HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950620
-
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 20, 1995, TUESDAY
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT MEETING WITH PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
4:00 P.M.
Public Hearinq
Affordable Housing Zone District Code Amendments, Suzanne
Konchan & Leslie Lamont
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REGULAR MEETING
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Water Place Affordable Housing SUbdivision, SPA
Amendment, GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use Review
and Special Review, Mary Lackner(continued from May
9)
B. North Mill station SPA Amendment, Mary Lackner
(continued from June 6)
C. Vickery Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Mary Lackner
D. 123 W. Francis Historic Landmark Designation, Amy
Amidon (to be tabled)
E. Aspen School District Text Amendments, Mary Lackner
(continued from May 16)
IV. WORK SESSION
A. Vickery Historic Landmark Text Amendments, Mary
Lackner
.
IV.
ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
E: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: June 20, 1995
Overlay Committee - June 27
f
Bellock/Morrison (ML/AA)
E. Francis - Allen (ML/AA)
Regular Meeting - July 11
Hirschfield Conditional Use Review for ADU (LL)
616 W. Hallam Conditional Use Review for ADU (ML)
Lang Conditional Use Review for ADU (LL)
E. Francis (Allen) Conditional Use Review for ADU (ML)
Markalunas Conditional Use Review for ADU (LL)
Regular Meeting - July 18
Independence Place (LL)
Water Place Work Session (ML)
a.nex
M
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Konchan, Directory ,
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE: June 20, 1995
RE: Affordable Housing Zone District and Resident Occupied
Text Amendments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The AACP recommends the adoption of the Affordable
Housing zone district in the County and changes to -the Resident
Occupied housing category for both the City and County Codes.
Both Commissions reviewed proposed changes approximately one year
ago at a public hearing. Staff has also presented the proposals
to the Council and Board in several worksessions. Because of the
time since P&Z review and the significant changes that have
occurred since the last review, staff recommends a new review by
the P&Z at a public hearing.
The following proposals will: create two new Affordable Housing
(AH) zone districts in the County, revise current AH standards in
the City and revamp the Resident Occupied program for both the City
and County. Related issues to AH and RO development have also been
raised for discussion.
Please note, the City has just redefined allowable floor area and
made other significant changes to the Land Use Code regarding
residential development. All residential projects will be subject
to the new changes.
APPLICANT: Community Development Department
PROPOSAL: The items discussed in this memo can be summarized as
follows:
* Affordable Housing Zone District
- allowable floor area ratio amendments
- minimum lot sizes
- dimensional requirements set by PUD review
- existing code provisions that apply to AH
* Category 5
* Resident Occupied Program Revised
* Transfer of AH Development Rights onto Non-contiguous
Parcels
* Occupancy by Developer's Choice
* Transfers in Rural/Remote Zone
* Other County AH issues
PROCESS: Text amendments are a two step review process with the
Commission making recommendations to Council and/or the Board.
Review of text amendments is a public hearing in the City.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. DENSITYIPLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) STANDARDS:
During the January 4th worksession, the BOCC and Council reviewed
the drafted AH zones and discussed both density (units/acre) and
FAR concerns. Initially, staff had raised concern that FAR
standards favored multi -family units rather than single family
units, and that we may be unintentionally penalizing the developer
proposing detached affordable dwellings. The elected officials
understood staff's concern, but felt that both the single family
and multi -family standards were generally too dense for the metro
area. To resolve the issue, elected officials directed staff to
examine the following options:
* Eliminate denser multi -family FAR standards and apply the
proposed single family sliding scale to all development within
the district.
* Draft language that would allow 80 0 of the revised FAR sliding
scale by right, with the additional 200 only through special
review.
* Examine a straight .5:1 Floor Area Ratio as compared to
sliding scales, especially in the County's Metro zone (AH
2/PUD) and County's AH 3/PUD zone (encompassing area
downvalley from the Metro boundary to Aspen Village) . In this
scenario, guarantee a 1200 sq. ft. minimum house size for
single family dwellings.
Following additional staff Having analysis, the Council and BOCC
agreed that the discussion should be focused on the FAR sliding
scales, rather than the density standards. The discrepancy between
density requirements (Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit) for
detached and attached units is less apparent, and is applied on a
bedroom, or unit size, basis. The conclusion at both the Staff
and elected official level maintains that the density standards are
2
appropriate. Undoubtably neighborhood and site specific
constraints will be a focus for any land use review as to
appropriate density.
In the County's AH 3/PUD zone, staff recommends certain relatively
minor amendments to the density standards for consistency with the
AH 2/PUD zone. In certain cases, the originally drafted standards
allowed for higher density than proposed in the Metro area.
However, the standards are not substantially different between the
County's Metro zone and proposed extended "metro" (Aspen Village
and upvalley) zone. Initially, BOCC members expressed concern that
these density standards are too aggressive for the non -metro area.
The density standards proposed for the AH 3/PUD zone, however,
mirrored the existing AH (aKa 'PMH') zone in the Land Use Code.
One area of minor revision in the AH 3/PUD and AH (existing 100%
affordable housing County -wide district) zones is the single family
and duplex density standard. As drafted, the minimum lot size must
be 6,000 sq. ft., but the minimum lot area per SFD and duplex is
3,000 sq. ft. We recommend these standards be consistent at 6,000
sq. ft. With that clarification, no further reductions in density
standards are recommended.
Floor area standards, however, were initially drafted to benefit
multi -family units. In the City AH 1/PUD zone, and the companion
AH 2/PUD County Metro zone, the most restrictive FAR applies to
proposed Detached Residential Dwellings. The ratio began at .8:1,
and decreased as the parcel size increases, in a series of steps.
The steps are generally depicted in the following table:
FAR Parcel Size (Square Feet)
.8:1 0-31000
.8:1 to .54:1 31000 - 6,000
.54:1 to .4:1 61000 - 91000
.4:1 to .15:1 9,000 - 39,000
<.15:1 39,000+ (House size caps at 5,770 sq. ft.)
Multi -Family unit FAR standards were also based on a sliding scale;
however, that scale focused on larger parcel sizes that tend to
accommodate multi -family projects. Smaller sized lots enjoyed the
highest FAR allowed in the zone, with the most permissible FAR
applying to lots of 27,000 sq. ft. and less in size. The previous
multi -family FAR standards are depicted by the following sliding
scale:
3
0
FAR
1.1:1
.36:1,
1: 1 by
.36:1
.33:1
.30:1
.27:1
.24:1
increasable to
special review
Parcel Size
<27,000 sq. ft.
>27,000 sq. ft. -
43,560 sq. ft.
1 - 3 acres
>3 - 6 acres
>6 - 9 acres
>9 - 18 acres
>18 acres
The primary concern in the multi -family table is the very high
ratio permitted for lots less than 27,000 sq. ft., and by special
review for lots as large as one acre. The 1.1:1 ratio may be
appropriate in the downtown core, but will be generally
incompatible with outlying neighborhoods, especially in the County
Metro area. Conversely, the relatively restrictive FAR that was
proposed for the single family sliding scale would not achieve
adequate densities for multi -family projects.
To address both of these concerns while ensuring an even playing
field between single family and multi -family designs, staff
suggests that in the AH zones allowed floor area be determined
based upon the entire project's lot area, also referred to as the
fathering parcel. This approach is a standard that applies as an
overall FAR for a parcel applying for subdivision approval through
the AH zones, rather than an FAR standard applying to the proposed
subdivided lots. Single family house sizes on proposed subdivided
lots in the AH zone will be reviewed as a function of the mandatory
PUD process, with house sizes capped at some determined level. At
this time, we have shown a cap of 5,770 sq. ft. for a single family
house, and 4,080 sq. ft. for a duplex. While there has been some
limited discussion on the appropriateness of these caps, staff
still seeks direction on this point.
There appears to be adequate protection against developers
cumulating all the floor area for the free market units in that:
* Minimum net livable sizes for category units are set by the
Housing Guidelines;
* Unit and bedroom mixes are set by district standards;
* AH Zone District Standards will be incorporated into the Code
as previously proposed (Exhibit 161); and
* PUD and subdivision in combination with these standards
provides the City and County adequate grounds and opportunity
to ensure quality, integrated projects.
After several worksessions, the elected officials propose the
following sliding scale in the AH Metro zones (City and County)
and AH 3/PUD zone: 29
4
FAR Parcel Size (Square Feet)
1.1:1 0 - 15,000 sq. ft.
l:l 15,001 - 25,000 sq. ft.
.8:1 25,001 - 43,560 sq. ft.
.6:1 >1 - 3 acres
.36:1 >3 - 6 acres
.3:1 >6 acres
This new scale eliminates cumbersome FAR calculations previously
applied in the City 'AH' zone, and represents a series of
compromises between the single family, duplex and multi -family
scales previously proposed.
Additionally, the following text is proposed to be included at the
introduction of the FAR section:
"The allowable floor area permitted in this zone is
determined by the following table. Sites may be
developed up to 85% of the allowed floor area. 100% of
the floor area may be permitted by special review."
The previously proposed FAR sliding scale in the AH 3 /PUD zone also
mirrored the standards proposed in the Metro zones, as presented
above. In the Non -Metro portions of the County up -valley of Aspen
Village, where this zone will be available, existing lot sizes are
clearly larger in size than sites we might expect in the Metro
region. Therefore, if the revised approach is applied (FAR
determined for the project as a whole), more emphasis on the upper
end of the sliding scale is important. In fact, it is somewhat
unlikely that lots of less than 1 acre would be proposed for
development (arguably lots of this small size would be unusual for
this area). Nonetheless, the revised scale, combined with the 85%
by right standard, should provide an adequate framework for both
project development and County review.
In the County' s existing AH zone, which requires 100% category deed
restricted units, a flat .5:1 FAR exists. For County AH projects,
such as Williams Woods and Twin Ridge, this FAR has proven more
than adequate for development purposes. While it is more generous
than the sliding scale presented above for larger parcels, the
higher FAR can be justified in that it applies only to 100%
category deed restricted projects. In fact, the City may wish to
consider a bonus FAR process for 100% category projects.
5
Summary: Only minor changes to the density standards of the AH
3/PUD and AH zones have resulted through the worksession process.
A new FAR approach would be applied to both the AH Metro zones
(City and County), as well as the AH 3/PUD zone district. The new
proposal includes a single sliding scale for all types of units
(single family, duplex and multi -family) based on a compromise of
the originally proposed sliding scales. The new approach is a
standard that applies as an overall FAR for a parcel applying for
subdivision approval through the AH zones, rather than an FAR
standard applying to the proposed subdivided lots. This appears
the best way to avoid favoring detached over attached units.
Maximum house sizes can still be capped at 5770 sq. ft. Draft
language also includes the 85% by right, 100% by special review
procedure for FAR. These drafts are attached for review, Exhibits
A & B.
B. EXISTING CODE TOOLS TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AH ZONES:
Members of the public and the elected officials have asked for
clarification as to our Planned Unit Development process, and
specifically how this tool could be used to vary dimensional
standards such as minimum lot sizes. The language for Planned Unit
Developments in both the Aspen and Pitkin County Land Use Codes
enable the minimum lot size to be averaged in order to accomplish
varying lot sizes. This is an important site design tool when
topographical or natural landscape features exist that should be
protected. This can also be used on larger parcels to achieve a
clustering of development, encourage preservation of large expanses
of open space within a development, and providing a range of
housing types and sizes in a development.
Concerns and questions were raised at worksessions such as how
small minimum lot sizes, on larger development parcels, would
create a cookie -cutter effect with little site design creativity
and dedicated open space. Language to address such issues has
recently been added to the Codes. It is proposed that the future
AH zone districts in the County, and the existing zone in the City,
have a mandatory PUD overlay for the zone district which would
necessitate a full PUD review process.
The current language is as follows:
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of
any lot may be greater or less than the minimum requirement
of the underlying zone district, provided the total area of
all lots, when averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum
for the zone district. Any variation permitted shall be
clearly indicated on the final development plan.
In addition the following language for floor area calculation is
also included in the Aspen Code (this language was recently revised
and adopted):
6
Planned unit development. For planned unit development (PUD)
applications where land is held as common open space, and more
than one lot is proposed for development, the total floor area
for each lot shall be determined in the following manner:
The total area of each lot in the planned unit
development (PUD) shall be increased by an amount equal
to the total area of the land held as common open space
divided by the total number of lots proposed for
development.
Notwithstanding the above methodology for determining
floor area ratio for each lot, applicants may suggest
different methods for allocating the total floor area
allowed for the PUD to individual lots; provided that the
total floor area allowed for the PUD does not exceed the
cumulative total of the floor areas for each lot as
calculated by the above referenced method.
