Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.1201 Riverside Dr.2004_ 1201 Riverside Dr Rezoning — 2737-181-17-011 case 0019.2004.ASLU -At r! i City of Aspen Community Development Dept. CASE NUMBER 0019.2004.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2737-18-1-00-024 PROJECT ADDRESS 1201 RIVERSIDE DR PLANNER JAMES LINDT CASE DESCRIPTION REZONING REPRESENTATIVE DALE HOWER 948-8775 DATE OF FINAL ACTION 2/18/2005 CLOSED BY Denise Driscoll Fie Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Tab H* RoutrgHrstory Comhbom StbQamitt Valuation Public Co m*" Main i Routing Status j Archh/EEng Parcels Custom Fj" Fees j Fee Summary Actions Pam* Type Pam* b JOMR2004ASLU After FfRd1 RIVERSIDE DR �J Apt/Stite Cry ASPEN State CO ZP 91611 Permitlrtfam+atiotrt "'.` - - - Master Pemt �— RmAi g Queue F.siu Applied i""'^"""" 3 Project Status__ _ Approved I Ni Description K v f1 PAY d 3 — �jgrriKiS "C) SUS 1asued I�w��J t1''11'' tUJ Final I Submitted 16KEHOWER 948-8775 Cl ck Rtxrtrg Days F 0 Ewe: 03/25/2005 r Visible on the web? Perrrrt ID: ± 30438 Owner _ -- - ...._............ ... _ — last Name HMR DALE HWY Firs Name 43995 82TH 1ASPEN C0 81611 Phone j7 Owner is Applicant? Applicant LartName 1140WERDALE � FsatName1 y Fhone LAM 14 Jt J Cancelchanges .I 2 • DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a. revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Dale Hower, 43995 Highway 82, Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Lots 6-9 and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Rezoning Approval from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan City Council Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2005, Approved 2/14/05 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) February 27, 2005 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) February 28, 2008 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 27th day of February, 2005, by the City of Aspen Community Chris Bendor , Tommunity Development Director PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lots 6-9 and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, by ordinance of the Aspen City Council numbered 3, Series of 2005 on February 14, 2005. The Applicant received rezoning approval to rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District. For further information contact Chris Bendon, at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920- 5090. s/ City of Aspen Publish in The Aspen Times on February 27, 2005 • Appu� ORDIANANCE N0.3 •7 /1 ���s (SERIES OF 2005) f AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REZONING 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT, LOTS 6-9 AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY, BLOCK 24, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-181-00-024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale Hower, requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (moderate - density residential) zone district to the R-6 (medium -density residential) zone district; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, recommending that City Council rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (medium -density residential) zone district; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 14, 2005, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2005, rezoning the property at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (medium -density residential) zone district; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, City Council hereby rezones the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (medium -density residential) zone district. Section 2: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4• A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 14th day of February, 2005, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 10t' day of January, 2005. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 14th day of February, 2005. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk �J Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney 0 MEMORANDUM * V111 b TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council i —Al v THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Directordw -, S FROM: James Lindt, Planner RE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2005- Rezoning of 1201 ' `ef�� Riverside Drive to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District - Public Hearing DATE: February 14, 2005 APPLICANT /OWNER: Dale Hower LOCATION: 1201 Riverside Drive PARCEL ID NUMBER: 2737-181-00-024 CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) zone district. PROPOSED ZONING: R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) zone district. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 zone district to the R-6 zone district in order to construct two (2) detached residential dwelling units rather than a single-family residence on the subject property. APPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: 1201 Riverside Drive currently contains a single-family residence that is zoned R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive (see Exhibit `B" for vicinity map) from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) zone district to the R-6 (Medium - Density Residential) zone district in order to construct two (2) detached residential structures as is allowed in the R-6 zone district pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.050, R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. The zoning map originally showed the property as being zoned R-6, and the Applicant designed two (2) detached residential dwelling units for the property and applied for a building permit. However, during the building permit review process for the property, a neighbor contested the zoning of the subject parcel contending that the zoning map was in error and that the property was really zoned R-15. Subsequently, the Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation that established that a property has to be rezoned by ordinance regardless of what the official zone district map indicates, in order for a rezoning to be considered legal. The Applicant appealed this interpretation to City Council and City Council upheld the interpretation of the Community Development Director. After the appeal concluded, the Applicant filed a lawsuit against the City and an agreement was reached in which the Applicant was directed to file a rezoning application to rezone the property to the R-6 zone district. REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning (Two Step Review). City Council may approve or deny an application for rezoning, after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment. STAFF COMMENTS: Rezoning: The subject property abuts land to the south that is zoned R-15 and land to the north that is zoned R-6 (please see zoning map attached as Exhibit "C"). That being the case, Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would be considered "spot zoning", which is discouraged as a method of fundamental planning. Additionally, a large portion of the subject property was not located in the original Riverside Subdivision (please see Exhibit "E" for map identifying the portion of the property that was located in the original Riverside Subdivision), which is the subdivision located to the south of the property and is zoned R-15 in its entirety. Thus, Staff does not believe that the property has a significant historical relationship with the properties in the R-15 zoned Riverside Subdivision in terms of lot layout and characteristics. In comparing the allowable development rights between the existing and proposed zoning, Staff believes that the proposal to rezone the property will actually reduce the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) that can be constructed on the site. Under the existing R-15 zone district requirements, the Applicant could only build a single-family residence and it would be allowed a total FAR of about 4,440 square feet. Under the proposed R-6 zoning, the Applicant would have the ability to construct two (2) detached single-family residential units or a duplex with a total combined allowable FAR of about 4,390 square feet. Staff also feels that allowing for two (2) smaller residences to be constructed on the property instead of one large residence will likely reduce the apparent mass of structures on the site. Additionally, the property is currently non -conforming in relation to its lot size in that the property is only 14,179 square feet and the existing R-15 zoning has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The proposed rezoning would bring the lot into zoning conformance with respect to its lot size. Moreover, the proposed rezoning would not create any zoning non -conformity in relation to the existing single-family residence on the property. TRAFFIC GENERATION: Staff does believe that the development potential of the property after the proposed rezoning could allow for development that would increase the amount of traffic on Riverside Drive given that the proposed zoning would allow the Applicant to construct one more residential unit than would be allowed under the existing zoning. However, Staff believes that the amount of additional traffic provided by the one additional unit allowed under the proposed zoning would be minimal. 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Staff recommends that City Council rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 zone district. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the rezoning request and unanimously recommended that City Council rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 zone district. The Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution is attached as Exhibit "E" and the minutes from their discussion regarding this item are attached as Exhibit "F" . CITY MANAGER'S Z RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2005, rezoning the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive, Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District." Attachments: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Vicinity Map Exhibit C -- Current Zoning Map Exhibit D -- Map Indicating Subdivision Makeup of Property Exhibit E -- Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Exhibit F -- Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 3 ORDIANANCE NO.3 (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REZONING 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT, LOTS 6-9 AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY, BLOCK 24, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-181-00-024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale Hower, requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (moderate -density residential) zone district to the R-6 (medium -density residential) zone district; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, recommending that City Council rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (medium -density residential) zone district; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 14, 2005, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2005, rezoning the property at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (medium -density residential) zone district; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, City Council hereby rezones the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (medium -density residential) zone district. rd Section 2: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction; such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4• A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 14th day of February, 2005, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 10"' day of January, 2005. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 14th day of February, 2005. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor 5 ;7 • EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS REZONING FROM THE R-15 (MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. Actually, the proposed rezoning will allow for the subject parcel to be brought into conformance with zoning in relation to its minimum lot size. In addition, the proposed rezoning application will not create any zoning non -conformities with respect to the existing residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The future land use map that is included in the AACP envisions this site a residential property, by which the proposed rezoning is consistent. Additionally, Staff feels that the proposed rezoning would allow for the possibility of having two (2) smaller residences on the property as opposed to one large residence, which would likely break up the apparent mass of structures on the site as is encouraged by the residential design standards that are included in the land use code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property abuts land that is zoned both R-6 and R-15, so the proposed rezoning application would not create spot zoning. Additionally, the allowable FAR for the site would be similar regardless of whether the property is rezoned or not as was detailed in the staff memo. The allowed uses under both the existing.and proposed zoning are similar in that they both are primarily intended for the development of single-family and duplex residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 6 Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant effect on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning would at most add one additional allowed residential unit to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community, character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would only allow for detached single-family or duplex residential dwelling units as is consistent with the predominant uses in the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding Staff has not identified any changed conditions in the neighborhood that would support the proposed amendment; however, the proposed rezoning would correct the existing non- conformity in relation to the property's lot size. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. In fact, the proposed rezoning application would bring the subject parcel into complete zoning compliance. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7 • Exhibit"B" P94 1201 Riverside Drive vicinity Map N n 0 100 200 400 Feet - V V E S • • `X. 1201 Riverside Drive Zoning Map 0 175 350 700 1,050 1,4 O wl • Makeup of Subject Property 0 100 200 400 Feet N S Exhibit „01 • ' Y dew 8 . _ _-.. W N W 11 I6 N3' YSS. Ito o azu - ^'U`d .61� _-� a Ys oY ��.•��—'-�- t...'. bi a.0Er u r WVtLN� =ph-U7w 6 I a. x=OW > ¢ouo w . e79^4;:€ '' 1 $d a3`9 `� _:.. d, Q J boa -' $» : ` •Y"= 4-: t:i 8 iv_ -, a Y -S: .Ye_ b"•:: ' ate?? i.� _ .BY 9'�..Y •: .._ L .:.- :b _ - t•— :" •�+ ...;u _i' p W t t` xo z - Y 5o b�. :` •".`d" o E :dam Y`�:»� :- Y� O �� Q ow',a.t z u� 4 -bsa=� .,Ya. ••� yt-�EY71 d„E Y`$ . Y:_ -�.•f�i' - Y � v 4= �� wN-�:_. -�_vg6 •Y ' 1 i- _ 3�8�1 - ''JH�IL w.Zwoo ¢w o CO Lj YY3#a:Z'b`bc ...e omaLL O1. 1 UJ w o �"�W .� w n • , . .a :� E:'0 5e 5� SE 5"i Tw .owe w ii �' p Q YY�,; •� ;n, na sr>r r. v, / �'•' / u, s°P; sc `n {ew,� �- .. . T�. 4 4,10151AIMS 133Y1 / �� / fAISIAIOWiS 137Y:1� ;a Sq :4.: \ • �� _ /' Y.Y .�is: y_ii fug. a,'.u:w :, N •.�a ."a �� — — _ J.=. ' 5 _ •`•�1 •® Ad fin. inn i its a 'Y%, J. /,. - - t.ir;. ni3 . / b i-.0o 5 - ' y' rn,u,v', •'nu .n,u...' �;� 1� Cggs i--� u / .! • �.) ''/' ' / /' I'; c LUJK ac Ln d - / 1n.,. 1 .►..,,. a „1.. r, • • I /1\ J R M I II I b 1�2 ]. 1' 1.,' µ' �:� .- - 't } •g, -. ] -� ^ \ \ .00. 1.00 If za -��"\ \ *\ •.\ {tee\o� - � \8'$ � � \ ` =�' ° .��' It- —', �L VaT°u�,orci �,\ (� • �L3 '�4+. � a \\ -n'y \. Y QQ"" 7. •. • L A .oo, 1'C. oo. 5 E , 6 P=P5F . i-H I=6r-'E if baa� . .`�pt.Fg6 EF=.t76,� :7 RESOLUTION NO. 19 (SERIES OF 2004) 0 C-XA;'h /' � \ r y A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMNVIISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY) ZONE DISTRICT, LOTS 6-9 AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY, BLOCK 24, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-181-00-024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale Hower, requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (Moderate - Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community, Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed. and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 1, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 1, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 15, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed publichearing on June 15, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to July 6, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to August 17, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 17; 2004, the. Planning and Zoning . Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to October 19, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 19, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to November 16, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 16, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to December 7, 2004; and, WHEREAS, dL=' g a duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, recommending that City Council rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council approve the . application to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be 'conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 7th day of December, 2004. Pi 00 APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZOINI G COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair ASP PLANNING &ZONING COIISSION \kF// Minutes -December 07, 2004 Tygre stated that she would abstain from voting on this resolution and suggested the code amendment be taken out of the resolution; she said it would be a lot cleaner and future applications development rights would be addressed separately. Hoefer stated that through the public notice process this code amendment was part of the project but in the future the code amendments should be separate and prior to the project application. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #33 and recommend City Council approve Fox Crossing and the associated Land Use Amendments with the addition of the solidification of the trail through the park; seconded by Jack Johnson. Roll call vote: Kruger, yes; Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Johnson, yes; Marion, yes; Tygre, abstain. Motion carried 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11 / 16): 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the rezoning of 1201 Riverside Drive. David Hoefer stated this was a continued public hearing and notice had been provided on November 16t''. James Lindt explained that Dale Hower submitted this application to rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive from R-15 to R-6; P&Z is the recommending body to City Council on this action. Lindt provided the history of the property; the applicant designed 2 residences for this property based on the R-6 Zone District (because the zoning map had shown this property was in the R-6 zone district in 1990). Lindt said the zoning map was in error because the property was actually zoned R-15; the applicant then sued the city. There was an agreement to rezone the property; two smaller houses would probably be built on this site rather than one large single-family house. The rezoning would remove the non -conforming status and all the property to the north was zoned R-6. Staff recommended approval. Dylan Johns asked if the net effect allows for a duplex but reduces FAR. Lindt replied that is correct. Jack Johnson asked if this was the only non -conforming R-15 lot in that subdivision. Lindt replied that it was not. No public comments. Brandon Marion asked if there would be an access problem if it were a duplex rather than a single-family. Lindt replied that it was off the culd-de-sac and the 3 ASPRPLANNING & ZONING CO Minutes -December 07, 2004 agreement with the neighbor was not to share a drive any longer, so the access was split off. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #19 recommending City Council approve the proposed rezoning application to allow for the property at 1201 Riverside Drive, Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, to be rezoned from R-15 Zone District to R-6 Zone District. Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Marion, yes; Skadron, yes; Johnson, yes; Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Tygre, yes; Kruger, yes. Motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL SPA AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REQUESTS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Little Ajax. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided but it was lacking the mailing list. Joe Wells would provide the City Clerk's Office the mailing list on December 081h. James Lindt stated the application was submitted by Burton Kaplan and Peter Gluck for the approval of a consolidated PUD, Subdivision and Rezoning as well as several other associated land use requests to construct 16 affordable housing units on Lots 1 and 2 of the Little Ajax Subdivision. P&Z was the recommending body. Lindt said this was Phase 2 of a two-phase development proposal that was established through a pre -annexation agreement, which the applicant entered into with the city. Phase 1 was 3 single-family lots adjacent to Hopkins Avenue at the base of Shadow Mountain. Lindt described the site with the aid of a map showing the 3-lot subdivision; a Conservation Easement was purchased for Lot 3 and allows the Midland Trail to extend across for public recreation. The proposed development was on Lots 1 and 2 with 16 affordable housing units in a horseshoe configuration including 15 3- bedrooms and 1 2-bedroom, category 4, sale units with 25 parking spaces tucked under the building with storage units. The elevation drawing showed a two-story front off of West Hopkins; the back %2 of the building was 3 stories with a proposed maximum height of 35 feet (measured from the interior courtyard). The total FAR was .9 4 to 1. Staff believed the use was compatible with the neighborhood; it fits into the mix of uses and the dimensional requirements were consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood. The parking ratio was 1.56 per unit with proposed auto disincentives. Lindt said the park impact fees must be decided by P&Z and City Council. The applicant believes this fee should be waived because of the conservation easement 7 MEMORANDUM \1 I k I C' TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: James Lindt, Planner RE: 1" Reading of Ordinance No.�3 , Series of 2005- Rezoning of 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District DATE: January 10, 2005 APPLICANT /OWNER: Dale Hower LOCATION: 1201 Riverside Drive PARCEL ID NUMBER: 2737-181-00-024 CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) zone district. PROPOSED ZONING: R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) zone district. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 zone district to the R-6 zone district in order to construct two (2) detached residential dwelling units rather than a single-family residence on the subject property. APPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: 1201 Riverside Drive currently contains a single-family residence that is zoned R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive (see Exhibit "B" for vicinity map) from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) zone district to the R-6 (Medium - Density Residential) zone district in order to construct two (2) detached residential structures as is allowed in the R-6 zone district pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.050, R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. The zoning map originally showed the property as being zoned R-6, and the Applicant designed two (2) detached residential dwelling units for the property and applied for a building permit. However, during the building permit review process for the property, a neighbor contested the zoning of the subject parcel contending that the zoning map was in error and that the property was really zoned R-15. Subsequently, the Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation that established that a property has to be rezoned by ordinance regardless of what the official zone district map indicates, in order for a rezoning to be considered legal. The Applicant appealed this interpretation to City Council and City Council upheld the interpretation of the Community Development Director. After the appeal concluded, the Applicant filed a lawsuit 0 . 0 against the City and an agreement was reached in which the Applicant was directed to file a rezoning application to rezone the property to the R-6 zone district. REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning (Two Step Review). City Council may approve or deny an application for rezoning, after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment. STAFF COMMENTS: Rezoning: The subject property abuts land to the south that is zoned R-15 and land to the north that is zoned R-6 (please see zoning map attached as Exhibit "C"). That being the case, Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would be considered "spot zoning", which is discouraged as a method of fundamental planning. Additionally, a large portion of the subject property was not located in the original Riverside Subdivision (please see Exhibit "E" for map identifying the -portion of the property that was located in the original Riverside Subdivision), which is the subdivision located to the south of the property and is zoned R-15 in its entirety. Thus, Staff does not believe that the property has a significant historical relationship with the properties in the R-15 zoned Riverside Subdivision in terms of lot layout and characteristics. In comparing the allowable development rights between the existing and proposed zoning, Staff believes that the proposal to rezone the property will actually reduce the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) that can be constructed on the site. Under the existing R-15 zone district requirements, the Applicant could only build a single-family residence and it would be allowed a total FAR of about 4,440 square feet. Under the proposed R-6 zoning, the Applicant would have the ability to construct two (2) detached single-family residential units or a duplex with a total combined allowable FAR of about 4,390 square feet. Staff also feels that allowing for two (2) smaller residences to be constructed on the property instead of one large residence will likely reduce the apparent mass of structures on the site. Additionally, the property is currently non -conforming in relation to its lot size in that the property is only 14,179 square feet and the existing R-15 zoning has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The proposed rezoning would bring the lot into zoning conformance with respect to its lot size. Moreover, the proposed rezoning would not create any zoning non -conformity in relation to the existing single-family residence on the property. TRAFFIC GENERATION: Staff does believe that the development potential of the property after the proposed rezoning could allow for development that would increase the amount of traffic on Riverside Drive given that the proposed zoning would allow the Applicant to construct one more residential unit than would be allowed under the existing zoning. However, Staff believes that the amount of additional traffic provided by the one additional unit allowed under the proposed zoning would be minimal. 