Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.apz.003-76 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CO~ISSION RECOMMENDING VARIOUS CHANGES TO THE ASPEN ZONING CODE AND DISTRICT MAP WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has been presented with recommended changes to the Aspen Zoning Code and Zone District Map, constituting Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and a public hearing on such changes has been properly noticed and conducted on February 1~ 1976, and WHEREAS, the Commission is required by virtue of Section 24-11.3(d) of the Aspen Municipal Code, subsequent to such public hearing, to report and recommend to the City Council on the proposed changes, and WHEREAS, Section 24-11.7 provides that if the Commission shall affirmatively recommend changes to the map or code, and do so by resolution, such recommendations shall have an interim effect, all as further described in said section, and WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to make known its recommenda- tions with respect to every change proposed, and formalize its report in resolution form such as to enjoy the effects of Section 24-11.7, ~OW, THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COmmISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. Recommendations with respect to the Area and Bulk Require- ments Chart of Section 24-3.4. a. Commercial Core (CC). The Commission recommends that within this district the present externalFloor Area Ratio of 2:1 be maintained but that there be established a new internal FAR as follows: because l~et Commercial FAR by Right Bonus FAR by Special Review Residential Additional Commercial Gross Maximum FAR 1.5:1 (i) 0.3:1 0.2:1 2.0:1 this change will generate a desirable mix of uses in the commercial core, (ii) commercial uses will be available to subsidize residential uses within the same structure, and (iii) for most areas within the commercial core, commercial uses beyond the second floor are not practical and the third and fourth floors are more amenable to residential uses. b. Commercial One (C-l). The Commission recommends that within this district the external FAR should be reduced from 1.5:1 to 1:1, inasmuch as this will reduce building massing within the C-1 dis- trict. Ilowever, the Commission further recommends that there be given a density bonus of .3 for residential uses, the Commission being of the opinion that the mix of commercial and residential uses is as appropriate in the C-! as the CC district. c. Commercial Lodge (CL). The Commission recommends a reduction of the external FAR in t~szone from 2:1 to 1.5:1, inasmuch as the existing FAR would permit a building bulk and mass that could constitute an unacceptable barrier between the City and its mountain surroundings. d. Neighborhood Commercial PUD (NC-PUD). The Commission recommends the reduction of the existing external FAR from 1:1 to 0.5:1 to insure that the Neighborhood Commercial developments are of a scale that is compatible with the residential areas they are designed to service. e. Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I). The Commission recommends the reduction of the existing external FAR in the S/C/I districts from 2:1 to 1:1 because the existing FAR would permit buildings of a size and mass incompatible with the areas in which the S/C/I zone has been designated (the periphery of the City as opposed to the commercial core). f. Office (O~. The Commission recommends the proposed amendment to the external FAR in the 0 district from 1:1 to 0.75, by right, with an additional .25 allowed for residential uses, by Special Review. However, the Commission further recommends (i) that the requirement that residential bonus be permitted only when -2- coordinated with the Housing Authority be dropped and such require- ments be again considered only when the Authority has presented and there has been adopted a housing plan for the community, and (ii) that it be made clear that the residential density bonus does not preclude use of O district lands entirely (or at a ratio greater than .25) for residential uses which are specifically permitted. g. Commercial One (C1). The Commission recommends that the height limitation in this district be reduced from 40 feet to 32 feet, with a right to construct to the full 40 feet being given only on Special Review. The recommendation is made because the desired density reduction in this district can be achieved by the change in FAR recommended above and in some instances 40 foot buildings may be desirable to encourage variations in building heights within this district both to eliminate the now monotonous skyline and provide view planes around structures. h. Commercial Lodge (CL). The Commission recommends that the height limitation in this district be reduced 28 feet, with a right to construct to the full 40 only on Special Review. The reasons and rational tion are the same as those given in Paragraph g. from 40 feet to feet being given for this recommenda- Section 2. Recommended Change to the Permitted Conditional Uses Chart of Section 24-3.2. The Commission recommends the proposed amendment to the Office One (01) and Office Two (02) zone categories to create one office district (0) with the following elements: INTENT - To provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of formerly residential areas that now are adjacent to commer- cial and business areas and along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. PERMITTED USES - Single family, duplex and multi-family residences; professional and business offices. CONDITIONAL USES - Art, dance or music studios; museums mortuaries; library; day care centers; fraternal lodges and social clubs; restaurants and/or -3- boarding houses if located in a structure which has received an H, Historic Designation and adequate parking is from an alley. AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS Same as R-6 District. provided on site with access ?he recommendation is premised on the fact that all existent office districts