C. CATEGORY 5 UNITS:
The BOCC and Council requested that the Housing Board discuss
whether or not a Category 5 unit may still be necessary given the
agreed upon revision to the Resident Occupied definition. At this
time the Housing Office has recommended against creating a category
5 level of deed restriction.
D. RESIDENT OCCUPIED UNITS:
After several worksessions with Council and the Board, consensus
has been reached on all aspects of the Resident Occupied deed
restrictions.
The following aspects of the Resident Occupancy housing program
have been agreed upon by the Board and Council:
1. Household income: no restrictions
2. Net/Gross Asset: no restrictions
3. Initial sales price: no restrictions (set by developer)
4. Maximum Resale price/appreciation: The maximum resale price
is the purchase price plus four (4) percent (simply/not
compounded) of the purchase price for each year or portion
thereof, that the unit is owned.
5. Unit Size: The gross square footage for a unit is 2,200
square feet above grade, 800 square feet for a basement
(unfinished for initial sale if developer built and finished
7
basement if employee built) plus a 500 square foot garage
which may be subject to changes in the code.
6. Employment Requirements: Applicants must demonstrate that
they are qualified employees and that they have three years
of consecutive full-time employment, as defined by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing
Guidelines, in Pitkin County immediately prior to application.
Seniors who are retired are required to demonstrate that they
were qualified employees for five consecutive years
immediately prior to retirement.
7. Primary Residence: Consistent with the Affordable Housing
Guidelines, any R.O. unit must be the owners' primary
residence. Proof of residency, including voter registration,
shall be required. Second homes owned within the Roaring Fork
Valley may be under contract.
8. Income/Earnings: Applicants must demonstrate that their
income/earnings are earned primarily in Pitkin County (75%).
Applicants must demonstrate that they pay Colorado Income Tax
as a Colorado resident, and shall provide three years of
previous Colorado income tax forms.
9. No entity ownership: All lots/units must be owned by an
individual.
10. Coordination with City and County Land Use Regulations:
a. R.O. units shall: be exempt from GMQS competition, but
shall be taken out of the annual quota; not be eligible
for GMQS impact mitigation; not be eligible for waiving
of tap fees or park dedication fees; not be eligible for
waiving of development review fees or building permit
fees. R.O. units must satisfy all other aspects of the
development review process.
11. Sales and Marketing: In terms of sales and marketing of R.O.
units, the Housing Office shall only qualify prospective
purchasers and review and approve contract terms. Units will
be bought and sold in the private sector; however, each sale
shall contribute a 1% fee (of total sale price) to the overall
housing program. This fee will be collected in the same
fashion as the FNMA fee at closing.
12. Common Deed Restriction: The Housing Office shall develop a
common deed restriction for both City and County R.O. units.
In addition to the new guidelines for a Resident Occupied unit, the
Council and Board are also considering the ability for a developer
to produce a 100% RO project by Special Review.
Es3
E. MEETING AH STANDARDS FOR ONE PROJECT ON TWO OR MORE NON-
CONTIGUOUS LOTS:
A prospective developer recently approached City planners with a
proposal to rezone an approximately 12,000 square foot parcel to
Affordable Housing and develop a free-market/deed restricted
residential project. He also proposed to relocate (transfer) some
of the required density off of the existing parcel to a non-
contiguous site, rather than construct all the units on one parcel.
The developer cited several reasons for the request:
1. The relatively small size of the -parcel.
2. For AH zoned parcels, a significant amount of density is
allowed'as an incentive and is necessary to comply with 70/30
percent requirement but is also necessary to meet development
costs.
3. It is difficult to efficiently comply with 70/30 percent
requirements on small parcel.
4. It is also difficult to provide adequate open space,
parking etc. on a small parcel.
5. Finally, for a small parcel the site design suffers and the
quality of the AH units usually suffers.
Except for the Rural and Remote zone district in the County, the
Land Use Codes do not provide for the "transfer of development
rights" (TDR) from one parcel to another. In fact, this type of
proposal may be better described as a transfer of development
"responsibility."
In addition to the obvious impediment that the Codes do not provide
a mechanism for "TDRs", staff has identified other grounds for not
entertaining this type of proposal:
1. A primary goal of the AH zone district is the integration
of AH units into free-market development projects and/or
neighborhoods.
2. Another goal .of the AH zone district is to support deed
restricted housing in all neighborhoods.
3. Deed restricted housing could be "transferred" onto
marginal parcels.
I
However, despite staff s obvious misgivings about this approach to
development of AH projects, there are also several merits to this
idea:
9
1. Typically the quality of affordable units on small parcels
is severely compromised when free market units are also
developed on site. Usually the AH units are designed to be
placed partially below grade, or the back of free market
units.
2. When AH units "stand alone" the units are typically
occupied by residents from the Housing Office inventory and
are not filled by caretakers or friends of adjacent free
market owners.
3. Locating some density off -site provides more site design
flexibility on small parcels.
4. This would provide an additional incentive for small in -
fill type AH developments.
The Board does not want to pursue this variation in the County.
The Council wanted to continue their discussion of the idea.
If the City P&Z were to consider this type of development
alternative, there are several issues that would need to be
resolved:
1. The appropriate proximity of the relocation site to the
original development parcel should be established.
2. Would the minimum 70/30 mix be required and/or would
additional density be allowed or required for deed restricted
units;
3. How would FAR be calculated?
4. Would both sites be required to be rezoned to "AH?"
F. SHOULD REQUIRED CATEGORY UNITS IN THE AH ZONE BE "DEVELOPER'S
CHOICE," OR SOLD THROUGH THE HOUSING OFFICE LOTTERY AND PRIORITY
SYSTEM?
Under the City's current AH program, all category and RO units are
available for purchase by anyone designated by the developer who
meets minimum guideline standards, or "developer's choice." In
fact, under the existing program, category units do not require
purchasers to have worked in the Valley for any specified amount
of time, and may be sold to purchasers who do not meet minimum
occupancy guidelines (a single person may purchase a 3 bedroom
unit). At this time, only income/asset requirements and proofof
present employment are required of prospective occupants.
10
The rationale for allowing developer's choice is based on several
factors. A majority of the Housing Board supports this program
primarily because it offers the most incentive to developers.
Additionally, they recognize that this may assist in the pre -
financing of a project. Furthermore, it has been argued that these
units are not "required" under the Land Use Codes to mitigate free
market development, such as required in the GMQS.
In recent Housing Board meetings, members have cited the need to
allow "developer's choice" as a needed incentive to lure the
private sector to develop 'AH' housing. Portions of the discussion
included the fact that certain developers are able to secure
reduced construction costs if units are made available to the
project contractor.
Since the mixed AH concept is a new mechanism in the Land Use Code,
Community Development raised the issue for debate before the
elected officials. Staff is specifically concerned about the sale
of category units outside the established lottery program, where
a series of priority levels have been developed for the equitable
dispersion of these units.
While AH developments are exempted from GMQS competition, the new
quota system (as amended this January) does limit the number of
units permitted annually. Moreover, the 40% of each 'AH' project
required to be designated category housing is in fact a "Code"
requirement, and at least in part is necessary to off -set employee
impacts generated by the 3 0% free market component of the project.
Although only a fraction of the category mix could be directly
linked to off -setting direct employee impacts, the developer is
enjoying significant benefit from having the free market aspect of
the project exempt from GMQS competition. As such, it would be
problematic to assert that these were not "required" under the Land
Use Code.
In addition, the AH district offers substantially increased density
and FAR standards than available in other residential districts.
As such, several elected officials have recognized that the
increased density is a form of public subsidy that is offered to
developers who pursue development in this zone.
While offering incentives to develop under the AH zone was an
important aspect of this program in the past, it is difficult to
judge how the reduction in GMQS competition and exemption quotas
will affect our need to provide further incentives (beyond GMQS
exemptions) for developers to seek approvals in this district.
In addition, there is a potential equity issue, in that Planning
staff believes that we should strive to ensure that units deed
restricted under our Housing Guidelines are available to all
members of the community. To date, the lottery system has offered
11
the best platform to providing an equal opportunity for the
community to obtain affordable housing. While Planning staff tends
to believe that the entire 40% category mix are required units most
appropriately distributed through the lottery process, we have also
suggested other options such as a program whereby some of these
units are "developer's choice", and some percent are subject to
sale through the lottery.
The outstanding issue is the benefit developers derive from being
able to provide proof of "reservations" for category units to
potential lenders. As presently devised, our lottery system does
not qualify purchasers until immediately before occupancy is
available. While not within our general field of expertise in the
Community Development Department, we have been able to confirm that
there are options to amend our lottery process which could provide
prospective lenders of either public or private projects proof that
bona fide purchasers are available. Solutions such as holding
lotteries at regular intervals or earlier in the process should be
explored. Other options may be as simple as
maintaining/establishing a record of qualified employees who are
interested in purchasing units. As most local lenders must no
doubt realize, their is a very strong market for category units in
the community. The hurdle may be how that fact is communicated to
prospective lenders. We suggest that lenders be interviewed to
explore alternatives that would meet their needs.
This item was extensively discussed at the joint meeting, but left
unresolved. The City Council members tended to support the
existing program as described above. Among the primary attributes
of the present policy, as described by Council members, was the
ability of relative newcomers to the community to have a chance to
buy a category unit even though they would not be ranked among the
priority residents based on their short tenure in the community.
Secondly, the present policy provides residents an opportunity to
overcome minimum occupancy requirements of the guidelines and
purchase a unit with one or more "extra" bedrooms.
The Board, however, desires to set a standard whereby the 40%
category units would be distributed for sale through the
established lottery system. If a project seeks exemption for all
or a portion of the category units to be available to select
qualified employees, a Special Review request could be made
concurrently with the application. That review should be used to
evaluate whether unique circumstances are present. Nonetheless,
under no circumstances will minimum occupancy standards be waived.
G. HOW SHOULD TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FROM THE COUNTY IS NEW
RURAL/REMOTE ZONE BE ACCOUNTED IN THE METRO AREA ALLOTMENTS?
During the adoption of the County's Rural and Remote zone district
in 1994, the County provided for an exemption from GMQS for units
transferred from sites zoned R/R to other parcels within the Metro
12
area and the expanded AACP housing study area (Aspen Village and
up -valley). The number of units permitted through a TDR proposal
was subject to special review. To date, the County has not
established guidelines for reviewing TDR proposals, except those
already established through our Special Review section of the Code.
Unfortunately, during the metro GMQS amendments, adopted this
January jointly by the BOCC and City Council, staff failed to
address how this exemption section should be treated in terms of
annual development allotments. Under the newly adopted GMQS
exemption section, each exemption is described as either:
* Not deducted from the Metro Area development allotments and
development ceilings, or
* Deducted from the Metro Area development allotments and
ceilings.
Examples of those types of units falling in the "not deducted"
category in the County Code include: units on lots subdivided
before June 12, 1978; remodeling/restoration/reconstruction-
essential community facilities; and, development approved pursuant
to subdivision exemption. The remaining exemptions are all to be
deducted from allotments and ceilings, and include: dwellings in
the AH zone and/or restricted to affordable housing price and
income guidelines; employee and caretaker units; commercial
development with negligible impacts; change in use of an existing
structure; and additional units on lots which contain historic
resources.
While the above lists were devised based generally on the AACP,
the concept of a Rural/Remote District and a TDR program had not
been conceived during the AACP process. In some TDR cases, we will
be dealing with a TDR that is derived from a lot with a pre-1978
GMQS right in the Rural/Remote zone (R/R). In those cases, it
could be argued that we are simply transferring the GMQS right from
one site to another to obtain a desired outcome. While no site in
the Metro area will be zoned R/R, those sites considered for
transfer into the Metro or expanded Metro area will be only those
sites located in Valleys in the upper Roaring Fork Valley (Little
Annie basin, Independence Pass, Castle/Maroon Creek Valleys, Hunter
Creek and Lenado).
However, some applicants may propose that a TDR and GMQS exemption
be granted, even if •the sending site does not have all the GMQS
rights to transfer with the development. An example may include
a several hundred acre holding in R/R with presently one GMQS right
based upon merger, proposing a TDR for two or more units in the
Metro area. While the development would require analysis un-er
special review, staff needs direction as to how we should draft
Code language to deal with the allotment pools and development
ceilings.
13
While this is arguably a Pitkin County issue, it could affect
build -out and development in the Metro area. Therefore, we raised
this issue as a discussion item on April 4th. At that time, City
Council members appeared unwilling to address the issue without
understanding the possible number of TDR's which may apply under
the TDR regulations. The results of the County's action on
Rural/Remote rezoning will drastically affect how staff might
provide the City the type of build -out analysis they seek for
discussion of the Metro allotment pools. In the Little Annie R/R
planning area, staff estimates some 50+ units are possible under
build -out. In the other upper -valley proposed R/R rezoning areas,
staff estimates that an additional 176 units could be theoretically
constructed based on the R/R zones 35 acre minimum lot
requirements.