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Staff recommends that City Council rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 zone district. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the rezoning request and unanimously recommended that City Council rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 zone district. The Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution is attached as Exhibit "E" and the minutes from the December 71h hearing will be included in the City Council packet for 2" d reading of the proposed ordinance. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: - -'� v ,-,, __ , Q r, - -.-,i J ;l -/- S RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve, upon first reading, Ordinance No..5 , Series of 2004, rezoning the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive, Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District." Attachments: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Vicinity Map Exhibit C -- Current Zoning Map Exhibit D -- Map Indicating Subdivision Makeup of Property Exhibit E -- Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 3 ORDIANANCE NO. (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REZONING 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT, LOTS 6-9 AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY, BLOCK 24, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-181-00-024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale Hower, requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (moderate -density residential) zone district to the R-6 (medium -density residential) zone district; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, recommending that City Council rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (medium -density residential) zone district; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 14, 2005, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. , Series of 2005, by a to vote, rezoning the property at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (medium -density residential) zone district; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: 4 Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, City Council hereby rezones the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (medium -density residential) zone district. Section 2: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4• A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 14th day of February, 2004, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 10t' day of January, 2004. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by a vote of to -�, this 14th day of Februai-N% 2004. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney 5 EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS REZONING FROM THE R-15 (MODERATE —DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM —DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA chic STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. Actually, the proposed rezoning will allow for the subject parcel to be brought into conformance with zoning in relation to its minimum lot size. In addition, the proposed rezoning application will not create any zoning non -conformities with respect to the existing residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The future land use map that is included in the AACP envisions this site a residential property, by which the proposed rezoning is consistent. Additionally, Staff feels that the proposed rezoning would allow for the possibility of having two (2) smaller residences on the property as opposed to one large residence, which would likely break up the apparent mass of structures on the site as is encouraged by the residential design standards that are included in the land use code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property abuts land that is zoned both R-6 and R-15, so the proposed rezoning application would not create spot zoning. Additionally, the allowable FAR for the site would be similar regardless of whether the property is rezoned or not as was detailed in the staff memo. The allowed uses under both the existing and proposed zoning are similar in that they both are primarily intended for the development of single-family and duplex residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant effect on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning would at most add one additional allowed residential unit to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would only allow for detached single-family or duplex residential dwelling units as is consistent with the predominant uses in the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding Staff has not identified any changed conditions in the neighborhood that would support the proposed amendment; however, the proposed rezoning would correct the existing non- conformity in relation to the property's lot size. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Findiniz Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. In fact, the proposed rezoning application would bring the subject parcel into complete zoning compliance. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 0 1 0 1201 Riverside Drive Vicinity 0 100 200 400 Feet Exhibit "B" Map N W E S t' -;j Exhibit, .tC 1201 Riverside Drive Zoning Map 0 il 10- 0 175 350 700 1,050 1,4Q0 mommmommomm- ��� Feet Ma eup of Subject Property� Exhibit ",�" N 100 200 400 Feet W E S Fo Wwaso--U)ZWOfYs a=q�� 5 '� uCJu-I c = Wzw js8a.(L�7Wp>'`���1.d (". 9 ?95� Yl�y '1t"_3faa."'9 ^' d1 a�xC)f�9 �1 Sees"iQ 2 'b� '�� `Y $" r i 0 xC j a^ 3 W =e•Wa- s ea' r�:ysi jP � o air oL L+�In t �. 3" ;i+ [�.r V n W -Id 067a"7-¢ LU Hi JF-NIL mN: M.3 "'" �tg >.3 I 9gaa 96g".5� �V3Y W.cr �a zy5 fi" �� bY3 Sz$:w- ,. _ CD Lj Z~owu� n nn wuwF t m ow - .<ie•'po �", ,. r1 r,s� ee ). „}� s' ° a1 • T.•_a .� p w oLawx sr.r. ,1 •u f .ro.r..w d .^3�9t S M1 2Y S$ 6` HAM'-4 O ' n.r/ a n, l °. r•.•• it y ' .00.1 i'.w 1 ,'fir'•" _ `� _::.: :���5--S ''�, 0- �z J r • 't v OISMOWS 133Vl / tr / 111 )oiJ sc.n Lr,l, k� \-- — — — —— — — — —- --1—= _— - FAISIMONf1-JYrl --- ^° -- ..'Y ` i (_:.' • ` \ ' O•Y ;y ., :p \ .`/ • - / „ r.v, rrw ..n.n ...,d IA- 3 ',III •(1 L..rl �°L.00 �' 1 `` w� „1 11,1I rl •)! A .11 tl.ro Cr ^ =Y A. �, , �le /4,/ •.yy. ISI'96 lr,•1, • - 8 ' :.fit• ^.� )d1.n.p e . LL) ,��1 ' Y \ ¢8 %F.. rr�•r=/ • ' Fb• a ' a� / s?�� Iti Gal a. - p /,a Y I d ^ I ` / I t4 "t'"Y tic+•. ; P r -N'_ /•"�� `/ 3 9 '• �� \ � ,dam` ra � "• r `� " F " �r � .a ''' j1 1 I - d • • I, ."ja / +� , r / ♦ ,� t` rtl-tl-1111 s1 t1 fr )tAL.ltl°''4 .. 'b3ix sb I ^}1 I I I 9Y 1 �I/( ` lMN)lAl N Or 3) t°/ INT3)tll� 1 l,.:rf 1.0,. � r`' . r:• 1 I . - � e 1. � v I I I �, I I�dI. �p •�',' �, Im .ab v„s yet,. � � s ti �' f �.,; •' ,,� ' � r. ,4 I J I �Q �.. J1 L. '• .1.,,1 �•r t 6:i oJ• 'il \ �. ,�jj I I L ' ,r''t .. )j�• ! f,„tl, n�-0� �F .t - J. \ b • I t''ili rf_ti 4-a d Ir r.: I I I " �.i. • • .^3 • t,�� tl - "tii �5 \ 1 L'� 1 F b �J C• 3 °•L LFeb r� \ \ 0o r.00 a •t ' � �`s°� `: it ` ` �.• `d \ \^ � �) \rob•, \a'r�6 \ \ rnn nit n•t, Sr. "'1/ j- 1 ✓••,OO, K.0a.5 Y 5 • . " rSl ),Y! 1t'lt 1.111 II \�t \ , 1.0•.f1 .00 sl p9{ ,j7 j CHOI1111YLNn, r , •,,, ..,. --. `• { � . ` ''y4•I .. tl _ .� : a ° a RESOLUTION NO. 19 (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY) ZONE DISTRICT, LOTS 6-9 AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY, BLOCK 24, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-181-00-024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale Hower, requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (Moderate - Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 1, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 1, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 15, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 15, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to July 6, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to August 17, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning. Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to October 19, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 19, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to November 16, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 16, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to December 7, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, recommending that City Council rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMNUSSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council approve the application to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 7th day of December, 2004. • • APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair KbAx 'El Lo, S 5, Wzo' L= 2 S. CCDRO MwEAT SUSOIVISION T3 a -CC C19- A- CEIRTIFICATT, auRvcynR,s ;z HE UNCERSICM ­01 ED HEREBY CERTIFIES To DALE ROPER ASPEN EDGE CONDOMINIUMS PlTx w COUNTY TITLE. INC. THAT THE ME PLAT U-13 PAGE 601 YN C !-t I'­ROVENENT SUj, TN (� CERTIFICATE IS ATTACAED• PREPARED a, THE UNOERS104E IRE FE!!'� Ey TO ICN REGISTERED LICENSED LAND SURVVOA, YAS ACTUALLY mAOE A PRPFL�4 I ON, L C=) U`OH "HE GROUND; rm�c SURVEY AND Xr Y 'NSTRUIAENT su.V auawEAT -VISION T _%AI R-4 P 2:1 X. C RE3M 1EA 35 PUTS ,11 DISTANCES Vil NFOR-T- COURSE, AND Top SHOwN THEREIN. INCLUDING. 11�T LIMIT AT(-_ E- 74.'s,VaAa AND TARO LINES. ME CORRECT: THE SIZE ALL S 4HO LOCATION OF AL, STRUCTURES AND IMPROYEMENTS ME AS SQ BUILDINGS. H WN. IF FNQ TO *CC• I 'FURTHER CERTIFY THAT SAID BUILDINGS.- STRUCTURE J.61- Vt�� ON SAID S AND I- PRCAISE.S ON THIS DATE. ROVEAIENTS AUGUST fa- 2000- EXCZPT UTILI-ir C04NECT QNS. ARE EXTERELY V(THIN 714E aMMOARIES LOOS OF HERSHOERGElle qF THE PARC.14. (OECD *ECEPT4. EXC7PT AS SHOWN. THAT THERE APR, No ENCROACNMEITS uG, THE AA "MST-' - 01 T Is I PRE'MISES BY INPROVEMENTS am, Am- ESCa IRE,] C.Ea D7 Z. INDICATED. a Y AO-JOININg PRE'[SES' E�CZPTO S 0­2.. F,Rl. TO CC. �Dl Os 41 ANIOTHAr THERE IS NO APPARENT EliluENCZ AS do sio. V.,Ks- Ls, EASEMENT CROSSING OF, 3UROFNING ANY PART OF SAID PIOR 'SIC: OF ANY PLATS I, I AS NOTED. RCEL. -;tCS.-T 85' 46' E 00 .1 3,.-AE3AA DATED: BY: PLS x AL .40 -4P 1. BASIS OF &EM1,CS- OL•THE MORr-ERLT SOUWAA� OF LOT I A�� =4;N00-,T CR is I. E CICT "Z - NA MENTS fP 211 THE 5EAR I A�' I &LaCX I- fF--AT DITCH &= 2A PACE 171) -AS TAxaX As THE BASIS OF 8CAS�Q( I THE 1URC: IS I,_ R `oS :,SE _,,, I 8T OR TH P C Go I ox REPCA zo RT, M 3- - rN IS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT IN PMT To r4 fai.La-I.C, (AS PER THE ElCtPTIONS LISTED in 41 THE "aOvEC-ENTl0-CQ TITLE CO - A) AESE"ArIONS AS SET r0p� I- US PATENT ItClameg 1,, &aM i's iTTW-.Tl vI sz.], a-aQT P4.3 5,1CTEflIS. Comalirloxis. ;,"tSiamS AND MLIC A PAGE 2.,. IIAIP R -acTO5 R 14, 11 5 r,om .4 OROED IN maox 716 AT PACE I!. I SET rCRTH *lk ACREEICN, -t CO-O 97, C; TER.S. (TICWS• P"m T1. 1 6' RECORDED JULY 3. lli�a a'S"'2' AND (X�ICATla.S AS SET FO'RTH IN DEED 13F EASEMENT Imoo� OCCX • 7100.5 IN OQK 41 AT PAGE 5". x, -4- 4- MKCHMAIIK: -Q-159- CxG CP plTXlN COUNTY, AT CLIV 73.6.2 TOE 14, .10c url4f COURTHOUSE LAVN; 55 FEET NORTH or. THE CE��TERLIK OF -1. Sixec CF I. ,f�. C�, 5 '.3 CtNTEAL I HE ' GALENA STREET. 65.4 E TWE Sajy..ESZ CORNER 7- 3 FEET EASE Go`-THV 0. 1 33.7 FEET S(Q3UTkI FEET E. PLAT III E OF THC CEm= ;�� "IN CXTRA T-C BUILD MC. -S 'R an '"Zr SC fa CRO "ST 2L TO "A" I tBASC�IqF A SOLDER'S 71.s.4 R Or !AIC.11 9 1 AND I FEET ;9T.TEQAST OF THE 11.7.Z 647.3 Tim 'UT' r�CCF'C C.I.ETE MST. TMC-.' m A STAmootllo DISC STAM-Ea 0_ ABOVE SEA LEVEL. UPMEME-rMY ELEVATION Ojusnc. 4: I-STURY )N(= FRAME I+0U-SE si UE: 159 1 "G.67 FEET 5� Il. I IS 3A' AND SET Z> 7b".1 13 RIVERSIDE ADDITION. PARCEL AREA - 14.179 SQUARE FEET 13R 0.325ij AClE PORTION, OF ALLEY L PARR AVENUE IN ORD PLOTS 6.7.4 A I _S BLX.-41 7� ":Z.2 's•� 43 10 1 1 1 a.* 3 ASP CONC. APRON OR CA, GO Q ST� I-T ­7 Af� PLA�TOK PS 0 aif• Gxx &-Fix CRO CL 71.1 ab L� A •AV 2 Is. ON) - CD INS ORD %Gm ON, I a ;X 4 71.7.0 71­7 6 71"- 1 (97 19. 0.1. VASP OCT 7 -7 i' G G 0 OR. 1971 W* VI41 IQ- 7".. 7 SHEDA .7 . =.3 . W= - 4� Is. XI 7, 4-kV 4�4 0 71H,I,., 1 .1 ��l -�- - 411::,3 4 Is L al PLATS 149 .91 CAP is k ,-;,'ENT A NT HELD Z,IEL� CAP 1ASI? '.44W s , 5' W- A- ICARO IEIKE 4.1., A� INGS ANTC "z' KL F sm. E K. U PLATS 1 ?0, V. LOT 17 7"1.1 7­ 6 1 IN FEET I LOT 11 PE-DESTAL RIVERSIDE SUB -'DIVISION 8LX.I EDCX ASPHALT PIA�� CAx 3X-2A PAGE- 1731 LEGENO 3"rr 3XwX2 ART 'INV. ADJACENT 1-STORY GARAGE LAT. 7 X1XxT V.Y. "E�IAL IMP-ROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SUR'VEY VAT=t YALYZ rL a RO, T. vwD I OF THE LANDS OF DALE HOWER mCP`HOXC I ELZ=XICAL (OIZIN]CAOI UNIT As LI X AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN QUIT CLAIM DEEQ -n- A7XX LINE Th. wt; I jt;xx �jsjjrq ­f­ Ord -SEPTEMBER -24. 1998 IN RECEPTION --422358, RECORDED sca .3.`t.mTT11­Ry1 3.11V�L2. =R.1 O"'i"D 1­1-d by #;.Id All umd�g�O U IN THE OFFICE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER JTC% Or LANDSCAPTI) LA'xya Or I I +Y 00­ i ;rd ASPDINT =LM (1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE) cam ilam) g AAYEL ut; I try' Sft�ld O. -"i,­d by ­,j, ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY R-d Fr 4, 1 Ty. -11cZ tn. CM-aRAD -SCALE: I' �-'SN, EICIlle Sim S U. I" 4f. DATE: AUGUS-,, 2006 ROBERT C. HUTTON R 1VERSI D E DR I' PROFESSIONAL LANO SURVEYOR TZ5 CEMIE-17-Ry LANE ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: vS Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: �S , 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, -,_) O !M `e_� /---I kJ (Zt � (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Y_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22Y inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days .rior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from theay of ✓� v , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the COm%�lunit Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) 0 Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. nature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me thi � day of 7-�-z. , 200 %- by Sunday, Janue PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday. February 14, 2005 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Dale Hower to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 Zone District to the R6 Zone District. The prop- erty subject to the application is legally descri- bed as lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley of Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further informatu- _,IpAtact James lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development De- partment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429- 2763, jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in The Aspen Times on January 23, 2005. (2316) WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE P UBLICATION Sf,FtiN� ; OATES pis cN�'•. G nOfi CO� PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGl9 LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL ' a ' ".%k 4iIWO � • i s �• 14 well IWE T f 3 ,� w . e• 4 ,;yam .� � r, � reAk � � , � � • '�/� ems•. ' ^�'{.. ... c i �°+n, �'��.. °. �� •. a � �8 "��i �-away � ,.. � �, _ � > FA A C] • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, February 14, 2005 at a meting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Dale Hower to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District. The property subject to the application is legally described as Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley of Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2763, jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on January 29, 2005 City of Aspen Account 1 Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® • BROWN IR'VING M & BARBARA 2600 ISLAND BLVD APT 706 AVENTURA,FL 33160 CHURCHILL AUDREY LEE TRST 4541 BRIGHTON RD CORONA DEL MAR,CA 92625- 3101 COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA 500 DOUBLE EAGLE CT RENO,NV 89511 PEARCE VIRGINIA 1195 E COOPER AVE #A ASPEN,CO 81611 RICHARD PAUL & DONALD 1707 COLUMBIA RD NW #519 WASHINGTON,DC 20009 ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LLLP 500 PATTERSON RD GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81506 DIRUSSO JOANNA PO BOX 10906 ASPEN,CO 81612 POWER MATTHEW & LEIGH 101 LACET CT ASPEN,CO 81611 BARNHART NORMAN F 103 LACET CT ASPEN,CO 81611-2144 ITTNER ROBERT A JR & ROBERT A SR PO BOX 8965 ASPEN,CO 81612-8965 www.averyxom 1-800-GO-AVER SANDLER ELLEN RES TRUST 104 MIDLAND AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN,CO 81611 LOCKWOOD DAVID C PO BOX 1936 ASPEN,CO 81612 'DEROSE JAMES F & MAUREEN C 1/3 439 N WELLS 2ND FLOOR CHICAGO,IL 60610 'FOWLER MARK C FOWLER PEMILA L - JT TENANTS PO BOX 11060 ASPEN,CO 81612 GREGORICH EDWARD P PO BOX 142 ASPEN,CO 81612 aAVERY@ 51600 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN,CO 81611 CAVE DERYK REV TRUST PO BOX 11674 ASPEN,CO 81612 MINTZ MENACHEM MENDEL & LIEBA 104 ROBINSON DR ASPEN,CO 81611 RIESSEN MICHAEL TRUST 313 LACET CT ASPEN,CO 81611 LOB DE LIEUNEUVE NICOLAS PO BOX 2961 ASPEN,CO 81612 MOHWINKEL CLIFF PO BOX 9457 ASPEN,CO 81611 MASON CHRISTOPHER P PIEPHO KARL W 133 KINGS ROW ST PO BOX 10014 CARBONDALE,CO 81623-8832 ASPEN,CO 81612 SETTE CYNTHIA R 102 LACET CT ASPEN,CO 81611 MICCIO KENNETH W 104 LACET CT ASPEN,CO 81611 YEAGER JAMES W 310 LACET CT ASPEN,CO 81611 MERZBACH NINA PO BOX 3465 -ASPEN,CO 81612 - SANDLER LIVING TRUST 8/5/99 201 S BURLINGAME AVE LOS ANGELES,CA 90049 550 REDWOOD LLC 601 E HOPKINS STE 201 ASPEN,CO 81611 ®0915 ® mod Q ,kHAV-OD-008-L @09LS 3iVIdW31®tiaAV ash wogtiane•MMM 6wluwid 88J3 wef Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51604D JOHNSTONE KYLE PO BOX 7728 ASPEN,CO 81612 BEACH CATHERINE A PO BOX 8432 ASPEN,CO 81612 MCDONALD MAUREEN 207 LACET CT ASPEN,CO 81611 HOWER DALE 1024 E HOPKINS #17 ASPEN,CO 81611 'TARNA GARY - - C/O JIM KOHN ESQ 1925 CENTURY PARK E STE 1600 LOS ANGELES,CA 90067 KELLEHER DOROTHY PO BOX 1 ASPEN,CO 81612 SOUTHLAND- CO -RP LA MOTTE CHAMBERS ST HELIER JERSEY CHANNEL ISLANDS JE1 1BJ, RK ASPEN LLC 520 E COOPER AVE STE 230-12 ASPEN,CO 81611 www.avery.com AVERY@ 51600 . 1-800-GO-AVEPO SPECK BRIAN D J IM ENEZ LETITIA M 205 LACET CT 206 LACET CT ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 STONE FOWLER P III & RUTH D 611 FRED LN ASPEN,CO 81611 ROBINSON ELLIOTT ROBINSON GRETCHEN BIXLER 1245 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN,CO 81611 SUTHREN MARTIN T 312 LACET CT ASPEN,CO 81611 TULLAR CHRISTOPHER J 208 LACET CT ASPEN,CO 81611 LEATHERBURY JOAN PO BOX 1420 ASPEN,CO 81612 VAT WERMAN LAWRENCE J & LORRIE B 570 SO RIVERSIDE AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 OATES CHERIE G 1205 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN,CO 81611 POLE -POSITION LTD LA MOTTE CHAMBERS ST HELIER JERSEY CHANNEL ISLANDS, JE1 1BJ I JONES JUDITH G TRUST 1230 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN,CO 81611 MARCUS JEFFREY A & NANCY C/O MARCUS CABLE 300 CRESCENT CT STE 1350 DALLAS,TX 75201 ALLEN DOUGLAS P 403 LACET LN ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 0401 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN,CO 81611 CW TRUST C/O ZUKER 406 LACET LN ASPEN,CO 81611-2101 STOFFEL PAUL T & GAYLE 6117 WESTWICK DALLAS,TX 75209 Ii I SEFTON FAMILY TRUST 2550 FIFTH AVE STE 808 SAN DIEGO,CA 92103 PERKINS PAULETTE i% HEXT THOMAS R 900 OLD CHESTER RD FAR HILLS,NJ 07931 ' MASON WILLIAM C- - C/O WALLS GERTA PO BOX 406 ASPEN,CO 81612 POLLOCK PERRY H PO BOX 950 ASPEN,CO 81612 *09ts oAH3AW �9 . HAV-09-008-L @0915 3J.VldW3J. ®/JanV ash wog tiane-mmm 6uiluiJd 88JA wer RESOLUTION NO. 19 (SERIES OF 2004) 7-0 OK A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY) ZONE DISTRICT, LOTS 6-9 AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY, BLOCK 24, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273 7-181-00-024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale Hower, requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (Moderate - Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 1, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 1, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 15, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 15, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to July 6, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to August 17, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to October 19, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 19, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to November 16, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 16, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to December 7, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, recommending that City Council rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council approve the application to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 7th day of December, 2004. • • APPROVED AS TO FORM: COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING Jasmine Tygre, Chair • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Plannin 7 and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce All aier, ommunity Development Deputy Director FROM: James Lindt, Plannerz y /J' RE: Rezoning of 1201 Riverside Drive- Public HearinS, Continued from ` November 16th' DATE: December 7, 2004 APPLICANT /OWNER: Dale Hower LOCATION: 1201 Riverside Drive PARCEL ID NUMBER: 2737-181-00-024 CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential Zone District) PROPOSED ZONING: R-6 (Medium -Density Residential Zone District) SUMMARY: The Applicant requests to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District in order to construct two (2) detached residential dwelling units rather than a single-family residence on the subject property. APPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: 1201 Riverside Drive currently contains a single-family residence that is zoned R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive (see Exhibit `B" for vicinity map) from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium - Density Residential) Zone District in order to construct two (2) detached residential structures as is allowed in the R-6 Zone District pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.050, R-6 Medium -Density Residential Zone District. The zoning map originally showed the property as being zoned R-6, and the Applicant designed two (2) detached residential dwelling units for the property and applied for a building permit. However, during the building permit review process for the property, a neighbor contested the zoning of the subject parcel contending that the zoning map was in error and that the property was really zoned R-15 in that it had never been rezoned from the R-15 Zone District by approval of an ordinance. Subsequently, the Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation that established that a property has to be rezoned by ordinance regardless of what the official zone district map indicates for a rezoning to be considered legal. The Applicant appealed this interpretation to City Council and City Council upheld the interpretation of the Community Development Director. After the appeal concluded, the Applicant filed a lawsuit against the City and an agreement was reached in which the Applicant was directed to file a rezoning application to rezone the property to the R-6 Zone District. REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning (Two Step Review). City Council may approve or deny an application for rezoning, after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment. STAFF COMMENTS: Rezoning: The subject property abuts land to the south that is zoned R-15 and land to the north that is zoned R-6 (please see zoning map attached as Exhibit "C"). That being the case, Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would be considered "spot zoning", which is discouraged as a method of fundamental planning. Additionally, a large portion of the subject property was not located in the original Riverside Subdivision (please see Exhibit "E" for map identifying the portion of the property that was located in the original Riverside Subdivision), which is the subdivision located to the south of the property and is zoned R-15 in it's entirety. Thus, Staff does not believe that the property has a significant historical relationship with the properties in the R-15 zoned Riverside Subdivision in terms of lot layout and characteristics. In comparing the allowable development rights between the existing and proposed zoning, Staff believes that the proposal to rezone the property will actually reduce the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) that can be constructed on the site. Under the existing R-15 Zone District requirements, the Applicant could only build a single-family residence and it would be allowed a total FAR of about 4,440 square feet. Incidentally, under the proposed R-6 zoning, the Applicant would have the ability to construct two (2) detached single-family residential units or a duplex with a total combined allowable FAR of about 4,390 square feet. Staff also feels that allowing for two (2) smaller residences to be constructed on the property instead of one large house will likely reduce the apparent mass of structures on the site. Additionally, the property is currently non -conforming in relation to it's lot size in that the property is only 14,179 square feet and the existing R-15 zoning has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The proposed rezoning would bring the lot into zoning conformance with respect to its lot size. Moreover, the proposed rezoning would not create any zoning non -conformity in relation to the existing single-family residence on the property. TRAFFIC GENERATION: Staff does believe that the development potential of the property after the proposed rezoning could allow for development that would increase the amount of traffic on Riverside Drive given that the proposed zoning would allow the Applicant to construct one more residential unit than would be allowed under the existing zoning. However, Staff believes that the K amount of additional traffic provided by the one additional unit allowed under the proposed zoning would be minimal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning forward a recommendation of approval to City Council on the proposed rezoning request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, recommending that City Council approve the proposed rezoning application to allow for the property at 1201 Riverside Drive, Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, to be rezoned from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District." Attachments: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Vicinity Map Exhibit C -- Current Zoning Map Exhibit D -- Map Indicating Subdivision Makeup of Property 3 RESOLUTION NO. 19 (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY) ZONE DISTRICT, LOTS 6-9 AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY, BLOCK 24, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-181-00-024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale Hower, requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 1, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 1, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 15, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 15, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to July 6, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to August 17, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to October 19, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 19, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to November 16, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 16, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to December 7, 2004; and, 4 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, by a to vote, recommending that City Council rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council approve the application to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 7th day of December, 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair 5 • E ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS REZONING FROM THE R-15 (MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicahle portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. Actually, the proposed rezoning will allow for the subject parcel to be brought into conformance with zoning in relation to its minimum lot size. In addition, the proposed rezoning application will not create any zoning non -conformities with respect to the existing residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The future land use map that is included in the AACP envisions this site a residential property, by which the proposed rezoning is consistent. Additionally, Staff feels that the proposed rezoning would allow for the possibility of having two (2) smaller residences on the property as opposed to one large residence, which would likely break up the apparent mass of structures on the site as is encouraged by the residential design standards that are included in the land use code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Findiniz The subject property abuts land that is zoned both R-6 and R-15, so the proposed rezoning application would not create spot zoning. Additionally, the allowable FAR for the site would be similar regardless of whether the property is rezoned or not as was detailed in the staff memo. The allowed uses under both the existing and proposed zoning are similar in that they both are primarily intended for the development of single-family and duplex residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 7 Staff Findiniz Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant effect on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning would at most add one additional allowed residential unit to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would only allow for detached single-family or duplex residential dwelling units as is consistent with the predominant uses in the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding Staff has not identified any changed conditions in the neighborhood that would support the proposed amendment; however, the proposed rezoning would correct the existing non- conformity in relation to the property's lot size. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. In fact, the proposed rezoning application would bring the subject parcel into complete zoning compliance. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8 0 0 Exhibit "B" 1201 Riverside Drive Vicinity Map �o B Aspen Edge Condominiums ; E� Alpine Cottages Y } i 1 000�� uWY 82 er ewe. i i Subject Property Beaumont Inn AH FqW � s ,•� F` 1 ` t t r { tg m t Z Riverside Drive d t I I I I - T I 0 100 200 400 Feet N W�E S so E AP►t N no 4 0 Exhibit Maeup of Subject Property t , ti Co >/ Portion of Property Previously Added to Parcel to Be Rezonecril N Portion of Subject Property in Original Riverside Subdivision 100 200 400 Feet N W+ E S S_T• S �a � _ _ 15a1 a.• S 5,-40'20- MZ..p� a.•5�' r Z0. T7' jT•JJ. }t+_, C j .°.a ai.• \ YEAS. aAECORD a 7 •sE As. a RycDAo JT. N .� ��. AUCX MfiEAi SU80141SIOR �jq\ fro 'JP° N TPG rn .1 Rcau zxau] InAr aa.r PAc[ z7, 6l�-Ta y- s Aa•x6'• a..' .� FMo TO A[C ` r'p ctXlNEa ,a.s r.s-Mc-ls°s 9'r r@� }� �a SURVF_ YOR'S�rRTIE1CATr- I = _ c wKEAu SLAW MANAGE+aNT �9- \ •.,�,� uC.. - ' �f. ..)Kass Cu. 1l34 i 7 ASPEN E + t.T oo:s"!f P1Tx UNOERS ICHED HERESY CERTIFIES TO GALE NOrEA t 2 - nl atae' EDGE CONDOMINIUMS �Tea *� \ 'fry'.• IN COUNTY TITLE, INC. THAT TH tPLAT BR. 13 PAGE 601 IKE FE+,�.��_� -r, ..`� THIS CERTIFICATE IS `TTACN _ E I�ROVEYENi SURVEY 7O oai+ ED. PREPAREC BY THE UNOERS IGNE C u a \ r o. _ REGISTERED LICENSED AND SUAVEYCI. AAS A T D' AaROFESS ION L LOT I `� IN n•.a•r LS• PEK KECVTia "O65l1 5Z. C UAILT Y40E O a // / / AUES»fEAT SUSMISION 11 1.Kar]7.1T• E PER ]z RATS lil �� f GA(aJNO: THE SURVEY AND THE INFDRAyT !T INS,. YE!IT SUFiV T ,PLAT aA-a PAC{ Ut���lp•,,,t �� is]01a' t11Ef:Q) ®t (!r n•P'2T• E sLR ]S PLATS ill »Oa �= DISTANCES ROUN THEREIN. VEYINcA D T r11M T 1�' CaIRSEs ANO +')t• ' / H B9.32'35• E 24.38' LIYITAT ION. ^- -'-_ / ALL SETS � ~ Ta + s ING YARD LINES. ARE CORRECT: THE SIZE ANp LOCATION OF BALL LaA o �o o' STRUCTURES AND IWPRCVEYENTS ARE AS SHOWN. IF• ANT', '�L BU ILDIMGS, -O G. s u flFRO -s : 43 Op5'LFMp6T0 KEC 4+FA $ • 1 FURTHER CERTIFT THAT SAID BUILD INGS. STRUCTURES t+�!• t - e� 4 w ON SAID PREMISES ON iH1$ OAT' AND I�gOVEYENTS Di4lM ! j o �.. / q c• AUGUST TB. 2000_ EX PT UTlllh ° I CONNECTIONS. ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PAR IANOS FE4St18EHGER AENrs CE I i f DEED accErTTb _"I. s,� = / EXCEPT AS SHOrN. THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS / PREYISE5 9T t-OVEsC TS ON -ANT ADJOINING PRgul SES.�XrE Fpp 5- AEa.R 0.z' Gllp IO AT V ti +_ I 90•p6'41 BIND ICATEO. AND THAT P DESCRIBED -. _ ,POSSI aLT OISTYKIE➢1 ` / / - � Tl1ERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE DR $ T S 41-05'C 0_2O' iMO, TO AfC. -�{�" t47t C N °° FAo, 5/•"AE1.4 EASEYEHi CROSS INL DA BUROEnI NG ANY PART OF $A 10 PAq .� Ls+r2176(MfL01 _- - Q e QOi'.1' PEA ]s PLATS I11 E$ HATED. �L� zDfPAHT �•,L S 89.46' c iMC O4• /�' Q,-+t\ _ - 00 ", E :y. s/e•.Ea. LS>r7 � TLO-6 ' 7)Tf. *` /' � - - ' y LSO o 128.97' r'•° rJ+o GD / 't. DATED: BY: - +! ti+!;01,a ®� tt t' Ply +R4312 O 6 Y a f •r . JJ� t oil ]'ALA' n ROBEAi C. HUTTON: aa�d /t5 t � t - t+ta• �+T. � t.. + y\ ®e14- � 4 - �' a. 4. 0�• #,-.; • • .6• �CP Z�•/ _- __ ��i+c�-� �. fc- T -_ T _.,:4.� f� N.SLTE� f • BASH NGS: THE BEARING M -. `•- fA' !T7-a Ol -- -- - �`� Lam- T -NT> --'i cif `� - I 1. eaSIS � BEAgI 1 _ 19 trl•� �- f•. A ;` ERLT BOIH ART ULINO IC-Ul ENr B ♦na7.S '! )• 1 f O T 0T' E CERTAIN i / QO'. / / )'{f k't C,9 •ASP t' "' _� L�� 4y J +- ^ I Df 2A 7P 1 AS i110WA ON iN T r; T}•1 .6 ` BLOCK 1' tP ♦7 OITCN BOOa D 1 A CERTAIN WP 'Rlv A S AI b,G t HAsa� IO.6S' J > T? P} ' 717 ' .AGE 1Tl1 WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS E SIDE SUBo .lMIOM 2. THE 51PevEY SINTrN NEAECN IS BASED IN PART DM THE BEARINGS SMOvN EAf �.-.�---_ �° •i)a O.z REPORT. CASE N - COwIT1EN7 FOR - T1 OT �' TL N a lj MOT TUB " ]. THIS PA RT TO T4E 1LOrING: _.___... CO• _ / / % // t+i]•0 / ' 47lA$ PER TMEOEYCEPTI ONSU� ISTEOI IMPARE AAt7YE YENTIoNEO TITLE CD+II TaENiI G� - . t• I AI R[SERV AT IDMS AS SET fORTM IN US PATENT RECOAKI; IN It y E NS. CONolrtOrlS. PROVISIU.S ANO l 1 MCi IMc !2.]• C� / B, T A Det lGAiIO+S AS SET rp17M5'IN TPAGE AGA 246. / � I / \ RECOAOED'OCTC9ER 14. 1165 IN BOOK 216 At PAGE I. f[14:N7 1 / j•p 6T]w.G I At TER.SommED7 ea"' IOIS. PIIOVISlo-S ANo o`ll IGA 7IONS AS SET FoRTN fL - ^4PI _ P a•ASP RECOa0E0 JULY 23, Il7q IN BOOK 149 ATPaCE 5!!. _ IN OF ED Di EASE -ENT y, / - / �� ♦ T)�•S - �� a I1j0-! a i 4. BENCIwAia: '0-15!' IN ASPEN- PITR IM COUNTY. t)d as L roo0 OECa - »a1. S/ rT THE St1U1MrCST CORNEA O< T _ / rP/ DOE• i»S.'7 O LLEv . 7lia-z Z"1t * T➢E yY COUR TNOIISE LAWN: 54 FEET NdtTM of HE C.76.TY aOOggg �p STREET. 17 FEET EAST OF iH[, / S•Aq.i `�0 1p 45E14ri IL t�fT CENTEALIHE OF GALENA STREET. 6S.a F [7 r[STE�ITME�EMrEA OFRT T. +na3.0 / ➢ oe - } Cet SP 17z PLATS taI I ]3.7 FEET STNrEiT OF THE GRANITE BASE OF a S0.0EA'S lONUH[NT�CANWp II EMIR NCE No THE BUILD 7NE 1. / tAt P*D� G'0 ♦120?.2 01l�T.S iPt o'�� 6 Sy ' I SQ1THr $T CODiiNER Oi AN pANAuENTaL IAp FENCE: A 57ANpwAO DISC STRAFED •0-159 t97/' .• - ��• a OD . 6. U„ A AI,LIPG `r9a2. T IN THE TOP OF A CONCAE TE POST. THE 116a $ BPS ti / SPalit 1-STORY NODO FRAME HOUSE Kit �SP°r`TOE a ABOVE SEA LEVEL. uPPLEl(NIART ELEVArloN Ao.iuSTAENI IS rl".67r0FEET •� •S -? ass /•�i' C PARCEL AREA >• 1t..179 SOUAgE F. c -,/ RIVERSIDE VERS I DE ADDITION T i ON ,' '\ E_T DR 0. ]255 ACAEs W �; a'+. / ES•p.. / a nu.r ®TIn.O AVENUE IN 9La.:a1 _- � GO YAY MOTS 6.7.i A 9. PORTION OF A ..» ._. / / • Tl4.1 ALLEY d P1gR AYE -.� . '- / W_ ).d�'••Alsi' '+ 7l.T.f u.l 4is T>•S.sr•e,� rla=.s m % • nea'I- Gap - f• )a4.1 ,a N I 4 � •] ♦T�.f ♦\, STI),E PLAMTU DG C➢,V.AH101 f- SLT SPKE CA N O 11a)pai. l )!a) O T]e.. a7m''3 �`+a7 'AspTJ '�G9 B'l. f�= 7lfi•2 )•7a �t i 13 i•AY \ +�.. N l •rr �•Pc BTla}./ .M (s.Jp•P•J y'i r-AL -- PALA lz•T_f � '9: -- .. _o rASP •Tln.s - / N = \ i » Cw •T]n.6 Oa�F IaT r�10 ®T)u-]r Ts•S.! a/liS.i T .'AY ♦ 7!•!.f a t)•a.1 GAO °! \ Zy9 . 7m. } „' �r \ TT7\ .'n�. �'�S-' . »n•z. to - - - o,a • ®+ . Tfaa•s n•a-11� eT+�`'� -^ aa0 i 3 a 411 "4 A• \ i)eT.O W ti _ .G_- -• .•L' :u: Sa. . i})a.7 I r''G . �` Rt!'7 • 7s•a.a mD I .. 1}aa. r/r .aSP� N i I CAC CIAO T4el.1 a1Ry t� ry°'� llei.OGAO!•f.a 4• \ J e. 1])e.T IA-6 \ r'e• Dap Y i Taie,t _ Gao en)I.a oT]sO.I ®ne!- sNE➢ d 4 rRP �j j (i c'ASP .oa.l a•u. a'AY tIC00 SH -gq0� Tf•1_ -r[t can - OCT ! LLf.I� - pe 0 :"a 'ASP FPT. a n•.a•Op• a Iap•AO• PER v PLAYS na'� ei�i°,ti} eT+w.} �.� • �' •r O • nna I rr _1 s ee•]Z'tx• n.)T' ,4A5. �- �.1° 6'A1 BTB] -i ,' p• _®T 7'Ay (`� rASP s':"� a ` �, f}0 Tf '• ]p' d1'H�1't•'4t,i'L2'-�`•�� ' 41_N y4am, v TELLar w lz +'x431 a.u'� [t'' y 'a" ' A Alt 'f ? .' .. _ `-•- GY'� MELD flil SOUTMEALT tlmwpulT AL1rJeEMT T �T'TO.Dt'A °tr AAII-�:� r�a�AS•OF48EoAli1NGS-a--a Via;})1•i+fit 77'11A: 7j)-eiQ%NiiO Gd SaITAx MEALTTemIHOANT All CNi aOAAO FENCE aY 44•oo• E PU L PLA r2 1T !� r(L�n 1. �l J,T!!,.} ^ LtAT ado �I 5ME0 TE t4'R / -W t])2'O S �fr ASF\ pT]11 .T ,! ,t IN BEET 1 '•$ } LOT 1z- f�' , LOT I1 >9� / �z'.� \ Tasf.t i •t�p.c - �+o TELE IUUTAL I- � a :ft. RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION 8LLI I EDG[.sPN.LrrA:E�»r 24-1' aaR'' v IOITCt 5R.2A PAGE 173) �'" •' I I - LEGEND SSYN - 3ANrTART SLALR IIANHOLL �a> l' - 7LAc3TONL ie` AO.IACENT 0 EMENT 8, T lx.. I I MP•R V OPOGRAPH I CSURVEY I -,• Wit` `c - - - fA.uT 4, .. N 2-STORY GARAGE � S U R V E Y TI Y. LTEAAL _ 1 �- rj PL VATIt YALVE 4 w o °. PL➢TL,xc "'< OF THE LANDS OF DALE HOW Ta L_ cAp➢xD u7n tTY Nr7rt• `y'" ?� 1= AS QESCRI8E0 IN THAT CERTAIN QUITCLAIMDEED >�+ �- - 12LEPNON[ L LLECRICAL IovL8MCA➢, LlNC---+�+ - uN LING _�� _ I: RECORDED SEPTEMBER 24. 1998 IN RECEPTION xt4 �Y _g- - WATER. LIME The uti I I exi aT irq Ofl Yr1a au-fou Ql°.anOv1 Q1 nl1.1 I., - c� - aCp SA NiTART SaTiLa L3NL t11i, Or'O,+; nq hOV. eMn IocOtW EJ'=> 22358 , < r: ,u. - SAN -y ssAL1 GL7:axovt AI I Lreerarww U+iI I.I_ er fi•Id aLr•,.y, tia a I- IN THE OFFICE OF THE P I TK I N COUNTY RECORDER uN➢cRcaouxB fr al1pwn I 1 201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE) xP fO)cE oP GNUSCAPLD LA1x om recOrOa Of the VOrlpy) util GdalDo-M°>a v+0 tna _ Is ASP - ASP. UTILITY POLL aurveyo- °Oea not aaaLAro rea°_.i➢i I ity far +hair 7»r_E4a= ^ v9e .GAV V TALI <➢I.iYFTLa • ➢ANT 0°•pletaTAeaa. Ir,OiCOYW Im°ti011. or aiLe. ReKOrO 75 • A$?EN a GAAYLL utility la°mla. anCA110 Oe GORfi - me utility r"d Ay •1°�i^a 1 Ta%!'t = s I> PITXIN COUNTY COLORA00 SCALE: 1' DATE: AUGUST. 2000 " I$ R08ERT C. HUTTON '- PROFESSIONAL CANO SURVEYOR R RIVERSIDE D R I _ 725 CEI+E-ER: LAME ASPEN. COLORAOO A7 61 T caa'wiOE Riw.I i I 197p1.544-995Z SHEET 1 OF 1 aca- 5-39 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning anoi Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Interim Community Development Director FROM: James Lindt, Planner RE: Rezoning of 1201 Riverside Drive- Public Hearing, Continued from October 19th DATE: November 16, 2004 APPLICANT /OWNER: Dale Hower LOCATION: 1201 Riverside Drive PARCEL ID NUMBER: 2737-181-00-024 CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential Zone District) PROPOSED ZONING: R-6 (Medium -Density Residential Zone District) SUMMARY: The Applicant requests to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District in order to construct two (2) detached residential dwelling units rather than a single-family residence on the subject property. APPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: 1201 Riverside Drive currently contains a single-family residence that is zoned R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval The Applicant is requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive (see Exhibit `B" for vicinity map) from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium - Density Residential) Zone District in order to construct two (2) detached residential structures as is allowed in the R-6 Zone District pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.050, R-6 Medium -Density Residential Zone District. The zoning map originally showed the property as being zoned R-6, and the Applicant designed two (2) detached residential dwelling units for the property and applied for a building permit. However, during the building permit review process for the property, a neighbor contested the zoning of the subject parcel contending that the zoning map was in error and that the property was really zoned R-15 in that it had never been rezoned from the R-15 Zone District by approval of an ordinance. Subsequently, the Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation that established that a property has to be rezoned by ordinance regardless of what the official zone district map indicates for a rezoning to be considered legal. The Applicant appealed 0 . 0 this interpretation to City Council and City Council upheld the interpretation of the Community Development Director. After the appeal concluded, the Applicant filed a lawsuit against the City and an agreement was reached in which the Applicant was directed to file a rezoning application to rezone the property to the R-6 Zone District. REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning (Two Step Review). City Council may approve or deny an application for rezoning, after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment. STAFF COMMENTS: Rezoning: The subject property abuts land to the south that is zoned R-15 and land to the north that is zoned R-6 (please see zoning map attached as Exhibit "C"). That being the case, Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would be considered "spot zoning", which is discouraged as a method of fundamental planning. Additionally, a large portion of the subject property was not located in the original Riverside Subdivision (please see Exhibit "E" for map identifying the portion of the property that was located in the original Riverside Subdivision), which is the subdivision located to the south of the property and is zoned R-15 in it's entirety. Thus, Staff does not believe that the property has a significant historical relationship with the properties in the R-15 zoned Riverside Subdivision in terms of lot layout and characteristics. In comparing the allowable development rights between the existing and proposed zoning, Staff believes that the proposal to rezone the property will actually reduce the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) that can be constructed on the site. Under the existing R-15 Zone District requirements, the Applicant could only build a single-family residence and it would be allowed a total FAR of about 4,440 square feet. Incidentally, under the proposed R-6 zoning, the Applicant would have the ability to construct two (2) detached single-family residential units or a duplex with a total combined allowable FAR of about 4,390 square feet. Staff also feels that allowing for two (2) smaller residences to be constructed on the property instead of one large house will likely reduce the apparent mass of structures on the site. Additionally, the property is currently non -conforming in relation to it's lot size in that the property is only 14,179 square feet and the existing R-15 zoning has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The proposed rezoning would bring the lot into zoning conformance with respect to its lot size. Moreover, the proposed rezoning would not create any zoning non -conformity in relation to the existing single-family residence on the property. TRAFFIC GENERATION: Staff does believe that the development potential of the property after the proposed rezoning could allow for development that would increase the amount of traffic on Riverside Drive given that the proposed zoning would allow the Applicant to construct one more residential unit than would be allowed under the existing zoning. However, Staff believes that the FA amount of additional traffic provided by the one additional unit allowed under the proposed zoning would be minimal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning forward a recommendation of approval to City Council on the proposed rezoning request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, recommending that City Council approve the proposed rezoning application to allow for the property at 1201 Riverside Drive, Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, to be rezoned from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District." Attachments: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Vicinity Map Exhibit C -- Current Zoning Map Exhibit D -- Map Indicating Subdivision Makeup of Property RESOLUTION NO. 19 (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY) ZONE DISTRICT, LOTS 6-9 AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY, BLOCK 24, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-181-00-024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale, Hower, requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, . WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 1, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 1, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 15, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 15, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to July 6, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to August 17, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to October 19, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 19 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, by a to vote, recommending that City Council rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, 4 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council approve the application to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation. presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 19th day of October, 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair 5 EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS REZONING FROM THE R-15 (MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict'vi'ith any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. Actually, the proposed rezoning will allow for the subject parcel to be brought into conformance with zoning in relation to its minimum lot size. In addition, the proposed rezoning application will not create any zoning non -conformities with respect to the existing residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The future land use map that is included in the AACP envisions this site a residential property, by which the proposed rezoning is consistent. Additionally, Staff feels that the proposed rezoning would allow for the possibility of having two (2) smaller residences on the property as opposed to one large residence, which would likely break up the apparent mass of structures on the site as is encouraged by the residential design standards that are included in the land use code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. e VVY—tlffeproposed amendment is comparible with su --- n ing zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property abuts land that is zoned both R-6 and R-15, so the proposed rezoning application would not create spot zoning. Additionally, the allowable FAR for the site would be similar regardless of whether the property is rezoned or not as was detailed in the staff memo. The allowed uses under both the existing and proposed zoning are similar in that they both are primarily intended for the development of single-family and duplex residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 2 Staff FindinI Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant effect on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning would at most add one additional allowed residential unit to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Findini Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the' proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Findinj Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible Nvith the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would only allow for detached single-family or duplex residential dwelling units as is consistent with the predominant uses in the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neigh5orhood wIRch suppoFf the propose amendment. Staff Finding Staff has not identified any changed conditions in the neighborhood that would support the proposed amendment; however, the proposed rezoning would correct the existing non- conformity in relation to the property's lot size.. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. In fact, the proposed rezoning application would bring the subject parcel into complete zoning compliance. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7 • 1201 Riverside 0 Exhibit "B" Drive Vicinity Map 0 100 200 400 Feet N W E S • .MEN EEEE ME Sol del ` e l IMP •hv 4 IN 0 175 350 700 1.050 1,4 Feet • Makeup is of Subject Property 100 200 400 Feet Exhibit ",D"' At, ,CwGL 'Mb.n A[Bu 'E Sl1 la• - S SI-a0'20' M2-.0� / s121' r 10.11' Lm > WAS. 6 R(CORO \gyp" HERS• i RECORD ems` 9UCIIIIHEd1 SU801V1$IONr»A •! aEe.A tszac+l N + IPEAI IN.- PAz:E z]1 6J--\ ld a'({, _ S (•zG'W p..' rNa is !KC a' a 1-0 CCRNEA NO.S M.S- »G. 7)OS %•\XF+ r ' e.. d _ S 1RVCY C Cc _ '� OR' A?IrICaTf• BNaIGu aF LAMa MN..MACCMENr 7g_ r 'tr- +•y UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES TO PALE HOWER ASPEN EDGE CONDOMINIUMS `^ -`E\ .;�. u \ Jr ��!f �97T t >>-' �i6y� PITXIOUNTY TITLE. INC. THAT THE IMPROVEMENT 5 �~ yy�u THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED. PREPARED BY THE URvEY TD ml� Tr7 / J tPLAi BK. 13 PACE 601 - h IRE FE»C� ACz_� f U-,L VEY LOT REGISTERED LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. •AS ♦ TO' A PROFESSION L IN N••a'Y ZS' PER AECEPTION � DASIS Sao-.. ACTUALLY Y40E BT li1$7 /,C` jjM aY 37'27' C PEA ]i RAtS Itl UPON THE GROUND: INC SURVEY AND THE INF OAMNAT ION, ALMEW SURV Y BUC1A1 AKTA SUBDIVISION Z3ISION / \ )+)ilr {)•77'zl' [ PER ]S PLATS 111 DISTANCES SHOWN THEREIN. INq Up ING. WITN T S AND »l..e rRD... AEBAR Ys9ot{• IND:g7 ® a N J rCDUgSE 1 TM 1 N 89'J2 ]S' E 7.. BeU LIMITATION. . ! o ._�S INCAND YARD LINES. ARE CORRECT: THE SIZE AND LOCATION ALL SETBACK wm / / �o- O� / +� ry>f, � M-i STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE AS SHOWN. If ANY-. �L BUILDINGS. _ FMa .1 REgM / 19�0D¢` �� +T,- .S A]•SI'W a.1 .0 a REc Ar�f� $ I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT SAID BUILDINGS. STRUCTURES W _ i++`Ni� �- __ /' t - �M I / f�� pl SAID PREMISES ON THIS DATE. AUGUST T8. 2000. EVENTS NO IMPROV EXCEPT UTILITY _ ' `^ 36° / '^\ +T+ HMV ... CONNECTIONS. ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES pF THE PARCEL. IOCCO RECVTIO�.Na63S1 N'- I I NO E-C PREMISES 9 IY MIPflOvEMENT SE ON AlNY ADJOINING PREYI SE S- EXCEPT CEP 0 2c•Oz'ESOA'I.z?lMaT70RRP a _ -aN _� I �O'06'.1- �IIq MCA TEO. ANO TX i THERE 1$ NO 4PPARfNT EY DESCRIBED / - ♦ T PT A$ I BEO K Fppp ,5 AEBM IPpSSIaLY OISfuRXOt �`�`. / - ° EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDEN INN 1NY PART IOENCE OR SIGN OF ANY S NT•a3'C a-20' FIIp. Tp PEG. -aA' )+TT C flq. S/A •AEBM LSAg7Ti/NELaI f'S�r O6'NI• PEq ]S RATS 111 AS NOTED. SAID PARCEL. EXCEPT iS .. 1 ♦ dR G c� �R44 S 89'46'00" �:.. iMC 0.)' lA S`. '. � E ;AO. S>t •AEe.R LYzI . l+aD.1 ' >)if. ?� _ vt - 128.93'a GAO GWO / • / c `� Mom �`: -T980� •`-v . `S•� >Ek •^.�^� o" •', .T� i�• ` I C i DATED' BY: tr .*` - •,� ' S . P a1'` $ 0. a.IS' ROBERT C- HUTTDN. Y. - t t d�,MS Ttii ,� • `t ®� ' ,^.SY )+. t+!t`a ., C•. �f[ st.T � I to '^ PLS >r24J12 AM -7980- �� v ,� A F >>.p• y>s°2.a ++•d , n',�'' t h y60 W _ � � 1+^ad S /1� 3 +nt + �Ya + +:6 � ti . y\. ®^•ttaq � ° , � I w n dD Teo 0 )T)_A O' ��- T•ASmo ` mil) a aDT>>fa.+ ' I 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARING n 00• E BETWEEN F ~ " - caP� �L �` a. BLOCX t- EPLATBDITCHRBOOK 2C+TPACEA 1711 SOWN OTAKEI AS THE BASIS .AI E SIOE SUe01v lS10N 11 1711N0 MONUMENf3 ALONG OF \\ A V A /f L gB tT){l.i� i G-ASL=• �� TgRl .i • taa\ �+L ' �'^ I . NOR i» ! HAT BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON. �t QG'aiP �- Y a�N CERTAIN MAP s OD , �T� P� Oy,.. / T 10.65' j T O•.i: ) • tO AAi�X.'. ao + 2. THE Sla1YEY SHpWn HEREGII IS BASED IN VARY a THE COMMITMENT FOR TITL ,..._.,_..._..._ ...... i SP -_ - -- .,...._ ♦ 4a m' ».o.z AEPOR T, CASE k0._PC.I_L2e11lC6� aAtT(L E :.95ilBAdICE�� 7. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT IN PART f0 THE F - _ Ca. -- a/ ^ OEX C OLLOWINC: NpT TUBT. ++�? \ 3 , I 1♦S PER iNE EYCEPT IONS LISTED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED TITLE COMMITMENT, 'K ! Al RESERYATICNS AS SET FORTH IN VS PATENT RECORDED IN e \, Clpll ITS AT PAGE 246. ASP • a y - I 11 TEgNS, CONOI TION$. PROVISIONS uq pBL,GAT ION$ AS SET FOIITN IN AGREE MENi // a aEG IK 52.7' MAP.] \ / \ RECORD 0`OC TOBER 1.. t)63 IN BOOR 2 li aT PAGE t.B, J ~ M �I C1 TERMS. V - / ,(.•({.D / Mel _ ICOMITIO+S• PROVISIONS AID OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN DEED OF c-Av \ AECOROED JIILY 23. I9T0 I,N 80QC 2H AT PAGE S19. EASEMENT _ y »y.T �� • »:D.S .. BENCMNARx: 'p-I S!" IN ASPEN. PITR IM COUNTY. RT THE SOUTHWEST / / R L/ / Y ^•>'' ` / y T .z` �� W000 OE[x ' ` I WEST CORNER OF THE rO N, ld z •Tat 4P! SI ID' WIa( wilt Y COIR TNCR15f LAM. TIME CENTERLINE OF "IN STREET. . F / pry` CENTERLINE OF GALENA STREET. GS.A FEET WEST lF THE CENTER ST TE WAN EET EAST pf iHE. h / �•�/ +�� Tq»p3.'I 0 ELEv »R{.z U,of w 59 FEET NORTH a "La NS / + »RS•a a'Ay - aJi - VDU• �T ASP P ^ cl7 RAis 1a1 JJ.7 FEET SQJTNWES7 DF THE CAANI TE 9ASE OF a S0.0ER'1 MONUMENT.-ANp ] FEETANpgiN[a1TE[�TNE NC• / S DF, FJIO O ,t Y3SWE0 ryL t` ^• I SOUtHWEST CORNER a< ♦N pRNAGNENT AL IRON FENCE: A ST ANOAgO OI SC ST AMNP£O 'p-119 193+- f,W �tG '? ♦ »A1.2 m»Pi.J t/FS MM3Y4 • 1laz. / ^^ IM THE TOP OF A CONCRETE PO$i. iMI 196F SUPPLEUEN TARP ANa SET DID -SPMXL t-STORY N000 FRAME HOUSE- RET• cPer a ABOVE SEA LEVEL. ELEvarION AOJUSTMEN1 lS 1106. 67 FEET 11 /rlu.l ®»n.a :• __ ` PARCELAREA >• 14.179 ES / S\�I�,P % G"0 `' ! 4 \ RIVERSIDE ADDITION WW '\ \ E SQUARE FEET 0R O. ]255 ACRES Glm T_A ' \ (LOTS 6.7.8 A 9. PORTION OF ALLEY A PARK AVENUE IN BL11.2a1 s �: •T1 , AWAY if i)ALy '3-Y / W3 / ♦»ef.�7!.).1 •1 R7»I.! 4 4 T)F3.31'O), »{z.5 S. rJm 1^+ a]-9' So .. »•.1 y 10 nl I o \ •�l.S STONE a HiC+ D4 w+.APW ae 6• $i YI[C Oe B:e, ll e., SS> >!q•f 0 ..3.• m= y 1)HA a VAR.? 00 '� Oe0 0»al.1 AID i ASP -i Faaa.J +�°a FLAGSTGM.( Wµc� 1) S6 T aAP as H ^`-' G4E f / MRO - PASP O »Al.1 FS iafT•P p .. �N 3.� • T)Af.7 lee.3 ~ �� •O `Oaf f} . \ °y° I \ \ �'•1 - // O -. 1>A •i)H.6 ®,)ilir cAo *711e.7 »Is.!\ ,»A3.6 2..-a EL -7 . »As.a 7lts. »A3.2 r,� a• = u / ••w \ Tg90 t»]0.7 > G_ �.` 1 �0 T+Rs•�D caD I �• u ..I O p GM R • a` . 11Re.1 W�. SP A.�" •'Av 1 ` GO a-QAs i t79)O.7 1� m:La.a I:MD 71) 1 '..^. w - GIO ON'Av ` 1010 nn.l ta-M `\�4i .)A 1.a OCT. 1»a.7 IA.6 SIGEp d' • "' >]a{ cA0 `. y»aa.I l..r lam mT»L° 6'ASP 6•AS► 11 >>♦>•a• oa I T 1 / It'•I \ lIOOO SNEA a 7)ea.z . 7 - taro • y m .l � _Av RFO P � -•.� a•v+l7cE nro � -'zxY IN P!'NP OD' •'W.- PER 21 PLATS ISi�° L` � + � YASPQ �It GRAPH`T'C'$eAL ,'�o SENT {a•sz'R' »., MEAS. ��� SP eL)•als ®7))a.T +N' 0 W \,,_ Wit -®7 SET•, YELLOW c♦P is R•Ot 6. 62' T•Av s^A�' i�1 49.91' 3 ;'La 0,�:. T ! A 6k'D a . A .. Z:+ayv t, ( M. S,A•NE{AR Wr YELLOW CY ZS.l1 A•' NFlO i41 S41rNERLY scua.n '.'a� P+F, .- a.1L-�i 2-1 •AL ..{{ j�{{9q Co' �,yQ,�'.M� H, > Z /SEW Na L .6S �F AL IGMENT ^t O .A ENGE `j {N1a %ENR •�-'HASi$•F BEQAR ING�Aa + 2-a > 1.) �� NflO i(11 ]aUTMf%T WYIO.MIT ' +" t19 h l»I.) • 11 GNMENT N .