are in areas predominantly residentially developed and the adoption of R-6 area and bulk requirements for offices uses will provide a better integration of the new office with the existing residential structures. Section 3. Changes a. Section 24-3.6. Food Store. the reduction from 20,000 square feet food products only, and an additional to the Square Footage Limitations of Section 24-3.6. The Commission recommends to 12,000 square feet net for 3,000 square feet for additional grocery accessory products and storage (gross total 15,000 square feet) because it will preclude the construction of massive groceries, and force the development of smaller localized food service areas which (i) are both more compatible with the scale of the Aspen area, and (ii) will generate less cross-town traffic. b. Section 24-3.6. Major Appliance. The Commission recommends the reduction from 12,000 square feet to 9,000 square feet as the square footage limitation for major appliance stores, as 9,000 square feet is adequate for this use and will insure construction of such stores at a scale compatible with the Aspen Area. Section 4. The Amendment of Section 24-3.7(3)(2). The Commission, on review of the recommended change of Section 24-3.7(3) (2) to read: For purposes of calculating external floor area ratio, there shall be included basement and subsurface commer- cial storage areas but excluded subbasements and storage areas which are accessory to the principle use. Provided, however, the sub-basement and accessory storage areas shall always be included in the CC and C1 district. Any basement or subsurface area devoted to off-street parking shall be excluded in calculating external floor area ratio, except in CC and Cl districts, where it shall be included, recommends the change to include sub-basement and accessory storage in the CC and C1 districts because this change should have the effect of reducing the tendency of landowners to construct areas which are ostensibly basements and later convert them to commercial uses, but recommends against the inclusion of basement or subsurface areas (in calculating external FAR) devoted to off-street parking in the CC and C1 districts inasmuch as (i) in these commercial districts underground parking areas will accommodate employer/employee parking needs to reduce the use of public rights-of-way for this purpose, and (ii) if the City wishes to encourage residential uses in these dis- tricts, Some parking must be available for residents of these areas. Section 5. Rezoning of Lots D, E, F, G, H and I of Block 78 from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to the Office (0) District. The Commission recommends against the rezoning of Lots D, E, F, G, H and I of Block 78 from Neighborhood Commercial/Specially Planned Area (NC/SPA) to the new Office (0) district inasmuch as there has been no demonstration that the present zoning is inappropriate and the office designation has received no support at all. Section 6. Various Other Changes to the Zoning District Map. The Commission recommends and rejects various recommended zone district changes, the areas of which are more particularly defined on the map attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. a. Mixed Residential (West). The Commission recommends the change of the zoning of this area from R-6 to R-15 inasmuch as the area (i) provides a transition area with adjacent county zone dis- tricts, (ii) is limited in its development by the potential acquisition and utilization (for public transit) of the Midland Right-of-Way, and (iii) will provide a gracious residential neighborhood for the community. b. Mixed Residential (East). The Commission recommends against the rezoning of this area from R/MF to R-6 inasmuch as development of the area to date is predominantly multi-family and re- zoning would effect a limited number of landowners in an unfair manner. c. Oklahoma Flats. The Commission recommends the rezoning of this area from R-15 PUD to R-30 PUD because the area has limited access and other development constraints that preclude intelligent development at R-15 densities. -5- d. Holy Cross Property. The Commission recommends the rezoning of this tract from R-15 PUD to R-30 PUD as such zone (1) will be compatible with adjacent zone districts, and (ii) recognizes the reduced development of the area anticipated in the Aspen Area Greenway Plan. e. Aspen One. The Commission recommends the rezoning of this property from R-6 PUD to R-15 PUD for the same reasons described in this section, paragraph d. f. Riverside Property. ?he Commission recommends the rezoning of this area from R-6 PUD to R-t5 PUD because (i) it is shaded by high bluffs resulting in a sunless area, not suitable for intense residential development, and (ii) the area has very steep terrain. g. Spring and Main (NE Block). The Commission recommends against the rezoning of this area from R/MF to R-6 PUD inasmuch as it is the opinion of the Commission that the present zoning is correct as the area offers an appropriate site for multi-family development. h. Lakeview Subdivision. The Commission is satisfied that, because of limited access, the area is comparable to Oklahoma Flats in its development potential, and that, consequently, reduction in allowable density is appropriate. The Commission would recommend, how- ever, that the area be rezoned from R-6 to R-30 PUD but realize that, because this change was not advertised, the Commission is (at this time) limited to a recommended change to R-15 PUD i. R-15 Lodge (PUD). The Commission recommends against the rezoning of R-15L PUD districts to R-30L PUD inasmuch as retention of the R-15L PUD should encourage the construction of additional lodging units at the base of the mountain. Dated: April I, Elizabeth Klym , Secretary to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, do certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Commission at its special meeting held March 23, 1976. ELIZKBE~ KLYM/ gecr~ary Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission