/ \;-----
a Q~~~
'J~<-~ ~~\."""0
""--';C=~~ (::,.3)0"':0 ~
r'-C'<;;\\:<~ '\:7/=--'
v' '-c>,,""''''/1:) /Y
//.
<!t(_~
~blj
t-J"""'" TH
~~\;;;&r
__ __ __fFoi~K,
,I
42!>~
Ck5T/.:E: cp,,,,,'"
4; ~iA PJ:::>.
AO/?'-?/<1
~
,..-.".
EXHIBIT A
488 CASTLE CREEK
STAFF COMMENTS: 488 Castle Creek Rezoning
Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict With any applicable
portions of this title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed zoning is consistent With the Land Use Code and does not represent any
potential conflicts. The removal of the PUD designation removes the slope reduction for
density. This allows the lot to be split. Under the Lot Split scenario, two single-family
residences or one single-family residence and one duplex could be constructed.
The parcel was annexed into the City in 1980 and provided With the current zoning
including the PUD overlay. The minutes from the zoning hearing include discussion
about the PUD overlay. This overlay was specifically included to prohibit a Lot Split
while still alloWing for a duplex With one side deed restricted to affordable housing as
provided for in RI5-A.
B, Whether the proposed amendment is consistent With all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
StaffFinding;
The 1993 AACP does not identify this parcel in any specific way, nor does the 1998
AACP (draft). The update of the AACP, now being considered, is contemplating several
urban growth area designations generalizing areas where more or less density of
development is appropriate. For example: the downtown core is most appropriate for
density while outlying properties With little or no infrastructure are not appropriate for
this same level of development.
Generally, the subject property is Within the proposed growth areas being considered
designating this property suitable for moderate density development.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible With surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding:
Surrounding the site is the public hospital, high-density residential, and seasonal
dormitory housing. The parcel could accommodate higher density than is being
Staff Comments 1
~
,-.
contemplated, although there are several site constraints. The level of development
allowed with this zoning is consistent with the availability of services in the area and with
the development patterns of the surrounding area. The removal of the PUD designation
does not change the parcel's consistency with the surrounding neighborhood.,
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding:
The diffeTence in trip generation capacity between the existing zoning and the proposed
zoning is insignificant. If this parcel does redevelop, there may be a preference for
combining the driveways to provide one curb cut instead of two. The consideration for
combined drives is more appropriate to review with an actual development application.
The access issue could be resolved through either a Lot Split or under the existing PUD
process.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities,
including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
The current zoning allows for a duplex to be constructed on the parcel with one unit deed
restricted to affordable housing. Each primary unit is allowed to develop one ADU. The
removal of the PUD would allow the property to be subdivided without rezoning to
another zone district. The possibility of two single-family homes being constructed does
not represent a substantial increase in the parcel's demands on public services.
F. . Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
The PUD designation itself does not prohibit the development on the steep slopes. It
merely reduces the development potential by virtue of the existence of the steep slopes.
The development of a single-family or duplex residence is not required to go through a
PUD review and it is unlikely an applicant would voluntarily submit to such a review. If
the property were reviewed through the PUD provisions, development located on the
steep slopes would probably be discouraged to the extent possible.
Considering the above, staff does not consider the removal of the PUD designation a
significant potential for adverse impacts upon the natural enviTonment. Significant
development of the steep slopes is unlikely in either scenario. Also, the uses allowed
remain the same with the removal of the PUD.
Staff Comments 2
f"...
/"""\
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The update of the AACP is considering a multi-layered approach in defining the
appropriate concentrations of development in Aspen and its environs. The uses and
density allowed in the zone district without the PUD designation is consistent with the
classifications this parcel is being considered under.
The slope reduction for the parcel eliminates the possibility of a Lot Split and reduces the
allowable development to either a single-family residence or a duplex with one side as
affordable housing. The removal of the PUD overlay will remove this slope reduction
and provide the ability to split the lot and construct two single-family homes. These lots,
however, are outside of the original Townsite and are not eligible for an exemption from
GMQS (pending appeal).
The PUD review process is most effective for considering significant developments of
several units, or mixed-use projects. The PUD process is excessive, and hence not
required, for the development of a single-family home or a duplex. The benefit in
reviewing this property under a PUD, however, would be the close examination of road
access, the location of structures on the property, minimizing the impacts of development
on steep slopes, the visual affects of the development on surrounding properties and from
public right-of-way, and the architectural character of the development. The road access
and configuration of a new lot boundary could be reviewed under a Lot Split application.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The surrounding area is much more developed than itwas when the property was first
annexed into the City of Aspen. There are high-density developments surroundihg the
parcel, a seasonal housing project, and the Hospital. There have also been changes to the
land use code.
The 1980 discussion surrounding the original zoning concentrated on the community
benefit associated with two development scenarios: I) The development ofa duplex with
one side being deed restricted to affordable housing; and, 2) the development of two
detached single-family homes after a lot split. Because it would be inappropriate for the
applicant to enter into an agreement to not seek a lot split (contractual zoning), the PUD
overlay was applied to reduce the lot area to less than allowed for two lots prohibiting a
split. Staff assumes the 1980 City Council preferred the benefits of the parcel either
remaining a single family home or adding one affordable unit over the creation of two
free-market lots.
The majority of the above conditions remain the same today. The City has amended the
land use code in a few ways germane to this application: I) the affordable side of a
duplex on the site could be an RO unit - a recent pTogram not available in 1980; and, 2)
Staff Comments 3
r-.
"......,
new development on lot split parcels are required to mitigate for affordable housing -
typically with one ADU per free-market dwelling.
The changes in the neighborhood, one could easily argue, do support higher density on
this parcel. However, changing the zoning to allow more development should only be
considered when there is a favorable and significant benefit to the community - such as
affordable housing. Staff does not believe there exists a significant community benefit in
lifting the PUD overlay and staff does not support this rezoning request. In addition, staff
agrees with the Planning and Zoning Commission in their concerns over road access and
site planning for this parcel. While there have been changes in the neighborhood, these
changes support the more exact review offered with the PUD Overlay.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
As mentioned above, changing the zoning (removing the PUD Overlay) to allow more
development should only be considered when there is a favorable and significant benefit
to the community. Staff does not believe there exists a significant community benefit in
lifting the PUD overlay and does not believe there exists a public interest in removing the
PUD Overlay.
The AACP, while not specifically addressing this parcel, supports the level of
development allowed with this zoning. Staff believes this zone district promotes the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Comments 4
,.....,
..-"
EXHIBIT B
488 CASTLE CREEK
Zoning Analysis:
R15-A-PUD R15-A
Gross Lot Size: 35,895 35,895
Slopes: 0-20% 23,200 23,200
Slopes: 20-30% 1,111 1,111
Slopes: 30 - 40% * 5,584 5,584
Slopes: > 40% * 6,000 6,000
Lot Area for 25,150 35,895
density
Lot Area for FAR 26,651 26,651
* estimated by planning staff
The PUD designation considers site slopes for the purpose of calculating both density and
FAR while slopes on non- PUD parcels only reduce FAR. The density reduction of the
PUD provisions prohibits this parcel from being subdivided into two parcels without
rezoning to a higher density zone district or removing the PUD designation. Development
of a single family home or a duplex does not require adoption of a PUD plan.
Development Scenarios:
R15-A-PUD: The lot cannot be split into two parcels. The single-family house can be
redeveloped or replaced with a duplex provided that one unit of the duplex is deed
restricted to affordable housing. This second duplex unit can be an RO unit.
R15-A: The developer retains the above development options with the same FAR (FAR
is reduced for slope regardless of the PUD overlay.) In addition, the developer could
split the lot and develop two detached houses or one house and one duplex. The newly
created lot would be required to obtain an allotment through the standard GMQS
procedures.
.-- -.---. n!
, .~Il<,
f"'\,
&\x\~i~ . ~
-E:
1fE, Ck& Cr~
i
I
I
II
I,
n
Ii
11
I
I
j City Attorney Stock said he felt it was inappropriate to apply to one site in a zone some- .1;"
II thing which is unique and different to it and not apply to all sites within the zone. To '
'i restrict R-15A would be subject to challenge. Stock recommended R-15A/PUD. Councilman ~
I Isaac. said he felt the Council should go with planning office and attorneys reconunendation,~
I
I
I
I
I
II
"
ii
I!
All in favor, 'motion carried.
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1980 - Celia Marolt Annexation
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing.
Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #11, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE Hl
(Series of 1980)
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS THE CELIA MAROLT PROPERTY
LOCATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH ANNEXATION IS ACCOMPLISHED
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF
1965 was read by the city clerk
Joe Wells, planning office, told Council this parcel is 36,000 square feet and the or~gln
al planning office recommendation was to zone it R-15A. There was some concern that an
R-15A without a restriction against further subdivision would have the effect of elimin-
ating possible employee units on the site. R-ISA as a single lot, a duplex would be
permitted with the second unit deed restricted; however, on a 36,000 square foot parcel,
the creation of a second lot would be less than 20,000 square feet necessary to create
two units. Only two free market single family units would be permitted in the event a
lot split had been accomplished. Wells pointed out the Opal Marolt property, which is
being annexed, is recommended R-15A mandatory PUD, and the mandatory PUD designation
should apply to this site as well. Mandatory PUD triggers the slope reduction formula;
this formula recognizes that steeply sloped Isitesare less developable and should have
less density potential. The PUD designation reduces the allowable density to 20,000 squa
feet which would allow a duplex situation. The planning office feels the PUD designation,
should be added. '.
Councilman Behrendt said there is a claim that there might be a bandit unit in the build-
ing at this time and asked if staff had checked this out. Wells answered this has not
been checked out because the tenants are not in town. Lennie Oates, representing the
applicant, told Council this has never been used as a duplex; it is not set up like that.
Wells told Council the PUD designation has been applied to the adjacent site for the same
reasons the planning office would like it applied to this site. Ms. Smith told Council
the P & Z had recommeno@d R-1SA with restriction against subdivision of the lot, so that
the effect is basically the same. Oates said the applicant felt there were some advantage
of coming into the city at the R-15 designation. Their zoning request was R-15A without
the PUD. P & Z recommended zoning as long as there was a contract arrangement so that
there was not a lot split. Oates said he would like to have the right to come back and
go through the subdivision process; however, he agreed not to avail Ordinance #3, which is
automatic lot split. Wells said the planning office would prefer to leave this unannexed
if the city does not get the benefit of the employee unit.
Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 1980, as amended with PUD added
in Section 2; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Roll call vote; Councilmembers COllins,
nay; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Behrendt, nay; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion
carried.
I
!I
'1
!I
ii
.,
!I
\1
;1
"
ii
(!
Ii
II
'1;.~\~\~ ~
'E!::
1ft, CkttL G~
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #11. SERI~S OF 1980 - Cel~a Marolt Annexation
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing.
Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #11, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
!
I
~
I
"
I,
'I
II
"
I
I
I
"
Ii
II
II
j)
ORDINANCE HI
(Series of 1980)
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS THE CELIA MAROLT PROPERTY
LOCATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH ANNEXATION IS ACCOMPLISHED
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF
1965 was read by the c~ty clerk
Joe Wells, planning office, told Council this parcel is 36,000 square feet and the origin
a1 planning office recommendation was to zone it R-15A. There was some concern that an
R-15A without a restriction against further subdivision would have the effect of elimin-
ating possible employee units on the site. R-lSA as a single lot, a duplex would be
permitted with the second unit deed restricted: however, on a 36,000 square foot parcel,
the creation of a second lot would be less than 20,000 square feet necessary to create
two units. Only two free market single family units would be permitted in the event a
lot split had been accomplished. Wells pointed out the Opal Marolt property, which is
being annexed; is recommended R-15A mandatory PUD, and the mandatory pun designation
should apply to this site as well. Mandatory PUD triggers the slope reduct~on formula:
this formula recognizes that steeply sloped 's~tes are less developable and should have
less density potent~al. The PUD designation reduces the allowable density to 20.000 squa
feet which would allow a duplex situation. The planning office feels the PUP designation,
should be added. .'
Councilman Behrendt said there is a claim that there rni9ht be a bandit unit in the build-
ing at this time and asked if staff had checked this out. Wells answered this has not
been checked out because the tenants are not in town. Lennie Oates, representing the
applicant, told Council this has never been used asa duplex; it is not set up 'like that.
Wells told Counc~l the PUD des~gnat~on has been applied to the adjacent site for the same
reasons the planning office would like it applied to this site. Ms. Smith told Council
the P & Z had recommended R-1SA withrestriation against subdivision of the lot, so that
the effect is basically the same. Oates said the applicant felt there were some advantage
of coming into the city at the R-15 designation. Their zoning request was R-15A without
the PUD. P & Z recommended zoning as long as there was a contract arrangement so that
there was not a lot split. . Oates said he would like to have the right to come back and
go through the subdivision proceSS1 however, he agreed not to avail Ordinance'3, which is
automatic lot split. Wells said the planning office would prefer to leave this unannexed
~f the c~ty does not get the benefit of the employee un~t.
,
I
i
! City Attorney Stock said he felt it was inappropriate to apply to one site in a zone some~
d thing Which is unique and different to it and not apply to all sites within the zone. 'l'o
I":,' restrict R-lSA would be sUbject to challenge. Stock recommended R-lSA/PUD. Counc~lman
Isaac sa~d he felt the Council should go with plann~ng off~ce and attorneys recommendation
Ii
I
I
I
I
,I
Ii
"
II
Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance '11. Series of 1980, as amended w~th PUD added
in Section 2; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins,
nay; Parry, aye1 Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Behrendt, nay; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion
carried.
",.....,
.,-.,
EXHIBIT D
488 CASTLE CREEK
26.28.060 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15A).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15A) zone district is to
provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational
and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as
conditional uses. Lands in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15A) zone district are
similarly situated to those in the Moderate-Density Residential (R- I 5) zone district and are
lands annexed from Pitkin County from zone districts in which duplexes are a prohibited use.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate-Density
Residential (R-15A) zone district.
I. Detached residential dwelling;
2. Duplex, provided fifty (50) percent of the duplex units are restricted to affordable
housing;
3. Farm buildings and use, provided that all such buildings and storage areas are located at
least 100 feet from pre-existing dwellings on other lots;
4. Home occupations;
5. Accessory buildings and uses; and
6. For properties which contain a historic landmark: two detached residential dwellings on a
lot within a minimum lot size of thirteen thousand (13,000) square feet.
C. Conditional uses. The foIlowing uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate-
Density Residential (R- I 5A) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established
in Chapter 26.60.
I. Open use recreation site;
2. Public and private academic school;
3. Church;
4. Gr.oup home;
5. Day care center;
6. Museum; and
7. Accessory dweIling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.40.090.
D, Dimensional requirements. The foIlowing dimensional requirements shaIl apply to ail
permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15A) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 15,000. Forlots created by section 28.66.030(A)(5) of
this Code, Historic Landmark Lot Split: 3,000.
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet):
Detached residential dwelling: 15,000
Duplex: A duplex may be developed on a lot of 15,000 square feet that was subdivided as
of April 28, 1975. Otherwise the duplex must be developed with a minimum lot area
of 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit, unless .the property contains a historic
landmark, in which case two detached residential dwellings may be developed with a
minimum of 6,500 square feet per unit.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 75. For lots created by section 26.88.030(A)(5) of this Code,
Historic Landmark Lot Split: 30.
r-..
'-"'.
4. A minimum front yard (feet):
Residential dwelling: 25
Accessory buildings and all other buildings: 30
5. Minimum side yard (feet): 10
6. Minimum rear yard (feet):
All buildings except residential dwellings and accessory buildings: 20
Residential dwellings: 1 0
Accessory buildings: 5
7. Maximum height (feet): 25
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): 10
9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
Lot Size Detached Residential
Dwellings (Square Feet)
0--3,000
3,000--9,000
9,000--15,000
15,000--50,000
50,000+
Allowable Square Feet.
80 square feet of floor area for each 100 in lot area, up to a maximum of
2,400 square feet of floor area.
2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet
of floor area.
4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet
of floor area.
4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each
additional I 00 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 6,600 square feet
of floor area.
6,600 square feet of floor area, plus 2 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in Jot area.
Lot Size Dnplex (Square Feet)
Allowable Square Feet
0--3,000
3,000--9,000
9,000--15,000
15,000--50,000
90 square feet of floor area for each 100 square feet in lot area, up to a
maximum of 2, 700 square feet of floor area.
2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet
of floor area.
4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,920 square feet
of floor area.
4,920 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each
additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of7,020 square feet
of floor area.
~
,/"""\
50,000+ 7,020 square feet of floor area, plus 3 square feet of floor area for each
additionallOO square feet in lot area.
I I. Internal floor area ratio: No requirement
E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be provided
for each use in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-l5A) zone district, subject to the
provisions of Chapter 26.32.
I. For single-family and duplex residential use and multi-family use: two (2)
spacesldwelling unit. Fewer spaces may be provided by special review pursuant to
Chapter 25.64 for historic landmarks only, and fewer spaces may be provided pursuant to
Chapter 26.60 for accessory dwelling units only. One (I) spaceldwelling unit is required
if the unit is either a studio or one-bedroom unit.
2. Lodge uses: NIA
3. All other uses: Requires special review pursuant to Chapter 26.64.
!"""'-...
.~.
APPLICABLE CODE SECTION:
-1,.0,.0
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY en,. .'r. I)>OV,i'.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT "7~<%Jr v<",:'./ ....'/)
CODE INTERPRETATION 0", ~ /."
'1-,,"<:;.. ""$",
'ra v"'1;: ....
""-1sA $vI'"
City of Aspen <>4' <.I'>9~C/G
?r
Section 26.470.070(1) GMQS Exemptions - Lot
Split, Section 26.480.030 (A)(2) (Subdivision-
Exemption - Lot Split)
JURISDICTION:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
September 8, 1999
1;~~i~ E
:e'
APPROVED BY:
~tLU-A
Chris Bendon, Planner U(ec:\zt~ \V\~
DATE: "1/ /<f1j,9
WRITTEN BY:
SUMMARY:
This Land Use Code interpretation concludes that the Lot Split Exemption provisions of
Growth Management Quota System do not extend to lots outside, or lots partially within, the
Original Mapped Aspen Townsite.
BACKGROUND:
Stan Clauson requested an interpretation of the Land Use Code to determine if lots that are
outside in the Original Mapped Aspen Townsite qualify for a Lot Split Exemption under
Growth Management.
Sunny Vann requested an interpretation of the land Use Code to determine iflots that are
partially within the Original Mapped Aspen Townsite qualify for a Lot Split Exemption
underGrowth Management.
DISCUSSION:
The Original Aspen Townsite is not a term defined in the definitions section of the Land Use
Code. However, language within the Subdivision Chapter, Section 26.480.020, describes an
Aspen Townsite Lot as land depicted on the Aspen incorporation plat of record, dated 1880.
The Townsite and the original description of land by block and lot used in this incorporation
plat is still used to describe land within the City of Aspen in reference to .this 1880 plat. In
fact, areas since annexed to the City of Aspen are described as additions and referenced by
the name of the annexation (i.e. Eames Addition).
The Lot Split Subdivision Exemption provisions of the Land Use Code, Section
26.480.030(A)(2), allows lot splits contingent on seven criteria. None of these criteria
require the fathering parcel be in the Original Townsite.
"........,
"........,
. ,
The Growth Management Exemption provisions for Lot Split parcels, Section 26.470.070(1),
allows exemptions for the development of one detached residential dwelling on a vacant lot
within the orif{inal mapped Aspen Townsite, formed by a lot split granted subsequent to
November 14, 1977 pursuantto Section 26.480.030(A)(2).
These are discrete land use reviews although both of these reviews are by City Council.
Approval for one land use review, however, does not grant or even imply approval for
another land use review. In other words, approval for a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption
does not grant approval for a Growth Management Exemption even though City Council has
the authority to grant both reviews.
Furthermore, approval for one type of land use review by an authorized approving Board
does not grant or imply approval for a land use review that is not authorized to be granted by
that same, or any other, Board. In other words, City Council's authorization to grant a Lot
Split Subdivision Exemption approval outside of the Original Townsite does not require them
to approve a Growth Management Exemption on the same lot.
The term "within" is used in the Land Use Code to describe vacant lots to which City
Council may grant Growth Management Exemptions - vacant lot within the Original Aspen
Mapped Townsite. The term "within" is not a term defined within the Land Use Code but
commonly means "encompassed by" or "in the inner part of' when used in both written and
spoken English.
Mr. Vann raises a question regarding a Lot Split application which may have been processed
erroneously. City Council approved a Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split and a Growth
Management Exemption for a new dwelling unit to be located on a newly created lot split
parcel at 934 West Francis Street in December 1997. The staff memo did not conclude that
the subject property was only partially within the Townsite. The memorandum and
approving Ordinance did, however, state that the application met all requirements of the
Land Use Code. Upon closer inspection, a portion of one of the newly created lots was not
entirely in the original Townsite. The issue of the property being partially outside of the
Townsite was overlooked and Mr. Vann is correct in his asswnption that the Growth
Management Exemption was wrongly approved.
INTERPRETATION:
Based on the language reference above, I interpret the tenn "Original Mapped Aspen
Townsite" to mean lands within the boundaries of Aspen's incorporation plat of 1880.
The Subdivision Exemption criteria for a Lot Split do not require the fathering parcel to be
within Original Mapped Aspen Townsite. However, the Growth Management exemption
provisions for Lot Split parcel only apply to vacant lots within this boundary. These are
discrete reviews. Therefore, it is my interpretation ofthese code sections that a lot split
outside of the original Townsite may be approved by the City Council, however, additional
residential units must be granted an allotment through the GMQS scoring and competition
procedures, as there exists no exemption procedure.
~
,~
Lastly, it is my interpretation of the Land Use Code that the Growth Management Exemption
provision for vacant lots within the Original Mapped Aspen Townsite created by a Lot Split
Subdivision Exemption only extend to those Jots wholly within this boundary and not
partially within the boundary.
APPEAL OF DECISION
Pursuant to Section 26.306 of the Land Use Code, an interpretation of the Land Use Code
made by the Director may be appealed to the Aspen City Council pursuant to Section 26.3 16.
This can be done in conjunction with a land use request before City Council' or as a separate
agenda item.
'1
r-,
0~s
\lo^~f.l~ I))
~\-J tS"t>:J J &~o..S
-It ~
COD e-DD
"
Memo
To:
From:
Thru:
CC:
Date:
Re:
Julie Ann Woods, Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon
Natalie Hruby
Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA
Paul Andersen
14-Jul-99
488 Castle Creek Road-Rezoning and Lot Split
r-,
STAN CLAUSON AsSOCIATES, LLC
Planning. Urban Design
Transportation Stu.dies
Project. Management
200 EAST :MAIN STREET
AsPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE; 970.925.2323
FAX: 970.920.1628
E-MAIL: clauson@csi.com
@ f1. ~"U -=>; doA\~l
tM~j ~r~v "'{retM:1\4~ C&
{l/ ttW ~ \0 r~:b tv ~r
{1; (JJtiiIJJf lt~ t7fkr ~ YtlJ;1~ jb.(i,
Background
This memorandum is in reference to the property located at 488 Castle Creek Road
for which we are seeking a solution that would permit the division of the lot and the
construction of two single-family dwellings. We are seeking a method that is both
appropriate for the site and meets the Community Developrr" Jepartment's
concerns. It is our goal to address each one of these corv'- r to reach a
recommendable solution.
Our way of thinking, which was confirmer' .
Planning and Zoning Commissior> ..
rather with the configuration and
need for a dense affordable hou~
concern that the site was too sensl
family homesites. They were, ho,^
because, in doing so, it removed
proposed on the site. They appea,
development review, an inappropriate l
might be ensue.
P&Z suggested that these issues coul, ,~fflt
development plan review as is required un ~er, the
current R15A-PUD zoning does not give th, ~adevelopment
plan involving two single-family dwellings be~ ~lJ-reductions based on
slope as required by the PUD designation. ,~, the only way to proceed
seems to be to request to have the PUD designwcln lifted. However, we believe that
we have found a solution that would provide for the review desired by P&Z and, at
l~ r~\vtv
. Page 1
1 that the
'sity but
Tess a
?ress
19le-
'ion
nt
'r
PLANNING AND DESICN SOLunONS FOR COlvlMUNITlES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CUENTS
,
.~.
r-'\.
the same time, provide the property owner with a reasonable opportunity to pursue
his preferred development scenario.
Lifting the PUD through a zoning amendment does not appear to admit the condition
of a site-specific development plan. As Chris Sendon pointed out, this could be
considered "contract zoning," an agreement that is not permitted and consequently
may not be enforceable. However, in granting a lot split, a condition for site-specific
development review could be applied.
Lot Split Eligibility
The property, 488 Castle Creek Road, qualifies for a lot split based on the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, 1996 Section 26.88.030 (A)(2). The lot split 'NOuld be for the
purpose of the construction of one additional single-family dwelling on a lot, where
two lots will be created on land that has not been subdivided before 14 November
1977 or previously subject to a subdivision exemption. The present lot is a metes
and bounds parcel deeded to ~tephen Marolt on 6 June 1954 by Frank Marolt, Jr.
The property was annexed into the City by Celia Marolt under Ordinance 11, Series
of 1980. Other eligibility criteria are met as well: the existing house 'NOuld not be
demolished prior to the application, the maximum build out 'NOuld not be exceeded, a
subdivision plat 'NOuld be submitted, and the subdivision plat and agreement 'NOuld
be recorded.
AH1-PUD Appropriateness
Questions were also been raised by Community Development staff as to whether it
might be preferable to do an affordable housing (AH1) project. We have researched
these options extensively and do not believe that the site 'NOuld support a dense
AH1-PUD. Alternatively, the minimum three-unit development does not seem
practicable based on the bedroom imbalance between the market and affordable
housing units. There is some question in our minds if it is indeed possible at all to
build a 3-unit AH1-PUD development at all. The P&Z did not seem concerned that
an AH project be built on the site.
Reeommendation
Therefore, we recommend that the City Council hear the request for the lifting
of the PUO designation simultaneously with the request for the granting of a
lot split. The lot split would have a condition that i~ be based on a site-specific
development plan. We recommend that Council refer the review of the site-
specific development plan back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for their
review and approval.
We believe that this would address all of the concerns expressed by the planning and
zoning commission at the hearing on July 8, 1999. Issues such as the layout of the
site, building envelopes, screening, driveway placement, and curb cuts, 'NOuld be
addressed by the Planning & Zoning Commission during the site-specific
development plan review, as a condition of approval. We believe that this is a
solution that will address all elements of concern regarding the.re-zoning, lot split,
. Page 2
.
~
,I'"';
and eventual redevelopment of the property. Moreover, vve believe that including the
lost split request with our continuing review of the rezoning application is consistent
with the original application and could be included with our public notice for a City
Council hearing
We would appreciate a opportunity to meet with Community Development staff who
would review this application at your earliest opportunity following retum from
vacations on 27 July 1999, so as to detennine whether this approach is one which
staff can recommend to a City Council hearing to be scheduled at our meeting.
. Page 3
//
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
~
r-.
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Julie Ann Woods, Community Dev~lopment Director ~"
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy DirectoA ~ r .
Christopher Bendon, Planner ~~l1V1
488CllstIe Creek Rezoning -- Public Hellring
July 6, 1999
SUMMARY:
The owner of 488 Castle Creek Road, Paul Anderson, has applied to remove the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zoning designation from his .82 acre
parcel ofland currently developed with a single-family residence. The City's PUD
overlay is intended to provide more zoning flexibility but also considers areas of steep
slope and reduces the allowable density accordingly. This slope consideration is
unique to parcels with a PUD overlay and does not apply to other single-family
properties. The slope reduction for this parcel eliminates the possibility of applying
for a lot split, limiting the current development opportunities to a single-family
residence or a duplex with one side deed restricted to affordable housing. Removing
the PUD designation would allow the property owner to apply for a Lot Split.
In 1980, the already developed parcel was annexed into the City of Aspen and
rezoned to the RI5-A zone district. The PUD overlay was placed on the property,
according to the Ordinance minutes, to specifically prohibit the ability to split the lot
and to 6nsure the existence of an employee unit on-site if the property were
redeveloped as a duplex. It is apparent that the 1980 City Council preferred the
community benefit of the parcel either remaining a single-family home or adding one
affordable unit over the development of two free-market lots after a lot split.
There have been changes in the neighborhood which lend support for a higher density
zone district. However, staff believes changing the zoning to allow more
development should only be considered when there is a favorable and significant
benefit to the community - such as affordable housing. Since 1980, changes in the
land use code, such as requiring ADU's with lot split applications, have made
progress towards that goal but do not represent a permanent benefit to the community.
There is general support in the pending AACP update for requiring growth
management exemption ADU's to be deed restricted to mandatory occupancy.
However, the current ADU provisions do not require these units to be occupied. Staff
believes any changes to the zoning of this parcel should be associated with a higher
I
,.,........
,,,.......,,,
degree of community benefit, as required by growth management review or as
provided for in the AHI-PUD Zone District.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a
recommendation of denial to City Council for removing the PUD overlay from
this parcel.
ApPLICANT:
Paul Anderson. Represented by Paul Perea and Stan Clauson.
LOCATION:
488 Castle Creek Road. (See attached location map in application.)
ZONING:
Current:
Proposed:
RI5-A-PUD. (Moderate Density Residential.)
RI5-A.
LOT SIZE:
35,895 square feet. .82 acres.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family. (A duplex with one side as an RO is also allowed and provides an
exemption from GMQS.)
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Single-Family. Possibly a future Lot Split to allow two single-family homes or a
single-family and a duplex. (No development is proposed in this application.)
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this rezoning request.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a
public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City
Council.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property was annexed into the City of Aspen in 1980 and rezoned
according to Ordinance 11, Series of 1980. The minutes from the rezoning are
attached.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit A. An analysis of
the zoning is provided as Exhibit B. City Council minutes from the initial zoning in
2
,-..,.
r-,
1980 have been attached as Exhibit C. A copy of the RI5-A Zone District provisions
have been included as Exhibit D. The application is attached as Exhibit E.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a
recommendation of denial to remove the PUD designation for this parcel.
The City Attorney may instructthe Commission to pose the motion in the positive
(recommend approval), even if the desired outcome is to deny the application.
Motion makers need not vote consistent with their motion.
RE.COMMENDED MOTION:
"1 move to recommend City Council deny this rezoning request to rezone this
property, 488CastIe Creek Road, from R15-A-PUD to RI5-A."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Zoning Analysis and Summary
Exhibit C -- 1980 Rezoning Minutes
Exhibit D -- R15-A Zone District provisions
Exhibit E -- Application
3
,,-..
1"""\
RECEIVED
.1l11061999
SlAN ClAUSON AsSOCIATES, LLC
Planning. Urban Design
Transportation Studies
Project Management
200 EAsT :MAIN STREET
AsPEN, COLOR.<\DO 81611
TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323
FAX: 970.920.1628
E-MAIL: clauson@csLcoin
Memo
. . ASPEN I PITKIN
r;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Aspen PI.anning & Zoning G~.~ mi~ ion
From: Stan Clauson, AICP, AS~
CC: ~ns-sen~ommunity Development Dept.
Date: 2 July 1999
Re: 488 Castle Creek Road, Anderson Property.;..Rezoning
Summary
The property now known as 488 Castle Creek Road was a parcel of the original
Marolt Ranch that was annexed into the City of Aspen in 1980 (see Ordinance 11,
Series of 1980, attached). At the time of annexation, the zoning established was R-
15A and a PUD was applied to the property. The concems of the Council at the time
seem to relate to the steep slopes then on the property and to the protection of an
employee unit, which would apparently have been eliminated under the code at that
time if the lot Vo'ere split into two free-market parcels.
So much has changed since this PUD was applied in 1980 that continuing the
CU/Tent restrictions seems hardly relevant. . Changes include the following:
. The topography of the site has been considerably modified since 1980;
. New code provisions, introduced with Ordinance 30, have provided for
reductions in floor area in situations where steep slopes are present;
. Our Growth Management system now requires that affordable housing
mitigation must be provided in circumstances where subdivision exemptions,
such as lot splits, are used; and
. The nature of the development sU/Tounding the parcel, and the philosophy of
development for that area, have been totally altered since the parcel was
annexed and the PUD was established.
Exhibit A of the . Staff Comments provides an analysis of the criteria required for
consideration by the City Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission in
reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map. Chris Sendon reviews the
required criteria and for every one of the criteria finds that the proposed amendment
. Page 1
PLANNINC Al"W DESIGN SOLUTIO;\'5 FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVA.TE SECTOR CUENTS
t""""\
.~
is consistent. However, he concludes that the current code does not provide, in the
opinion of staff, for sufficient community benefit, and therefore he recommends
rejection. The fact is that it is the Land Use Code that sets forth the amount of
mitigation or community benefit Vvi1ich must necessarily be imposed by various types
of land use actions. The concept of "significant community benefif' cited by Chris
Sendon is simply not a category of review provided for in the Code.
On the other hand, there is community benefit that would ensue from the lifting of the
PUD and the eventual development of the parcel as two single-family residences. In
redeveloping the property as a lot split, an ADU or cash-in-lieu payment would be
required by the Code for each single-family home constructed under the lot split
exemption. This would result in a significant cash-in-Iieu payment or two ADU's
being added. Staff concem has no doubt focused on the issue of ADU's providing
uncertain housing benefit, because relatively. few are actively rented at this time.
However, the Housing Office is putting into place a number of programs which would
facilitate renting ADU's and Vvi1ich will improve the use of this housing type. If
however, the Housing Office prefers payment of cash-in-Iieu rather than provision
ADU's at this location, then that payment is also a source of community benefit as
provided for in the Land Use Code.
It has been suggested that a more aggressive development scenario might be
employed for this parcel, specifically, an affordable housing development under the
AH1-PUD zoning. It should be noted that the AH1.-PUD development program is an
aggressive one that very few developers have successfully undertaken and Vvi1ich .
entails a considerable amount of risk. No property O'Mler should feel coerced into .
this form of development. This type of development requires that the site be
particularly appropriate and that the project be one for Vvi1ich the owner feels
comfortable with respect to a successful outcome. In this particular case, the site
may not be appropriate because of the nature of the filled areas extending toward the
Marolt Housing. These areas may not provide reasonably stable soils for multifamily
construction. Moreover, this area has seen a considerable amount of dense
affordable housing development. Neighborhood objection may become a significant
factor in forestalling an AH1-PUD project, adding to development costs and possibly
resulting in significant losses to the developer. This is not a development activity that
a property owner should feel compelled to pursue.
The development proposed for the site, with the lifting of the PUD, would be
consistent with the underlying R-15A zoning. It would not add excessive density to
the area or any undue traffic loading. It would ensure that .the property was used in
an economically viable manner, provide reasonable community benefit in accordance
with the Land Use Code, and complete the development in the area with two well-
landscaped attractive single-family homes and accessory dwelling units.
A final community benefit that the property O'Mler is interested in providing is the
donation to the City of Aspen of deeded water rights from the Marolt Ditch. The
. Page 2
r--
~
property deed conveying the parcel from Stephen Marolt to Frank Marolt, Jr. in 1940
included reference to:
Also conveying all Grantor's one half interest in 6.6 cubic feet ofvvater
per second of time of the 14.6 cubic feet per second adjudicated to the
Grantor[,] the Grantee and Rudolph Marolt by the District Court of
Garfield[sic] County on July 25, 1934 and recorded in the office of said
County Clerk & Recorder of Pitkin County in Book 162 at Page 408.
Marolt Ditch[sic]
The possibility of this donation has been communicated to the Utilities
Director, Phil Overeynder, 000 has identified it as being potentially useful to
the City. It is our understanding that he has requested the City's vvater
attomey, Cindy Covell, to research the chain of title with respect to these
water rights.
Specific Required Findings
Removal of the PUD overlay to the R~15A zone district imposed at the time of
annexation of the parcel requires an amendment to the official zone district map.
Section 26.92.020 Standards of Review provides the required findings that must be
considered in reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map. Our
responses to the required findings are provided below.
A. Whether.the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
Findina: The proposed amendment is consistent with the Land Use Code and
does not represent any potential conflicts. Although the removal of the PUD
designation eliminates the slope reduction for density, slope reduction for floor
area remains in effect under other provisions of the code. Based on a
subsequent request for a lot split, two single family residences or one single-
family and one duplex could be constructed. This level of density is consistent
with the requirements of the R-15A zone district, ooich is the underlying zoning.
Development 'hOuld be required to provide affordable housing.as specified in the
GMQS exemption provisions.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan"
Findina: The 1993 AACP does not identify this specific parcel nor does the
1999 AACP revision, currently in draft. Generally, the subject property is within
the proposed urban growth area and 'hOuld be considered suitable for moderate
density development. It should be noted that, since the original annexation of this
parcel in 1980, considerable change has occurred in this area. At the time of
annexation, there vvas no high-density development such as the Marolt Housing,
extensive public facilities had not located in the area, and the moderate density
. Page 3
~
,r--..
housing found in Twin Ridge and other developments along Doolittle Drive had
not yet been constructed. Therefore, the development concems and restrictions
placed upon the property are no longer appropriate or consistent with the
surrounding area.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the
surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land
use and neighborhood characteristics.
Findino: Surrounding the site are the public hospital, health and human services
facilities, high-density residential, and seasonal dormitory housing. Staff notes
that the parcel could conceivably be appropriate for a higher density zone district
than is being proposed, although there are several site constraints which could
complicate the site planning of a high-density residential project. Without
question, the level of development allowed with the proposed zoning would be
consistent with the availability of services and development pattems in the area.
The removal of the PUD designation would not change the parcel's consistency
with the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, it would remain an area of
significantly less intense development than the surrounding neighborhood. As
such, it would balance other areas of less intense development which are found
on the other side of the Marolt Housing.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Findino: The difference in trip generation between the existing and the
proposed zoning would be insignificant in the light of current background traffic. If
the parcel is redeveloped, staff has recommended considering combining
driveways into a single curb cut The property owner would be amenable to
placing a condition for combined driveways on any development approvals. Staff
also notes that the parcel is on the outside curve of the road, and does not have
any potential problems with blind driveways.
E. Whether and the extend to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extend to
which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such
facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Findino: Staff notes that the current zoning allows a duplex to be constructed on
the parcel. The possibility of two single-fami/y homes being constructed,
therefore, does not represent an increase in the parcel's demands on public
services over its current ability to require those services. Moreover, the parcel is
currently served by City water and has deeded water rights as well. The property
owner is offering to tum over to the City of Aspen those water rights that are
. Page 4
,.-.,
,
~.
dedicated to the property. This 'M)uld actually increase the City's ability to irrigate
the Golf Course or other irrigated public open spaces.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Findina: Staff notes that removal of the PUD designation 'M)ufd not have
significant potential for adverse impacts on the natural environment as
development of steep slopes is unlikely under either the current or proposed
zoning. Staff also notes that the pennitted uses 'M)uld remain the same with the
removal of the PUD. It should also be noted that, while the PUD functions to limit
density with respect to sloping sites, our current code limits floor area with respect
to slope. Thus, the protection that had been intended with the PUD is now fully a
part of our code, although by regulating floor area rather than density.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character of the City of Aspen,
Findina: Staff notes that the uses and density allOllW<1 in the zone district
without the PUD is consistent with the land use classifications that are onder
consideration for the location of this parcel. The removal of the PUD 'M)uld allow
for a lot split and the community benefit associated with such an action is typically
an ADU for each single-family home constructed. This is similar, staff notes, to
the community benefit associated with the demolition and reconstruction of a
single-family residence. Staff notes that "the PUD review process is most
effective for considering significant developments of several units, or mixed use
types of projects. The PUD process is excessive, and hence not required, for the
development of a ingle-family home or a duplex." Removal of the PUD
designation 'M)uld therefore be consistent and compatible with community
character. Moreover, it would be consistent with good land use practice not to
employ a PUD for this type of development.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the
proposed amendment
Findina: Staff notes that the surrounding area is much more developed today
than it was when the property was first annexed into the City of Aspen. There are
high-<lensity developments surrounding the parcel, a seasonal housing project,
and the hospital. There have also been changes to the land use code.
The following changes were noted in the Summary section of this memorandum:
1) The topography of the site has been considerably modified since 1980;
2) New code provisions, introduced with Ordinance 30, have provided for
reductions in floor area in situations where steep slopes are present;
. Page 5
/""",
~
3) Our Growth Management system now requires that affordable housing
mitigation must be provided in circumstances where subdivision exemptions,
such as lot splits, are used; and
4) The nature of the development surrounding the parcel, and the philosophy of
development for that area, have been totally altered since the parcel was
annexed and the PUD was established.
The original PUD overlay is no longer required or appropriate because of these
changed conditions.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in hannony with the purpose and intent of this
title.
Findina: Staff notes that the removal of the PUD designation does not pose any
conflicts with the public interest Staff continues: "The AACP, while not
specifically addressing this parcel, supports the level of development al101Ned with
this zoning. Staff believes this zone district promotes the purpose and intent of
this Title and is in hannony with the public interest .
Conclusion
It is the belief of the applicant that all the required findings have been met for an
amendment to the official zone district map that would remove the PUD overlay from
this parcel. Community benefit consistent with that required by the code would be
provided by pennitting a development of appropriate scale and impact, the provision
of affordable housing as required by the code, and a proposed donation to the City of
water rights associated with the property.
Imposition of the PUD may never have been a fully appropriate land use tool. At the
time it was imposed, the Attorney for the property QIM1er, Lenny Oates, asked that
Council retain an open mind toward subsequent subdivision. At this point in time, we
have the land use tools to effect appropriate control of the parcel so as to insure that
the public interest is met Removal of the PUD is fair to the property QIM1er and
appropriate for the development of the site.
Recommended Motion
" move to recommend to City Council that the parcel know as 488 Castle Creek
Road be rezoned by removing the PUD overlay and retaining the existing R-15A
zoning."
. Page 6
f"""".
,,,.....,,
tv. B,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Direct() ~ II
Christopher Bendon, Planner~\M
488 Castle Creek Rezoning -- Public Hearing (Continued from 5.18.99)
1N~t~,-, ~~ ~
~
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
June I, 1999
SUMMARY:
The owner of 488 Castle Creek Road, Paul Anderson, has applied to remove the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) overlay zoning designation from his .82 acre parcel of land
currently developed with a single-family residence. The City's PUD overlay is intended to
provide more zoning flexibility but also considers areas of steep slope and reduces the
allowable density accordingly. This slope consideration is unique to parcels with a PUD
overlay and does not apply to other single-family properties. 'The slope reduction for this
parcel eliminates the possibility of applying for a lot split, limiting the current development
opportunities to a single-family residence or a duplex with one side deed restricted to
affordable housing. Removing the PUD designation would allow the property owner to
apply for a Lot Split.
In 1980, the already developed parcel was annexed into the City of Aspen and rezoned to the
RI5-A zone district. The PUD overlay was placed on the property, according to the
Ordinance minutes, to specifically prohibit the ability to split the lot and to ensure the
existence of an employee unit on-site if the property were redeveloped as a duplex. It is
apparent that the 1980 City Council preferred the community benefit of the parcel either
remaining a single-family home or adding one affordable unit over the development of two
free-market lots after a lot split.
There have been changes in the neighborhood which lend support for a higher density zone
district. However, staff believes changing the zoning to allow more development should only
be considered when there is a favorable and significant benefit to the community - such as
affordable housing. Since 1980, changes in the land use code, such as requiring ADU's with
lot split applications, have made progress towards that goal but do not represent a permanent
benefit to the community. Staff believes any changes to the zoning of this parcel should be
associated with a higher degree of community benefit, as required by growth management
review or as provided for in the AHI-PUD Zone District.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of
denial to City Council for removing the PUD overlay from this parcel.
ApPLICANT:
Paul Anderson.
LOCATION:
488 Castle Creek Road. (See attached location map in application.)
1
r'\.
A.
ZONING:
Current:
Proposed:
RI5-A-PUD. (Moderate Density ResidentiaI.)
RI5-A
LOT SIZE:
35,895 square feet. .82 acres.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-Family. (A duplex with one side as an RO is also allowed and provides an exemption
from GMQS.)
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Single-Family. Possibly a future Lot Split to allow two single-family homes or a single-
family and a duplex. (No development is proposed in this application.)
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this rezoning request.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a public
hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property was annexed into the City of Aspen in I 980 and rezoned according to
Ordinance 11, Series of 1980. The minutes from the rezoning are attached.
STAFF COMMENTS;
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit A. An analysis of the
zoning is provided as Exhibit B. City Council minutes from the initial zoning in 1980 have
been attached as Exhibit C. A copy of the RI5-A Zone District provisions have been
included as Exhibit D. The application is attached as Exhibit E.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a
recommendation of denial to remove the PUD designation for this parcel.
The City Attorney may instruct the Commission to pose the motion in the positive
(recommend approval), even if the desired outcome is to deny the application. Motion
makers need not vote consistent with their motion.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend City Council deny this rezoning request to rezone this property, 488
Castle Creek Road, from R15-A-PUD to RI5-A."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Zoning Analysis and Summary
Exhibit C --.1980 Rezoning Minutes
Exhibit D -- R15-A Zone District provisions
Exhibit E -- Application
2
,
-.
.~
""""",
.'~!::~
. .
" .'~, ~, ,'''-~ 'l"'..,,. "
. ,
.
. ,
February 17, 1999
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Julie Ann Woods
Community Development Director
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Rezoning to Remove PUD Overlay Designation - Castle Creek Parcel
Dear Ms. Woods:
Please consider this letter as an addendum to the application (attached as Exhibit 1) to
rezone the parcel located at 488 Castle Creek Road, by removing the current PUD
Overlay from the parcel, retaining the existing RI5-A zone district designation. A brief
overview is noted in the Pre-Application Conference Summary (attached as Exhibit 2).
The application is hereby submitted pursuant to any applicable sections of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code by the owner, Paul Andersen and his assistant, Paul Perea, who is
authorized by Paul Andersen to be his representative. A list of owners within 300 feet of
the and property and an executed application fee agreement are hereby submitted
(attached as Exhibit 3).
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The applicant's property is legally described as:
A tract ofland located in Section 12 and Section 13 of Township 10 South,
Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County Colorado described as
follows:
Beginning at a point, a number 5 rebar on the Easterly side of the County Road
Right-of-way, whence the common comer of Section 11, 12,13, and 14 bears South 87
06' West 1016.20 feet:
Thence North 81 56' East 257.42 feet:
Thence South 06 41' East 308.07 feet:
Thence West 11.48' to the Easterly side of the County Road Right-of-way
Thence along the fence line North 31 21' West 73.89 feet:
Thence along the fence line North 44.55' West 133.57 feet
1004 EAST DURANT, SUITE-3 ' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(970) 920-\ S96 FAX (970) 920-4492
-'-
1""'"'.
I""'"',
Page 2
Thence along the fence line North 52.30' West 184.31 feet to the point of
beginning.
City of Aspen, Colorado.
Containing: 35,895 Sq. Ft. +/-
(attached Improvement Survey Exhibit 4)
As already stated the property contains approximately 35, 895 square feet and is zoned
R-15A1PUD. The property is accessible from Castle Creek Road. The parcel contains
one 2,065 square foot, tri-level house, with a 2 car attached garage. The house appears
to be at least 35 years old and should have no significant historical merit associated with it.
There are no other improvements to the property. The south portion of the parcel is
undisturbed, and the lower portion of the parcel that the existing house sits on has been
backfilled to its current elevation. The slope conditions are noted on the Improvement
Survey.
The property is bounded on the west by Castle Creek Road, and on the east and north by
the Marolt Ranch and the Marolt Ranch Apartments. The area west and across Castle
Creek Road contains among others, the Waterplace Housing Project, the Pitkin Health
and Human Services Building and the Hospital directly to the east. There is a trail near
the North side of the property that is used by seasonal residents of the Marolt Ranch
Apartments. All of the adjoining property is zoned R15/PUD.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Applicant desires to have the PUD Overlay removed from the parcel. It is the
Applicant's understanding that this particular parcel was designated PUD with the
surrounding properties as a general rezoning by the City of Aspen. The parcel, by it's
zoning, is limited to the construction of a duplex, hence it hasn't been developed, although
over the years several proposals for the parcel have been discussed. As already stated the
parcel contains almost 36,000 square feet, and by removing the PUD designation, the
parcel can revert to its original R-15A zone district, and can be developed to uses more
consistent to that zone district. The intent of the Applicant is to split the lot into two
parcels in the future. The two lots created by the future lot split will be in conformance
with the density allowed by the current underlying zone district. The applicant does not
wish to impact the area by developing the land via rezoning to higher densities and uses
consistent with the surrounding area. As addressed in the Pre-application Conference
Summary, any future land use considerations will require new applications and pre-
application conferences. This request is a step towards that goal.
.1""""\
1"""\.
Page 3
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
1. Rezoning
Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, of the Land Use Regulations, City of Aspen, a
private application for an amendment to the City's Official Zone District Map may only be
submitted on or prior to February 15 and August 15 of each year. This application was
submitted on February 9th, and therefore meets the requirement. The applicable review
criteria for such application, and the proposed rezoning's compliance therewith, are as
follows, based upon Attachment 5, Review Standards (Section 26.92.020):
a. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions ofthis title."
The proposed rezoning complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter 24 of
the Land Use Regulations, City of Aspen. There is no conflict with any applicable
portions of said chapter.
b. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with aU elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,"
c. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone
Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics,"
The existing Zone District which the parcel and all surrounding properties share has had
no discernible impact on the existing land uses. The proposed amendment will be
compatible with the surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, as the proposed use of the
property will not substantially change. The underlying zone designation would not
change, and since PUD"s are site specific, the amended zoning would maintain it's
compatibility with the surrounding Zone Districts and land uses.
d. "The effect ofthe proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety."
The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the area's road system,
as the use of the land will not change by the rezoning. By downzoning the parcel from a
high density, multi-family PUD to the lower density R-ls-A, the traffic impact should be
minimal to what it could be.
e. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would resulting 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
r-..
1"""1:
Page 4
limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities,
The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the City's public facilities. No
significant impact upon the City's parks. Schools, and emergency medical facilities should
occur as a result ofthe proposed rezoning.
f. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significantly adverse impacts upon the natural environment,"
The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impacts upon the natural environment.
g. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen,"
The rezoning will be consistent and compatible with the community character in the City
of Aspen. Retaining a single family theme to the parcel, will blend with the single family
homes which overlook the Castle Creek just across the valley at about the same elevation
as is this parcel.
h. "Whether there have changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment,"
There have been no changed conditions affecting the subject parcel which support the
proposed amendment.
i. "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent ofthis chapter,"
The proposed amendment should not be in conflict with the public interest, and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter.
The request of the applicant to remove the PUD Overlay from this parcel, is a reasonable
one. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please call either
Paul Perea, my assistant and representative, or me as soon as possible.
Respectfully yours,
Paul Andersen
7~
r"-.
Name: CAS-ru; C~E't:::oIS./~c:>I-'T fl:;z.af'\;;;p...-ry,
Location: 4t'>~ ~..:$TI..'G ~~E;~ t2.~b
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
,
LAND USE ApPLICATION ~.
PROJECT:
ApPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
~AU'- A~Dt;9-.6G:l'J
/'-^-~c.:
.
IANI, I-JI
.3>1""11
: ~f"e"l--l I c:o
~ .
'3~
q-zo-
1~"1t::..
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
P',I!o-UL- f'~~
30"'1 .b,.6.~ :
'"1 to. I
UN''''' H .
V' .
P-6 re"N
"'I~ .h4-"1t...
TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
o Conditional Use 0 Conceptual PUD
o Special Review 0 Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
o Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA
o GMQS Allotment 0 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
o GMQS Exemption 0 Subdivision
o ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization)
Mountain View Plane
Lot Split
Lot Line Adjustment
o
o
o
o
Temporary Use
Text/Map Amendment
t:o
f;.\G;.( ,
o Conceptual Historic Devt.
o Final Historic Development
o Minor Historic Devt.
o Historic Demolition
o Historic Designation
o Small Lodge Conversion!
Expansion
t'l(. Other:
1'2-.,,", U;lt...ll N ~
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
\ fZ,-)6~/l"'lJl? ~NIi1 t:>1~-rp..,cr: ~'N'1t.e:: FAo\..1I~
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
I
I">""l--'Iov\O..
PUP ~1c:;~,to.1foN ~
,
roz, -ISA Z::>~ ~pt,lcI -W ~\t-l
Have you attached the following?
EI Pre-Application Conference Summary
o Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
IZJ Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form
[1 Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents
o Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents
IZJ Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application
FEES DUE: $ '7- ,12.:20 , C?,::?
r-..
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
r-.
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that PAUL EGON ANDERSON is the owner in fee
simple of the following described property:
AS SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO.
Subject to encumbrances, easements, restrictions and rights of way of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
BY:
1999 @ 8:30 A.M.
CERTIFIED TO:
,~
r-.,
EXHIBIT "A"
A tract of land located in Sections 12 and 13 of Township 10 South,
Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado,
described as follows:
Beginning at a point, a number 5 re-bar on the Easterly side of the
county road right of way whence the common corner of Sections 11, 12, 13
and 14 bears S 87006' W 1016.20 feet;
thence N 81056' E 257.42 feet;
thence S 06042' E 308.07 feet;
thence West 11.48 feet to the Easterly side of the county road right of
way;
thence along
thence along
thence along
beginning.
a fence line N
the fence line
the fence line
31021' W
N 44055'
N 52030'
73.89 feet;
W 133.57 feet;
W 184.31 feet to
the point of
1"""\
~
ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
(please Print Clearly)
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and IAuL-A.....h.?I;;):lI'.-o:::.Iii>)..\
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for -l'Z.!:not..n:: -rc:>
""''"-l--It:?V€: l""Ut/ f'F.ot.-1 \2; -1?,A/f'LlO (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996)
establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
condition precedent to a detennination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing
the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow
APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter pennit additional costs to be
billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining
greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they
are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of
recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient infonnation to the Planning COmmission and/or City Council to
enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project
approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an
initial deposit in the amount of $;z.,;Z t.o which is for 1'1- hours of Planning staff time, and if
actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings
to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including
post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date.
APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension
of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN
APPLICANT
Julie Ann Woods
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
Signature:
Date:
Printed Name:
Mailing Address:
.~L
~~~y "'I) 1-'1"1"'\
~L- Jl..Nt:'~p,~-N
3'c::z:'\ ~C;. /,It..lrr IV1
,
A~ I 6!:J ~t(.."
,
Project:
Applicant:
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
r".
r"
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
~A~& ~~ I I--'It>olO".Ol,.., \"I<:oJ~c:::r
/
'F.A-lAL.- ~~~~
46~ C,A.$~ ?....~lt. ~"".....t:::>
P, - I'.?A JrU17
Tp<.IA.No<:;tAL.~ ~ 30(,')l. 'Z'7'7' X '":$''''' I
~~,b"l? :?Q. Fl.
(for 'the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Existing:
Existing:
Existing:
"-l/A
N/A
N/A
Proposed:
Proposed:
Proposed:
Commercial net leasable:
Number of residential units:
Number of bedrooms:
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N /A
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: "-l/~ Allowable: Proposed:
Principal bldg. height: Existing: "-l/A Allowable: Proposed:
.
Access. bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: Proposed:
On-Site parking: Existing: N/A Required: Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: N/A Required: Proposed:
,
% Open Space: Existing: N/A Required: Proposed:
I
Front Setback: Existing: N/A Required: Proposed:
.
Rear Setback: Existing: N/A Required: Proposed:
.
Combined FIR: Existing: NIp, Required: Proposed:
.
Side Setback: Existing: N/I>- Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: N/A Required: Proposed:
.
Combined Sides: Existing: NIp. Required: Proposed:
.
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: No~~
Variations requested: ~j;;MOVAL- OF PUP ~$I<:1N""'T'Ot-l f'f6,c;:> tJ\
F.. - I>?A/ l"'(}\? ~ J:;iei:;:.I<=iN.....,.,Ot-l.
.
(~,
r'1
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin }
}
State of Colorado }
SS.
AFFIDAVIT OF NbTICE PURSUANT
TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIbNS
SECTION 26.52.060(E)
I, r"..<.u l- ~C::>~I:i'..~ , being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certifY that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
I. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the _ day of , 199_ (which is _ days prior to the public
hearing date of ).
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the _ day
of . 199_, to the _ day of , 199_. (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
Signature
(Attach photograph here)
Signed before me this _ day of
199_. by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
PITKIN COUNTY
530 E MAIN ST STE 302
ASPEN, CO 8161 J
United Slates Forest Service
806 WOs! Hallam Sl.
ASPEN, CO 81611
Ca.<lk Ridgo Assoc., Ltd.
c/o Hill Management Company
10449 Sl. Charks Rock Rd., Ste. 509
Sl. Louis, MO 63074
,.-."
CITY Of ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
KOUTSOUBOS TED A
419 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
WACHS EDWARD H iR
PO BOX 405
ASPEN, CO 81612
~
Aspen Valley Hospital
zoo Caslle Crock Rd
ASPEN, CO 8161 I
- ':. . ,""" -11J;q
"."" ~ ! ,,,",, (? j c; U,,...
<, '\. /) & ,__ \. ' ~i (I;E;tsriJ,', ,I
~>,@'f U .~.~] q~\ ff~~L- ~'p\
" ' "I) ~~r . :~ \ -<< II -----.-- fS1 ~(] "-
<>, !)~ ~ '1\ ' \ill'iil 0 -"(t.'
..,-:-~~:~::::::c-'--,,- /.-..r'>Y.,~~-=' _,,' ~ '~'" \(1/ eL( Q1,L--D--
;",- --~,---~. --- ",
, ,-' " .-'-' ........ /,,--......- ,,' ,/
/1^''i;,~ -",._/- PI t k~"n>"-c-~~)j' ~--'-~-~2[fjj.' " -e.,.,/"'a'c,
/9\'\ '\ W -<-. ,. -,
", ' ' "'~~ I 't.:
/:/J ii' ,T' ,,' "" 'j ;~,= -' -*.
.... I 'l1' \ \ 1 PI' -"'tR ~ ~--
17~ ( iJ=' 1'"7 , - ~~.-J]V.t
;rb" \\l\,.I"" \ \ ;' O~ )'~ \. ~~~'I./."~ ..t.o.....'
> 'i v , \ ~ 0 '\~ S;:a I w..
'I <'1 ' ' ~ if
. '" f:c;.., \ _ ",,'. 0 ='
\*-.'~>' ~(~.._'. .\._' \\ .. i ' <:' '!!fi r-
,'t!'-~--- \\ J "cd\ /".'
\/{ I "'.;, .U ..,,}y/........, \~ r<t.;"\.. . A1;:;'.;':2:::" j~''''iIo. ,;;,
v' ~,,-v '\ 1./ ~.-"". v; --/ -,{2
\\ I i c;,:ni-;.~"i::;/ BO\}i
,.:)..'-./1-\ \ \ ~ \\, //.~~:'.'rvl ~. it~~/:;':(j/~J,S r.; d)
c:? _._" '. -- C, /r;~-, ~ ' ,... ..:..".,,~". \ _..1
.\~;:.~-"""""\ ~ ."'......_""'( J' ~.)'- .i::.O \\ ~
\ \ $;' .....,_.~:~\~ ..__~. ~__.~'r~)f..V \~
~ '-"'_" I -'-' ,(' \'..
J\'~ r)C'~"'-"'..::!.\, ~~''/'''~ ~/->7}! ." 'I:,,;::J=l
''':;:~. ':c\ \~*' '\ . 'Q f/'''"
",:==:c::~\~:;:,};;,-~",~\~, I;J~ ;;..'fy;; Jt,,)J 4-
-^ --(~~~~,."'o"'.~ r ;'~-::.~~_~"=_=\, l/;\ I Cr-<:::)
~ d ~ ',' ' \l
l" a}jjL,",1}:jl i' g -.": 0/ &'"'.< ~
":\5.:. ,,'" !l!:'....... r--./
~-" ~ .
re> ,@ j'Gy~/~' -'
"r:p{f(S' -= IC-~ ~
// ttut-...-- 'I'" ._.-/C-- -.-...... l{-
::: ...... iG <' -_.- ._<::::._"
oa C'> ~ - 'C ~,
S'i~"'~ ~ "
f::"-C---"""'Th ~..J '=:;::C]
,.....;:,,,,,'1 ~> w.. -,,::;q..-- ''''''-.-- .'
v'- ,-(;/=,p- V ---~" " ,"
'\~ ,. ,.,1.
\\..,..- ' . (, , )
-:~~:~,!!!;~"f!!!
.
""4~
t-J""p,rH
=-U8J~.t.:.r'
. ..FE?F~Ty'
4~& ~Tl$ CF,t:it::.IA F<,p.
:#= AO/5-,q,q
"..
,,"
PLANNER:
PROJECT:
REPRESENT A TrVE:
OWNER:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
DESCRIPTION:
~
,~
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
Mitch Haas, Planner, 920-5095 DATE: 12/15/98
Castle Creek Road (Triangular) Property, Rezoning to Remove PUD Overlay
Paul Perea, 920-1596
Paul Anderson
Rezoning to Remove a PUD Overlay Designation
The applicant would like to rezone an R-15A1PUD parcel to remove the PUD
Overlay, resulting in an R-15A zoned parcel. The existing site contains a gross area
of approximately 36,000 square feet, and is located off Castle Creek Road,
immediately west of the Marolt Ranch. Any other/future land use applications
considered (lot split, conditional use for an ADU, etc.) will require another pre-
application meeting with staff.
Applicable Land Use Code Section(s):
Chapter 26.92, Amendments to the Land Use Regulations And Official Zone District Map, including Sections
26.92.020, Standards of Review, 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, 26.92.040, Application, and 26.92.090,
Time Limitations.
And,
Section 26.28.060, Moderate-Density Residential (R-15A) Zone District;
Chapter 26.84, Planned Unit Development, including Section 26.84.030(B), Review Standards; and
Chapter 26.52, Common Development Review Procedures.
The Community Development Department shall refer the application out to the
. departments listed below, and make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission, who will, in turn, make a recommendation to City Council. City Council
'shall have final decision-making authority.
Yes, applicant must post property and mail notice at least 10 days pTior to the public
hearings in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, or at least 15
days pTior to the public hearing if any federal agency, state, county, municipal
government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency
owns property within three hundTed (300) feet of the property subject to the development
application. Public hearing before P&Z for rezoning recommendation and before Council
for second reading of an Ordinance addTessing a rezoning request. Applicant will need to
provide proof of posting and mailing with an affidavit submitted to the staff planner prior
to the public hearing.
City Attorney. .
Planning Deposit Major -- Two-Step Processes ($2,160, if submitted prior to January I,
1999; $2,220 if submitted on or after January 1, 1999). Note: these fees represent a
deposit covering up to 12 hours of Community Development staff time --- additional
Planner hours beyond the 12 coveTed by the deposit are currently bilied at a rate of
$ 180/hour but this rate will increase to $185/hour as of January 1, 1999; likewise, if, at
the end of the review, feweT than 12 hours have been billed, any remaining funds from
the deposit will be refunded.
Referral Agency Fees: Not applicable.
Total Deposit: $2,160 OT $2,220 depending upon date of submittal (see Planning Fees, above)
Review by:
Public Hearing:
Referral Agencies:
Planning Fees:
~
./
1-"
r".
To apply, submit the following information:
1. Proof of ownership
2. Signed fee agreement
3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the
name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
4. Street address and legal description ofthe parcel on which development/subdivision is proposed to
occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice
in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments,
liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to
apply for the Development Application. Existing and proposed conditions must be clearly indicated.
5. . Total deposit for review of the application
6. 22 Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = Ilea.; Planning Staff = 2
7. An 8 112" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Asp en.
8. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all
easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the
state of Colorado.
9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form explaining
how the proposed development complies with EACH of the review standards relevant to the
development application.
10. List of adjacent property oWners within 300' for public hearing.
11. Copies of prior approvals.
12. All other materials required pursuant to the application/submittal packets attached hereto, as well as all
materials required by Section 26.92.040 of the Land Use Code.
IMPORTANT NOTE: You will need to submit only ONE (1) copy of the complete application. Staff will
review the application to make a determination of completeness. After a determination is made, revisions and
supplements will likely be required. Then, a full set of 22 applications can be submitted.
In the event that you should have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact Mitch
Haas of the Community Development Department at 920-5095.
* The foregoing summary is advisory only and is not binding on the City. The opinions contained herein are
based on current zoning and regulations, which are subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not, in any way, create a legal or vested
right.