�'j;•��' I,Ot� �O�' f C�aa. r•P>Q , J)M 11 N4-0p• E PER zA FLATS t Imiab HE0 TE Z4P° W T++2 a10 t:f' S•ASP1 •S»yT - h _ r LDT t7. t . ' LDT 11 ' , �� �' \ MT»t.t I At 1 IN LEFT 1 r T a _ JP I TELE P[DESTaL 1 InNal . 6 yft, GY .2a. 1' l2.2 RIVERSIDE SUB -DIVISION BCR.1 EDGE ASPHALT r.YEME»r �G„ I I (DITCH BK.ZA PAGE 1791 '• LEGEND I V elYx BANTTARY SETER UANIICL2 .v 1 ADJACENT I MP.ROVEMENT 8, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY /LAGSTONE txvEAT ,M. � ,, N 2-STORY GARAGE LATERAL OF HE `R° = TLEPHO •�` � � �= AS DESCRIBEDTIN THATDSOF CERTADINEOU�TECLAIM DEED TELEPHONE A ELECTRICAL IoveaxEAnl LtNc UT TL fTY NnT�• W M TlE +A _ -13 GA]LINE m>E I� RECORDED-SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 IN RECEPTION 4422358, _y- - SANITARY LINE The Uti litiK .WisY inD an TT. au•foo. NTtl.ArtO.r, 7!!].t ��> ' SA RTTART SEtCI LINE tniA o-D.irq IWv. b..rM IoctltMW by tlatl aM,-W.y '+ EP-g I� IN THE OFFICE OF THE P I TK I N COUNTY RECORDER p _ Sea - SANITA RY AT SE•CA CLEAXOUT All ltW°rgrDY,I° utilit(WA An°MMt at This tra'firtp ara Jp UNDERGROUND from{ tn. (1 201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE * z - IP UND aF ULANDSCAPED LAIN MAIa UtI 1 i ty aXi o iRA orld TNa 'V `M ]DINT UT3LiTT POLE atYV.yo- tlosa not oaAMAra r.ADonsi Oi I ity for (Mir �a� w IW .GRY ASPCN TAIL tD1AYLTLR • OBXI °°WD I.TNN4aa. irWSi cotNN1 ItIDDTI dt. Q ai 2.. R.Cortl EP T ^ I� ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORApO ' - GRAVEL utility laot ion ahM]Ultl ]. confirmed by exposi,p \ Tlj+�•ia+t = y . - - tn. uti l Ity. •'40 8 SCALE: t" 8' _ PATE: AUGUST. 2000 ROBERT C. HUTTON - PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR RIVERSIDE DRI _ 725 CEMETERY LANECOL- i (40'WIOE R/W) t I-- ASPEN 970SR+a495Zt611 SHEET t OF 1 r � JOB- 5-99 EP • • ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: e �, Aspen. CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ' In q , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) LI, �� {� uA (name, please print) being or representing anApplicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, " waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the , day of 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto., Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) �71 C: Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate. survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ipature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was,ac �owledged before mRe t�is day of 0� , 200 , by----) PUBUC NOTICE RE: 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING NOTICE IS HEIREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held ot, Tuesday. November 16, 2004 at a meeting to ,iegin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Dale Hower to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District. The property subject to the application Is legally described as Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley of Block 24. Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact James Undt at the City of Aspen Community Development De- partment, 130 S. Galena St.. Aspen, CO. (970) 920- 5102, jamesleci.aspen.co.us. s/Jasmine Tygre. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on October 30. 201M. (2072) WITNESS MY HAND AIN�DOFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ` N Notary Public OATES O (P F OF"C0-, ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL q I BROWN IRVING M & BARBARA• SANDLER ELLEN RES TRUST CITY OF ASPEN 2600 ISLAND BLVD APT 706 104 MIDLAND AVE 130 S GALENA ST AVENTURA. FL 33160 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHURCHILL AUDREY LEE CITY OF ASPEN CAVE DERYK REV TRUST 4541 BRIGHTON RD 130 S GALENA ST PO BOX 11674 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625- ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 3101 MINTZ MENACHEM MENDEL & COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA LOCKWOOD DAVID C EBA PO BOX 272409 PO BOX 1936 LIROBINSON DR FT COLLINS, CO 80527-2409 ASPEN, CO 81612 104 ASPEN, CO 81611 PEARCE VIRGINIA DEROSE JAMES F & MAUREEN RIESSEN MIC14AEL TRUST 1195 E COOPER AVE #A C 1/3 313 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 439 N WELLS 2ND FLOOR ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60610 RICHARD PAUL & DONALD 1707*COLUMBIA RD NW #519 WASHINGTON, DC 20009 ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LLLP 500 PATTERSON RD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 DIRUSSO JOANNA PO BOX 10906 ASPEN, CO 81612 POWER MATTHEW & LEIGH 101 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 BARN14ART NORMAN F 103 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611-2144 FOWLER MARK C FOWLER PEMILA L - JT TENANTS PO BOX 11060 ASPEN, CO 81612 GREGORICH EDWARD P PO BOX 142 ASPEN, CO 81612 MASON CHRISTOPHER P 133 KINGS ROW ST CARBONDALE, CO 81623-8832 SETTE CYNTHIA R 102 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 MICCIO KENNETH W 104 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 LOB DE LIEUNEUVE NICOLAS PO BOX 2961 ASPEN, CO 81612 MOHWINKEL CLIFF PO BOX 9457 ASPEN, CO 81611 PIEPHO KARL W PO BOX 2195 KIHEIHA 96753 MERZBACH NINA PO BOX 3465 ASPEN, CO 81612 SANDLER LIVING TRUST 8/5/99 201 S BURLINGAME AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 ITTNER ROBERT A JR & YEAGER JAMES W 550 REDWOOD LLC ROBERT A SR 310 LACET CT 601 E HOPKINS STE 201 PO BOX 8965 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612-8965 • • JOHNSTONE KYLE PO BOX 7728 ASPEN, CO 81612 BEACH CATHERINE A PO BOX 8432 ASPEN, CO 81612 MCDONALD MAUREEN 207 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 HOWER DALE 1024 E HOPKINS #17 ASPEN, CO 81611 TARNA GARY C/O JIM KOHN ESQ 1925 CENTURY PARK E STE 1600 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 KELLEHER DOROTHY PO BOX 1 ASPEN, CO 81612 SOUTHLAND CORP LA MOTTE CHAMBERS ST HELIER JERSEY CHANNEL ISLANDS JEI 1BJ RK ASPEN LLC 520 E COOPER AVE STE 230-12 ASPEN, CO 81611 SPECK BRIAN D 205 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 SUTHREN MARTIN T 312 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 TULLAR CHRISTOPHER J 208 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 LEATHERBURYJOAN PO BOX 1420 ASPEN, CO 81612 WINNERMAN LAWRENCE J & LORRIE B 570 SO RIVERSIDE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 OATES CHERIE G 1205 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 POLE POSITION LTD LA MOTTE CHAMBERS ST HELIER JERSEY CHANNEL ISLANDS JEI 1BJ STONE FOWLER P III & RUTH D JONES JUDITH G TRUST 611 FRED LN 1230 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROBINSON ELLIOTT REV TR ROBINSON GRETCHEN BIXLER REV TR 1245 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 MARCUS JEFFREY A & NANCY C C/O MARCUS CABLE 300 CRESCENT CT STE 1350 DALLAS, TX 75201 JIMENEZ LETITIA M 206 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ALLEN DOUGLAS P 403 LACET LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 0401 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 CW TRUST C/O ZUKER 406 LACET LN ASPEN, CO 81611-2101 STOFFEL PAUL T & GAYLE 6117 WESTWICK DALLAS, TX 75209 SEFTON FAMILY TRUST 2550 FIFTH AVE STE 808 SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 PERKINS PAULETTE D HEXT THOMAS R 900 OLD CHESTER RD FAR HILLS, NJ 07931 MASON WILLIAM C C/O WALLS GERTA PO BOX 406 ASPEN, CO 81612 POLLOCK PERRY H PO BOX 950 ASPEN, CO 81612 • • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena. St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Dale Hower to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District. The property subject to the application is legally described as Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley of Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920-5102, jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us. - s/Jasmine Ty2re, Chair pen Pl n� nin. tau Di inn Commission Published in the Aspen Times 6n October 30, 2004 City of Aspen Account MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoping Commission (� THRU: Joyce All a ,nterim Community Development Director FROM: James Lindt, Planner3t— RE: Rezoning of 1201 Riverside Drive- Public Hearing, Continued from August 17th DATE: October 19, 2004 APPLICANT /OWNER: Dale Hower LOCATION: 1201 Riverside Drive PARCEL ID NUMBER: 2737-181-00-024 CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential Zone District) PROPOSED ZONING: R-6 (Medium -Density Residential Zone District) SUMMARY: The Applicant requests to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District in order to construct two (2) detached residential dwelling units rather than a single-family residence on the subject property. APPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: 1201 Riverside Drive currently contains a single-family residence that is zoned R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive (see Exhibit "B" for vicinity map) from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium - Density Residential) Zone District in order to construct two (2) detached residential structures as is allowed in the R-6 Zone District pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.050, R-6 Medium -Density Residential Zone District. The zoning map originally showed the property as being zoned R-6, and the Applicant designed two (2) detached residential dwelling units for the property and applied for a building permit. However, during the building permit review process for the property, a neighbor contested the zoning of the subject parcel contending that the zoning map was in error and that the property was really zoned R-15 in that it had never been rezoned from the R-15 Zone District by approval of an ordinance. Subsequently, the Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation that established that a property has to be rezoned by ordinance regardless of what the official zone district map indicates for a rezoning to be considered legal. The Applicant appealed this interpretation to City Council and City Council upheld the interpretation of the Community Development Director. After the appeal concluded, the Applicant filed a lawsuit against the City and an agreement was reached in which the Applicant was directed to file a rezoning application to rezone the property to the R-6 Zone District. REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning (Two Step Review). City Council may approve or deny an application for rezoning, after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment. STAFF COMMENTS: Rezoning: The subject property abuts land to the south that is zoned R-15 and land to the north that is zoned R-6 (please see zoning map attached as Exhibit "C"). That being the case, Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would be considered "spot zoning", which is discouraged as a method of fundamental planning. Additionally, a large portion of the subject property was not located in the original Riverside Subdivision (please see Exhibit "E" for map identifying the portion of the property that was located in the original Riverside Subdivision), which is the subdivision located to the south of the property and is zoned R-15 in it's entirety. Thus, Staff does not believe that the property has a significant historical relationship with the properties in the R-15 zoned Riverside Subdivision in terms of lot layout and characteristics. In comparing the allowable development rights between the existing and proposed zoning, Staff believes that the proposal to rezone the property will actually reduce the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) that can be constructed on the site. Under the existing R-15 Zone District requirements, the Applicant could only build a single-family residence and it would be allowed a total FAR of about 4,440 square feet. Incidentally, under the proposed R-6 zoning, the Applicant would have the ability to construct two (2) detached single-family residential units or a duplex with a total combined allowable FAR of about 4,390 square feet. Staff also feels that allowing for two (2) smaller residences to be constructed on the property instead of one large house will likely reduce the apparent mass of structures on the site. Additionally, the property is currently non -conforming in relation to it's lot size in that the property is only 14,179 square feet and the existing R-15 zoning has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The proposed rezoning would bring the lot into zoning conformance with respect to its lot size. Moreover, the proposed rezoning would not create any zoning non -conformity in relation to the existing single-family residence on the property. TRAFFIC GENERATION: Staff does believe that the development potential of the property after the proposed rezoning could allow for development that would increase the amount of traffic on Riverside Drive given that the proposed zoning would allow the Applicant to construct one more residential unit than would be allowed under the existing zoning. However, Staff believes that the 2 amount of additional traffic provided by the one additional unit allowed under the proposed zoning would be minimal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning forward a recommendation of approval to City Council on the proposed rezoning request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, recommending that City Council approve the proposed rezoning application to allow for the property at 1201 Riverside Drive, Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, to be rezoned from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District." Attachments: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Vicinity Map Exhibit C -- Current Zoning Map Exhibit D -- Map Indicating Subdivision Makeup of Property 3 RESOLUTION NO. 19 (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY) ZONE DISTRICT, LOTS 6-9 AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY, BLOCK 24, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-181-00-024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale Hower, requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 1, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 1, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 15, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 15, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to July 6, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to August 17, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to October 19, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 19 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, by a to -� vote, recommending that City Council rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, 4 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council approve the application to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 19th day of October, 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: .Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS REZONING FROM THE R-15 (MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE R-6 (MEDIum-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. Actually, the proposed rezoning will allow for the subject parcel to be brought into conformance with zoning in relation to its minimum lot size. In addition, the proposed rezoning application will not create any zoning non -conformities with respect to the existing residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The future land use map that is included in the AACP envisions this site a residential property, by which the proposed rezoning is consistent. Additionally, Staff feels that the proposed rezoning would allow for the possibility of having two (2) smaller residences on the property as opposed to one large residence, which would likely break up the apparent mass of structures on the site as is encouraged by the residential design standards that are included in the land use code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property abuts land that is zoned both R-6 and R-15, so the proposed rezoning application would not create spot zoning. Additionally, the allowable FAR for the site would be similar regardless of whether the property is rezoned or not as was detailed in the staff memo. The allowed uses under both the existing and proposed zoning are similar in that they both are primarily intended for the development of single-family and duplex residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. R Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant effect on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning would at most add one additional allowed residential unit to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would only allow for detached single-family or duplex residential dwelling units as is consistent with the predominant uses in the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding Staff has not identified any changed conditions in the neighborhood that would support the proposed amendment; however, the proposed rezoning would correct the existing non- conformity in relation to the property's lot size. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. In fact, the proposed rezoning application would bring the subject parcel into complete zoning compliance. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7 0 0 Exhibit "B" 1201 Riverside Drive Vicinity Map ae has �o ZN oZ �O Aspen Edge Condominiums Alpine Cottages 82 FFcT P Subject Property \ � Beaumont Inn AH r. D n m Z Riverside Drive I N 0 100 200 400 Feet W E S Not Exhibit Ma up of Subject Pr p eerty ;p k 4 v f. Portion of Property Previously Added to Parcel to Be Rezoned% �r Fr. �r Portion of Subject Property in Original Riverside Subdivision 10, 1� Y i 0 100 200 400 Feet N W E S � rCLLo• GP 5 43 a'l,\INO.a] .Ceu •LSlt..• S 51•.0'20• •Bz_ I ME AS S11 R 20-7J' 6/'Ia. p ;F L017 'NE♦S. PRE CORO \ ECCWO Jr..oS t• I9NE41 SUBDIVISION vN\ Jr t, Ke.R -LSz.cu- ln 1 IPLAI el.A PAGE 73, �� 6J �.>S •. [� s .a•2P• _ Ito COMEN No.S r.s. NO" IfOS iN•\LF a .a SURVF YOR'S CeRTIF ICAT;" mm(w OF LAND MANALE,ENT �9-Nf Qr .� �' •tJ'+° ` +[ �( .�14ii CAP. 1". 'THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES TO DALE XOrER ASPEN EDGE CONDOMINIUMS +[t R \ J� 7 } 'hC.r>. ��+" PTHE IN COUNTY TITLE. INC. RTIF THE DALV .. _-\ ��_ '�E �y7j F e uu`�. ENENi SURVEY p - nI ,r6]• - tPLAT BK.13 PAGE 601 - \Fr - ^ '� `� ATTACHED. PREPARED BT THE UNoERSI W 'NEC o u 1td ` A = IM FE"E; ��� •C�� v - u TNE$ CERTIF ILa TE I$ ATTA H H - _ _ GNEO. A 2 `A LOT 1 �� \ ,N .!•..'r 2S' KR RECLPT{pe •.Ocsf3 00O ,+ REGISTERED LICENSED LAND SUAvE TOR. rA5 ACTUALLY WOE BY I- I PROFESSION L /� (1 UPON THE GAWNO: TXE $URV 7 ♦ THE EIS DRWTION. INSTRUMENT SURV Y UO = // // 8UCIAT SA-1 pU�1 �ItSION / � \ tltfN .r J7'2T' L PER JS PLATS I`t - - DISTANCES SHOWN iH REIN. INCLUDING. rI TN COURSES AND .»7.-. iNO.r AEBAa 'LifOu- 1 N$$ E OUT LIMITATION, All SETIACx ®5• N R9•J2'J5• E 24.9R' _M�$ ASO YARD LINES. ARE CORRECT: THE SIZE ANp LOCATION =v STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE AS SHONN. IF' ANT', OF ALL BUILDINGS. i.O K RERAR lS2.a43 41 $ . RJ•St •• O_S' PNo TO REc CA „ 1 FURTHER CERTIFY THAT SAID BUILDINGS. STRUCTURES AND An ° �- �/ __ t --: tq ON SAID PREMISES ON THIS DATE. AUGUST Ia. 2000. (�RO'JEMENTS eE ]PF EXCEPT UTILITY 1 - a�� +t+fit`• I / r CONNECTIONS. ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BDUNOARIES E PARCEL. LANDS OF RERSNBERGER' -9 r. OF THE / �- • S� (DEED RECEPTIW a.0airi I / EXCEPT AS SNDVN, THAT THERE ARE HD ENCROACHMENTS / Ip qE 5 1 _ PREMISES 9Y IMPROvEAEHTi ON Y.T ♦OJOINING PREMISES- �XTNP DESCRIBED IaUNG -5 .EeAA IPOSSI1N; OI S1UReE01 to °+ / ° S 2f 0.7ti2 7I'D / _ I �0•06'al" BIND ICw7E0. ♦NO TNAi THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE pq ' / . EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART S ,1•p3'C 6.20' llep-TO REC. a �iMO. S/.•REIN LS.QJ7fetKL01 ' SAID PARCELt� OF ANY PER ]S PLATS iti AS NOTED. EXCEPT S 89'46'00" E INe. S/. •REe.R Ls23 d R :��. � T t td sj �. ]`' _yam_o '�^� �_a^ . . •'�► �sY +a¢a,�' t's,p'" 128.+.►t9`3P ' iA -7980-- rG • a%. O [,. • A7,its[ • c f t• /II DATED: RO/ERT NUTiO. PL$ rJT2BY: GO N,°.1s• T,•ttP ®•� O � • i t • J �s 0 ~9;yJ ,. � ., 6`./ _ +^+ I to P /. '+ s N O > F•• t /4 Dr • r •r J! !0' Is ®�� `P -- 9�� � ---�1• `� I NOES: / 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARING N u•..• 6P ]11.. T•AS/Q [ Wit. = T ✓�lfA :ry7 ���lO-� \ TNE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT tt AS SNOrN pN�1N11 CERTAIN NOP�RIVERS, "�niS ALONG N PL _19go� i)e]"S� O^ \DE SUBDIVISION -_ / ♦ �OQ. Qi"AaP- .`Sd' TM,•c .11s \\\ o : _ i ILOCX 1• IPLAT DITCH BOOR 2A PAGE IT91 'AS TAEEN AS THE BASIS lT / 7A ®7)'1-' 'TOP ra :'a Z a. •� TNE SURVEY SNOMN HEREON IS BASED IN PART ON THE CDWITIENT ipR AR H O.. INGS SHOTN ERf 10. i5' !rot I = 2 TITLE INSURANCE 1+• oI, `� _� 1941.y / 9B •Tl.O.1 gEPOIi. USE N0. PCT12e09C6. GATED JIIIIE 2a. I99e Br PI74 IN [OMTT TIT 4 y e1 S Tp[ + O \ \ a-i1R ]. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT IN PART TO THE FOLLOrING: LE. Co. h t I t♦S KA THE EXCEPTIONS LISTED IN THE ABOVE MEMTIOvEO TITLE COeae i 9+►� \ '> I NENTI Al RESERVATIO.S AS SET FORTH IN US PATENT RECOAOEO IN ROOR t75 AT PACE 241 DEC. IIIG •?lso.I \•51 52.1' , ASP �\ •, I RECTOROEO'OCTOBERIIO11.1 65rINIBfftLt N2.O1 G0BL Ip, tIONS AS SET FORTH 'IN AGREEMENT f�^�f cC t.e. M RE TEPMS. CON0171 O/5. PROVISION$ AND OBl IGA7iON$ ♦i SET FgiN IN a'Av \ RECORDED JOLT 2J. Ili PROVISIONS IN BOOK 211 AT PAGE 599. DEED OF EASEMENT t / 1,.f.7` / tlOtb DECK - Y I .a 4 e»:O.S I ." BENCHMARK: -:,• / S/ ' \ �d / / CRO �/ 7la t. - 5/ •4-IS9- IN ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY. AT TNE SOU TNREST CoINER OF THE GIRIN ,)e].'••1ff O CLEr .7feR.2 TOL ♦ CEN TEOURTROUSE LAIN: S9 FEET NORTH pF THE CENTERLINE DF wlN STREET. .J FEET CAST OF iTE. ^2.�♦ t to' not urlu TTY ✓`� S►/dl O ST -Sl F y•,i�i2 ] �R ? FILAMENT CENiERI NNE OF GALENA STREET. ES.. FFET LEST OF THE CENTER R ?HE WIN CNtRANQ TO THE BUILD hG. 2 P 9- \T• t .7l.S.o +•'� ,7i RI.DT• • _ Ill PLATS tit 33.7 FEET SOUTNeE57 [$ THC GRANITE RASE F.. A S0.DER'S MONU.ENi. AND 1 FEET NORT / ?t!►G5' O•• n +Tl.7.2 6141.3 /J •• tPAy jo.yL t i t?� I zN1NEETOPST COFNARCO.CRE TE�POSTNiA7�IRON( ESUPPLEIENiARTARp OI SC STA THEIST SHE ELEVATION ApJUSTIENT is 790A. A7 FEET /•E►SE�tt / r'•0 E"SPRIG( 1-STORY MOCO %RAMIE HOUSE TAtP1 \F'Po r`EOC 11I2' , ABOVETHE SEA LEVEL. NPED 0-159 974- Al EOlt'► jt % I� PARCEL AREA = 14.179 ± SQUARE FEET OR 0.3255 ACRES +�+',., •®;;,.,\ RIVERSIDE ADDITION As, M.tLOTS 6.7.8 i 9. PORTION OF ALLEY i PARK AVENUE IN B1K.241 ^ ."AY : .RIP�PI.c siDNA P .NrER u♦ +0 R. t DQ ,co .A.ON ify>f0LAS T!.\7oE 7t242 "z.az me'I^po Ile/.f 43.9. `]"S' f... "Y . Gno73 a GRO °- ).] VAIll ONo\ `E++]•w^�-n's:e \ II �}'1/.4t\'? •/P \/'i\ 1-1N \ 1 - 00 _ ®').,.7 N� /[. ,J'O .0 s rL.GSTCNC •AL[ 7!!7-S / lE' •' ••O` a I \ tti QS. i / =O 6"1SP • FS J'J•) F \ $$ \ t tt N S-ASP �w r'e 7l.T-f A as h � j.'•i, p tt Is ED Gas eT 7f.51 7 ),n.6 e•i IR 71...\ ala3.- '°� . ASP • GRID! ' a . »ua GooEL6 4 I -AV- Zy90 . 7ri0.J } Sr ,M: 7Gl�e7.7 TIw c5++a0y , • Tles.z I _ `e` l! OIIO - 0 Tao • h ®` a 1144.3 1)..-9, 1. \• c.0 nRc 'ulo o e. * fsc,s +. a O F c•2-.•ASP ! !- F N c + ,ay.4.rl.7.D LAJ -- ' LAO .7 . 7Ll.S .a ' +- 4E •J This oG10 • A.aJ O1D I �V i .+ i J .•AY I c 7nR. 1`^ a+ ` o Sa: 7!n"o • • 1lM.l 0 U1p 1a.6 SNEO ,4t' ` •`LAP - '-+.. `• a Ln a,•7)!•sl0.7 .\T. a»e0 i �1\"T�•��a.srz `+>P i G7lA.2.1 wo 6,1a 11 ASP . ASP 1gI - OCT7 _700 1 o Y]00 SNEA• 4 .g 91 n .0 IN tlVa'00• r I00. (A' KA xI PLATS 15 C? •�'� 0 e� a` • )H 1 w I P. �� v e'),o., aNlO"7 4.S / 7-ASPS ram "sue ' GR$i]i{TCSCALE?-`�_t,.EIJTu s ee•sz'12• �. n• ,EAs. ^ cusp ,. •/ LOr CAP ti .243, ..U' / rvsP • Z �"�r • N \v -9.''�-1 49.91 •-®7.:'0 Q .` h 7}lL,R •.E'0 F a • ))t t /SET AA L [ • ,•o� No, s/!•REeAR / YELLO+ Cu HELD F011 SOUil1ERLr BOUNDARY AL10eENT ?tea -'O / IL ENCE i �SrASyy pF4�•yn 1 ^�R 7 9 ' 2 ) e>- WELD FOR SOUTHERLY N 'At e0AR0 !ENCE a `2• jK.11� N 9 ] 1++ a h2. 1,-RL7)ft.3 eOYDARY .L IGIPENT ei GP *SHED TE 2 f 1 �f �.:_ �•![� 'D ! GJJI r,�JJ/ 0 r .T..'00• E KR L fLAiS tT T°m 6;0 N t++t•THIO Y.! 5•ASP� •;Myl�.jr Lot 12" LOT It A , �f \ LJTlf l.t 1 •TlfO.f 1 IN FEET 1 e l7.2I JP I TELE PEDESTAL ` RIVERSIDE SUB-01VISION OLK.1 EDGE .SPMALT PAVEMENT `AR 24.'' (DITCH BK.2A PAGE 1791 i :'^ LEGEND I Nab I I 53LN - RANiTART SEWER ]MANHOLE u ' $ ENT FLAGS? HIS _ �o" ADJACENT 2-5iOfl7 GARAGE T. IMPROVEMENT 8, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY INTLRT ++ - $= M VLATERAL rL WATER VALVE R FLoxt 1 � u a -7 . u m OF THE LANDS OF DALE HOWER " -i a E- - ORIONugD w . T1fr _ �= AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN QUIT CLAIM DEED yp_ ME ONE 6 ELECTRICAL IOVERHLAnI LINE UT TL tTr NfITF• ^� $Qi '"*FSN°JNL Th. Mtititi,a .alati1v - t,. s -t°G. � A, „ v IM RECORDED SEPTEMBER 24. 1998 IN RECEPTION #422358 . 9ANrTART SEVER LINE rota OraNirq npre been 10 ty by f141° J,rrey. 7"J'` I N THE OFFICE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER '� SANft ART SITU CLLANOVT V UNDERG 411 'aar"dDLINS the iitT (1 201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE) -u KOUND from Ga-Da of " aho•n m "I. trarirq are IW JP - joIN OP LITY PO PLD LAWN the rpri Dla Utility Cp.pO,i as pro Una uUa AspJOINT UTILITY POLL m!V•Vpr ocea Opt aaaL.ly reappnai Oi I it, for their !f]"7+a _ ASPEN T CpeOleren.aa. ;-iGory IOGOti.. or ai 2e. R.eoro 7 ASPEN . GAV GRAY LLI IDUNCTCa • DBNI I� PITKIN COUNTY COLOR4o0 GRAVEL thelUti I ityOTion SMO110 0e cmfirReo by erpo:i n0 - G'0 0 1$ SCALE. 1" 8' DATE: AUGUST. 2000 1 88 I8 ROBERT C. HUTTON PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR T25 CEWETERY LANE RIVERSIDE DR I j ASPEN. COLORADO 8.1611 I40 W[DE R/W) 1 1970) 544-9952 SHEET I OF 1 .:OBE 5-39 EP E MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and ZPommunity Commission THRU: Joyce All aier,Develo pment Deputy Director FROM: James Lindt, Planner �, — RE: Rezoning of 1201 Riverside Drive- Public Hearing, Continued from June 15th DATE: July 6, 2004 APPLICANT /OWNER: Dale Hower LOCATION: 1201 Riverside Drive PARCEL ID NUMBER: 2737-181-00-024 CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential Zone District) PROPOSED ZONING: R-6 (Medium -Density Residential Zone District) SUMMARY: The Applicant requests to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District in order to construct two (2) detached residential dwelling units rather than a single-family residence on the subject property. APPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: 1201 Riverside Drive currently contains a single-family residence that is zoned R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive (see Exhibit `B" for vicinity map) from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium - Density Residential) Zone District in order to construct two (2) detached residential structures as is allowed in the R-6 Zone District pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.050, R-6 Medium -Density Residential Zone District. The zoning map originally showed the property as being zoned R-6, and the Applicant designed two (2) detached residential dwelling units for the property and applied for a building permit. However, during the building permit review process for the property, a neighbor contested the zoning of the subject parcel contending that the zoning map was in error and that the property was really zoned R-15 in that it had never been rezoned from the R-15 Zone District by approval of an ordinance. Subsequently, the Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation that established that a property has to be rezoned by ordinance regardless of what the official zone district map indicates for a rezoning to be considered legal. The Applicant appealed this interpretation to City Council and City Council upheld the interpretation of the Community Development Director. After the appeal concluded, the Applicant filed a lawsuit against the City and an agreement was reached in which the Applicant was directed to file a rezoning application to rezone the property to the R-6 Zone District. REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning (Two Step Review). City Council may approve or deny an application for rezoning, after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment. STAFF COMMENTS: Rezoning: The subject property abuts land to the south that is zoned R-15 and land to the north that is zoned R-6 (please see zoning map attached as Exhibit "C"). That being the case, Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would be considered "spot zoning", which is discouraged as a method of fundamental planning. Additionally, a large portion of the subject property was not located in the original Riverside Subdivision (please see Exhibit "E" for map identifying the portion of the property that was located in the original Riverside Subdivision), which is the subdivision located to the south of the property and is zoned R-15 in it's entirety. Thus, Staff does not believe that the property has a significant historical relationship with the properties in the R-15 zoned Riverside Subdivision in terms of lot layout and characteristics. In comparing the allowable development rights between the existing and proposed zoning, Staff believes that the proposal to rezone the property will actually reduce the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) that can be constructed on the site. Under the existing R-15 Zone District requirements, the Applicant could only build a single-family residence and it would be allowed a total FAR of about 4,440 square feet. Incidentally, under the proposed R-6 zoning, the Applicant would have the ability to construct two (2) detached single-family residential units or a duplex with a total combined allowable FAR of about 4,390 square feet. Staff also feels that allowing for two (2) smaller residences to be constructed on the property instead of one large house will likely reduce the apparent mass of structures on the site. Additionally, the property is currently non -conforming in relation to it's lot size in that the property is only 14,179 square feet and the existing R-15 zoning has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The proposed rezoning would bring the lot into zoning conformance with respect to its lot size. Moreover, the proposed rezoning would not create any zoning non -conformity in relation to the existing single-family residence on the property. TRAFFIC GENERATION: Staff does believe that the development potential of the property after the proposed rezoning could allow for development that would increase the amount of traffic on Riverside Drive given that the proposed zoning would allow the Applicant to construct one more residential unit than would be allowed under the existing zoning. However, Staff believes that the 2 amount of additional traffic provided by the one additional unit allowed under the proposed zoning would be minimal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning forward a recommendation of approval to City Council on the proposed rezoning request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, recommending that City Council approve the proposed rezoning application to allow for the property at 1201 Riverside Drive, Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, to be rezoned from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District." Attachments: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Vicinity Map Exhibit C -- Current Zoning Map Exhibit D -- Map Indicating Subdivision Makeup of Property 3 0 RESOLUTION NO. 19 (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY) ZONE DISTRICT, LOTS 6-9 AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY, BLOCK 24, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-I 81-00-024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale Hower, requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 1, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 1, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 15, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 15, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to July 6, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, by a to (_--) vote, recommending that City Council rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: 4 0 • Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council approve the application to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6th day of July, 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair 5 EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS REZONING FROM THE R-15 (MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. Actually, the proposed rezoning will allow for the subject parcel to be brought into conformance with zoning in relation to its minimum lot size. In addition, the proposed rezoning application will not create any zoning non -conformities with respect to the existing residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The future land use map that is included in the AACP envisions this site a residential property, by which the proposed rezoning is consistent. Additionally, Staff feels that the proposed rezoning would allow for the possibility of having two (2) smaller residences on the property as opposed to one large residence, which would likely break up the apparent mass of structures on the site as is encouraged by the residential design standards that are included in the land use code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property abuts land that is zoned both R-6 and R-15, so the proposed rezoning application would not create spot zoning. Additionally, the allowable FAR for the site would be similar regardless of whether the property is rezoned or not as was detailed in the staff memo. The allowed uses under both the existing and proposed zoning are similar in that they both are primarily intended for the development of single-family and duplex residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. on • • Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant effect on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning would at most add one additional allowed residential unit to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would only allow for detached single-family or duplex residential dwelling units as is consistent with the predominant uses in the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding Staff has not identified any changed conditions in the neighborhood that would support the proposed amendment; however, the proposed rezoning would correct the existing non- conformity in relation to the property's lot size. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. In fact, the proposed rezoning application would bring the subject parcel into complete zoning compliance. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7 • &a# Makup of Subject PrIperty Exhibit e e 'ems °2 e � FR Portion of Property Previously Added to Parcel to Be Rezoned�v� cT Portion of Subject Property in Original Riverside Subdivision 0 100 200 400 Feet N W E S I �.�-t E••CL 1 , HD.ln RCBAR .. .ELLO. CAP -M5 �:] S 51•40'20 !2.•0' '� W "•51' E20. 1J' 4• ME.:. a RECORD /� Jf- +'r \[NO.n pCB.q 'L Sf1f.• La[ T [E AS. l RE CORO rNo n R[eAW A' 76"J fs` BUCK1RiEA1 SUBDIVISION vy� JTo +J'pT, s 6•zc . , _7 FHp to 'El .. of N � . / p F•p coWNEA No. s M. s. w. »m frr �4, c� W Q 6 - n ^ m-ss1 6 L•ND MAHACT,,RNt 19- r r �'' O z _ •T♦� ASPEN EDGE CONDOMINIUMS (PLAT 8X.1J PAGE 601 -�� �A - +_ el R[ LOT �..J-' N n••.'. 25' KP RE CCPLiO• r0f5)1 Ooo BUCXVHEAT SUBDIVISION 1� 1 W+e!•n'ir E PFR n PLA1s 16, 1K=r p.•I PA[C �No..• 271 RFBAR 'LS)ote' tRF{O, �T p�� °)•lT'2T' C KR ]1 RATS ltl N 89'32'35' E 2+.9B' ,. N o a 5N0W51 WEBaRS•L`z.6.3 ] �� !T , / 1 / \ ` �O • �O _ O �. HO 0 EC - u N LAND OF HERSNBERGER foc co WECEP)IO, .•O63}!1. /ppEE FOUND n eC61Pp$516LY Ol SipgBC01 "a+L/ 55��]� {{ / ` iN7c'n02E3U�x'LlRD170 RE4a / / '• / + 90. S /•05'S E a.R .20' FNO.TO AEC. f� 0 -- - 06'41' ♦ TT• 4 / N Sid AT Ems• 8M1 LS 1]Ttt nEL01 `Of'.1• PEA 35 RATS 111 FHC 0.)' CL 5 89' 4600' E / :Wo. S/e'AEBAR LS4] I • )9.O. / 1 yT\ I u'o 728. 93' )D',°af %�� > cWa --r}•)s'� Ia° /St� t 0CEO. C.+ . O. t!' J Yf • f L ♦ \ min T1P T i;• t ®)��Sv 1' PT'.f'6 !)Slpf+r'L 61 T '.4 OT` YT'•f\P ®�l ® ®)l°P J. 0.i+ �1q. , •\,1f\ ♦w^ [n m d+\fO/ed�/s 1� •- n �j,� �T,•f P o. - -7980- ,'yJ p < s �•T J t^ I 5URVFY0R'S rrOTIr� CATr• *THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES TO GALE HOWER PITS IN COUNTY TITLE. INC. THAT THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED. PREPARED By THE UNOERSI GNED. A PROFESSION L REGISTERED LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, WAS ACTUALLY MADE Br INS7RUyE NT SURv Y UPON THE GROUND: THE SURVEY AND THE I„FGFIATION COURSES AND DISTANCES SHOWN THEREIN. INCLUDING. r11NpuT LIMITATION ALL SETBACK AND YARD LINES. ARE CORRECT: THE SIZE 'NO LOCATION OF ALL BU ILO INDS. STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE AS SHOWN, IF ANY•, I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT SAID BUILDINGS. STRUCTURES ASO IMPROVEMENTS ON SAID PREMISES ON THIS DATE. AUGUST la. 2000. EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS. ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE 8011 ARIES OF THE PARCEL EXCEPT AS SHOWN. THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES. EXCEPT AS INDICATED. AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING DR BURDENING ANY PART OF $A 10 PARCEL EXCEPT AS NOTED. DATED: BY: ROBERT C. HUTTON. PLS -24312 NOTES 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS: T THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY BE 11 15 N e9•+4T00T E BETWEEN ypllNO MDMUAEN7$ ALONG 60 IT,.S 0� -- �.`� 1'ASI'Q C �T9.2T- -T -- -�>!. .] v �• •:°p. i'1 .SSE° ^ BL OCL 1• (PLAT DITCH BOO( 2A PAGE 1791 WAS N '.A AS RT BASIS 'Ri1ERSIOE SUBDIVISION FL �TqB . T1.]•� TOTS t_w]. S'•s= i.' 3•' R I CERTAIN P SP ' 1).] ' . IO 6 \\ \ ; `� ^ LOT 11 AS $MOTH a• IHA7 OF BEARINGS SNO.N NEREO.. / / e • 6D / 2 /-a\T961�� 10.65' J� P -- �4 a, • yy oo \ ' e)9f0.x I 2. THE SURVEY SHOWN HEREON 1$ BASED IN PART LE INSURANCE _ 1•.1 ? • REPORT[ CASE NO. PCT12B09C6. DATED JUKE 2+. 199E T8v P IN pUNi�pTITLE. CO. / !aa r� Npt TUB .4 '~ e6 ? -- �, w TOE 1'S Bl7 \y \ 6"FIR J. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT IN PART 70 7H( FOLLOWING: / •/ ' // o `T9rS IAS PER THE EXCEPTIONS LISTED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED TITLE CONNl TMENTI .]• 1 +T.' AI RESERVATIONS AS SET F TN N E ECOROEO IN BOOR 1i5 AT PAGE 2.6. / T9 / ' ,S 4 •,D DR I US PATENT R / / / • DEC. IMC 52.]' 4 • '7900.] �• Ca' / I BE TERMS. CONDITION'. PROvI SIONS ANO �L IGAT IONS AS SET FppiN IN AGREEMENT ASI 6/ R CORDED OCTOBEA 1965 IN BOOR 216 Ai PAGE t.6. / *+ 0)910.6 CI TERMS. CONDITIONS• PROVISIONS ANO OBL ICATION$ AS SET FpRTN IN pEEp (1F 71.5.i M1I 6••Y I RECIXIOED JULY 2]• 19 )0 IH BDOA 2.9 Ai PALE 599. EASEMENT \at.x` D / rC10p DECB MP '� 1,81. 'FY + ••?AYS ^ I .. BENCHMARK: '0-159• IN ASPEN_ PITXIN COUNTY. Al THE SOuiNKii CORNER pF T �/ COURTHOUSE LAWN; 59 FEET NORTH OF THE CEN7ERL INE 0 MAIN STREET. .J EEET T. C. T% r�OE !d »fS.h O CLEW 7946.2 ^7(yV• T� f+ t0' •lo[ uTIL (�Y CENTERLINE OF GALENA STREET. 65.6 EFEi TEST OF THE CENTER pE THE Cll ENTRANCE TO iNE &11L0 \ cGPgp .•ASP °r } . "SP w'' 1]x EPLA SN161 ya;/dx O q / ss OC *, SOUTHWEST FEET SOUTNWE ST'. TN[ LRAM tE BASE OE A S0.0ER'S MONUMENT. AND ] FEET NORTHEAST OF THE 2 \ 19.5.0 / p j. ! p' SOU( HWEST GORN:R 0. AN DRMIME INIAL IRON FENCE: A STANOApp pISC ST AMPEp 0-159 197.' AND SET ]T t \ GS• GRO O 47. 1'S_ TRll1.O eLLL !Tee .. IN iME TOP p. CCMCRE 7E POST, THE 1960 SUPPLEMENTARY EL EvATION AOJUS iMENi IS 934' 6T .SET .l9ei.z �6,SpWu •. tN1NL o��x' a I ABOVE SEA LEVEL. / T E 7GWD9# c'SPRUCE 1-STORY W000 FRAME HOUSE IME SP oc pN �i •' PARCEL AREA = 14.179 ! SOUARE FEET OR O. J255 ACRES RIVERSIDE ADDITION \ =- •! / Da0 T•asi \ (LOTS 6.7.8 A 9. PORTION OF ALLEY 6 PARE AVENUE IN BL K.2+1 a w -: • .)AS.s , ASP)9fl.J T9n.: 1n �`••rry -3 ss G 4 t THI.1f.x.5 m 4 / W / ♦ T9n.0 S?.SPXJ)961.9 \ / W 1966.1•„f..] GO rA0 wee 43.9 GD•4•APRON '•E'` ` Si,•iIIKE / 8o aD rJAa ♦ trnl.O].5 ♦S♦ m sTOE PLANTER 19ee.1 e:9' f aNc, • c ,• aGo c.Av.\' ON 'R\ \l C+ ® 1fi°z •A. 7�].. GRO 6'ASP \ - Ya ti v01D 'I J A 0B111n1 F �• EOMe.t f 'SD - - \ 'Z+ •,, \ �S 1.• J• 'roL I I QY / 1n ' N - 5AS► . r sr f`� T I A I. 9 D . ))6!. GAD )5.5. f • 196].6 "a. 2 W•I?:yt 6'FIR .1l19-) ��?�'] .T9N.] GNO \ EL Z �pC' z u •Av Tg90 .7990.] S.• aRo RD T,.6 • mos.x I u / O < O ua •' e^ ♦ )96f.5 1", *"AD" • T..) •'ASP GO T966JO•D Y fAaIWO f.1 6,-2-ASP 1 ® we` ;p^ • . fa �p. $' ; •=i+ _ CC m I a ♦ c. T99a.T ` a 11H.) <• '��OC ^� eR, (pi +(C'•Z lfii.0laa0 • H6.. TLDI C W - GRO Q•'ASP ` cAD 1989.E T9 \ ♦4� O i . [96t.0 - N R OIs Ra ) 6Tnl.a ®.169. 1••6 SHED 4P f 4 )j.'•! ` Gq0 +T9�66.1 I J rASP e'AsP 1g90' c•sP N QRD WOOD SHF_O \ +tea • G*0 vlMucE 19n.9 W p we • 1)l0.f wNR a +a•i eWy 9 \AA \ • Tl.9.] SP . IN e]••f'0a• W tap_0a' PER E1 1gATS 1Slw�p f ..'p f•Av mT990.9 ^ �•]y' �.•As� T..,aPS, s ee•si'12' n. x' MEb. `u c•Av ®T99a.i ®N iq'�- -®z i•ASP • w la' L� ��0 . •) YELLOW CAP 'LS •4.J1 6.62'� '� /SET AA L CC ' • N0. S).'gEBu 0'qf A•) li RAIL -sew I-5 ••Y '+-. �9. 44'�f'!'� {�° N ICR 9j1•) q ? 92.0 )99 1, j1991.f HELD PON Sg1TNERLT SGUN0AA1 K101wENi HELD ipl SOUTHERLY DpUNpAgY AL 1G[AENT T 1 �O ERCC J9 e0AR0'FENCE AS $ DF B ♦ ING 9 \ t9 2,] , ,)• M ' a+p o,W•) GAP,, 4a•y+ e9• '00' E KA 2A PLATS 11 )•ODD SHED ANTE t4,pYI »92'�RD . i5i� •SF\ •i?:vt U1191-I I • 791a.6 LOT V Try' LOT 11 f �+a'9Z- �'_ \ `A" 2'•'' 92.2 JP I TELE KOES7AL RIVERSIDE SUB -DIVISION BLK.t I EoaE.SPN.L7 AVEMENT (DITCH BE.2A PAGE 1791 i .. LEGEND I - r3 - 7ANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 3.T OCI F ] U; :1;.. - 1 GRXpfITC-SCALE- '` -- ."ENT u 1 IN FEET I 1 I- . e ft. LAY - FLAGSTONE - ADJACENT 2-STORY GARAGE IMPROVEMENT 8N TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY t.r. [NYE _ +' W, LATERAL SE OF THE LANDS OF DALE MOWER FL WATER VALVE p )�_ FtoWupe ^y qA nE N•LL "'"' _ i, AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN QUIT CLAIM DEED • _T 6 E. GROUND UTLLLTY NOTE; ,:y �oi TELEPHONE M ELECTRICAL 'OVEANEADILINE I� RECORDED SEPTEMBER 24. 1998 IN RECEPTION sx422358. _W, - GAS R L The utilities e...1; _CO SA TT LINE Don the SOYfie d Wey. pn T99]•1 I N THE OFFICE OF THE P I TK I N COUNTY RECORDER SCa SANRART SLWCR llNL this o-OWinO hove Dean IptOtap Oy field WNey. EP ,ym0 I` El _ UNDERGROUND SEVEN CLLANOVT I unperarpun0 uti hies snows m this *_,np We ( 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE) UADLHC 80UNp Om reCO•p3 Of Me variCW utilit G JP EDGE OF LANDSCAPED LAWN SurVw Y ORDpn i e3 O theIW JOINT UTILITY POLE Y doss rapt msMme reappn3i Dil ity fpr tMir ` t)f]-H�l ASP ASPEN TREE 'DIAMETER • DHNI Dtllmle*mess. irq;CatAd I-0tiph, ar Si Z.. Heco-p EP 9y 'A• I� ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORAQO GHV GRAVEL unlit Y OCOtion A' -Id be OOnf Irme0 DY eWOc3in0 ''°+•if `S tns uriliry. 4p SCALE: I" = B' DATE: AUGUST. 2000 ROBERT C. HUTTON E. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR RIVERSIDE D R I _ 725 CEMETERY LANE j ASPEN970. COLGRA00 B7611 <` (40"WIDE R/W) 1 1 5++-9952 SHEET 1 OF 1 f�F! •• EP 0 • a7A 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and -, Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: James Lindt, Planner O-(___ RE: Rezoning of 1201 Riverside Drive- Public Hearing, Continued from June 1st DATE: June 15, 2004 APPLICANT /OWNER: Dale Hower LOCATION: 1201 Riverside Drive PARCEL ID NUMBER: 2737-181-00-024 CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential Zone District) PROPOSED ZONING: R-6 (Medium -Density Residential Zone District) SUMMARY: The Applicant requests to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District in order to construct two (2) detached residential dwelling units rather than a single-family residence on the subject property. APPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: 1201 Riverside Drive currently contains a single-family residence that is zoned R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive (see Exhibit `B" for vicinity map) from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium - Density Residential) Zone District in order to construct two (2) detached residential structures as is allowed in the R-6 Zone District pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.050, R-6 Medium -Density Residential Zone District. The zoning map originally showed the property as being zoned R-6, and the Applicant designed two (2) detached residential dwelling units for the property and applied for a building permit. However, during the building permit review process for the property, a neighbor contested the zoning of the subject parcel contending that the zoning map was in error and that the property was really zoned R-15 in that it had never been rezoned from the R-15 Zone District by approval of an ordinance. Subsequently, the Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation that established that a property has to be rezoned by ordinance regardless of what the official zone district map indicates for a rezoning to be considered legal. The Applicant appealed P21 this interpretation to City Council and City Council upheld the interpretation of the Community Development Director. After the appeal concluded, the Applicant filed a lawsuit against the City and an agreement was reached in which the Applicant was directed to file a rezoning application to rezone the property to the R-6 Zone District. REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning (Two Step Review). City Council may approve or deny an application for rezoning, after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment. STAFF COMMENTS: Rezoning: The subject property abuts land to the south that is zoned R-15 and land to the north that is zoned R-6 (please see zoning map attached as Exhibit "C"). That being the case, Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would be considered "spot zoning", which is discouraged as a method of fundamental planning. Additionally, a large portion of the subject property was not located in the. original Riverside Subdivision (please see Exhibit "E" for map identifying the portion of the property that was located in the original Riverside Subdivision), which is the subdivision located to the south of the property and is zoned R-15 in it's entirety. Thus, Staff does not believe that the property has a significant historical relationship with the properties in the R-15 zoned Riverside Subdivision in terms of lot layout and characteristics. In comparing the allowable development rights between the existing and proposed zoning, Staff believes that the proposal to rezone the property will actually reduce the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) that can be constructed on the site. Under the existing R-15 Zone District requirements, the Applicant could only build a single-family residence and it would be allowed a total FAR of about 4,440 square feet. Incidentally, under the proposed R-6 zoning, the Applicant would have the ability to construct two (2) detached single-family residential units or a duplex with a total combined allowable FAR of about 4,390 square feet. Staff also feels that allowing for two (2) smaller residences to be constructed on the property instead of one large house will likely reduce the apparent mass of structures on the site. Additionally, the property is currently non -conforming in relation to it's lot size in that the property is only 14,179 square feet and the existing R-15 zoning has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The proposed rezoning would bring the lot into zoning conformance with respect to its lot size. Moreover, the proposed rezoning would not create any zoning non -conformity in relation to the existing single-family residence on the property. TRAFFIC GENERATION: Staff does believe that the development potential of the property after the proposed rezoning could allow for development that would increase the amount of traffic on Riverside Drive given that the proposed zoning would allow the Applicant to construct one more residential unit than would be allowed under the existing zoning. However, Staff believes that the 2 P22 amount of additional traffic provided by the one additional unit allowed under the proposed zoning would be minimal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning forward a recommendation of approval to City Council on the proposed rezoning request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 4, Series of 2004, recommending that City Council approve the proposed rezoning application to allow for the property at 1201 Riverside Drive, Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, to be rezoned from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District." Attachments: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Vicinity Map Exhibit C -- Current Zoning Map Exhibit D -- Map Indicating Subdivision Makeup of Property P23 RESOLUTION NO. L (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY) ZONE DISTRICT, LOTS 6-9 AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY, BLOCK 24, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-131-00-024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale Hower, requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and- continued the review of the rezoning request to June 1, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 1, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 15, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 15, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 19, Series of 2004, by a to vote, recommending that City Council rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fords that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council approve the application to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. El P24 • 0 Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, . such .portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 1 5th day of June, 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P25 EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS REZONING FROM THE R-15 (MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel. that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. Actually, the proposed rezoning will allow for the subject parcel to be brought into conformance with zoning in relation to its minimum lot size. In addition, the proposed rezoning application will not create any zoning non -conformities with respect to the existing residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the ' Aspen Area Community Plan. The future land use map that is included in the AACP envisions this site a residential property, by which the proposed rezoning is consistent. Additionally, Staff feels that the proposed rezoning would allow for the possibility of having two (2) smaller residences on the property as opposed to one large residence, which would likely break up the apparent mass of structures on the site as is encouraged by the residential design standards that are included in the land use code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property abuts land that is zoned both R-6 and R-15, so the proposed rezoning application wouldnot create spot zoning. Additionally, the allowable FAR for the site would be similar regardless of whether the property is rezoned or not as was detailed in the staff memo. The allowed uses under both the existing and proposed zoning are similar in that they both are primarily intended for the development of single-family and duplex residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 0 P26 Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant effect on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning would at most add one additional allowed residential unit to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would only allow for detached single-family or duplex residential dwelling units as is consistent with the predominant uses in the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding Staff has not identified any changed conditions in the neighborhood that would support the proposed amendment; however, the proposed rezoning would correct the existing non- conformity in relation to the property's lot size. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. In fact, the proposed rezoning application would bring the subject parcel into complete zoning compliance. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7 P27 Exhibit "B" 1201 RivOside Drive Vicini# Map *0� 6w/ I k1w" Alpine Cottages M1k 771 :, Xw hkhh, 741. L r i I I I I I I I I I 0 100 200 400 Feet F�' IWY 82 , r JBeaumont Inn AH N W E 7r P28 som NOR Makei* of Subject Propgty Exhibit tu�yi _•rs i' Jai ! r !!� 1 F I J Portion of Property Previously Added to Parcel to Be RezonedKq� Fr �. Portion of Subject Property in Original Riverside Subdivision wi 1 11 i � R t •v5 t � ' 0 100 200 400 Feet N W E S P30 KAS SIt RECOR07 //eT.aa JI. c �N\ jT JT I ix0 K3AR •L SI e6.7 6j 6. 26'• 0. •' FN0 r0 AEC n�0, 1HG n0. l)Of ifR •7\jC.a E4l .r a BUREAU Or luO «AxAGE �(xt T• .AMASS GA ri. ♦� a '• ^i + -y•� IRE FEwc.E ..��� tT ✓t x n•..'• zs' PER REccpnd rlKsn pU801V1510H �j 1/l SjRH•7T•7r C PER 7x PL.TS icl ceO.- �So AGE 271 Fp.r REBAp •LS]OIE•\I nELQJ ©1�P Tx e)•]T'7T' C PER 75 RATS ttl � - m CP-SM7!SIN:BORS'Li12i606 ra AC A t i LAND 5 OF HERSHOERUR' I OEED RECEPTION •.OiSfl i= 90. 06'41' 5>I •KEBAB LS-27T61REL01 /4W 06'41• PER 75 RATS III "Al- SIN'REA" L5127 No' • TLO.c ' rf l9•], _ /• N - G°0 (IRA / — I i U "o I v $�RVDYQRtr-Q71IfATT`: 'THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES TO DALE HONER PITX IN COUNTY TITLE, INC. THAT THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY TO +RICH THIS ATE IS ATTACHED. REGISTERED LICENSED L-0 SURVEYOR.PREPARED BY THE UN y,pDEICNEO A PROFESS ACTUALLY B, INST UPON THE GROUND: THE SURVEY ANO THE INFORMATION, COURS ALIMENT S DISTANCES SHO+N THEREIN INCLUDING. rJTkOUT ES AND AND YARD LINES. ARE CORRECT: THE SIZE ANO LOCATION ION. ALL SETBACX STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMMEHrS ARE AS SHOVN, FDCNy% ,*,ALL ALL BUILDINGS I ANY• I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT SAID BUILDINGS. STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS SAID PREMISES ON THIS DATE. AUGUST IB. 2000. EXCEPT UTILITY CdNFCTICNS. ARE ENTIRELY rITHIN THE BOUNOIRIES OF THE BP.RCEI. EXCEPT AS SHO+N. THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DES' MITMITPREMISES , IV ROVEAENTS ON ANY ADJOINING p ExISES. EXCEPT AS INDICATED. AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SICN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART SAID PARCEL. EzCF PT IS HOT EO- D.rEO: BY: ROBERT C. HUTTd. ,,S •F2A3t2 �I91f T�I T?�0.• I "ASK— A%P• ASP I. BASIS OF BE" INGRT TN( KING n e,_.Oo� E BE irEEN [OUM u[yRl•ENi$ AL6iC LOT I1 AS SMo_ d THAT CER fAIN •RIvERSIDC _ > _ . t,61,6 • J : \ \ \�•P I M•P SUDOIVISION BLOC[ I. 1 2• PAGE ITS' .AS TAKEN AS THE BASIS (Y PLAT DITCH BOOR BEARINGS S-O­ HERE ` ,19 xo tq BD \ •�H •nao.x f'F IR \ LM. 2- THE SURVEY SHO+N ;E,9EONIS BASED IN PAp7 DN rq REPORT. CASE N0. K712607Cc. OAT E COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSIp A-CE ED JU•E ZA. t99! Br PI ra IN COUNTY TITLE. CO. 7. iHli PROPERTY IS SUBJECT IN PART TO "IS AO ? I THE FOLLO+ING: REp THE E%GEP7I d1 LISTED IN IHE ABOVE "."ONEO TITLE CO-ITMExrl \ AI KIERV11I11 AS SET FOR in IN US PATENT RECORDED IN BOOK ITS AT PAGE 2.G• •".Ao.] ••AY c A TEAGROWS CONDITIONS' Tlti•S. PROVlildi Arq pBL IGAfIdi AS SET /ORin IN AGpEEKHT RfCdiDED OCTOBER IA. 1165 IN Bax 21f AT PAGE 1.6. y 6`).0.9 I I \ I ` CI TEAK. CONDITIONS. PROVISIdS ND 00 IGAT:04 AS SET FORTH IN DEED OF RECORDED JULY 23. 1970 IN aSI 2A9 AT PAGE 599. EASE MEHi wN •�°�0'S 1 r911. i Y 2-` P TDIE I l0' A- BENCHMARK: •0-159- IN ASPEN. PI TKIn COUNTY. AT T COURIN SE LA+N: 59 FEET NO17TN DF i ME SOUTH+EST CORNER OF THE COUNTY wC CENTERLIIIE 0 r �i • O[ uTIL tIi) "IN STREET. 47 FEET EAST OF THE. CExiERLI1E DF GALENA STREET. 63.E FEET TEST OF IN CExrEa a THE TERIRExt. RLLL r. 1`,6 I]7[PIiTIx�6t MAIx EwiRANCE i0 I. BUILD ]7.1 FEET Sg7iw+ESr Di THE DR1N1 rE BASE OF A SOLDER'S SW AND 7 FEET wCpiHEAST Dc IHE E N�RCOMCRE M I Ai Ip'F Tn3 l•EO 1.)M17. HOUSE RET AIP czar \ •. I ,' IHEE7ORC fEOBPOST,NE IRON, SUPPLEMExrApARO DISC Si AMPEO D-159 t9]•• AND SET ABOVE SEA LEVEL- ELEVAIIp. AOJUS TMENT CS 790G.G7 FEET RT a 40°7� I �• ` C_ PARCEL AREA . 14.179 SQUARE FEET OR 0.7255 ACRES [N BLX.241 W Yi I \ L °E- Dwc.•PR[rl s2T vlc[ m °> JD I Vie•'•` 'pro; -� I \ `• � IT.1 r )vl-! cR0-� D o 4 RR r \\ CEO T)IT.2- CRO EL I IN RO • t,AS � _ I • GRID 916.3 I ? U G 1 I cc GAO 0 • n - RA 1H1.7/. 11.1.0 W 196i-OGAO ..... AN 1)IL-I \Y 911.0 1V� CAC ♦w I < J J - T Ir?ter Fm �. .1 ON • 19E9. J ASP {t �T 9E,I ( (T RA L • ! •irit.T V+ .G! ro. 3>I •RE6AR l YEILI, CY •L S.)11.' SQ1fHEALT EOUNOARY K{CxMExi �,• t9)1-SRO 1�Ef_� ASP-\ 7910.6 JP I rELE KOEST•L T PAVEMENT i_ I I OCi ? 7 %ICG GRdPH7CSICAL2-'- 11 il'ENTu I IN FEET I I I—. A -M ADJACENT 2-STORY 04A4GE I IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY i` I EpEl Woa III f� ' �7 h RIVERSIDE DRI i t40'wIOE R/w)j I OF THE LANDS OF DALE HOWER AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 IN RECEPTION =422358, IN THE OFFICE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER (1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE) ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO SCALE: T' 8' DATE: AUGUST. 2000 ROBERT C. HUTTON PROFESSIONAL LANO SURVEYOR 725 CEMETERY LANE ASPEN. COLORA00 B161r (9701 SAA-9952 • »9c.. � E) _— _.EP'_-..-'-''_ JOB- 5-99 tT �_lCKL 1 IMp. S/1' NCa•a .. r(:LD. C•. '\5 /J] I �Fi' 1,D.n R[a.. 'L S)n.• .SAS. a RECii10 r <r E 4 aucE,IHEAi sueDivisiaM R•1 M.. •AGE 7]i � al D 4r/ ngf / 'tO ASPEN EDGE CONDOMINIUMS O - t,:°'` / / � (PLAT BR. 13 PAGE 601 CMi / / LOT v a BUCUMEAT - CI:m '••'1r _- ft a i . rO K .E.-msI... el Siu..EOI S •i•DS'C .. Frq !] RElAR / A s o o °+j `' ° S 2A 07 0.2 tG.rpTIa CC ° • D.20' FMO.TO .EC. "\t / _ 1` Tt / F10. aNc D.)' a — S 89.46'00" E / 128.93' r�1de - �\s/ ®�y' t t ®:as t\d6 ®`�� �t�'� ®l• �j\° :'�/- n rfe ~, +��`P I - a �" +\p / / * `z° o '_ 'ta�"z. 0 •fir • �!4 ° r. _ • / DO / p QL� •"d °r Oc• Y � As a` 65, / . T,Go. 60 / l T•.8�= T,.L•2 •` — ,•` // • �° DECA IMG s2.3' 1 / c / 71.1.7 GD Fr' / t/ \ ell 'l `td / / •GOc.7� �� VODD DECK tLEv. T)ss.2 ca / �t P*G GD . »n•7 m7$T.3 Irv. �'11f• / c'sr.ucc I -STORY w000 FRAME / tCP / / / •y�ASI� ..As. f'AY ®in).. "I RIVERSIDE ADDITION / �t•1 LrS / . cYP ' GD Y.v ILOTS 6.7.1 A 9. PORTION CIE ALLEY 6 PARK AVENUE Sp \ / i W° ° / ♦ 7)A).P 7s42.1 s Y '+ Jnsr.f A3 • 'Oo / p0 ifu.1 GD ,), a GO , TTab] , isas.! rJ1a GAGpp L C Si OME RANifR Ts1A.1 ®L'AYT Ja s'Oaa. 'r% FL.GSTOM[ .KRGO •2 i �_ ...: vY to ! •AY e i J,s, 586.3 ,• - •O T)y.7 .S. I Asp Gv Cr— Igo s 79D.3 /I ? .Ay wD I(11.1.2 ♦ iffO,T = - N 7)fO.T 7.•6 SMED 4P w0 m 1))1.0 ®11e0. A ® •AY a c•,sP c•sP A As. . T))o.T GRD . i))d.3 \ 'R000 SHED •T))0.T GO .Tfls., • •v.Lxe Go ' f ..-.' - '73"C�aw'�3r �c"ti R 21 1s100.00 - I• A1•s •As'.0•0b•7'.17• � n.17* W. tTRf v 4 ®� 7Is. r`«•. 2TQ '"z. .. uD. CAI "Ls 41 .°D • 0-:A. 6z • s° ^ �_ ° � }1' MELD FOR SOUTHERLY INK •av p� i zy)0:° �j j� Q (�L/.r j� _ A,IGI'4:.T . "'b �� YL17 R.IL`FErCE +Ci! DASTS •CIF4BEAN x •ICR !)t. 7+q\. �^ OO..O FENCE ING$ Fa'7f -T �a a rY'�.• 49•..'00• E .ER 2A h.TS 17 PoW ••iE tGpO ,r . ` T'i 7.J 'J M (� -= LOT 12, i s RIVERS(D7 DE SUB —DIVISION BLK.1 EDGElw� IOITCH 8R.ZA PAGE not LEGEND nux 73 . SANITARY SE■ER 36AMXULZ INV LIT. FLAG.ST NL INVERT „ _ r.y_ - LATERAL RL Gan, T&TER VALVE FLOVLINE •T L E• CROUND .G. .�• TLLEPNOME I,EC ELECTRICAL oVZRKLAD, LINE CAS LINE •ATER LILAC SCO SANITARY SLYER LINE "U" SANITARY SLVCR CLLANOUT EL UNDERGROUND JP EDGE Or LANDSCAPED LA►M ASP JOINT UTILITY POLE CRV ASPEN TREE t01AYCTCA • D8H1 GRAVEL UTi iTY NQm- Tn. UriI iti as axi sT iM — tM aurfac. CKO jjD — A118 ar Or.i nq MV• Dino ]--,-a by #laid ste—'. V1G-gr_d Uri 1 itl.. I_ _ _,S __ind dr. "Pa r.COrds trf tM vdr ys ut i 1 i Ty Go— i.A drld rM surv.Yti' does npr 6).lJrtb r.bP—b;Di l iry -PW #Mir Gdnp l.T.71.A.. indi Cdrad ID°ori— Q .i2.. R.COrd utility IOGOrian A —,a D. cdnaxO firuwd Dy dsing ma uttliry. I. 1 y pp tlE V.LL • • ]YIC MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zom gCommission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: James Lindt, Planner T_ RE: Rezoning of 1201 Riverside Drive- Public Hearing, Continued from May 18th DATE: June 1, 2004 APPLICANT /OWNER: Dale Hower LOCATION: 1201 Riverside Drive PARCEL ID NUMBER: 2737-181-00-024 CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential Zone District) PROPOSED ZONING: R-6 (Medium -Density Residential Zone District) SUMMARY: The Applicant requests to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District in order to construct two (2) detached residential dwelling units rather than a single-family residence on the subject property. APPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: 1201 Riverside Drive currently contains a single-famil} residence that is zoned R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive (see Exhibit `B" for vicinity map) from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium - Density Residential) Zone District in order to construct two (2) detached residential structures as is allowed in the R-6 Zone District pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.050, R-6 Medium -Density Residential Zone District. The zoning map originally showed the property as being zoned R-6, and the Applicant designed two (2) detached residential dwelling units for the property and applied for a building permit. However, during the building permit review process for the property, a neighbor contested the zoning of the subject parcel contending that the zoning map was in error and that the property was really zoned R-15 in that it had never been rezoned from the R-15 Zone District by approval of an ordinance. Subsequently, the Community Development Director issued a land use code interpretation that established that a property has to be rezoned by ordinance regardless of what the official zone district map indicates for a rezoning to be considered legal. The Applicant appealed this interpretation to City Council and City Council upheld the interpretation of the Community Development Director. After the appeal concluded, the Applicant filed a lawsuit against the City and an agreement was reached in which the Applicant was directed to file a rezoning application to rezone the property to the R-6 Zone District. REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning (Two Step Review). City Council may approve or deny an application for rezoning, after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment. STAFF COMMENTS: Rezoning: The subject property abuts land to the south that is zoned R-15 and land to the north that is zoned R-6 (please see zoning map attached as Exhibit "C"). That being the case, Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would be considered "spot zoning", which is discouraged as a method of fundamental planning. Additionally, a large portion of the subject property was not located in the original Riverside Subdivision (please see Exhibit "E" for map identifying the portion of the property that was located in the original Riverside Subdivision), which is the subdivision located to the south of the property and is zoned R-15 in it's entirety. Thus, Staff does not believe that the property has a significant historical relationship with the properties in the R-15 zoned Riverside Subdivision in terms of lot layout and characteristics. In comparing the allowable development rights between the existing and proposed zoning, Staff believes that the proposal to rezone the property will actually reduce the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) that can be constructed on the site. Under the existing R-15 Zone District requirements, the Applicant could only build a single-family residence and it would be allowed a total FAR of about 4,440 square feet. Incidentally, under the proposed R-6 zoning, the Applicant would have the ability to construct two (2) detached single-family residential units or a duplex with a total combined allowable FAR of about 4,390 square feet. Staff also feels that allowing for two (2) smaller residences to be constructed on the property instead of one large house will likely reduce the apparent mass of structures on the site. Additionally, the property is currently non -conforming in relation to it's lot size in that the property is only 14,179 square feet and the existing R-15 zoning has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The proposed rezoning would bring the lot into zoning conformance with respect to its lot size. Moreover, the proposed rezoning would not create any zoning non -conformity in relation to the existing single-family residence on the property. TRAFFIC GENERATION: Staff does believe that the development potential of the property after the proposed rezoning could allow for development that would increase the amount of traffic on Riverside Drive given that the proposed zoning would allow the Applicant to construct one more residential unit than would be allowed under the existing zoning. However, Staff believes that the 2 amount of additional traffic provided by the one additional unit allowed under the proposed zoning would be minimal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning forward a recommendation of approval to City Council on the proposed rezoning request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 14, Series of 2004, recommending that City Council approve the proposed rezoning application to allow for the property at 1201 Riverside Drive, Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, to be rezoned from the R-15 Zone District to the R-6 Zone District." Attachments: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Vicinity Map Exhibit C -- Current Zoning Map Exhibit D -- Map Indicating Subdivision Makeup of Property RESOLUTION NO. 161 (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY) ZONE DISTRICT, LOTS 6-9 AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY, BLOCK 24, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-181-00-024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Dale Hower, requesting to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the review of the rezoning request to June 1, 2004; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 1, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2004, by a to �- __) vote, recommending that City Council rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council approve the application to rezone 1201 Riverside Drive to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. .19 Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 1 st day of June, 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS REZONING FROM THE R-15 (MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE R-6 (MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. Actually, the proposed rezoning will allow for the subject parcel to be brought into conformance with zoning in relation to its minimum lot size. In addition, the proposed rezoning application will not create any zoning non -conformities with respect to the existing residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The future land use map that is included in the AACP envisions this site a residential property, by which the proposed rezoning is consistent. Additionally, Staff feels that the proposed rezoning would allow for the possibility of having two (2) smaller residences on the property as opposed to one large residence, which would likely break up the apparent mass of structures on the site as is encouraged by the residential design standards that are included in the land use code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property abuts land that is zoned both R-6 and R-15, so the proposed rezoning application would not create spot zoning. Additionally, the allowable FAR for the site would be similar regardless of whether the property is rezoned or not as was detailed in the staff memo. The allowed uses under both the existing and proposed zoning are similar in that they both are primarily intended for the development of single-family and duplex residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 6 Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant effect on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning would at most add one additional allowed residential unit to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would only allow for detached single-family or duplex residential dwelling units as is consistent with the predominant uses in the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding Staff has not identified any changed conditions in the neighborhood that would support the proposed amendment; however, the proposed rezoning would correct the existing non- conformity in relation to the property's lot size. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. In fact, the proposed rezoning application would bring the subject parcel into complete zoning compliance. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7 • APPLICANT: • • ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION Name: Location: V (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) —R — ' FPAFCFNT A TTVF Name: Address: Phone #: PROJECT: ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt. ❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development ❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Other. ❑ Lot Line Adjustment Text/Map Amendment ExiSTING CONDI IONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc. t ROPOSAL: (description of prpposed buildings, uses, modifications, et .) Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $�_ ❑ Pre -Application Conference Summary ❑ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. RETAIN FOR PERMANENT RECM CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: CITY an application for (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a det munation of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $U which is for _ hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $205.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN By: Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc 6/05/03 Date: Billing Address and Telephone Number: Required WT0 FOR P MA*_W 1W(%nW i i. RL ¢ m w i a FpPKI .5 REBAP 11OSSIBL, O,SILMB[p I� S 47•05'( 0.20' FNO.TO REC. ^ fMC 0.9, ~- a!r yBW L0, 1 BUCKn1E41 SUBDIVISION S 51•,0'20' WB2. •0. �N •H•�'E�C-0 'REBARLs]te.\6EA5.�� LE,S. A RECORD \ J'J'- aq �/ry\ J) PJ) 1 ] rN0 �' RCBAR 'i 52eiM) _ IhAl eA.e PAGE 23, 6J \D' la O'/! S ei'26 . 0. •' F.0 IO AEC }� f M10 CGANER MO.S .. S. .0.E. ••l ASS AI LAND u•.•O[tE.i �9- J f J CAI. t]5. 4\ Z'. a a' t,Ly. \(9C edR•SS JJ V}• =I ASPEN EDGE CONDOMINIUMS (PLAT � „i]•` / / BR. 13 PAGE 601 _�E\ �yT 2 �e / \ ,E . t]•zr'. 25' PER RECEPTIONOQo�,� BUCAEHEAi SUBDIVISION /L\ we]•)T 2T E PER )2 ,Ts 16, IPL=T �MO.r Na TUP +, ft.. .,cE :)I REBAM •L zf01[• 1 t�M .r n'T>• E PER )s h,TS tl l N 1YY ®1! N 89•]235 E 2,.98' o / ; & -- Nri // •, FND n RESAR o /�u,NC 1�y10 / \ +T / ', -FD .. z e]•sl •. 0.5'LFMu6T0 R C c LANOS OF HERSHBERGEW / - I � RECEPTIDN OJFb !1 RREEBAR iS2]1{ S 2E O7'E 0•:• i.p 70 � D / GI <ir the ♦ f9iD / ` 5Fe'REBMI LS•t2)T6IHEL01 _- - O o 906'Mt' PER 35 h•T$ 111 i Sat o` us -- � S 89' 46' 00" E 128.93'Et /J P.D. S(B'AEBAR- GAG GRo / /O SAP t iv0 �f--7980/ • t4tq e.'.f� ii��T•t ' a 1 r 1 J ) •Eo. •t.''r'P D. u.J a`'', •'��tsP CI. pa` LS/ -yes{ n-n..qqti: �.1. • t l ®S , yE t,.4'. ®t'. L l,ii P ®) ( i k L 9 0. r m ,n ^ ,a . - �TIO fit; tP .. fit; k )`!) J�0� , q i (90 '2'F •'] •1�!) +w'f N I m -7980- r1 t,e° -- -_ __ +.yJ '! td al O 0 S ®t t SURVrYQR'S rrRTlE`l ATr• 'THE LINGERS IONED HEREBY CERTIFIES TO DALE HOMER PITKIN COON iY TITLE. INC. THAT THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY ip WHICH Tw15 CER ryG FITE IS ATTACHED. PREPARED Bx THE UMOERS;GNED. A PROFESS ION REGISTERED LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR AS ACTUALLY MADE B UPON THE GROUNO: THE SURVEY AND THE INFORMATION, COURY INS7RUAEHT SURv Y SES "aDISTANCES SHOWN THEREIN. INCLUDING. WITHOUT LIMITATION AND TAgO LINES. ARE CORRECT: THE SIZE ALL SETBACK AND LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS. STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE AS SHOWN. IF ANY'. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT SAID BUILDINGS. STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS ON SAID PREMISES ON THIS DATE. AUGUST IS. 2000. Ex CEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS. ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF TH EXCEPT AS SHOWN. THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACH NT E PARCEL. PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY AOJol NING Pp M S UPON THE DESCRIBED INDICATED. AND THAT THERE E ISES• EXCEPT FAS HE E IS NO APPAART EVIDENCE OR SIGH lK ANY EASE DENT [gpSSI„[ OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL. EXCEPT AS NOTED. DATED: BY: ROBERT C. HUTTON. PLS .2,312 ,T.#. . t 01 "- +, DO 1�•� P• - -- `- - tom-_= �Fc- - >_ - �_ T-�i9Ar,S 4 `' T' _ k `� T Tj- NOTES : 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARING N 119••.' �• 1•ASPQ �l]e2• L /7� .T]S)-� ++e (�J E%iT•ASOrI _ -- -S'•s� �� .�10 r9sn.♦ +s•' ' I TNC NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 11 AS SHOWN ON IN•E CER in EN NOP p p'ENTS •LONG 1 E SUBOIVISId BLOCK 1• (PLAT DITCH 900R Z. PAGE 1791 WAS TAKEN oo• .� ®T]i� •ni•.i J'S! \� .wj4 ,� ) tJ�'r + ASIDE AS THE BASIS OF 2. THE SURVEY BE RINGS SHOWN MERE d. E SHOWN +T�Sa� f0.65'� H01 TUB ebb 4 ♦ i� �_ y 4 a ) ° �� �_- ifel,5 \ Tp[ 9B0 \y e'r e 19.0.2 \ 6-FIR I HEREON IS BASED IN PART d TNC COMAMI TIENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE REPORT. CASE N0. PCTIIB09C6. DATED Jl1NE 2,. 1998 Br PITR IN [QJNiT TITLE CO PROPER IS SUBJECT IN PART TO 7 F /' i]e5• / ,T 9 �:~ ,60� \(,)! a°PQ 10� t�����CCCC(C'1'o'�� IAS PERSTHE EX[EPTION$ LISTED IN THE 1BOVE MENTIONEDGTITLE COMMITMENT, AI RESERVATIONS AS SET FpRiH IN US PATENT . // DECKING -,,ES I •.9e0.] F\ (• I REGORGED IN BWa 1T5 •T PAGE 2.6. TERM$. CTOBE ORS. 52.3, ASP �\ PAOVISIONS A20 OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH 'IN AGREEMENT RE RECORDED OC iOBEA 1965 IN BDOR 2t6 Ai PAGE t•9. •.~ • Ties. / +� M e `i. f ti )f \ t I RE TERMS. ComOITI",i PRDv I SI O'S AND DBL IGAIIORS AS SET FORTw IN DEED RECORDED JULY 23. 1910 IN BOOK 2,9 At PAGE 599. OF EASEMENT 1R]'` tad / • TGRIDisl.'1 • )]ei.2 °R0 / / GRO �/ O WEv DECK CL[r . 19R6.7 Y I •p¢ ! 1 •?'0-3 TOE,. k v i.�• T� !7 ^ I R, BENCHMARK: '0-159' IN ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY. AT iN[ $GUIH-EST CORNER OF T COUR iNpUSE LAWN: 59 FEET NORTH lY T HE COUNTY •'�U''n ••Av cWoi HOC` �� �u 6.� J l0' W D[ ur lL l�Y 1J76vLiTSM161 CENTERLINE OF GALENA STREET. 65.8 FEEET WESTOrTHE CENTER OF STREET. THE W,NF ENTRANCE TO THE BUILD ]3-T FEET SOUTHWEST OF THE GRANITE BASE OF A SOLDER'S `GNuzENT. ANp ] FEET .. SIN W O TJ. , +Get) of tMt$r6D M'L ip(2. i at�6c � I NORTHEAST ly THE THEEfOP`pF AACONCRE iEORPp$TMTATHER960E SUPPLEMENT�pARp 01 SC 51 A6PE0 0-159 1974' AND SET ELEVATION / SPRUCE 1-STORY MOOD FRAME HOUSE tAtHt�'! e ABOVE SEA LEVEL. AOJUS76ENt IS 7906.67 FEET '1)ef.5/ 1 ,eAv5 oTie� �SPo� w ry0ef 410 , W0 � S'"° 'i Ti6R 1 ®Tf19 0 \ RIVERSIDE ADDITION ` � l _ I\ -- PARCEL AREA - 14.179 : SOUARE FEET OR 0.3255 ACRES W I \ .asp° GRO T••SP ')\ ,LOTS 6.7.8 A 9. PORTION OF ALLEY d PARK AVENUE IN SLK.241 - z • .]ee.3 7]ef.I \ 'ASP 6ie•Av t� zf°r. nu x v+ vet Y. ' II / . ee•1SP.B 19.e�f •!1 J+l)e 1.1 • A3.19• s5'0Li 1fe2.5 / O=pb0 -r�R. e./1+7fee.] �1~9- W1aiRO 3T/ ♦ •APRON TprML( ♦ 9 11LSk] TfIT i1)'ASP COE•';;`4L..S �B. J'+ )F1aJ't�sS.OPSTAONNC t , / ) VT NQ0O0_; / aBMx IN INY. LAY. W.V. GGED, •Tc- A E- • -W- -gS_ SCO EL JP ASP GRV 1x: OCT 17 u000 A:..' GRAPH'7c sCAeE- 'ENT I I IN FEET I LEGEND SANITARY BLWER MANHOLE__ IMPROVEMENT 8 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FLAGSTONE • ADJACENT 2-STORY GARAGE INVERTTLATERAL - a,� WATER VALVE ►LINE cROUnoulrD TELEPHONE 6 ELECTRICAL IOVERHEADI LINE GAS LINE WATER LINE SANITARY SEVER LINL SANITARY SLWER CLLAMOUT UMOERCROUND EDGE OP LANDSCAPED LAWN JOINT UTILITY POLE ASPEN TREE IDIAMETER a DBHI GRAVEL UTiI IVY NOTE• TM uti l TIT ee .... I!RG On the yyrf°C1 Geld Sr,_ Or1 tniS dOrinO NCV6 Daen i-.,.d ty field Wvey. All Mrvw DrgM,d Ut i I i t an 3,IGI_ CT, fn; 0 W °v i r1D We frcel rocGrde Of the Vdri GLIB utility COrtpOni s3 anO the WvaYOr Ooaa r,01 Oesurtly re3D°nSi Ditity fdr their Cdrp IOTeD131. inQi COted GCdtldn. Q Size. ReM,rq utility IOCOtIOn S"`Ula O1 Cwfi wd DY 11O inn the utility. v. RII TIE WALL Ti]7.1 �Zp� El WOW EP 29 1 1- P. P. I� ' rJ I: VERS I DE DR IN ° - (40'WIDE Raw) j I t OF THE LANDS OF DALE HOWER AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 24. 1998 IN RECEPTION =422358, IN THE OFFICE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER (1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE) ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO SCALE: 1' = 8' DATE: AUGUST. 2000 ROBERT C. HUTTON PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR 725 CEMETERY LANE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 19701 eGBraNBi R.. __ _ - JOB= 5-913 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: '� V !�, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, S V (name, please print) being'& representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days pri r to le public hearing and was continuously visible from theme day of 200 1-� , to and including the date and time of the public he 'ng. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) • • Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. �kature( The for going "Affidavit of Notic " was acknowledged 1)efore me this day of , 200y, by L/AJCor • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1201 RIVER':,, - DRIVE REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on May 18, 2004 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zon- ing Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, to consider an application sub- mitted by Dale Hower requesting approval to re- zone the properly located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R6 (Medium.Density Resi- dential) Zone District The subject property Is le- gally described as Lots i9 and a portion of the al- ley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further Information contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development De- partment, 130 South Gal,&a St., Aspen, CO (970) 9205095. jamesl6cl.aspen-co.us s/Jasmine Tygre, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published In The Aspen Times on May 1, 2004. (1461) WITNESS MV� RY PU :............ My fii.�Pssion e ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION AND OFFICIAL SEAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL IJU bOUTH UALENA!)TREET ASPEN, COLORADo 81611-1975 :7 TO SENDER MIT BELIVER.Ut- ;-7S IRIMSSSEV PHLIENIX., .7Z COCR F61 I'Lz7..--'t75 07, 00 RK ASPEN LLC 4882 W ROOSEVELT PHOENIX, AZ 85043 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on May 18, 2004 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, to consider an application submitted by Dale Hower requesting approval to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. The subject property is legally described as Lots 6-9 and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. jamesl(a),ci.aspen.co.us S/Jasmine Tygre, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 1, 2004 City of Aspen Account BROWN IRVING M & BARBARO SANDLER ELLEN RES TRUST • CITY OF ASPEN J 104 MIDLAND AVE 130 S GALENA ST 2600 ISLAND BLVD APT 706 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 AVENTURA, FL 33160 CHURCHILL AUDREY LEE CITY OF ASPEN CAVE DERYK TRUSTEE TRST 130 S GALENA ST PO BOX 11674 621 1/2 CARNATION AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625- 2018 COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA LOCKWOOD DAVID C MINTZ MENACHEM MENDEL & PO BOX 272409 PO BOX 1936 LIEBA FT COLLINS, CO 80527-2409 ASPEN, CO 81612 104 ROBINSON DR ASPEN, CO 81611 WISH JERROLD A DEROSE JAMES F & MAUREEN RIESSEN MICHAEL TRUST 245 NORTH COCONUT LANE C 1/3 313 LACET CT MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 439 N WELLS 2ND FLOOR ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60610 RICHARD PAUL & DONALD 1707 COLUMBIA RD NW #519 WASHINGTON, DC 20009 ORR ROBERT L FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LLLP 500 PATTERSON RD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 LUU TONY PO BOX 795 ASPEN, CO 81612 FOWLER MARK C FOWLER PEMILA L - JT TENANTS PO BOX 11060 ASPEN, CO 81612 GREGORICH EDWARD P PO BOX 142 ASPEN, CO 81612 MASON CHRISTOPHER P 144 NAVAJO CARBONDALE, CO 81623 POWER MATTHE A R 101 LACET CT 102 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BARNHART NORMAN F 103 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611-2144 BAXTER KAREN P0BOX 3441 BASALT, CO 81621-3441 LOB DE LIEUNEUVE NICOLAS E PO BOX 2961 ASPEN, CO 81612 MOHWINKEL CLIFF 2363 PEACHTREE LN SAN JOSE, CA 95128 PIEPHO KARL W PO BOX 2195 KIHEI, HA 96753 MERZBACH NINA PO BOX 3465 ASPEN, CO 81612 SANDLER LIVING TRUST 8/5/99 201 S BURLINGAME AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 ITTNER ROBERT A JR & YEAGER JAMES W ANTONIDES JAMES A ROBERT A SR 1220 SNOWBUNNY LN PO BOX 67 PO BOX 8965 ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81612-8965 JOHNSTONE KYLE • SPECK BRIAN D PO BOX 7728 205 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 BEACH CATHERINE A SUTHREN MARTIN T PO BOX 8432 312 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCDONALD MAUREEN TULLAR CHRISTOPHER J 207 LACET CT 208 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOWER DALE LEATHERBURY JOAN 1024 E HOPKINS # 17 PO BOX 1420 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 TARNA GARY WINNERMAN LAWRENCE J & C/O JIM KOHN ESQ LORRIE B 10940 WILSHIRE BLVD #1500 570 SO RIVERSIDE AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 ASPEN, CO 81611 KELLEHER DOROTHY OATES CHERIE G PO BOX 1 1205 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SOUTHLAND CORP POLE POSITION LTD LA MOTTE CHAMBERS LA MOTTE CHAMBERS ST HELIER JERSEY ST 14ELIER JERSEY CHANNEL ISLANDS JE1 IBJ, CHANNEL ISLANDS, JE1 1BJ RK ASPEN LLC 4882 W ROOSEVELT PHOENIX, AZ 85043 STONE FOWLER P III & RUTH D JONES JUDITH G TRUST 611 FRED LN 1230 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROBINSON ELLIOTT & GRETCHEN 1245 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 • JIMENEZ LETITIA M 206 LACET CT ASPEN, CO 81611 MARCUS JEFFREY A & NANCY C C/O MARCUS CABLE 300 CRESCENT CT STE 1350 DALLAS, TX 75201 ALLEN DOUGLAS P 520 E COOPER AVE STE 230 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 0401 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 C W TRUST C/O ZUKER 406 LACET LN ASPEN, CO 81611-2101 STOFFEL PAUL T & GAYLE 6117 WESTWICK DALLAS, TX 75209 SEFTON FAMILY TRUST 2550 FIFTH AVE STE 808 SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 WALKER CHARLES F 2320 CEDAR ELM TER WESTLAKE, TX 76262-9030 MASON WILLIAM C C/O WALLS GERTA PO BOX 406 ASPEN, CO 81612 POLLOCK PERRY H PO BOX 950 ASPEN, CO 81612 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on May 18, 2004 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, to consider an application submitted by Dale Hower requesting approval to rezone the property located at 1201 Riverside Drive from the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District to the R-6 (Medium -Density Residential) Zone District. The subject property is legally described as Lots 6-9 and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information contact James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. .jameslAci.aspen.co.us S/Jasmine T_ygre, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 1, 2004 City of Aspen Account 0 0 0 0 • • 1201 Riverside Drive FAR Comparision Address Existing FAR 1215 Riverside Drive 2,290 SF 1225 Riverside Drive 3,204 SF 1235 Riverside Drive 2,854 SF 1240 Riverside Drive 4,132 SF 407 Lacet Lane 3,252 SF 411 Lacet Lane 3,424 SF 415 Lacet Lane 3,600 SF 0 Regular Meeting • ks pen Cite Council June 242002 clerk in Lakewood, Colorado, for 10 years and who has conducted at least 6 other protest hearings in cities around the state. Councilman Semrau moved to approve the appointment of Karen Goldman as protest hearing officer•, seconded by Councilman McCabe. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Paulson. Motion carried. APPEAL OF DALE HOWER FROM A ZONE DISTRICT INTERPRETATION John Worcester, city attorney, told Council this code appeal is from an interpretation he authored, which was signed by the community development director. Worcester has engaged Torn Smith to act as counsel to the Council. Worcester will be acting as a proponent of the code interpretation on behalf of staff. Mayor Klanderud noted she lives on Riverside Drive and did go to view this property. Mayor Klanderud said she is not sure whether she was in office at the time or not. Mayor Klanderud asked the appellant if she would like the Mayor to recuse herself. Cindy Tester, representing Ms. Hower, said they would like the Mayor to sit. Mayor Klanderud submitted a letter from Lome Winnerman. Torn Smith, counsel, said this appeal is a letter from Dale Hower, dated April 26, 2002, including attachments. Smith said the procedures for this appeal come from the Municipal Code, 26.306, Interpretations of Title. There was an initial decision on the zoning of this property October 26, 2000, which was confirmed November 22, 2000. There was an appeal filed by Cherie Oates November 27, 2000, from the determination that R-6 zoning applied to this property. Smith noted this appeal was scheduled before Council in December 2000, and it was continued indefinitely for mediation. Smith said in December 2000, a copy of a zoning map was presented as evidence. Smith said mediation did not work and the city received a letter from Ms. Hower. Smith told Council this appeal hearing is based on the record. Cindy Tester, attorney for Dale Hower, pointed out Ms. Hower's letter of April 22, 2002, requested Council reverse the zoning interpretation submitted by staff because of a denial of due process, because staff exceeded its jurisdiction and because there has been an abuse of discretion. Ms. Hower further requests Worcester's memorandum of April 8, 2002) be expunged from the record as it was not properly submitted to the City 11 Regular Meetin • Aspen CitN, • Council June 24, 2002 Council and that it has prejudiced the City Council. Ms. Tester requested Council rely on the initial zoning interpretation drafted by Julie Ann Woods October 26, 2000 and reaffirmed November 18, 2000. Ms. Tester agreed the standards for this proceeding is 26.306,010, which indicate that the community development department shall maintain an official record of all interpretations of the zoning code. If someone questions their zoning, they ask for a zoning interpretation from community development department. Ms. Hower met with Julie Ann Woods and Fred Jarman and a zoning interpretation was tendered. The staff looked at the zoning maps of 1963, 1967, through 2000, and issued a decision that Ms. Hower's property was zoned R-6. Ms. Tester cited 26.316.030(a) that an individual has 14 days to object to any zoning interpretation. Ms. Tester stated there has been no appeal of the October 26, 2000, zoning interpretation. If an appeal was not made, the Council does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this issue. Following the October 26, 2000, memorandum written by the planning department, a zoning interpretation was requested by the adjacent landowner, Cherie Oates, who requested an interpretation of the zoning district on November 8, 2000. On November 22, 2000, Ms. Oates was given the answer that this is R-6 zoning, which allows for duplexes. There was an appeal filed by the Oates November 27. Ms. Oates found documents in the newspaper archives showing the zoning as R-15. This occurred after Ms. Hower had been told twice in writing that she had R-6 zoning. December 18, 2000, the appeal filed by the Oates was in front of Council and was continued to try and resolve this through mediation. Ms. Tester pointed out there were at least 3 ordinances passed in the last 10 years that would have repealed and reenacted the zoning and would have reaffirmed R-6 zoning on Ms. Hower's property. These ordinances are #5, 1988; #15, 1988, and #10, 1999. Ms. Tester noted according to the appeal procedure, 26.316.030, the decision making body authorized to hear the appeal shall follow the general hearing procedures set forth in 26.304.060(c). Ms. Tester said that section indicates any person may appear at a public hearing and submit evidence. Ms. Tester said if Council allows anyone other than herself to speak, then everyone 12 0 Rep,ular Meeting .-aspen City Council June 24 2002 should be allowed to speak. Mayor Klanderud said Council should hear only from people who have a specific interest in this parcel. Ms. Tester reiterated this is a moot issue; there was never an appeal filed and Ms. Hower has vested rights when no appeal was filed within 14 days. Ms. Tester said Ms. Hower was told both orally and in writing by city staff that she had R-6 zoning. There is case law supporting Ms. Hower's position. An individual has the right to rely on the statements made to them by staff when the statements are within staff s authority. Ms. Tester said the Oates found an old zoning map in the archives; however, one cannot be expected to go through archives to find out what the zoning is on their property. Ms. Tester said people need to be able to rely, as a matter of policy, on what the city tells them. Ms. Tester asked Council to look at both the procedural and substantive standpoint as well as a fairness standpoint. Worcester stated the issue before Council is what is the proper zoning for this parcel, which is what his memorandum on the code interpretation addresses. Worcester noted he does not typically write code interpretations. The people who work with the codes on a daily basis should do these. The community development department wrote the October and November 2000 memoranda. Worcester told Council the parties met in mediation and spent almost a year trying to get to a resolution. The appeal in December was from the Oates. Before that appeal was held staff changed their mind. Worcester said after the staff changed their mind because of new evidence, there was no incentive from the Oates to pursue the appeal. Worcester said he heard from Ms. Hower's attorney that he should write a code interpretation so that Ms. Hower could appeal that. Worcester said he wrote that interpretation so that the issue could get before Council. Worcester told Council the community development director read and signed off on his interpretation. Worcester reminded Council the original interpretation was that the property should be R-6. The community development department had maps going back to the original annexation. Staff had the original annexing and zoning ordinance; however, the map could not be found. When the original code interpretation was issued, staff only had the old zoning maps. Worcester showed Council where the Hower property is located and where the Oates house is. Worcester presented city of Aspen zoning maps from April 1967 to 1968 showing the Hower property is in an R-15 zone district. The next exhibit 13 0 Rea,ular Meeting Aspen Citv Council June 24, 2002 shows the property from 1963 to 1974 was zoned R-15. The 1975 zoning map shows the zoning for this parcel was also R-15 and this exhibit has a dark line running through the Hower property. Worcester said he feels this is where the error was made. Worcester said this official zone district map shows the zone cutting through the middle of the property, part of it is R-6 and part of it is R-15. Worcester presented a later zone district map showing this parcel to be both R-15 and R-6. When the GIS maps were created, staff used the most current zoning map and continued dividing the property by two -zone districts. Worcester said exhibit 2 was attached to the original rezoning when this property was first annexed into the city and shows the property to be R-15. Worcester told Council when the appeal was brought before them in December of 2000, staff had just seen the original map. This was the first time staff could determine what legislative action Council took to zone the property. Worcester said there is no evidence in the city records that this property was zoned anything other than R-15 from the original map. All the early zoning maps show R-15. Worcester agreed the code states the zoning map is the official zoning of a property; however, the city code also states the only way properties can be rezoned is through a process by which the entire city has notice, including the neighbors. Worcester said this property was not rezoned through an official process. Worcester stated the proper zone for this property is the initial zoning, R-15. Worcester noted counsel for Ms. Hower has made an argument for equitable estoppel, if a person relies upon advice given by a staff member, they ought to be able to rely on that information. Worcester said this is a court created equitable relief and Ms. Hower may be entitled to that. Worcester stated Council is not the body to grant that relief. The only decision Council can make is what is the proper zoning for this particular parcel of land. Worcester agreed with counsel that people should be able to rely on the process. The city's land use code sets forth a process, which requires someone to go through a lengthy process to rezone property. A mistake by city staff ought not to be held to be the same as that process. Councilman Hershey agreed the city ought not to abort the required zoning process for a mistake made by a city staff member. Ms. Tester said this is not a rezoning issue; it is an estoppel issue and an equitable issue. Individuals should not have to worry about mistakes made by sticky tape on a zoning map. Councilman Hershey noted the neighbors 14 0 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 24, 2002 rely on what the zoning is and they have not had a chance to comment on this issue through the public hearing process. Ms. Tester pointed out there were letters and conversations between Ms. Hower and staff on the zoning of this property. Mayor Klanderud asked if Ms. Tester agreed that the estoppel issue is a Court issue. Ms. Tester said she does not agree as that would deprive the City Council of the ability to decide constitutional issues and to decide issues of due process, and to insure people are treated fairly and justly. Ms. Tester pointed out the city's code states the community development department will render an opinion on zoning interpretations, not the city attorney. This is an example of exceeding jurisdiction. Mayor Klanderud said Council often receives. memoranda from the city attorney on his opinion about various city matters. Julie Ann Woods, community development department, said she signed the memorandum referred to and agrees with what Worcester has told Council. Councilman Hershey reiterated the city code has a system for zoning and rezoning. Residents, neighbors, real estate agents, developers all rely on that. When property is zoned there has to be a public hearing, there has to be notice in newspapers, there are two appearances before Council on zoning or rezoning. Councilman Hershey said granting what Ms. Hower wants would be short-circuiting the process. Councilman Semrau asked how much reliance a citizen can have on written communication on zoning from the staff. Worcester said staff has struggled with this, has recognized an error was made, and has attempted to be fair to Ms. Hower and to the affected neighbors. Worcester said a Court may say there is no reliance until a building permit is issued. A building permit was not issued in this case. Worcester said the issue before Council is what is the proper zoning for this parcel today. Councilman Semrau said generally people rely on the zoning officer before purchasing property. Worcester answered there is no evidence in this record to indicate Ms. Hower relied on anything staff said prior to purchasing the property. Smith stated the record before Council is incomplete to make a determination whether equitable estoppel should apply. Smith reminded Council they are looking at an appeal from a decision made by staff and the only staff decision was interpreting the code, not on dealing with equitable estoppel. 15 0 Reuular Meeting Aspen City Council June 24 2002 Mayor Klanderud said she chooses not to open this to public comment as Council is sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Mayor Klanderud said Council is deciding upon the record and if there were any additional evidence, this should have been in the record. Ms. Tester noted the city's code 26,304.060 (c), general hearing procedures would allow comments from the public. Mayor Klanderud said this is not mandatory. Councilman Paulson said he would like to continue this until any missing evidence is part of the record. Councilman Paulson moved to hear public on this issue. Motion DIES for lack of a second. Ms. Tester said it was her understanding in 26.304.060 that all public would have a right to speak. Smith told Council he said there would not be testimony; the hearing was for the purpose of summarizing the facts of record. Ms. Tester told Council there is a provision in the city's code that to the extent there night be additional information, there can be an offer of proof made to Council to decide whether they want to receive that information. Smith pointed out the appeal by Cherie Oates was made November 27, 2000, on a November 22, 2000 decision. This matter was continued and not resolved. Councilman Hershey moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilman McCabe. All in favor, motion carried. Smith said there have not been vested rights. Vested rights means a building permit was issued for approval of construction. Under Colorado law, one does not get vested rights without getting a building permit or a site specific development plan approval. The appropriate motion would be to confirm or to reject the interpretation of the applicable zoning as reflected in the April 86 memorandum and whether or not to grant relief based on the issue of equitable estoppel. Councilman Hershey said people have a right to rely on what staff tells them; however, the equity relates to everyone, not just the appellant. Councilman Hershey said if Council were to grant relief, they would be thumbing their nose at the entire zoning code and procedures on which the community relies. Councilman Hershey said he would support affirming 16 Re litar �eeting • Aspen City Council June 24, 2002 staff s decision that the property is zoned R-15 and rejected relief for equitable estoppel. Councilman Hershey moved to affirm the city staffs decision that this is R- 15 and to reject their relief for equitable estoppel by changing the zoning to R-6; seconded by Councilman McCabe. Councilman Semrau noted the city's code states the zoning map is the zoning; it also states zoning is done by ordinance. The planners tell citizens what the zoning is. At some point, there has to be reliance on the city. Mayor Klanderud said one key issue to her is that this conflict was known as early as December 2000, when it went to mediation. Councilman Semrau said it is unfathomable to expect citizens to go back and check zoning maps. Worcester agreed with these concerns; however, there is a remedy through the courts or submitting to the city request for damages. Worcester reiterated the question before Council is what is the proper zoning. Councilman Hershey said given the city code, this property is properly zoned R-15. Councilman McCabe said this is very difficult because there are conflicting standards, the zoning map and requirement for ordinances. Councilman McCabe said based on the narrow interpretation, he would have to support R-15 zoning. Councilman Semrau said this is too narrow of an interpretation and he would support a more broad interpretation. Smith said the basic rules of statutory construction is that Council needs to look at the provisions in their code as a whole and an effort should be made not to view them as inconsistent but to harmonize them as much as possible. Council should view these two positions, the requirement of an ordinance to enact zoning changes versus the zoning map, and make an effort to give them both meaning and try and make them compatible. If it is not possible, Council should decide how the underlying intent of Aspen's land use regulations is best served by honoring one over the other. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Semrau, no; Hershey, yes; Paulson, no; McCabe, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. APPEAL OF POPSICLE VENDING 17 • • SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE (the "Release") is entered into this day of November, 2004, by and among Cherie G. Oates, Leonard M. Oates, Dale Hower, and the City of Aspen and the City Council of the City of Aspen ("City"). Each of the individuals and entities listed in the preceding sentence is a "Party" and collectively they are the "Parties." Whereas, Dale Hower ("Hower") owns improved real property within the City with a legal description of Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 24, Riverside Addition and an adjacent parcel described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of Lot 11, Block 1, RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION, City of Aspen; thence North 0 16' West 100 feet, more or less, to the Northeasterly corner of Lot 6, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City of Aspen; thence North 89 44' East 25.00 feet; thence South 0 16' East 100.00 feet; thence South 89 44' West 25 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2500 square feet more or less. with a street address of 1201 Riverside Drive ("Hower Lot") and Hower has sought approval from the City to construct a new duplex type residential structure and an accessory dwelling unit as hereinafter defined on the Hower Lot and in accord with the codes in effect on September 1, 2000. Whereas, Cherie G. Oates ("Oates" in the singular or collectively with Leonard M. Oates where the context requires) owns adjoining improved real property to Hower's property within the City with a legal description of Lot 11, Riverside Subdivision and an adjacent parcel described by metes and bounds as follows: All that portion of Riverside Subdivision shown and delineated as Park Avenue lying Easterly of Lot 11, RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION, and being described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 11 of said Riverside Subdivision; thence North 00 16' West along the Easterly line of said Lot 11, 112 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot, thence North 89 44' East 25 feet more or less to the East boundary line of said Riverside Subdivision; thence South 00 16' East along said Easterly boundary line 112 feet; thence South 89 44' West 25 feet more or less to the point of beginning. and a street address of 1205 Riverside Drive (the Oates' Lot); 1 Whereas, the driveway and access to the Hower Lot crosses the Oates Lot, pursuant to an easement (the "Present Access Easement") and the Oates use the Present Access Easement over the Oates Lot as well to access their home and detached garage; Whereas, Oates and Hower have a dispute over the scope of the Present Access Easement and Hower's ability to utilize the Present Access Easement for access to a duplex structure; Whereas, Hower and the City have disputed the proper zoning of the Hower Lot and Hower has brought suit against the City in Case Number 02 CV 138 in the District Court for Pitkin County (the "Action") as a result of this dispute; Whereas, Cherie G. Oates has intervened in the Action: Whereas, Oates is desirous of relocating her detached garage, and relocating the Present Access Easement; Whereas, the parties desire to resolve the Action and their disputes over zoning, the access to the Hower Lot and Oates' garage relocation; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree to the following: 1. Release. The Parties hereby voluntarily and knowingly forever mutually release, discharge and relinquish any and all rights, claims, demands and causes of action, whether in law or in equity, which they, their officers, directors, employees, employers, partners, principals, agents, shareholders, trustees, heirs, personal representatives, successors, subrogees, subsidiaries, affiliates, related corporations, guardians, conservators, attorneys, insurance carriers, and assigns ever had, now have, or may claim to have, against any other Party, or that Party's past and present officers, directors, employees, employers, partners, principals, agents, shareholders, trustees, heirs, personal representatives, successors, subrogees, subsidiaries, affiliates, related corporations, guardians, conservators, attorneys, insurance carriers, and assigns, related to the facts alleged in the Action, including but not limited to any claims for promissory estoppel, promissory estoppel, common law vesting, state or federal constitutional violations whether asserted under 42 U.S,C, § 1983 or under any other right and claims for attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or any other law or statute. 2. Warranty of Capacity to Execute Agreement. The parties represent and warrant that no other person or entity has or has had any interest to the claims, demands, obligations or causes of action referred to in this Release, and that the parties have the sole rights and exclusive authority to execute this Release, and that they are not sold, assigned, transferred, conveyed or otherwise disposed of any of the claims, demands, obligations or causes of action referred to in this Release. In the event a third party seeks to assert claims under a transferred or 2 subrogated interest, the transferring or subrogated party will defend and hold harmless the other for any such claims. 3. Mistake. The parties expressly assume all risks that this Release was a result of any mistake of any kind, waiving all claims or defenses based upon the doctrine of mistake. This Release shall act as an accord and satisfaction with respect to the parties and all claims designated herein. The Parties further agree that no fact, event, evidence, circumstance or transaction relating directly or indirectly to the disputes between and among the Parties, or which may hereafter be discovered, shall affect in any manner the final and unconditional nature of this Release. 4. Dismissal of the Action. Upon execution of the Release and obtaining rezoning approval as described below, the parties agree to execute a stipulation to dismiss the Action with prejudice, with each party to pay its own fees and costs. 5. Interpretation. This Release shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Any dispute arising out of this Release shall be brought in Pitkin County, Colorado. It is intended that this Release be construed in the broadest possible manner in accordance with the Parties' express intention that all disputes between and among them hereby be forever resolved. In any case or controversy arising out of this Release, the prevailing party in such dispute shall be awarded its reasonable attorney fees and costs. 6. Consultation with Counsel. The Parties hereby represent to each of the other Parties that they have determined that the settlement of the above -referenced dispute between and among the Parties is fair and reasonable under the circumstances and that this determination has been based solely upon their independent judgment after consulting with counsel and further that, in making this determination, they have had an adequate opportunity to discuss and assess the merits of their claims, potential claims and defenses with legal counsel. 7. Rezoning from R-15 to R-6, Applicability of Aspen City Code in effect in 2000, and Accessory Dwelling Units. The Parties agree that as a condition precedent to all of the obligations and requirements of this Release, Hower must obtain rezoning approval from the City to change the current zoning of the property from R-15 to R-6. The parties acknowledge that the decision to rezone is purely discretionary with the City and that the City makes no representations as to the outcome of the rezoning process, yet this is a condition precedent to this release and any full and final settlement of the Action. Hower agrees to submit a rezoning application to the City. The City agrees that its staff will assist Hower in preparing this application and will waive all application fees associated with a rezoning application. In addition, the City agrees to put the rezoning request on its priority calendar to expedite a rezoning decision. Oates agrees that they will not object to the rezoning request in any fashion, nor will Oates or anyone acting in concert with or in participation with Oates object to Hower's rezoning request in any fashion. And further provided, the City agrees and acknowledges that 3 Hower is entitled to have the benefit of the City of Aspen Land Use Code (including the building and housing code) provisions as they existed on September 1, 2000 applied to the rezoning application and/or building permit applications. This includes, but is not limited to, Hower's right to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit below grade and attached to the primary residence and an exemption from the floor area ratio ("FAR") calculations for the Accessory Dwelling Unit. The parties acknowledge that nothing in the foregoing paragraph shall entitle Hower to a waiver of any applicable zoning or building code requirement of the City. 8. Access Easement, Driveway, and Garage Relocation. As consideration for the Release contained herein, the Parties agree to the following with respect to the common driveway, Present Access Easement and garage relocation: A. Hower will, at her sole expense, relocate the common driveway across the Oates' property with a driveway running generally parallel and adjacent to the Oates' eastern boundary (i.e: common with the Lacet boundary) (the "New Shared Driveway"). The New Shared Driveway will be used solely for the purposes of ingress, egress, and underground water, gas, telephone/telecom, CATV and electrical utility service to the Hower and Oates properties. No parking, standing or stopping of vehicles or storage of personal property shall be permitted on the New Shared Driveway. B. The proposed location of the New Shared Driveway will be staked for the parties' review and agreement, based on the conceptual drawing attached hereto as Exhibit A. The New Shared Driveway and access to the Oates' relocated garage will be surfaced by Hower, at her sole expense, with a standard chipseal compound, but no further improvement to its character, such as berming or curbs, will be installed unless each party consents. The foregoing shall not prevent either party from replacing the chipseal surface with asphault or concrete or the installation of snowmelt. Hower will relocate underground utilities, such as water, cable, electrical lines, as applicable within the New Shared Driveway boundary. Oates shall be entitled to access to and use of such lines. C. The as -built location of the New Shared Driveway will be surveyed and incorporated into a recorded non-exclusive easement agreement. The easement agreement will also include the maintenance responsibilities of Hower and Oates with respect to the New Shared Driveway. Maintenance expenses shall be divided on 60% Hower and 40% Oates basis. The easement will be a perpetual, non-exclusive easement twelve feet in width limited for use by the Hower Property to two (2) single family dwellings plus one (1) ADU (as defined in City's Land Use Code as in effect on September 1, 2000) on the Hower Lot. Hower shall have no right to use the access spur off of the New Shared Driveway to the Oates relocated garage for any purpose whatsoever. The easement will constitute a burden upon the Oates Lot and a benefit to the Hower Lot and will constitute a covenant running with the land. Oates shall have no right to access the Hower property and, except as provided herein, Hower shall have no right to access the Oates Lot. The form of easement to be recorded is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Oates 4 Lot shall be entitled to all benefits of the area burdened by the New Shared Driveway not precluded thereby and which do not unreasonably interfere therewith. D. Once the location and contractors are selected, the parties agree not to interfere with the progress of the work. All work shall, however, be performed in a good and workmanlike manner in compliance with building code requirements to the Oates' reasonable satisfaction, the intention being that the Oates' relocated garage and open access thereto and New Shared Driveway be turnkey, except for landscaping. Subject to availability at the time of construction, the parties have agreed on the following contractors: Stutsman-Gerbaz, Bailey House Moving and K&W Concrete; however, nothing contained herein shall prevent the parties from mutually agreeing on other contractors in writing. Hower assumes all risks associated with the relocation of the garage. E. Contemporaneously with the granting of the new easement for the New Shared Driveway, all existing easements, rights -of -way and common driveways for access across the Oates' Lot to the Hower Lot, whether of record or not and/or whether written or oral, will be vacated and all agreements relating thereto terminated. F. No structures will be placed on the New Shared Driveway easement, no lighting will be placed on the common driveway easement by Hower and the easement will not be lit by Hower from outside the easement. G. Oates will be physically and fiscally responsible for revegetating the Present Access Easement. H. Hower will permit and relocate the Oates existing detached garage such that the garage door entrance faces generally south and the new access spur thereto from the shared driveway, and assume all risks associated therewith. Hower will pay for the moving and temporary on -site storage of personal property within the garage during this construction. Hower will require that the moving and storage contractor maintain adequate liability insurance for Oates garage contents and shall arrange that Hower and Oates be named insured thereon. Hower will not object to the creation of an apartment above the Oates' relocated garage so long as it is deed restricted. The relocation of the Oates' Garage and construction of the New Shared Driveway shall occur no later than October 1, 2007, unless the parties otherwise agree to cooperate in coordinating the construction activities and the timing thereof. No redevelopment of the Hower Lot shall occur until completion of the relocation of the Oates' Garage and the construction of the New Shared Driveway has been completed. I. Hower will be responsible for all costs of relocating the driveway and moving the garage, such that upon relocation the same shall be ready for use by the Oates, including, but not limited to, excavation, rough and finish grading, removal of vegetation, relocation of electric service to the relocated garage and relocation of fences; however, the City 5 will contribute one-half of these costs, up to a maximum of Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) to Hower. J. Oates will not object to Hower's applying for approval to build two homes and ADU assuming the rezoning of the Hower Lot occurs. However, the foregoing shall not be construed to mean any variance Hower may seek. K. Oates will pay Hower Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) at such time as the Oates garage shall be relocated and all work in connection therewith completed in exchange for obtaining a right of first refusal to purchase the Hower Lot. Hower and Oates will execute a Right of First Refusal Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C. L. The City will credit any building permit fees previously paid by Hower towards the construction on the Hower Lot. M. The area of the driveway easement does not apply for purposes of the City's calculations for floor area ratios ("FAR") on the Oates Lot. To the extent that the Driveway Easement increases the dimensions of the existing easement, the increased area shall also not apply for purposes of the City's FAR calculations on the Oates Lot. 9. Entire Agreement and Successors in Interest. This Release contains the entire agreement between the parties, and the terms of this Release are contractual and not a mere recital. This Release shall be binding upon and more to the benefit of executors, administrators, personal representatives, devisees, agents, employees, officers, directors, trustees, conservators, guardians, beneficiaries, heirs, successors in interest and assigns of each party. 10. Execution. This Release may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which together shall be one instrument, and all of which shall be considered duplicate originals. 11. Approval by City. The parties acknowledge that the City's approval of this Agreement by the City can only occur through a Resolution of the City of Aspen City Council during a public meeting. Approval of this agreement does not bind the City Council to approve the contemplated rezoning discussed in paragraph 7 above, nor does a rezoning approval bind the City Council to approve this Agreement. 12. Savings Clause. The Parties hereby agree that if any portion of this Release is found to be void or unenforceable, that they intend the remaining portions of the Release to be valid and enforceable to the maximum extent permitted by law. 13. In the event of default under this agreement resulting in litigation, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover the prevailing party's reasonable attorney's fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which such party shall be entitled. Col AGREED- �✓ ����CP� v rr Dated: d `T erie G. Oates Dated: Leonard M. Oates I COUNTY OF ) ss. STATE OF COLORADO ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of J V , 2004, by Cherie G. Oates and Leonard M. Oates. ( Witness my hand and official seal. NojPublic My commission expires: I" (p Approved as to form: Ted D. Gardenswartz, Esq., Attorney for Oates 7 Beth ' • Brandon i L-k NOV-08-2004 MON 01:46 PM BHGR LLP ---'7-- - . - 0 FAX N0f3 402 1601 P. 09 i V/I Dale Hower COUNTY OF ss. STATE OF COLORADO ) Dated: ? The foregoing insmunent was acknowledged before me this _ c' day of VJ�� , 2004, by Dale dower. Witness my hand and official seal. W 8 Notary Public My commission ex CITY OF ASPEN: By: Dated:7 6 QUA,/ Aspen City ounc' COUNTY OF ) ss. STATE OF COLORADO ) The foregoing instrum nt wL acknowledge before me this lY day of 2004, by nn as �(J yr of the City of Aspen, Colorado. Witnes n official seal. 2: 0 TARA L. * '.O'BRADOVICK (P ccOF C��-pe' 71 My Commiss.on E.p,ics Sept 25. 20()s otary Public My commission expires: Approved as to form: i Z' J' orcester, Aspen City Attorney N ---7=t--MAR. 18. 2004 2: 51 PM.-. OS KNEZEVICH GARDENSWARTZ NO. 4054, rP. 2/7 7N-r • • EXHIBIT D D EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Easements Agreement made and entered into this day of 12004, by and between Cherie G. Oates ("Oates") and Dale Hower ("Hower"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Oates is the owner of the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Oates Property"); and WHEREAS, Hower is the record owner of the real property described in Exhibit `B" attached hereto (the "Hower Property"); and WHEREAS, Oates desires to grant to Hower and Hower desires to obtain from Oates a non-exclusive easement for access on a shared driveway and underground utilities over and across a portion of the Oates Property to the Hower Property, NOW, THEREFORE, for a good and valuable consideration in hand paid by Hower to Oates, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed between the parties as follows: Oates hereby grants and conveys to Hower for the benefit of the Hower Property, a permanent non-exclusive Easement (the "Easement") for access to the Hower Property over and across the portion of the Oates Property described in Exhibit "C", said Easement being twelve feet (12') in width, for the purpose of providing access to the Hower Property and the right to install underground utilities therein for the purpose of providing utilities service to the Hower Property. 2. The Easement granted herein shall be limited to use for the construction, maintenance, repair and occupancy and use of one (1) duplex family dwelling (and one Accessory Dwelling Unit as defined in the City of Aspen Land Use Code as presently in effect) on the Hower Property. 3. The cost of maintenance of the easement herein granted shall be borne 40% by the owner of the Oates Property and 60% by the owner of the Hower Property for the portion thereof used in common by Oates Property and Hower Property to the point where the access shall spur therefrom to accommodate and serve the garage on the Oates Property. From and after that point, the cost of improvement and maintenance and repair shall be borne solely by the owner of the Hower Property. 4. The level of maintenance of the portion of the Easement shared by Oates Property and the Hower Property shall be the maintenance repair and replacement (when needed) of a chipsealed surface. The foregoing shall not be construed to prohibit the asphalt pavement of the Easement by one or the other of the parties, but any cost associated with pavement thereof shall be borne by the party desiring to pave the same, unless the parties shall otherwise mutually agree. Snowplowing shall be paid for on the same basis on that part of the Easement used by both of the parties and otherwise solely by the party benefitting from the same. No driveway marker lighting shall be permitted to be made by Hower, the owner of the Hower Property on the Easement herein granted or any extension thereof on the Hower Property without the consent of the owner of the Oates Property. 6. The Easement shall be used in a careful, safe manner with each party being respectful of the others quiet enjoyment of their respective Property. 7. It is mutually understood and agreed that no portion or portions of the Easement hereby granted shall ever be used for the purpose of parking, stopping or standing vehicles thereon, whether permanently or temporarily. 8. It is hereby expressly acknowledged as between the parties that this constitutes the entire agreement between them relating to access or utilities across the Oates Property for access to the Hower Property and any and all prior easements and agreements as to the same, whether on record or not are hereby terminated, vacated and of no further force and effect. 9. The Easement herein granted shall run with the title to and constitute a burden upon the Oates Property for the benefit of Hower Property. 10. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit to the parties hereto, their respective heirs and personal representatives, grantees, successors and assigns. 11. Unless otherwise provided herein, in the event that either party hereto breaches any provision contained herein (the "Defaulting Party"), the other party (the "Nondefaulting Party") shall be entitled to give written notice of default to the Defaulting Party and shall provide a fifteen (15) day opportunity to cure the specified default. In the event that the default is not cured within such period of time, the Nondefaulting Party shall have the right, at its option, to cure such default and shall have the right to be reimbursed by the Defaulting Party for any reasonable costs it incurs in curing such default. Any reimbursement payments not paid within thirty (30) days after the Defaulting Party has received an itemized statement of such costs from the Nondefaulting Party, shall bear interest at an annual rate of eighteen percent (18%). In addition, the Nondefaulting Party shall have the right to place a lien on the property owned by the Defaulting Party for any amounts due under this Agreement that remain unpaid for a period of more than thirty (30) days after the Defaulting Party has received an itemized statement of such costs. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year above first written. Cherie G. Oates 2 Dale Hower STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged to before me this day of , 2004, by Cherie G. Oates. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged to before me this day of 2004, by Dale Hower. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires Notary Public 3 • EXHIBIT "A" [Attach Legal Description of Oates Property] EXHIBIT "B" [Attach Legal Description of Hower Property] EXHIBIT "C" [Attach As -Built Legal Description of Easement] 4 • 0 EXHIBIT FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL D E IN CONSIDERATION OF the payment of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, sufficiency and adequacy of which hereby is acknowledged, DALE HOWER, ("Hower"), the owner of Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 24, Riverside Addition, and property lying adjacent thereto described with a street address of 1201 Riverside Drive, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, (the "Property"), hereby grants unto CHERIE G. OATES ("Oates"), a right of first refusal to purchase the Property ("Right of First Refusal") upon the following terms and conditions: 1. After receiving a bona fide written offer to purchase the Property acceptable to Hower ("Sales Contract"), Hower shall give written notice to Oates providing a copy of the Sales Contract for the sale of the Property ("Notice of Intent to Sell") by placing such notice, together with a copy of the Sales Contract in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to Oates at 1205 Riverside Drive, Aspen, Colorado 81611, with a copy to Leonard M. Oates, Esq., Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz, P.C., 533 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611. 2. Oates shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing of the Notice of Intent to Sell to give written notice to Hower, at Aspen, Colorado 81611, of her intention to purchase the Property ("Notice of Intent to Purchase"), and to match the offer in the Sales Contract. Oates's Notice of Intent to Purchase shall be accompanied by an earnest money deposit in the same amount as contained in the Sales Contract. In Oates's Notice of Intent to Purchase, Oates shall agree to close upon the same terms and conditions as those contained in the Sales Contract. 3. If Oates shall not provide Hower with a Notice of Intent to Purchase, then Hower may sell the Property under the Sales Contract free of the terms of this right of first refusal and Oates shall provide Hower with such written waivers as shall be reasonably required to remove this right of first refusal as an affectation of Hower's title to the Property. Upon sale of the Property under the Sales Contract, this right of first refusal shall be of no further force and effect. 4. This right of first refusal shall be recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado. 5. This Right of First Refusal Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective heirs, grantees and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Right of First Refusal has been executed this _ day of , 2004. Dale Hower Cherie G. Oates ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ON FOLLOWING PAGE STATE OF COLO.RADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2004, by Dale Hower. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: (SEAL) Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2004, by Cherie G. Oates. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: (SEAL) Notary Public Page 2 —^.- / \ ) ^ / / A _ � m NO. dA5d, «~P. 1/7 ' RERY •. IELLP G. -L5 /.3 � s 31.40'20' l2.4 /M ..•SI' E2D.7!' A!. 1 ACBAR •L sl1N' LOr ) .waS. a RECORD \ jai. c RECORD // JI •,)• iINC N o(s 4; BUCX*4EAi SUBOIVISION sxN.l i Ln . IF,Ar M.. FAG[ 271 6j\. )e °./. S .i'2i'• 0. 4' FMp TO AEC Fro COANE. WO.s N.S. WC. 1f05 i7.•\F, ell �5 5URVcY R'$ CRTIrI ATr- "EAU OF LAID NAN.cL.(Nr 2s. t- f- "' . +(.+� `) .E ,PASS CAP. if04 1\ y Y0 is J,,) Gov WY 'THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES TO DALE HOWER ?� / .t,b• ASPEN EDGE CONDOMINIUMS ) PITKIN COUNTY TITLE. INC. THAT THE IMPROVEMENT �a\.''-r- � SURVEY T ~ .+.5 / / - (PLR BK.13 PAGE 601- i - ^i 1AE FEMeY ,�,�� _-[� • THIS CERTIFICATE ICATE IS ATTACHED. PREPARED O WHICH o _ �< ED BY THE UNDERSIGNED. -�'T \ u o??`+ REGISTERED LICENSED uN0 SURVEYOR. WAS ACTUALLY ED' A PROFESSION L / `� IN If•44'• 2S' PCR RECEP110N ^10659S Go a..rMA CIE By IN$T O i BUCx9HEAT SU80IVISIDN l NM4`1 2"' ( PEw 1x RATS to �� THE GROUND; THE SURVEY AND THE 11# RULrE NT SURV Y Inter x.1 P DRruT1DN. couRses aND U a / ^ Ir{ tll t+t�N n•Ji'x7' E PEA 73 RATS tt1 �$$+J DISTANCES SHOWN THEREIN. INCLW I,4G. WITH T • 1l74.. Fp.r REB1R •LSf0t 1' INFiW ® i OU LIMITATION. ,L rw 1& f g ' 7 N 89']2'JS' E 24. 98' ^ �k AND TARO LINES, ARE CORRECT: THE SIZE AND LOCATION ALL SETBACK �'C STRUCTURES AND IMPROVE LENT$ ,LRf A$ SHOWN. IF AN7 •. ALL BUILDINGS. y, t.L •t9'10 / oy 11j1 ]yt �+ +!'o .S�i] 51 MW°AA.s'LSyp°f0 AEACC �� 8 �' ,A I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT SAID BUILDINGS. STRUCTURES AND IW N _ Iy64.MF� o �\ __ t t - .+ I / r.i_ ON SAID PREMISES ON THIS DATE. AUGUST Ill. 2000. E%CEPT UTILITY OVEWNTS LANDS OF HERS14BERGER IOECO RECEPTIM r061ri t': .. _ rCONNECTIONS-ARE ENTIRELY YI7H IN TNf BOUNOAR IE$ OF THE / E%CEPT AS SHOWN. THAT THERE ARE I4D ENCROACHMENTS UP 7 PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANT ADJOINING PREMISE / ° ° / INDICATED. AND THAT THERE IS NO APPAR PARENT ON THE DESCRIBED S. EXCEPT AE 5= A{� / EO 21ip0e _i h _E I 90. 0E'.t• E EVIDENCE O) SIGN FOrNO S 9CSAR IP05SI ALT 01 SiuNBE01 / EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF ANY 3 41'v1'C 0. 20' FNO. iO AEC. 9t3 �Fr.. S/1'NEIAP LSRIiit MELDi -� - ' c g.", o _ OF SAID PARCEL. c D6'n' PEA ]3 RA75 1n AS NOTED. EYCEPT S 89'46'00" E - FMC o.r a / to ytL w. s/f'wEBAR LSR] 1f10.f )D9. �05 �� 128.93' r3. r a uR0 / / I i c•-_ftO ��4! -T980� . 7( .fe'q �., tye``R DATED: BY: t /Wy 1T : , ,• t _ t+!'ge •pf• +6t. t? Lp, r . 0. 13' . A M ) O tl ROBERT C. HUTT.ON. PL CIO rr e,..� I m ,n S -2 4112 gG� 0`•;4 - ♦:� N . �° °•' / ' ♦ O -TS80 /. ), ° 'tLtr • )).? '�v1)•1 t+� ♦+'� 60 I L+J m _„}+�� y �+j6? \\ t' t� t y\ ®♦�°`Ft+`° I J - . t'y �.i- 6 O= '�•- =ti_ _' E -- t-- __ rc- T _y+s' !- ,+tNOTFS 00 O ��� tv- �- T -- 7- - I 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS: T °1.,,• 11./ 7'AS)() /.»6z- �""� -W1f.r S •�•0 . �. R THE NORTHERLr BQ1NDAgT OF LOT SHOW ON THAT BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ALONG FLY L i19� i l�l•� ♦mod et aE?ai�� .' d- • \�\ ;\ " I CERTAIN MAP 'RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION T+,1.i t),, vl BLOCK 1' 1►LAT OI iCH ROOK 2A PAGL 1791 WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BE Aq RINGS SNONN NE REIN. A Q T� o . ao W �^ 1 I 2. THE SURVEY SHOWN HEREON IS BASED IN PART ON THE COL6MIW.7 i0R 7I TITLE INSURANCE _ REPORT. CASE NO. PCT12909C6. DAYE0 JUNE 24. 1995 By PITK IN 6`• Tlet QD [},/i i6' -- -� T� '9B� \ •iIFIA PROPERTY 15 SIAJECT IM PART TO THE iOLLOAI MG: COUNTY TITLE. CO. �r� \ I ]. 7N 15 +t+j 7 tr1 O / 1q1 tU1 +�? �'+ O? \ CAS PER 7NE EYCEPTIOMS LISTED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED TITLE COMMITMENT, Al RESEMAi Il7NS AS SET FOR TH In US PATENT RECORDED IN BOOK ITS AT PACE 246. / r OMO • 1\ / / a DCR INC 52. ]' , ..930.7 I BI *CRY$. Cfa. IIONS. PROVISIONS AND OBL IGAIIOMS AS SET FORTH 'IN ACREEMENT a5P r' \ RECORDED I1C iOBEP 14. Il6s IN BooK 216 .r FAG[ t.ea.. / + �" CI TERWS. CONO PIONS. PROVISIONS AND OBL IGaiIONS AS SET FORTH IN DEED a A / 0 wl fi BHIO.G ` I RECOAOED JULT 2J. 1970 IN BOOK 249 AT PALE 599. EASEMENT / FL • / 6'IY / °- / '� ♦ T)H.7 + _ ^L! ! V BENCHMARK: •0-159• IN ASPEN. PI *KIN COUNTY. AT THE SQU7H r1,�AOK.x` ° A / WOm OECR ^ I ^ 1lSI. 4 • H�513 I A• K5T CORNER OF THE COUNTY / / I TOE 1 COURTHOUSE LAWN; 59 FEET MONTH Of T11( CENTERLINE O' WIN STREET. 4j FEET EAST OF THE. ��OF' t / HRS.? O [LEv . 7lN.z 2.` 4l� 10' •10E u'mirT CEN TEAL INE Oi GALEN. SiREFT, iS.A iEET BEST O' THE CFNTEN ST 1 ] 5•At ? ° EaSEMENi HE HAIN EMTRANCE TO THE BUILD MG. y�/rP O 5 / +•AY oae OCL 1 (]7 RATS tit ]].7 FEET SOUrHNEST O' THC GRANITE BASE OF A SOLDE w'S MOynENT. ANp 7 FEET NOwT fit• t L'L rct • 70 1.0 O )t lPly �p µL • i; tP�O- I SOli 7DpC�N�RCOKAE iC�PDMS TTN7a1 gONc0E5UPPLEMEN SUPPLEMENTARYELEVATION DISC STIMPEO 0-159 193.Si ANap 5E7 H/T.2 0 47. 3 •. UMi M\ 7112. OAa 6•SPIKEE 1-STORY w000 FRAME HOUSE AE,L\ N )' ryo,`(01 O ; ABOVE SEA LEVEL. ELEv,L'ION ADJUSTMENT IS T906.67 FEET I / 05�t•5� ° / M7la5.3 / ..f1�S /S5f11y RIVERSIDE ADDITION / / } \ ^�' PARCEL AREA 14,179 ± SQUARE FEET OR 0.3255 ACRES / YLS��d4.P / 4q t9y 1lN. r ®HIf.O / $dE•'S / - a OP° GAD 7•IY . \ (LOTS G.7.B d S. PORTION OF ALLEY S PARR AVENUE IN BLR.241 ♦ : �� \ / A•ASP ®1Nl.1 YJ / �3 / 1!1l.1 . IY `., J 4♦ r)1]'35'0� TL7.5 mom` .TV.l.A 1.1� 43.9• ' b L H...1 A 8a . aq .3 CAD .19H.! STYE -.M TEA DD GOK.V b StT vla[ O\ GW W° �)�rte6.t 191 ). �HI..1 O NP� �.1. .11.1.J B'9' �f!° ri i.)•6 °MC ° ),,) �p��`.o WISP \ GOO 1 / r rAo ®` ISO N /a Ga•P 1� .: .T 4y -to / I-; , AGSiCM WALK 7 07-1 00 8111.9.1 -« f / HO _ 695P ^ IS tPs,/ O GOO �i]...1 1SI5.9 a 1N].6 '/o. am ° y HSs.4 14 / O T- 19/1.2 N _ ORD UO 6 o ♦ 7N1.3 •, S, GI0 7lK.e i110 Z •t , flc.i m r F ® 19f0.e 1 ♦ YA �. cR0 11.1.0 CLm O c•2-+•A51 ., � �, � +�i �T" ' Ir-m I _ .__e I d . 19f0.T /l �' +� ^ Q Y[°'J 1!+°3). oJG.ltO .HN.1 CNO I Q J W _ f:RO 04'AY \-�0)a Hn.1 t•r•A .^p° S'�P 7987.0 w _ (� wo 1 079E 1.0 ®nl0.. •� ®tan. I .. sMED 'fi u . �n . 7 .1 I J OCT � 7 c'ASP . 11f0. T c'A5P 1'A9 1990� �.ORD CiRO .Tbv.J _ \ 1fU.2 u a .)V"E r¢ 0 \ 'RCI00 SHf O a l.. .'ay � s 7e Gm (M N° •S ri1'S0'0S'x'.�11'00ti•. 0).0)'1' 6 A,iffH.PEA 21 RATS 111�° ..A0.1 9qAS MEAS. te° 4"+� t• • Ei•-,--��I :"EiT,As, 7 TISPIHi FELLOW u 14Mu ' ) 4.. O,+' •iLS: L �/ •0 _,G 90.5 Q� MELD ion SWTMLRLI RCLOD, ALIG-E T MELD i0R SOUTHERLY IOYMOANY ✓? al, SPL;-z�� x-J'Av A Sr,, qqyy 4d Qr{'' q- 9ft , 3' �• S/1'R(W WI YELLOW CY iSe.f1 N• ENCL �•BAS1S •Of 8iA7il $ K �.CK y` !t• ' )ff -.L ALIGNMENT a , ,L 4 I 0 SCARP e'E"CE NG y 1f 7.J ),1.yHlL9 jy�� 99 a14'((•L eeJrv,t Gaa, e,O9, 'IQJfF IY 44'00' E PEA 2A PLATS 17 Poo E tG9y Y( 19 • j f-A�� s'a5P j3 1%-•r„0 f • 7l11 .7 �������9444444 T!ll.t I • 7!lO.i 1 IN FEET 1 LOT 1i. (' 11 ') �+'o=J-� -- \ ,IP I TELE PEDESTAL t InM A H. RIVERSIDE7SUB-DIVISION BLK.1 I EDG(.SPN.LTP.VEENT �� GA° 24• (DITCH BK.2A PAGE ITS) LEGEND n - SANITARY SEVEN UANNOLe zW e pV_ .LAGS*ONt INi 2-STORY GARAGE LATICIUL. ate= ADJACENT IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY _ L.L.. VENT - _ ,f�' IL V r TCR VALVE GROUN` a OF THE LANDS OF DALE HOWER GRo. - rLOWuge �W AA nE •µL � lw AS DESCRIBED I N THAT CERTAIN QUIT CLAIM DEED CAR LINE 6 [LECTIUCAL IortRMCA0I L(NE UT tL ITV NOTE: CAR L,xe RECORDED -SEPTEMBER 24. 1998 IN RECEPTION xs422358. -59- - WATER LiNS tM ur:l ir(ai OV. b rq m tM SMrffie arq rV..t on 7993.1 I N THE OFFICE OF THE P I TK I N COUNTY RECORDER - SC. - SANITARY SEER LINT }Nii O'onirlq Mv. D.ar1 IOGOT.O DY field Wv.y. EP ^ I` U. - SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT All 1!IOar Orataq Utilitiea 3,W_ M rtIIS or•o1F,)10 We EL - UMOCACAOUND kOK, r,Goraa (1 201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE) lP - EDGE OF LAN OSCAPCD LAWN tM var'OUS urlllTy GOWOOrnl.a dq tn. " u Iy ASP - JOINT UTIL3T7 PaLC � ,Cyw 00" not OSSM<W resDOn°iDi l iry for tMir 1!f].1+.� CRY ASPEN TREE (DIAMETER • Dan) GDAOI.1M.33. irgiGOrtq IocOf iW- Or Si 2.. Re q EP 9DY/a, I� A$PEl4 PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO GRAVEL utility IW0TIa1 SI\0.110 D• CmfirrrWE DY stepoiirq )ytr 1M WIT ,try. -'0 u SCALE: I" B• DATE: AUGUST. 2000 S 8 h ESIO0ALBERT C. PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR RIVERSIDE D R I 725 CEMETERY LANE 1 1 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 1 (40"WIDE R/1w) 1 1970) 544-9952 SHEET 1 OF t rEEPJOBS 5-99 <�.yt ., x� ; r� ... Vf�`3 _-✓�, ,!-,d ;o- ,.� f .l t.. �wr,. F.1 ' .C'" r 1 yzl � IS .+r SL { Af . .r' I �� r � "',. � W. } P•FtU� ' Si%C � ". .. Y.: , �` x^ I �'. � IL,� y�il{T '�Ty �I� T. �l r I . t, -' •r" � '.a,�:4 .e d : �" f � ,i" e - '., � y it f IN r.x '( d'�{ Y �ti;r. ., . �, rr.. ;I-•• r 1�l P� 44rF; y{y S � d 1 rp fl'� p�IPH Nl1� gy ,] �� � I�rHHtiitiNa. •. �Irr �;.�1 .� ` i ,j .r C .hn;,�;..wVyF•ep6wjliuFl:Yt.b1✓..Pr.....:..ii w,�,IW�y,.gm. nrorM...�l ,,...,r,.in .. a NO y M f� �§ o d a � A , i CF .', S. ..* � ,_. :' �f•. � .pM - .. .r '"� fig. '1./' ;`.� �. .. y-�-�. .%� '.'f��'y�S�' 4Q '. _,� � �"'at f- p ._ a ,:. �. ,....,, i�' .- til. x._..":r.•� .. r.__. .. 'p, .. ..;{ �.• :iti�4. :ib r .. - a i, r: Y �•+wa.._�Ir.�+!-ir•+M.rw+.....�r!�...---"`••....._.iagr^...._.�.....-....,....A-...... �v+u�„tW�t..:. .., .,.,..,,..w.•,.... gT„ .µ-M4�- - ' i Nf'/4ST:C7-lON 18.Q.- s4-w. LO O -T- CO K rt o W n i L- Ait E7t'-k S y T" r= S e P52 s titT S; I I,•-t /.,-T YY E '�-, Qr_- o L` e.I c %< /\ r5 E N E. o c-T pp }-•tin- 8g,gy \vt V/AA0 HnVr- FLED THE 'PL,k-T 1AE2crTO A-TTACHEO OF j:E, Loc4c Sue- OkVt3tO+,( 1t-t T�-tL= C:QU*.t-ry OF 9%-rKll�l, Arto S- A-rE OF COL-o2A00. 5 >_ocac. 1 IS Rr--cP LAT O F P/,P-T 5 or-- F3LOGKS l� 20-2f-2d-25 2G -27 28 2�v�QStOL /`vo -T N. S/�1p PLAT C oe2ECTL�j Sy-(Ows T�(E LOTS COI�lT�l1F-1L�0 1N SAID S U - p v t S t o tit As T� t E S �fi1rl E /tR'�- 1•�nR tc E D /` t`t 0 S-T"� K E O U P o ►mot T� t E G e oo v-t o. *t0 T�-ttS PL.&T 1S F�t_Ep FOR, THE pt�2POSE OF CEQT^1t-ITyOF Escsz PTtott Ic�t SUGK Co�tvEyat-ICES &,3 AJoL- fit T9-At f�elrtG P�QCF�s QF �20UrlD CjITU/\TLD WIT1-{1N S/�IL7 SUF3- �1V�SIOI�I OVY1.(�iZ r O w �t e e- 9TnT E- oi' C4 Logw) o S.S . G . EL. g U (= ,- ( ^1�t A At 3 L 1 Pt c, Du 2 <\l O !-t 14 "S 0 A-7I-1 j DE POSES /HMO SAys T�-t AT >-4m is T�t� Sc�evEyo2 ot� LOCK C.. 9-1vL`2 S % SUE,- flt�/tS SU2vE7 Ar-tD TM E MAP 11-IE�EOt� �IVLQE n,.,o "T��T Sc>o� Suczv6 y \5 /t�cUenTEty ' ��PG�ES�-NTED UPort -T- s \cs IS /`PPeovEfl Fog QECOMMEuoEO Qy TFtE P1TKIht Cocar-tT7 P�nrtr-tt�tG Co��.ctss,or< `, SU6 J eC� To QECQMNiEK�/lTiOxS O1T�EO F�82 ll- 1�55 I--- jN� 2O - %c>SS � mite � e t-t KF BE,i Su gam, 'E5E Fo'