Some, but probably not all, of the R/R properties may actually
propose some type of TDR proposal. Moreover, even if every site
zoned R/R proposed a TDR scheme (a scenario we believe would not
occur), the County may require multiple R/R rights be extinguished
in exchange for metro area development. As an alternative, the
County may decide to codify more specific TDR standards, that may
include a ratio requirement based upon acreage.
In the non -metro boundary (downvalley from the Airport), the
exemption for TDR's presents no particular issue as allotment pools
and joint City adoption is not involved. In theory, however, the
metro boundary may be an important element toward promoting a
successful TDR program. This is especially true given the other
land use restrictions which have been adopted in relationship to
GMQS, and thus the demand which may be generated for purchase of
these development rights. Unlike most TDR programs, the density
of a site may not need to be increased to generate a "market" for
their purchase. Instead, owners may find the GMQS exemption alone
offsets the cost of purchasing the right. In that event, the
overall development ceiling (30,000 peak population) would not be
compromised.
The County considered this issue at a subsequent worksession in
late April. The issue is presently unresolved and requires more
debate and analysis before a resolution can be reached. Staff will
continue to address outstanding TDR issues and anticipates
developing more specific TDR standards. If P&Z members have
comments or suggestions, staff would appreciate your input.
I. OTHER PITKIN COUNTY "AH" ISSUES:
* Expedited processing treatment and procedures for mixed AH
projects: =V
At a recent worksession this issue was raised in reference to a
100% RO project. A County policy regarding the priority processing
14
treatment and waiving of planning fees for other than 100% Category
housing projects has not been developed. In their recommendations
regarding RO housing, and presented at the previous joint
worksessions, the Housing Board recommended that RO units should
not be eligible for waiving of tap fees or park dedication fees;
not be eligible for waiving of development review fees or building
permit fees; and must satisfy all other aspects of the development
review process. Depending upon the scale of the proposal we may
receive, cost of processing an AH project (either a mix of free
market, RO and category units or 100% RO) will range based on the
complexity of the proposal. Obviously a 2 unit project will be
less timely to process than a project of several dozen or more
units.
The current City policy for AH mixed projects are to charge normal
planning office fees, tap fees and park dedication fees, but
provide for priority calendar treatment. The Board supports this
policy for the treatment of AH projects in the county. If a
project is 100% AH/RO then the costs shall be split so the RO units
help subsidize the fees.
1. The extension of a GMQS exemption for AH mixed development in
the downvalley planning area:
As a result of a recent worksession whereby Craig Glendenning
unveiled an AH (30/30/40) development scenario for an Emma site,
some BOCC members suggested that the BOCC revisit extending the
GMQS exemption for mixed projects beyond the Aspen Village area.
As you. may recall, the Aspen Village boundary was established
through the Housing Committee of the AACP. The goal was to house
60% of the Aspen area workforce upvalley of this boundary, to help
maintain a viable community in the upper valley. Obviously,
concentrated housing closer to an employee's place of work reduces
transportation and air quality impacts. However, real estate
markets in the mid- and down -valley portions of Pitkin County have
increased dramatically.
Having considered this issue, the BOCC has indicated that the mixed
AH zone shall be limited to the AACP housing study area, as
recommended in the AACP.
2. Should commercial uses accessory to the housing development be
exempted from GMQS?
The draft AH2 and AH 3 (County) zones allow such commercial uses
as a use permitted by special review. However, no companion GMQS
amendment had been discussed as an element of this proposal. The
GMQS amendments adopted in January allowed for a GMQS exemption
for both essential community facilities, as well as commercial
development with negligible growth impacts. It is difficult�to
predict what types of "commercial" uses might be proposed through
the AH zone, and whether they may qualify under either of these
15
provisions. Staff sought BOCC direction as to whether a new
exemption for accessory commercial uses in the AH zone should be
drafted. Their direction was not to amend the code at this time.
Accessory commercial in the AH zone shall be evaluated for GMQS
compliance based upon the current exemption standards.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendments to the
AH zone district in the City and the creation of the new AH zone
districts in the County. Staff recommends approval of the
revisions to the Resident Occupied housing program. Staff also
recommends an expedited review process for County AH projects.
Staff recommends continuation of the public hearing for further
discussion of the following items:
* AH Project on Two or More Non-contiguous Lots in the City
* Transfer of Development Rights from the Rural/Remote Zone
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Planning and Zoning Commissions can provide
comments/recommendations on any or all of the amendments to the
Board and Council for more discussion.
2. A worksession for all the decision -makers could be scheduled
to discuss all of the issues.
3. Table changes to pending additional analysis.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend to the City Council/Board of County
Commissioners the creation of Affordable Housing zone districts in
Pitkin County."
"I move to recommend to the City Council the proposed text
amendments to the Affordable Housing zone district in the City of
Aspen."
"I move to recommend to City Council/Board of County Commissioners
the revisions to the Resident Occupied housing program."
EXHIBITS:
1. City AH Code Amendments
2. County AH 2/PUD zone district
3. County AH 3/PUD zone district
16
DRAFT REVISION JULY, 1994
CITY
Exhibit 1
Sec. 5-206.2. Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH 1/PUD)
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district is
to provide for the use of land for the production of lew-,—Fnede=te
FAiEldle ine Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 affordable housing and resident
occupied units. The zone district also permits a limited component of free
market units to off -set the cost of developing affordable housing. It is
contemplated that land may also be subdivided in connection with a
development plan.
The Affordable Housing 1/PUD (AH) zone district is intended for
residential use primarily by permanent residents of the community.
Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to
residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Affordable
Housing (AH 1/PUD) zone district should be scattered throughout the city
to ensure a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by
its working residents; at the same time the Affordable Housing (AH 1/PUD)
zone district can protect the city's neighborhoods from rezoning pressures
that other non -community oriented zone districts may produce. Further,
lands in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district should be located
within walking distance of the center of the city, or on transit routes.
The City AH zone district only applies within the Aspen Municipal
boundaries.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the
Affordable Housing (AH) zone district.
1. Residential uses restricted to lei--mederat-e—and middle Ineeme
Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 affordable housing guidelines and resident
occupied units( as defined by the Housing Authority Guidelines of
the Aspen/ Pitkin County Housing Authority) must comprise at least
seventy (70) percent of the unit mix, of the development. Of this
70%, 40% of the units must be deed restricted to Category 1, 2, 3
or 4 pursuant to the Affordable Housing Guidelines, and Resident
Occupied units may comprise up to thirty (30) percent of the unit
mix. Free market development may comprise up to thirty
(30) percent of the unit mix. However, only 40% of a
project's bedrooms may be located within free market or
Resident Occupied units. Category housing must comprise
at least 60% of the bedroom mix of the project. Despite
these requirements, projects may be comprised of all
Category deed restricted or Resident Occupied units. In
the event that no free market development is proposed as
part of the project, the limitation on Resident Occupied
units and bedroom mix shall not apply. Residential uses
may be comprised of single-family, duplex and multi-
family dwelling units.
2. Home occupations.
3. Accessory buildings and uses.
4. Transit facilities.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as
conditional uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district,
subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7,
Division 3.
1. Open use recreation site;
2. Day care center;
3. Satellite dish antennae; and
4. Dormitory.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional
requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in
the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (square feet):
3,000 for lots larger than 27,000 square feet
1,500,for lots of less than 27,000 square feet
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet):
a. For lots less than 27,000 square feet
Detached residential dwelling: 1,500 square feet
Duplex: 1,500 square feet
b. For lots larger than 27,000 square feet:
Detached: 3,000 square feet
Duplex: 1,500 square feet
For multi -family dwellings on a lot of 27, 000 square
feet or less or for lots of 43,560 square feet or
less when approved by special review pursuant to
Article 7, Division 4, the following square feet
requirements apply:
Studio: 300
1 bedroom: 400
2 bedroom: 800
3 bedroom: 1,200
i
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1)
bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area.
For multi -family dwellings on a lot of more than
27,000 square feet (except when varied by special
review) the following square feet requirements
apply:
Studio: 1,000
1 bedroom: 1,250
2 bedroom: 2,100
3 bedroom: 3,630
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1)
bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 3-G To be determined during
PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section
including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility
and adjacent zone district regulations.
4. Minimum front yard (feet): To be determined during PUD
review, based upon the criteria in Section
including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility
and adjacent zone district regulations.
5. Minimum side yard (feet): To be determined during PUD review, based
upon the criteria in Section including but not limited to
neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations.
feet feEeaeh side -yaEd I 15 feet tetal minimum f„r be} h side y
(Mini -mum si-de-yaEd shall b 9 €eel-€eE ya-r-ds- whieh a,-e eentinuei
te any zene—dis t,-ie ether than Af€er-dab l e Heu-ai-ng.-+
The minimum side yard for multi -family dwellings: shall be 6 feet.
To be determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in
Section including but not limited to neighborhood
compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations.
6. Minimum rear yard (feet): To be determined during PUD review,
based upon the criteria in Section including but not limited
to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone district
regulations.
7. Maximum height (feet): To be determined during PUD review,
based upon the criteria in Section including but not limited
to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone district
regulations. , inereasable tip te Be feet by speeial
r
8.. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot. (feet):
-5—.-- To be determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria
in Section including but not limited to neighborhood
compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations.
9. Percent of open space required for building site: To be
determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section
including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and
adjacent zone district regulations. epen spaee may be used
review,
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and
nonconforming lots of record) .
The allowable floor area permitted in this zone is
determined by the following table and shall be applied
to the proposed fathering parcel. Floor area allocations
on newly proposed subdivided lots shall be determined as
part of the Planned Unit Development review, but in no
case shall they cumulatively exceed the provisions of
this section. Sites may be developed up to 85% of the
allowed floor area. Up to 100% of the floor area may
be permitted by special review, pursuant to Article 7,
Division 4.
Lot Size Allowable
(Square Feet) Square Feet
0--15,000 square feet 1.1:1
15,001 square feet--25,000 square feet 1:1
25,001 -- 43,560 square feet .8:1
>1 acre -- 3 acres .6:1
>3 acres -- 6 acres .36:1
>6 acres .3:1
• • • - • • . .
. . .
._
...
...
...
..OFTW
/
24E)
r
r sqtiare
eEf U.are feet
feet ef fleer
o f y leer area
area, plus 14
f e r ^e i
additienal
19e
in
square feet
let area,
f l er area-.
---
-- --
- -- - -
- -
- -
-=
MAWN
..
reee
r990
/
/
square/
f 1
/69G square
square feet
feet ef fleer
ref fleer area
area, plus 16
f er eae T
-,elditien-, l
199 feet
in let
square
area,
fleer area-.
/999
area.
/G89 square
feet ef fleer
/square
/ uare
feet . /
speeial
review,by
pursuant-
t o r d- ; e l
.. 7
D; t ; SDI-4'
11. Internal floor area ratio: No requirement.
E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street parking
spaces shall be provided for each use in the Affordable Housing
(AH) zone district.
1. Residential uses: Established by special review pursuant
to Article 7, Division 4. The maximum number of parking
spaces required shall not exceed 1 space/bedroom for Free
Market Units. Parking spaces shall not exceed 1
space/bedroom or 2 spaces/dwelling unit, whichever is
less for the Affordable Units.
2. All other: N/A.
EJ
Exhibit 2
COUNTY METRO AREA DRAFT REGULATIONS
Sec. 3-407. Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH 2/PUD).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district is
to provide for the use of land for the production of law, memate—a- d
Faiddle inee►? Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 affordable housing and resident
occupied units (as defined by the Housing Authority Guidelines of the Aspen/
Pitkin County Housing Authority). The zone district also permits a limited
component of free market units to off -set the cost of developing affordable
housing. It is contemplated that land may also be subdivided in connection
with a development plan.
The Affordable Housing (AH 2/PUD) zone district is intended for residential
use primarily by permanent residents of the community. Recreational and
institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are
included as special review uses. Commercial uses which are accessory to
the housing development are also included as special review uses. Lands
in the Affordable Housing (AH 2/PUD) zone district should be scattered
throughout the eity Metro Area to ensure a mix of housing types, including
those which are affordable by its working residents; at the same time the
Affordable Housing (AH 2/PUD) zone district can protect the eity's area's
neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other non -community oriented
zone districts may produce. Further, lands in the Affordable Housing (AH
2/PUD) zone district should be located within walking distance of the
eenter of he e-i ty, ever on transit routes, and on pedestrian and bicycle
trails. The County AH zone district Metro area regulations only apply
within the Metro area, outside of the Aspen city limits, as described in
the definition section of the County Land Use Code.
B. Allowed Uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the
Affordable Housing (AH 2/PUD) zone district.
1. Residential uses restricted to lew—mede-ate and-- e neem-e
Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 affordable housing guidelines and
resident occupied units( as defined by the Housing Authority
Guidelines of the Aspen/ Pitkin County Housing Authority) must
comprise at least seventy (70) percent of the unit mix, of the
development. Of this 70%, 40% of the units must be deed
restricted to Category 1, 2, 3 or 4 pursuant to the Affordable
Housing Guidelines, and Resident Occupied units may comprise
up to thirty ( 30 ) percent of the unit mix. Free market
development may comprise up to thirty (30) percent
of the unit mix. However, only 40% of a project's
bedrooms may be located within free market or
Resident Occupied units. Category housing must
comprise at least 60% of the bedroom mix of the
project. Despite these requirements, projects may
be comprised of all Category deed restricted or
Resident Occupied units. In the event that no free
market development is proposed as part of the
project, the limitation on Resident Occupied units
and bedroom mix shall not apply. Residential uses
may be comprised of single-family, duplex and multi-
family dwelling units.
2. Accessory Buildings and Uses
3. Bus Stop
4. Crop Production
5. Day Care Centers
6. Home Occupations
7. Parks, Playground, Playing Fields
8. Solar Energy Collectors (Private Use)
9. Trails
10. Transit Facilities.
C. Special Review Uses: The following uses are subject to
special review:
1. Agriculture Stands
2. Caretaker Dwelling Units
3. Cemeteries
4. Churches
5. Club Houses or Recreational Buildings Used in
connection with and accessory to a permitted outdoor
recreational use
6. Community Health Facilities
7. Dormitory Housing
8. Employee Dwelling Units
9. Farm Buildings
10. Golf Courses
11. Mobile Homes
12. Nursing, Convalescent, Rest, and Retirement Homes
13. Outdoor Recreational Uses
14. Commercial uses accessory to the housing
development.
15. Prefabricated Homes not requiring building code
exceptions
16. Satellite Reception Devices
17. Schools / Universities
18. Sewage Disposal Areas / Landfills / Water Plants
19. Uses, Activities and Facilities Permitted by Special
Use Permit Issued by Federal Agencies
20. Water Crossing and Diversion
D. Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in
the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District.
1. Airport
2. Alpine Ski Areas and Support
3. Amusement and Entertainment Establishments
4. Animal Production and Husbandry Services, and Other
Farm and Agricultural Uses
5. Commercial Automobile Parking Lots
6. Commercial Camping Areas
7. Commercial Firewood Splitting, Storage and Sales
8. Commercial Kennels and Veterinary Clinics
9. Commercial Riding Stables
10. Equipment Supplies and Contraction or Subcontraction
11. Essential Government and Public Utility Uses,
Facilities and Services
12. Financial Institutions
13. General Services
14. Guest Ranches
15. Hospitals
16. Junk Yards
17. Logging
18. Medical / Dental Clinics
19. Mineral Exploration/Mining Concrete Batch Plants
21. Motels, Hotels, Lodges
22. Nordic Ski Areas and Support Facilities
23. Offices
24. Places for Retailing of Goods (structures and
businesses limited to 12,000 square feet of floor
area per building)
25. Professional Offices
26. Radio Transmitting Station
27. Research Facilities, Indoors
28. Research Facilities, Other
29. Resort Cabins
30. Restaurants and Bars
31. Timesharing / Fractional Fees
32. Uses not Listed
33. Vehicle and Aircraft Sales and Service
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional
requirements shall apply to all permitted and Special
Review uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district.
1. Minimum lot area: 3,000 square feet
2. Minimum lot area per Principal Use is dependent upon
the type of Affordable Housing:
a. Detached residential dwelling: 3,000
b. Duplex: 1,500
C. For multi -family dwellings on a lot of less than
27,000 square feet or between 27,000 square feet and
43,560 square feet or less when approved by special
review pursuant to Section 3-20, the following
square feet requirements apply:
1) Studio: 300
2) 1 bedroom: 400
3) 2 bedroom: 800
4) 3 bedroom: 1,200
5) Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1)
bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area.
d. For multi -family dwellings on a lot of more than
27,000 square feet (except when varied by special
review) the following square feet requirements
apply:
1)
Studio: 1,000
2)
1 bedroom:
1,250
3)
2 bedroom:
2,100
4)
3 bedroom:
3,630
5)
Units with
more
bedroom per
1,000
than 3 bedrooms: One (1)
square feet of lot area.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): To be determined during
PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section
including but not limited to neighborhood
compatibility and adjacent zone district
regulations.
4. Minimum Front Yard Setback: To be determined during
PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section
including but not limited to neighborhood
compatibility and adjacent zone district
regulations.
5. Minimum Side Yard Setback: To be determined during PUD review,
based upon the criteria in Section including but not
limited to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone
district regulations.
6. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: To be determined during PUD
review, based upon the criteria in Section . including
but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone
district regulations.
7. Maximum Height Principal and Accessory Structures:
To be determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria
in Section including but not limited to neighborhood
compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations.
8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot: To
be determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in
Section including but not limited to neighborhood
compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations.
9. Minimum Usable Open Space per Dwelling Unit: To be
determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in
Section including but not limited to neighborhood
compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations.
10. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: The allowable floor area
permitted in this zone is determined by the
following table and shall be applied to the proposed
fathering parcel. Floor area allocations on newly
proposed subdivided lots shall be determined as part
of the Planned Unit Development review, but in no
case shall they cumulatively exceed the provisions
of this section. Sites may be developed up to 85%
of the allowed floor area. Up to 100% of the floor
area may be permitted by special review, pursuant
to Section 3-20.
Lot Size Allowable
(Square Feet) Square Feet
0--15,000 square feet 1.1:1
15,001 square feet--25,000 square feet 1:1
25,001 -- 43,560 square feet .8:1
>1 acre -- 3 acres .6:1
>3 acres -- 6 acres .36:1
>6 acres .3:1
E. Off-street parking requirement. Parking standards in the AH
2/PUD zone shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 3-
1108, except for residential uses which shall be established by
special review pursuant to Section 3-20. The maximum number of
parking spaces required shall not exceed 1 space/bedroom for Free
Market Units. Parking spaces shall not exceed 1 space/bedroom or
2 spaces/dwelling unit, whichever is less for the Deed Restricted
Units (Category of Resident Occupied Units).
EB
Exhibit 3
AACP HOUSING AREA DRAFT REGULATIONS
Sec. 3-407. Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH 3/PUD).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district is
to provide for the use of land for the production of lew, ffiederate
ffi>=ddle—Ineeme Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 affordable housing and resident
occupied units(as defined by the Housing Authority Guidelines of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority). The zone district also permits a
limited component of free market units to off -set the cost of developing
affordable housing. It is contemplated that land may also be subdivided
in connection with a development plan. The Affordable Housing (AH 3/PUD)
zone district is intended for residential use primarily by permanent
residents of the community. Recreational and institutional uses customarily
found in proximity to residential uses are included as special review uses.
Commercial uses which are accessory to the housing development are also
included as special review uses.
Lands in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district should be scattered
throughout the AACP Housing to ensure a mix of housing types, including
those which are affordable by its working residents; at the same time the
Affordable Housing (AH 3/PUD) zone district can protect the eity's area's
neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other non -community oriented
zone districts may produce. Further, lands in the Affordable Housing (AH
3/PUD) zone district should be located within walking distance of the
eentef e-f the e- ty, ems- on transit routes, and on pedestrian and bicycle
trails. These AH AACP housing area regulations apply to the area west of
the Metro area boundary (as described in the County Land Use Code
definition section) to the Aspen Village Mobile Home Park.
B. Allowed Uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the
Affordable Housing (AH 3/PUD) zone district.
1. Residential uses restricted to lew, medefate and mi-ddle-i-aeeffie
Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 affordable housing guidelines and
resident occupied units( as defined by the Housing Authority
Guidelines of the Aspen/ Pitkin County Housing Authority) must
comprise at least seventy (70) percent of the unit mix, of the
development. Of this 70%, 40% of the units must be deed
restricted to Category 1, 2, 3 or 4 pursuant to the Affordable
Housing Guidelines, and Resident Occupied units may comprise
up to thirty ( 30 ) percent of the unit mix. Free market
development may comprise up to thirty (30) percent
of the unit mix. However, only 40% of a project's
bedrooms may be located within free market or
Resident Occupied units. Category housing must
comprise at least 60% of the bedroom mix of the
project. Despite these requirements, projects may
be comprised of all Category deed restricted or
Resident Occupied units. In the event that no free
market development is proposed as part of the
project, the limitation on Resident Occupied units
and bedroom mix shall not apply. Residential uses
may be comprised of single-family, duplex and multi-
family dwelling units.
2. Accessory Buildings and Uses
3. Bus Stop
4. Crop Production
5. Day Care Centers
6. Home Occupations
7. Parks, Playground, Playing Fields
8. Solar Energy Collectors (Private Use)
9. Trails
10. Transit Facilities.
C. Special Review Uses: The following uses are subject to
special review:
1. Agriculture Stands
2. Caretaker Dwelling Units
3. Cemeteries
4. Churches
5. Club Houses or Recreational Buildings Used in
connection with and accessory to a permitted outdoor
recreational use
6. Community Health Facilities
7. Dormitory Housing
8. Employee Dwelling Units
9. Farm Buildings
10. Golf Courses
11. Mobile Homes
12. Nursing, Convalescent, Rest, and Retirement Homes
13. Outdoor Recreational Uses
14. Commercial uses accessory to the housing
development.
15. Prefabricated Homes not requiring building code
exceptions
16. Satellite Reception Devices
17. Schools / Universities
18. Sewage Disposal Areas / Landfills / Water Plants
19. Uses, Activities and Facilities Permitted by Special
Use Permit Issued by Federal Agencies
20. Water Crossing and Diversion
D. Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in
the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District.
1. Airport
2. Alpine Ski Areas and Support
3. Amusement and Entertainment Establishments
4. Animal Production and Husbandry Services, and Other
Farm and Agricultural Uses
5. Commercial Automobile Parking Lots
6. Commercial Camping Areas
7. Commercial Firewood Splitting, Storage and Sales
8. Commercial Kennels and Veterinary Clinics
9. Commercial Riding Stables
10. Equipment Supplies and Contraction or Subcontraction
11. Essential Government and Public Utility Uses,
Facilities and Services
12. Financial Institutions
13. General Services
14. Guest Ranches
15. Hospitals
16. Junk Yards
17. Logging
18. Medical / Dental Clinics
19. Mineral Exploration/Mining Concrete Batch Plants
21. Motels, Hotels, Lodges
22. Nordic Ski Areas and Support Facilities
23. Offices
24. Places for Retailing of Goods (structures and
businesses limited to 12,000 square feet of floor
area per building)
25. Professional Offices
26. Radio Transmitting Station
27. Research Facilities, Indoors
28. Research Facilities, Other
29. Resort Cabins
30. Restaurants and Bars
31. Timesharing / Fractional Fees
32. Uses not Listed
33. Vehicle and Aircraft Sales and Service
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional
requirements shall apply to all permitted and special review uses
in the Affordable Housing 3/PUD (AH 3/PUD) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet):
Detached residential dwelling: 6,000
Duplex: 3,500/unit
• dwellings: en a lo - - t-
c
Studio: 1,000
1 bedroom: 1,250
2 bedroom: 2,000
3 bedroom: 3,000
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1)
bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area.
JOE
3. Minimum open space requirement per dwelling unit - 11200
square feet
4. Minimum lot width (feet): To be determined during PUD
review, based upon the criteria in Section
including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility
and adjacent zone district regulations.
5. Minimum Front Yard Setback: To be determined during PUD
review, based upon the criteria in Section
including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility
and adjacent zone district regulations.
6. Minimum Side Yard Setback: To be determined during PUD
review, based upon the criteria in Section
including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility
and adjacent zone district regulations.
7. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: To be determined during PUD review,
based upon the criteria in Section including but not limited
to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations.
8. Maximum Height Principal and Accessory Structures: To be
determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section
including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and
adjacent zone district regulations.
9. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot: To be
determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section
including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and
adjacent zone district regulations.
EJ
10. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: The allowable floor area
permitted in this zone is determined by the following
table and shall be applied to the proposed fathering
parcel. Floor area allocations on newly proposed
subdivided lots shall be determined as part of the
Planned Unit Development review, but in no case shall
they cumulatively exceed the provisions of this
section. Sites may be developed up to 85% of the allowed
floor area. Up to 100% of the floor area may be
permitted by special review, pursuant to Section 3-20.
Lot Size Allowable
(Square Feet) Square Feet
0--15,000 square feet 1.1:1
15,001 square feet--25,000 square feet 1:1
25,001 -- 43,560 square feet .8:1
>1 acre -- 3 acres .6:1
>3 acres -- 6 acres .36:1
>6 acres .3:1
E. Off-street parking requirement. Parking standards in the AH
3/PUD zone shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 3-
1108, except for residential uses which shall be established by
special review pursuant to Section 3-20. The maximum number of
parking spaces required shall not exceed 1 space/bedroom for Free
Market Units. Parking spaces shall not exceed 1 space/bedroom or
2 spaces/dwelling unit, whichever is less for the Deed Restricted
Units (Category of Resident Occupied Units).
Im
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Water Place Affordable Housing Project
DATE: June 20, 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
The applicant is presently working on a redesign of the project
based upon the comments received by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at their May 9th meeting. The applicant has requested
a work session with the Planning Commission to addresses the
Commission concerns. Staff has scheduled this work session for
July 18, 1995.
Following the work session with the Commission, the applicant will
request a work session from City Council to discuss some policy
issues regarding this proposal. Depending on Commission and
Council input, the applicant may return through the land use
process and will renotice a public hearing before the Commission
at that time.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Trueman Lot 1 SPA Amendment - Public Hearing
DATE: June 20, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking City approval to vary the uses
permitted on Lot 1 of the Trueman Subdivision SPA which is located
in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district.
At the June 6th meeting, the Commission requested that the Planning
Office conduct further research to identify past agreements and
approvals for the Trueman Subdivision. This memo presents the
findings from the additional research.
APPLICANT: Trueman Aspen Company, represented by Philip Bloemsma.
LOCATION: Lot 1, Trueman Subdivision.
ZONING: NC - Neighborhood Commercial zone district.
STAFF COMMENTS: The approved SPA plan for Lot 1 of the Trueman
SPA, which is recorded in Plat Book 5 at Page 75, approved NC and
SCI uses on this parcel.
"Exhibit 1" includes the purpose section of the NC and SCI zone
districts and the list of permitted and conditional uses in each
of these zone districts. "Exhibit 2" is the complete June 6th
Planning Office review memo on this item.
The applicant was initially seeking to add the following uses as
permitted uses in the Trueman SPA. With the new information staff
has obtained, several of these uses may be permitted or conditional
uses in the SCI zone district. Staff has noted SCI next to each
item that may be considered an SCI use:
1. Travel agency
2. Second hand store
3. Kitchen supply store (SCI)
4. Optical lab
5. Office supply
6. Lighting store (SCI)
7. Photo/framing store (SCI)
8. Furniture store
9. Auto parts shop (SCI)
10. Children/toy store
11. Bookstore
12. Gift and card shop
13. Take-out food shop
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Florist
Lock shop (SCI)
Sporting goods store
Appliance store
Pet Store
Clothing and shoe store
Audio/Video/Computer/Communications
Bed, bath and linen store
Arts and crafts (SCI)
store (SCI)
All current conditional uses would be considered
permitted uses.
Staff urges the Planning Commission to tabulate each of the above
uses into permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses for the
Trueman SPA and have this available at the meeting for discussion.
SIDEWALK ISSUE: In the approved Subdivision Agreement for the
Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project (TNCP), recorded in Book
327 at Page 25-38, there is specific language regarding the
addition of a sidewalk along Puppy Smith Street. This language
reads:
3. Future Improvements: North Mill Street and Puppy
Smith Street.
...In the event, that the City shall elect to
construct or install any street improvements on North
Mill Street or a sidewalk on Puppy Smith Street in the
right-of-way abutting the TNCP, Trueman agrees, upon
sixty (60) days written notice, and on such terms as are
mutually agreed upon by Trueman and the City, to
reimburse the City for that portion of the actual cost
of such improvements, including reasonable engineering
and inspection charges not to exceed fifteen percent
(15%), which is properly allocable to the TNCP in
relation to frontage of the TNCP affected thereby. The
proposed improvements may include, but shall not be
limited to, cutting, filling, grading, regrading, paving,
sidewalk, curbs, gutters, and drainage appurtenances.
The City shall have the right to construct or install
such improvements in phases or increments, e.g. curbs and
gutters in one year and sidewalks in a subsequent year,
and Trueman shall reimburse the City for each successive
phase or increment as above set forth.
It is staffs position that a sidewalk can be required at any time
and does not necessarily have to relate to a land use application
on this property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff would like the Planning Commission to
go through the proposed list of uses and determine which should be
permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses.
2
Planning staff recommends partial approval of the applicant's
request to expand the permitted uses on Lot 1 of the Trueman SPA.
For reasons noted in the memorandum, many of the uses proposed do
not meet the purpose of the underlying NC zone district.
The following uses may be permitted in the SCI zone district and
therefore no code amendment is necessary for these:
1. Kitchen supply store
2. Lighting store
3. Photo/framing store
4. Auto parts shop
5. Lock shop
6. Audio/Video/Computer/Communications store
7. Arts and crafts
Staff recommends that the following uses be added to the uses
currently permitted by right on Lot 1 of the Trueman SPA:
1. Second hand store
2. Office supply
3. Florist
4. Catalog store
Staff further recommends that the following uses be added as
conditional uses to Lot 1 of.the Trueman SPA:
1. Furniture shop
2. Children/toy store
3. Bookstore
4. Appliance store
5. Pet store
The following uses are presently conditional uses in the NC zone
district. Staff recommends that these uses become permitted by
right for Lot 1 of the Trueman SPA:
1. Laundromat
2. Garden shop
3. Hardware store
4. Paint and wallpaper store.
The following conditions are recommended for this SPA Amendment:
1. The applicant shall file a new SPA agreement with the City of
Aspen within 180 days from the date of approval by City
Council. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the
final development plan and SPA agreement within a periodof
180 days following its approval by city council shall render
the plan invalid.
3
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to City Council a use
amendment to the Trueman Lot 1 Final SPA, as recommended in the
Planning Office memorandum dated June 20, 1995."
Exhibits:
Purpose of the NC and SCI zone districts and the list of
permitted and conditional uses for each of these zones
112" - June 6, 1995 Memorandum to the Planning Commission
E3
4
EXHIBIT 1
The purpose of the NC zone district follows:
The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone
district is to allow small convenience retail
establishments as part of a neighborhood, that are
designated and planned to be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, to reduce traffic generation,
and mitigate traffic circulation and parking problems,
and to serve the daily or frequent trade or service needs
of the neighborhood.
The following uses of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone
district are permitted as of right:
1. Drug store
2. Food market
3. Liquor store
4. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up station
5. Barber shop
6. Beauty shop
7. Post office branch
8. Record store
9. T.V. sales and service shop
10. Shoe repair shop
11. Video rental and sale shop
12. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to
affordable housing guidelines
13. Accessory buildings and uses
The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC):
1. Service station
2. Laundromat
3. Garden shop
4. Hardware store
5. Paint and wallpaper store
6. Carpet, flooring and drapery shop
7. Business and professional office
8. Free market dwelling units which
other permitted uses
9. Home occupation
10. Satellite dish antennae
are accessory to
W1
The purpose of the
district is:
Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone
The purpose of the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI)
zone district is to allow for the use of land for the
preservation or development of limited commercial and
industrial uses which do not require or generate high
customer traffic volumes, and to permit customary
accessory uses, including residential dwellings.
The following uses are permitted as of right in the
Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone district.
1. Limited commercial and industrial uses including the
following and similar uses:
Vehicle sales
Appliance and equipment rental, storage, and repair
Automobile repair
Automobile washing facilities
Electrical and plumbing service shops
Commercial bakery
Computer product sales and services
Limited industrial uses including:
Builder's supply
Industrial dry cleaning plant and laundry
Fabrication and repair of building materials and
components
Lumberyards
Manufacture and repair of electronics or sporting
goods
Printing and publishing plants
Telecommunications supply
Typesetting
Warehousing and storage
Shop -craft industry and similar uses
Artists' studios with optional accessory dwellings
All of these uses are permitted provided they do not
create unusual traffic hazard, noise, dust, fumes, odors,
smoke, vapor, vibration, glare or industrial waste
disposal problems, and provided that no permitted uses
principally sell daily for frequently bought items to the
general public;
2. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable
housing guidelines;
3. Home occupations; and
4. Accessory buildings and uses.
The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the SCI
zone district:
1. Full -service gas station;
2. Dance studio;
3. Martial arts studio;
4. Dwelling unit accessory to permitted uses other than
artists studio;
S. Catalogue sales store;
6. Laundromat;
7. Photography studio;
8. Satellite dish antennae;
9. Above -ground fuel storage tanks.
0
7
Exhibit 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Trueman Lot 1 SPA Amendment - Public Hearing
DATE: June 6, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking City approval to vary the uses
permitted on Lot 1 of the Trueman Subdivision SPA which is located
in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district.
APPLICANT: Trueman Aspen Company, represented by Philip Bloemsma.
LOCATION: Lot 1, Trueman Subdivision.
ZONING: NC - Neighborhood Commercial zone district.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an SPA use
amendment to allow more locally oriented uses than are presently
permitted in the NC zone district.
Please refer to application information, Exhibit "A".
PROCESS: This project is being reviewed through the Final SPA
review process, since the addition generally complies with the
Conceptual SPA plan that was approved in 1977, as permitted by
Section 24-7-804(E)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission shall forward a recommendation to City
Council for the proposed SPA amendment.
STAFF COMMENTS: Section 24-7-804 (D) (2) , Specially Planned Area
regulations of the Municipal Code, permits use variations from the
underlying zone district if the variations comply with the
standards of Section 7-804 (B) of the Code.
The purpose of the NC zone district follows:
The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone
district is to allow small convenience retail
establishments as, part of a neighborhood, that are
designated and planned to be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, to reduce traffic generation,
and mitigate traffic circulation and parking problems,
and to serve the daily or frequent trade or service needs
of the neighborhood.
The applicant is seeking to add the following uses as permitted
uses in the Trueman SPA.
1. Travel agency
2. Second hand store
3: Kitchen supply store
4. Optical lab
5. Office supply
6. Lighting store
7. Photo/framing store
8. Furniture store
9. Auto parts shop
10. Children/toy store
11. Bookstore
12. Gift and card shop
13. Take-out food shop
14. Florist
15. Lock shop
16. Sporting goods store
17. Appliance store
18. Pet Store
19. Clothing and shoe store
20. Audio/Video/Computer/Communications store
21. Bed, bath and linen store
22. Arts and crafts
23. All current conditional uses would be considered
permitted uses.
To help the Planning Commission understand the nature of the
applicant's request, the existing permitted by right and
conditional uses of the NC zone district are included in Exhibit
"B" . Staff has also included the purpose of the CC, C1, SCI and
O zone in this exhibit to assist the Planning Commission in their
decision.
Staff believes the applicant's request could have substantial
implications on the Trueman SPA. The purpose of the NC zone
district should be considered when reviewing the nature of the
proposed uses.
The Planning Office has provided the following comments about each
of the proposed uses to be added to the Trueman SPA. In
parenthesis are the zone districts in which these uses are
currently allowed by right.
1. Travel agency (CC, C11 O)
A travel agency is considered a professional office. These uses
are permitted in the three primary commercial zone districts in
Aspen. Staff does not support increasing the ability of this type
of professional office to be extended into the NC zone district.
2. Second hand store (CC, Ci)
R
Second hand stores are popular retail establishments that serve a
0
t
niche that regular retail does not provide. This is a retail use
that can be narrowly defined. Staff recommends this as a use
permitted in the NC zone.
3. Kitchen supply store (SCI)
A kitchen supply store can mean many different things, from the
sale of kitchen appliances and cabinets to specialty accessory
kitchen items. Depending on the emphasis this use would be most
appropriate in either the SCI zone or the CC and C1 zones. Staff
does not see a kitchen supply store serving the daily or frequent
trade of the neighborhood.
4. Optical lab (CC, C1, 0)
No explanation is offered in the application as to the nature of
an optical lab. Medical offices are permitted in the CC, C1 and
0 zone districts, which seems appropriate for an optical lab.
Staff does not see an optical lab as appropriate in the NC zone.
5. Office supply (CC, C1)
Office supply may be an appropriate convenience use in this area.
6. Lighting store (SCI)
A lighting store would be a construction related or specialty type
store. Staff does not believe it meets the purpose of the NC zone.
7. Photo/framing store (CC, C1, SCI)
Photo and framing stores have been interpreted to be included in
almost all commercial zone districts. Their scope of business
varies quite significantly from high end stores like the Hill
Gallery to more general photo and framing like Fox Photo.
Depending on the nature of the business this may be an appropriate
use in this area. Staff recommends that this be a conditional use.
8. Furniture store (CC, C1)
Furniture stores vary in their orientation to customers. Depending
on the type of business this may be an appropriate use in this
zone. Staff recommends this be a conditional use.
9. Auto parts shop (SCI)
Cap's Auto Supply is located in the Office zone district across the
street from the Trueman center. It is a non -conforming use in the
0 zone, but it is a local serving business. An auto parts shop
would be an appropriate use in the NC zone.
10. Children/toy store (CC, Cl)
3
Although mostly geared to the commercial core area, a children
store or toy store could be oriented to serving the local
population. Again, depending on the orientation of the particular
business, it may or may not be appropriate in the NC zone. Staff
recommends that a children/toy store be a conditional use.
11. Bookstore (CC, C1)
Bookstores are also a conditional use in the O zone in historic
landmarks. The grocery store carries some magazines and books of
interest to their customers. Depending on the orientation and type
of bookstore it may be appropriate in the NC zone. Staff
recommends that this be a conditional use.
12. Gift and card shop (CC)
Staff does not believe a gift shop is appropriate in the NC zone
district. The combination pharmacy, card shop, beauty shop, gift
shop of The Drug Store provided a variety of uses that were
oriented to the local neighborhood. A gift and card section of a
larger local oriented store would be appropriate.
13. Take-out food shop (CC)
A food market is a permitted use in the NC zone. The definition
of a food market is "... a store which primarily sells packaged,
bulk and fresh foods, which may have indoor seating up to ten
seats, and no wait service." Staff believes this definition
provides for the type of food service that's appropriate for the
NC zone. An emphasis of the NC zone is to reduce traffic trips,
therefore staff does not believe a take-out food shop (i.e. fast
food) would be consistent with the purpose of the NC zone.
14. Florist (CC, Cl)
A florist would be a use consistent with the purpose of the NC
zone. Staff recommends that this be a permitted use.
15. Lock shop (SCI)
Staff believes this would be an appropriate use in the NC zone
district, and could be permitted by right. It should be noted
there is a lock shop in the Trueman center at this time.
16. Sporting goods store (CC)
Although Aspen's local population is oriented to outdoor and
sporting activities, this use would be extremely difficult to
enforce in an NC zone district. Staff believes this use is most
appropriate in the main commercial zone districts of town.
4
d
17. Appliance store (CC, Cl)
An appliance store is most appropriately located in the SCI zone
district, however it does generally serve the local population.
Staff recommends that an appliance be a conditional use as the
orientation of such business can vary significantly.
18. Pet Store (CC, Cl)
Generally it is the local population that would patronize a pet
store. Staff believes this would be consistent with the NC zone
if it was subject to a conditional use review.
19. Clothing and shoe store (CC, C1)
Although clothing and shoe apparel is needed by the local
population as well as visitors, staff does not believe a clothing
or shoe store is appropriate in the NC zone, as they are permitted
in the other commercial zones in town.
20. Audio/Video/Computer/Communications store (CC, C1, SCI)
Video rental, and T.V. service and repair are permitted uses in the
NC zone. Staff believes that this use represents an updating in
the land use code in recognizing the need for more electronic
communications oriented uses. Due to the wide range of the type
of business that would fall into this category, staff believes this
is should be a conditional use in the NC zone.
21. Bed, bath and linen store (CC, Cl)
Staff believes this would be too specialty oriented and not a use
that would be frequented by the local population on a recurring
basis.
22. Arts and crafts (CC, C1, SCI)
A use such as Aspen Art Supply may be appropriate in this location.
There are other arts and crafts related businesses that staff does
not believe would be appropriate. Depending on the orientation of
the business staff recommends that this use be a conditional use
in the zone.
23. All current conditional uses would be considered
permitted uses.
The current conditional uses of the NC zone district are: service
station, laundromat, garden shop, hardware store, paint and
wallpaper store, carpet, flooring and drapery shop, business and
professional office, free market dwelling units which are accessory
to other permitted uses, home occupation, and satellite dish
antennae.
5
Staff believes that the following existing conditional uses should
be permitted by right: laundromat, garden shop, hardware store, and
paint and wallpaper store. (Satellite dishes have been eliminated
from the code as a conditional use in all zone districts).
The remaining uses should be maintained as conditional uses as they
be have an orientation or impacts that should be reviewed in the
public hearing context of a conditional use review.
Finally, staff believes that a catalog store would be an
appropriate use in the NC zone and recommends that this be added
to the permitted use in the Trueman SPA.
Specially Planned Area Criteria: The following review standards
are set forth in Section 24-7-804(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with
or enhances the mix of development in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use,
density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping,
and open space.
Response: The proposed SPA amendment will expand the range of
commercial uses permitted in the Trueman SPA. No increase in
square footage is proposed. Staff has made comments on each of the
23 proposed uses in the preceding section.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist
to service the proposed development.
Response: The City Engineer submitted comments on the Pitkin
County Bank satellite branch office conditional use application.
These referral comments identified a need for a sidewalk to be
constructed on the south side of Puppy Smith Street. The Planning
Office and Planning Commission did not believe the construction of
a sidewalk was appropriate for mitigation in the bank' s conditional
use application, however staff would like to reconsider this
requirement with this SPA amendment. Although the applicant is not
increasing the square footage of the structure, the proposed
increase in types of commercial uses at the shopping center warrant
the installation of a sidewalk on the parcel. Individual
conditional use reviews may not necessitate a sidewalk but these
code amendments should be viewed as a more significant change to
the SPA.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is
generally suitable for development, considering the
slope, ground instability and the possibility of J.
mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood
hazards.
6
Response: This provision does not apply for the proposed use
amendment.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs
land planning techniques to preserve significant
view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts
and provide open space, trails and similar amenities
for the users of the project and the public at
large.
Response: The applicant is' only asking for an increase in
commercial uses allowed by right in the SPA. No public amenities
are proposed as no new development is proposed.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance
with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: one of the goals of the AACP is to revise the permitted
and conditional uses of the NC zone district so that only local
serving uses are permitted. The purpose of the NC zone also
emphasizes providing daily and frequent neighborhood services and
the reduction of traffic. Staff has closely reviewed the proposed
list of uses and has made comments relative to their
appropriateness in the NC zone district, as recommended by the
AACP.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the
expenditure of excessive public funds to provide
public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding
neighborhood-.
Response: The City has been working on improvements to Puppy Smith
Street and has suggested that the applicant provide a sidewalk
along the south side of this street. Therefore, the proposed
amendment will not require the expenditure of public funds to
provide public facilities.
7. Whether the proposed development on slopes in excess of
twenty percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density
requirements of Section 7-903 (B) (2) (b) .
Response: No new development is proposed, therefore this provision
does not apply.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the
proposed development.
Response: The applicant is not seeking to increase the floor area
of the project. The request to add supplementary uses to tb se
presently allowed does not trigger the need for GMQS allotments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends partial approval
7
of the applicant's request to expand the permitted uses on Lot 1
of the Trueman SPA. For reasons noted in the memorandum, many of
the uses proposed do not meet the purpose of the underlying NC zone
district. Staff recommends that the following uses be added to the
uses currently permitted by right on Lot 1 of the Trueman SPA:
1.
Second hand store
2.
Office supply - K o
3.
Auto parts store
4.
Florist
5.
Lock shop
6.
Catalog store
Staff further recommends that the following uses be added as
conditional uses to Lot 1 of the Trueman SPA:
1. Photo/ framing shop
2. Furniture shop -
3. Children/toy store
4. Bookstore -
5. Appliance store
6. Pet store
7. Audio/Video/Computer/Communications store
8. Arts and craft store - Y, ,
The following uses are presently conditional uses in the NC zone
district. Staff recommends that these uses become permitted by
right for Lot 1 of the Trueman SPA.-
1. Laundromat
2. Garden shop
3. Hardware store
4. Paint and wallpaper store.
The following conditions are recommended for this SPA Amendment:
1. The applicant shall file a new SPA agreement with the City of
Aspen within 180 days from the date of approval by City
Council. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the
final development plan and SPA agreement within a period of
180 days following its approval by city council shall render
the plan invalid.
2. The applicant shall construct a new sidewalk on the north
property boundary of the property adjacent to Puppy Smith
Street. The plan for this sidewalk must be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Office and City Engineer. he
sidewalk shall be constructed within 180 days from the date
of approval by City Council.
8
m
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to City Council a use
amendment to the Trueman Lot 1 Final SPA, as recommended in the
Planning Office memorandum dated May 2, 1995."
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information
"B" - List of Existing NC permitted and conditional uses
Purpose sections of CC, C1, SCI and O zone districts
"C" - Zoning referral comments
E3
9
■
7T'A,
eCompany
`300 Puppy Smith
Aspen, .NCO 81611
March 28, 1995
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Exhibit A
Re: Garden Center conditional use and Trueman *SPA variance
Dear Commission Members:
Trueman Aspen Company is submitting an application package
to the Planning and Zoning office to seek an approval of a
conditional use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone district
(sec. 5-212) as well as a variance to the Trueman SPA.
The conditional use we are seeking is a "Garden Shop".
Trueman Aspen Company is requesting to use this permit for a
garden center located in the courtyard of the shopping
center.
The variance to the Trueman SPA is intended to allow more
locally oriented uses than are currently permitted under the
N/C zone guidelines (see attached). Following are�the
attachments and information needed to begin the permit
process:
1. The street address of the proposed site, located at
lot #1, is:
North Mill Station
300 Puppy Smith
Aspen, CO 81611
Tel. #303-925-8603
2. The applicant is Trueman. Aspen Company
3. The authorized representative of the applicant is
Philip Bloemsma, Agent and Property Manager.
4. Attached are the following:
a. A disclosure of ownership by way of 1993
real estate tax notice
b. A vicinity map locating the property
c. A description of the proposed uses with an
explanation of how the uses comply with the
standards of the Planning and Zoning office.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
IS
Philip Bloemsma, Agent
M-
Trueman Aspen Company—
P.O. Box 5081
Aspen, CO 81611
March 28, 1995
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Trueman Center SPA Variance
Dear Commission Members:
The Trueman Center currently lies in the neighborhood
commercial zone district. With this application, Trueman
Aspen Company is seeking a SPA variance to allow the
following uses as permitted uses:
1. Travel Agency
2. Second Hand Store
3. Kitchen Supply Store
4. Optical Lab
5. Office Supply
6. Lighting Store
7. Photo/Framing Store
8. Furniture Store
9. Auto Parts Shop
10. Children/Toy Store
11. Book Store
12. Gift and Card Shop
e-vzrr- i� I Q- R.6 fl0s rj-vv ■ rQIR ^ O u f
14 . Florist
15. Lock Shop
16. Sporting Goods Store
17. Appliance Store
18. Pet Store Store
19. Clothing and Shoe Store
20. Audio/Video/Computer/Communica.tions Store
21. Bed Bath and Linen Store
22. Arts and Crafts
23. We would also ask that all existing conditional uses
be considered permited uses.
Trueman Aspen Company feels that all of the requested uses
conform with the intent of the zone district and the
original intent of the City Council in designating the
parcel Specially Planned Area.
E
1Tr ours,
ilip Bloemsma, Agent
rueman Aspen Company
00 Puppy Smith
spen, CO 81611
arch 29, 1995
ity of Aspen
lanning and Zoning Commission
30 South Galena St.
seen, CO 81611
e: Trueman SPA Variance and Conditional Use response to
eview standards.
ear Commission.Members:
Following is a response to the review standards of the P&Z
per attachment 4 of the conditional use and SPA development
application. Trueman Aspen Company feels that the
Conditional Use and SPA Variance are consistent with the
intent of the commission and council. Also the requests
are consistent and compatible with the character of the•
immediate vicinity and enhances the mixture of the existing
uses.
The impact will be minimal. There will be virtually no
visual impacts and the proposed uses will require no
additional services or public facilities in order to
operate. The Trueman Center has mitigated its employee
housing quota with 17 on site employee housing units. The
shopping center has 110 parking spaces which is more than
adequate to handle any proposed use.
The Conditional Use and SPA Variance proposed by Trueman
Aspen Company are consistent with all standards and
objectives of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). In
particular, the AACP suggests that the NC zones permitted
and conditional uses be revised. The uses will be a
convenience -to the local community. They. will enhance the
objectives of the zone district by serving the needs of the
local who requires convenience and ease with daily errands.
With this in mind, Trueman Aspen Company feels that the
proposed uses are appropriate for the Neighborhood Zone
District. Thank you for your consideration.
ASi rely,
r
Phili loemsma, Agent and Property Manager
EXHIBIT B
The following uses of the Neighborhood Commercial. (NC) zone
district are permitted as of right:
1. Drug store
2. Food market
3. Liquor store
4. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up.station
5. Barber shop
6. Beauty shop
7. Post office branch
8. Record store
9. T.V. sales and service shop
10. Shoe repair shop
11. Video rental and sale shop
12. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to
affordable housing guidelines
13. Accessory buildings and uses
The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in
the Neighborhood Commercial (NC):
1. Service station
2. Laundromat
3. Garden shop
4. Hardware store
5. Paint and wallpaper store
6. Carpet, flooring and drapery shop
7. Business and professional office
8. Free market dwelling units which are accessory to
other permitted uses
9. Home occupation
10. Satellite dish antennae
The purpose of the CC (Commercial Core) zone district is:
The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district is
to allow the use of land for retail and service
commercial, recreation and institutional purposes with
customary accessory uses to enhance the business and
service character in the central business core of the
city. Hotel and principal long-term residential uses may
be appropriate as conditional uses, while residential
uses are permitted or may be appropriate as conditional
uses.
The purpose of the Commercial (Cl) zone district is:
The purpose of the Commercial (Cl) zone district is to
IM
provide for the establishment of commercial uses which
are not primarily oriented towards serving the tourist
population.
The purpose of the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone
district is:
The purpose of the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I)
zone district is to allow for the use of land for the
preservation or development of limited commercial and
industrial uses which do not require or generate high
customer traffic volumes, and to permit customary
accessory uses, including residential dwellings.
The purpose of the Office (O ) zone district is:
The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide
for the establishment of offices and associated
commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual
scale and character of former residential areas that now
are adjacent to commercial and business area, and
commercial uses along Main .Street and other high volume
thoroughfares.
B
L,
3
EXHIBIT B
The following uses of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone
district are permitted as of right:
1. Drug store
2. Food market
3. Liquor store
4. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up station
5. Barber shop
6. Beauty shop
7. Post office branch
8. Record store
9. T.V. sales and service shop
10. Shoe repair shop
11. Video rental and sale shop
12. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to
affordable housing guidelines
13. Accessory buildings and uses
The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in
the Neighborhood Commercial (NC):
1. Service station
2. Laundromat
3. Garden shop
4. Hardware store
5. Paint and wallpaper store
6. Carpet, flooring and drapery shop
7. Business and professional office
8. Free market dwelling units which are accessory to
other permitted uses
9. Home occupation
10. Satellite dish antennae
The purpose of the CC (Commercial Core) zone district is:
The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district is
to allow the use of land for retail and service
commercial, recreation and institutional purposes with
customary accessory uses to enhance the business and
service character in the central business core of the
city. Hotel and principal long-term residential uses may
be appropriate as conditional uses, while residential
uses are permitted or may be appropriate as conditional
uses.
The purpose of the Commercial (Cl) zone district is:
The purpose of the Commercial (Cl) zone district is to
provide for the establishment of commercial uses which
are not primarily oriented towards serving the tourist
population.
The purpose of the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone
district is:
The purpose of the Service/-Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I)
zone district is to allow for the use of land for the
preservation or development of limited commercial and
industrial uses which do not require or generate high
customer traffic volumes, and to permit customary
accessory uses, including residential dwellings.
The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is:
The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide
for the establishment of offices and associated
commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual
scale and character of former residential areas that now
are adjacent to commercial and business area, and
commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume
thoroughfares.
FM-
Exhibit C
MEMO
June 1, 1995
TO: MARY LACKNER
FROM: BILL-DRUEDING, ZONING OFFICER
RE: TRUEMAN LOT 1 SPA AMENDMENT
My comments to your memo are:
Item #12: We need a definition of "gift shop."
Item #13: How much over-the-counter sales of on -site prepared
foods will be permitted in conjunction with
"primary" packaged goods?
Item #22: Do we need to define "arts and crafts?"
Item #23 Are business and professional offices to be
considered as current uses?' This appears to
conflict with item # 1. Also, there is a difference
between a "laundromat" and a commercia laundry
(drycleaning) which exist at Clark's and also the
S/C/I zone.
M
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Vickery Conditional Use for 2 Accessory Dwelling Units
at 123 W. Francis - Public Hearing
DATE: June 20, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking to voluntarily construct an
accessory dwelling unit in an existing historic residence that will
be remodeled and relocated on the parcel, this unit will be
referred to as ADU A. The applicant is also seeking approval to
construct a required accessory dwelling unit for a new free market
residence to be referenced as ADU B.
The applicant has obtained a GMQS Exemption from the Planning
Director for a second ,free market dwelling unit to be developed on
the 10,500 sq.ft. parcel. As part of the GMQS Exemption
requirements, the applicant must provide an accessory dwelling
unit, pay cash -in -lieu, or deed restrict the new residence to
resident occupancy. The applicant is also seeking condominization
of the parcel into a 6,000 sq.ft. lot and a 4,500 sq.ft. lot.
At the end of today's Commission agenda there is a work session
item to discuss a draft code amendment by Jake Vickery which
proposes a lot split provision for historically landmarked parcels.
The applicant is seeking that code amendment on this parcel so that
he does not need to go forward with a condominization.
The Planning Off ice recommends approval of the Vickery Conditional
Use for the two accessory dwelling units with conditions.
APPLICANT: Jake Vickery.
LOCATION: 123 W Francis Street, East 1/2 of Lot B & all of Lots
C, D, and E. Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: R-6 Medium Density Residential.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use
approval to build one voluntary and one required accessory dwelling
unit on the subject parcel. The property is presently improved
with a historic residence that will be relocated to the eastern
portion of the property and will contain a below grade two bedroom
accessory dwelling unit of approximately 700 net leasable sq.ft.
This unit is voluntary and is referred to as ADU A.
The second accessory dwelling unit is proposed for a new residence
to be located on the western portion of the property. This ADU is
proposed to be an approximately 500 sq.ft. studio, with southern
exposure above the garage, and will be referenced as ADU B.
Please refer to application information, Exhibit "A".
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments from the Engineering Department are
included as Exhibit "B" and Housing Authority comments are included
as Exhibit "C".
STAFF COMMENTS: The Commission has the authority to review and
approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to
the standards of Section 7-304:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes,
goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone
district in which it is proposed to be located; and
Response: The proposed dwelling units have the potential to house
local employees, which is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Community Plan and the underlying zone district.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible
with the character of the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development and surrounding land
uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses
and activities in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development; and
Response: The accessory dwelling unit is compatible with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood. The units will not be
visible as a distinct unit from the exterior of either residence.
C. The location, size, design and operating
characteristics of the proposed conditional use
minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts,
impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations
and odor on surrounding properties; and
Response: The accessory dwelling units will be completely
contained within the proposed residence.
ADU A, to be located within the basement of the historic residence,
will be accessed by an exterior stairwell adjacent to the garage.
The plans do not indicate any protection from the elements on this
stairway. There is also in interior stairway to access this unit.
The two bedroom unit is proposed with one lightwell on the east
side of the building. Staff believes the basement location of this
unit is marginal and would prefer to see the unit relocated above
grade.
The historic residence is proposed to be a five bedroom, 1950
2
sq.ft. house which provides two parking spaces within a garage.
Staff does not believe only two parking spaces are adequate for the
proposed house and ADU with a total of seven bedrooms. Should the
Planning Commission approve this request, an additional parking
space reserved for use by the ADU shall be provided on site.
ADU B, to be located above the garage of the new free market
residence, will be accessed via an exterior stairway that is
protected by a roof overhang. This studio unit has direct southern
exposure. Staff believes this is a quality ADU unit.
The free market residence is proposed to be a two bedroom, 2,970
sq.ft. unit. The applicant has not indicated any basement level
plans for this structure. The applicant is seeking a 250 sq.ft.
FAR bonus for this unit. Since the free market residence is only
a two bedroom unit and the ADU is a studio, staff believes the two
proposed parking spaces are adequate for the proposed development.
As per past P&Z concerns, a recommended condition of approval
requires that the unit be identified on building permit plans as
a separate dwelling unit requiring compliance with U.B.C. Chapter
35 for sound attenuation.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services
to serve the conditional use including but not
limited to roads, potable water, sever, solid
waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency
medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools; and
Response: The City Engineer, Chuck Roth has identified several
conditions of approval that would be applicable for both ADU's.
These conditions address site drainage, sidewalk areas,
encroachments, utilities, and work in the public right-of-way and
are included in the proposed conditions in the recommendation
section of this memorandum.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing
to meet the incremental need for increased employees
generated by the conditional use; and
Response: ADU B will satisfy the requirements of Ordinance 1 for
a new single family residence. The applicant must file the
appropriate deed restrictions for resident occupancy for both
units, including a six month minimum lease. Proof of recordation
must be forwarded to the Planning Office prior to issuance of any
building permits.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all
additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area
Community Plan and by all other applicable
requirements of this chapter.
3
Response: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and all other applicable conditional use standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the
Vickery Conditional Use ADU B. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission request a redesign of ADU A to provide better access and
light to the unit. The following conditions are recommended for
each ADU:
1. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The
accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted to resident
occupancy with a minimum six month lease. Upon approval by
the Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed
restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits, a copy of the
recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit must
be forwarded to the Planning Office.
3. The accessory dwelling unit shall be clearly identified as a
separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall
comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements.
4. During building permit plan review, the Zoning Enforcement
Officer and Housing Office shall make the final determination
that the unit meets the minimum size requirement of 300 sq. ft.
net liveable as defined in the Housing Authority Guidelines.
The accessory dwelling unit cannot be less than 300 sq.ft.
5. The accessory dwelling unit shall have a kitchen which is a
minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and
a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer.
6. The applicant shall meet the following requirements of the
City Engineer:
a. The new development plan shall provide for no more than
historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase
to historic storm run-off shall be maintained on site.
b. The Final Development Plan shall include a five foot wide
pedestrian usable space in the public right-of-way. The
applicant shall also prune the low tree limbs to a height
of seven feet to allow for pedestrian use in the public
right-of-way.
C. The improvement survey indicates fences being located
within both the Francis Street and alley rights -of -way.
4
W
The fences must either be relocated to private property,
or an encroachment license must be applied for prior to
the issuance of any building permits.
Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other
equipment must be installed on an easement provided by
the applicant and not in the public right-of-way.
e. The final development plans must indicate the trash
storage area which cannot be located in the public right-
of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as
trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas
that include utility meters or other utility equipment
must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked
by trash and recycle containers.
f. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088)
for design considerations of development in the public
rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation
species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights -
of -way from city street department (920-5130).
7. The applicant shall meet with the Parks Department to review
the proposed vegetation alterations on site. This meeting
shall take place prior to the issuance of any permits for the
property. The applicant shall comply with the tree
replacement requirements of the Parks Department.
8. A designated parking space for each ADU must be provided on
site in addition to the two spaces provided for each free
market unit.
9. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Conditional Use for two
accessory dwelling units to be located within two residences at 123
W. Francis with the conditions recommended in the Planning office
memo dated June 20, 1995."
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information
"B" - Engineering referral memo
"C" - Housing referral memo
5
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department
Date: June 13, 1995
Re: Vickery Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
(123 West Francis Street; East 1/2 of Lot B & all of Lots C, D, E, Block 56, Original Aspen
Townsite)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Site Drainage - One of the considerations of a development application for conditional use is
that there are adequate public facilities to service the use. One public facility that is inadequate is
the City street storm drainage system. The new development plan must provide for no more than
historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site.
2. Sidewalk Area - The public right-of-way between the property line and the curb is partially
obstructed by low tree limbs. It is recommended that a condition of approval be that the trees be
pruned up to a height of seven feet as needed to allow for pedestrian use of the public right-of-way.
In support of this, the final development plan should indicate a five foot wide pedestrian usable
space, a sidewalk "area."
3. Driveway - One driveway currently exists, but the applicant proposes to use the alley for access
to garages off the alley. This provides an excellent site design.
4. Encroachments - The improvement survey indicates fences being located within both the
Francis Street and alley public rights -of -way. The fences must either be relocated to private
property, or an encroachment license must be applied for prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Parking - The indicated parking spaces meet the upcoming parking space ordinance.
6. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on
an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way.
1
7. Trash & Utility Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area, which
may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and
recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment
must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers.
8. Work in the Public Right -of -wad - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130).
cc: Cris Caruso, Jake Vickery
M95.125
2
TUN 13 ' S5 08 e 49AM ASPEN HOUSING, OFC P.1
Exhibit C
TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
FROM: Cindy.Christensen, Housing oEfice
4ATE1 June 13, 1995
ParcelRE Vickery Conditional Une Review for an AM
# r 0 0
ISSUE The applicant is requesting to provide two accessor
dwelling _ one -t1ae historical
house and would be
voluntary unit and the second for' the new single family unit, whic
would be required.
BACKGROUM: The land area of the Site is On two 10ts -- Lot A is
4,500 square feet and Lot B is 6,000 square feet. The proposal is
one bedroom _ _ . .
cottage and one vol-unt ary,two -bedroom unit in the exisLing cottage.
ATI The Housing office recommendo approval upon the
followIng conditions!
The size of _he accesuory unito must
u 'delinea of the City of Aspen Municipal Code:
Accessary dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) squafe feet af
allowable floor area and not more lha� seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor
area, The unit shall be deed restriated, meeting the housing isuthorityjs guidelines for
resident cccupied units and shall be 11mited to mntal periods of not less than stK (5) months
in duration. Ownera of the principal, residence shaN have thei right to plaoe a qualified
employee or employees of his or her choosing in the amessory dwelling unit.
The
ide to the Housing Of f ice
applicant actual ice- r +� a ..fir accessory dwelling unitsi with
the liveable square footage calculated ao defined
upe P 14ousirig Guidelines.
2. The kitchen muot also be built to the fc)llowing specifications
# #,_ shown on the plan..:.'
Accessory f d Camtaker Dweilinge,, a minimurn of a two -
burner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Aspen School District Code Amendment - Establishing Land
Dedication Requirements
DATE: June 20, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking a land use code amendment to
enact school land dedication standards which would apply to all new
subdivisions within the Aspen School District. The City code
amendment would 'require a land dedication requirement for all newly
subdivided parcels within the City of Aspen.
The applicant has submitted a concurrent application being reviewed
by Pitkin County to enact this legislation within the Aspen and RE-
1 school districts.
APPLICANT: Aspen School District.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning
Services.
BACKGROUND: The Aspen School District has been experiencing a
steady growth of student enrollment during the past five years.
In order to keep up with the increase in student enrollments and
to maintain the existing level of service to students in the
future, the Aspen School District has submitted a Land Use Code
amendment that would enact school land dedication standards within
the Aspen School District boundaries within the City of Aspen.
The Colorado Revised Statues (C.R.S.) provide for express authority
for counties to include provisions in their subdivision regulations
to require reservation or dedication of sites and land area for
schools, or payment of cash -in -lieu of such reservations or
dedications in C.R.S. 30-28-133 (4) . C.R.S. 29-20-104 also provides
additional authority to local governments to regulate the use of
land to address the impacts of development. (These citations are
noted in the applicant's submission materials in Exhibit "A").
STAFF COMMENTS: Land Use Code amendments are subject to Section
24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code. This provision requires the
Commission and Council to consider the following:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict
with any applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: Staff does not find the proposed amendment to be an
conflict with any other portions of this chapter.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent
with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan does not address the
school district nor their future facilities.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible
with surrounding zone districts and land uses,
considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Response: The proposed amendment will be applicable to all newly
created parcels throughout the City. It would be almost impossible
for a new subdivision to be of a significant size that would
require a portion of the property to be dedicated as a school site.
There could be some cases when a new subdivision would warrant the
need to dedicate land for affordable housing for school employees.
All new subdivisions, with the exception of lot splits, would be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council along with the
proposed dedication to the school district to determine if a land
dedication would be appropriate in each situation.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on
traffic generation and road safety.
Response: This proposed legislation does not effect traffic
generation or road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in demands on public
facilities, and whether and the extent to
which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical
facilities.
Response: The proposed amendment is designed to require new
subdivision developers to pay a share of their impact on the local
school system. Staff believes the applicant is addressing this
provision of the Code as it codifies a school land dedication
requirement for all new subdivisions.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Response: It is not anticipated that the proposed code amendment
will have any impact on the natural environment.
I
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent
and compatible with the community character in
the City of Aspen.
Response: Staff does not relate this code amendment to community
character and does not believe this criteria is applicable.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions
affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the
proposed amendment.
Response: This code amendment does not relate to any specific
parcel or neighborhood. It will be applicable to all new
subdivisions within the City of Aspen.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in
conflict with the public interest, and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this
chapter.
Response: This amendment is not in conflict with the public
interest or the City of Aspen Municipal Code.
EXISTING REGULATIONS: Presently the Land Use Code addresses
impacts to schools in annexation, rezoning, conditional uses, and
GMQS competition. If a land use application is subject to these
provisions of the code, and to a lesser extent SPA and PUD
regulations, a finding can be made that the proposed development
has an adverse effect on the school district and mitigation can be
required. Williams Ranch was subject to paying the school district
approximately $15,000 for school mitigation.
It has been the practice of the Planning Office to refer
subdivision and GMQS competition applications to the school
district for review and comment. On occasion, the Aspen School
District has identified a fee, which has been included as a
condition of approval.
The application indicates that school enrollment has been
increasing at approximately 3% to 8% per year and this increase is
seen in the elementary, middle and high school levels. Staff has
learned from the District that approximately 20% of student
enrollment is out -of -district. These out -of -district students pay
a capital use fee of $350 per student per school year, with a
maximum payment of $750 per family. The School District is not
reimbursed from the other school districts in which these students
reside. Therefore, it should be noted that the increase in
students within the Aspen School District is not based solely on
growth within the boundaries of the District and Aspen, but from
growth throughout the Roaring Fork Valley.
3
The Municipal Code presently provides a park development impact fee
that assess a fee upon all development that creates additional
bedrooms in residential and lodge uses and creates additional
commercial or office space. The applicant's proposed amendment
does not go as far as the park development impact fee.
Existing Mill Levy for the Aspen School District: All properties
within the Aspen School District are assessed a 10.671 mill levy
property tax that goes to the School District. The following
assessed valued properties (taken from the applicant's application
examples) would be taxed at approximately this level each year,
which accrues directly to the Aspen School District:
Assessed Property Approximate School
Value District Tax
$600,000 =
$6,402
$500,000 =
$5,335
$1751000 =
$1,867
$1151000 =
$1,227
$ 75,000 =
$ 800
$ 40,000 =
$ 426
$ 18,000 =
$ 192
Proposed Code Amendment: The applicant has presented proposed Land
Area per Student and Students Generated per Dwelling Unit formulas
in detail in the application. Staff does not challenge the method
or formulas that were used to justify the proposed land dedication
requirements.
The code amendment proposes a new section to the code and is
proposed as follows:
Section 24-7-1004 C.S. School Land Dedication Standards
a. Purpose. The Aspen School District. requires land for
necessary school functions, which may include, but are not
limited to, school buildings, support facilities, open space
and recreation areas and housing for employees. The purpose
of this Division is to ensure that as development occurs and
enrollment in the schools grows, the current level of service
provided to students can be maintained. This is accomplished
by the adoption of standards for new development to provide
land, or cash -in -lieu thereof to the City, for use by the
Aspen School District. The standards are based on the number
of students the development generates and the current level
of service standard within the Aspen School District for land
area provided per student.
b. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be
assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen
4
c.
which contain residential units.
Dedication Schedule.
(1) Land Dedication. School land dedications shall be
assessed according to the following schedule:
Unit Type
Studio/One bedroom
Two bedroom
Three bedroom
Four bedroom
Five or more bedroom
Land Dedication Standard
.0012 acres (52 sq. ft.)
.0095 acres (416 sq. ft.)
.0162 acres (707 sq. ft.)
.0248 acres (1,081 sq. ft.)
.0284 acres (1,236 sq. ft.)
(2) Cash -in -Lieu Payment. An applicant may make a cash
payment instead of dedicating land to the City in order
to fulfill the standards of this Section. The amount of
the cash -in -lieu payment shall be calculated by
multiplying the area of the land required to be dedicated
by the current market value of the land to be subdivided.
(a) Current Market Value. Current market value means
the value of the land at the time of the cash -in -
lieu payment, including site improvements such as
streets and utilities, but excluding the value of
residential dwelling units and other structures on
the property.
(b) Substantiation. Market value may be substantiated
by a documented purchase price (if an arms length
transaction no more than two years old) or other
mutually agreed upon recognized means.
(c) Appraisal. In the event the developer and the
County fail to agree on market value, such value
shall be established by a qualified real estate
appraiser acceptable to both parties. The developer
shall pay for the appraisal.
(e) Maximum Land Value Per Unit. The other provisions
of this section notwithstanding, in no case shall
the land value used to calculate the amount of the
cash -in -lieu payment exceed $150,000 per dwelling
unit.
(3) Mixed Use Developments. When the proposed subdivision
contains a mix of residential, commercial, and other
uses, the required dedication shall be based on the
number of proposed residential units only.
d. Procedures for Land Dedication and Cash Payment.
5
(1) Land Dedication. Lands to be dedicated to the City to
fulfill the standards of this Division shall be
identified on the subdivision plat and shall be dedicated
to the City at the time of final plat approval.
( a ) Acceptance. Acceptance of the lands to be dedicated
shall be at the discretion of the Aspen City
Council.
(b) Criteria. Prior to acceptance, the Council shall
consider the comments of the Aspen School District,
to determine whether the lands proposed to be
dedicated are of adequate size and can be suitably
developed for school purposes or whether the lands
have the capability of being sold, with the proceeds
being used for school purposes. The Board shall
also consider the probable impacts on neighboring
properties of the development of the land for school
purposes. When the lands proposed to be dedicated
are not adequate or suitable for school purposes and
cannot feasibly be sold, the Council shall require
a cash payment in -lieu of the land dedication.
(2) Cash -in -Lieu Payment. Payment of cash in -lieu of a land
dedication shall be made to the City prior to and on a
proportional basis to the issuance of any building
permits for the residential dwelling units.
The formula to determine a cash -in -lieu payment is as
follows:
Market value of land x applicable land dedication
standard per unit x number of units proposed = amount of
cash payment.
For example, for a property having a market land value
of $100,000 on which one four bedroom house is proposed,
the payment would be:
$100,000 x 0.248 x 1 = $2,480.
e. Use of Land and Use of Funds.
(1) Land. All lands dedicated to the City pursuant to this
Section shall be held by the City for the Aspen School
District, until such time as they shall be requested by
the School District for school purposes. The Aspen
School District shall be responsible for maintenance of
said lands in a reasonable manner while they are being
held by the City.
6
(2) Funds. All funds collected pursuant to this Division
shall be transferred by the building inspector to the
finance director, for deposit in a designated interest
bearing account.
(a) City Shall Hold Funds. The City shall hold the
funds until such time as they shall be requested by
the Aspen School District for the acquisition of
land for school purposes, or for other capital
outlays or growth -related planning functions for
education purposes, at which time they shall be
released to the Aspen School District.
(b) Deed Restriction. A deed restriction shall be
placed on any land acquired by the School District
for housing, restricting occupancy of the units
solely to employees of the Aspen School District.
f. Periodic Review. In order to ensure that the land dedication
standards which are assessed are fair and represent the
current level of service provided by the Aspen School
District, the dedication schedule shall be reviewed by the
City, together with the School District, and amended as
necessary within three (3) years of its effective date and
every three (3) years thereafter.
SUMMARY: The applicant's request will only be applied to new
residential and mixed use subdivisions.
Since the AACP has been adopted, the City and County are
encouraging new development to be split 70% affordable housing
units to 30% free market dwelling units. Therefore, it can be
assumed that in the future the majority of newly subdivided lots
will be affordable housing units. These units will not be exempt
from this code amendment, however, their valuation will reflect
their deed restricted status.
Staff has some concern that the valuation of lots is proposed to
be capped at $150,000, and therefore the property owners with a
higher valued property only pay based on a $150,000 valuation.
Staff will present the average land value of a lot within the City
of Aspen at the meeting. This information is presently being
obtained from the Assessor's records.
City Attorney Sohn Worcester has reviewed the proposed code
amendment and believes it is within the City's jurisdiction to
adopt this land dedication requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the applicant's code
amendment.
7
Exhibits
"A" - Application
"B" - Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit A'
!
r r
March 15, '1995;
Mr. Stan Clauson, City Planning Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: CODE AMENDMENT ENACTING SCHOOL LAND DEDICATION STANDARDS
Dear Stan, -
Over the past several months, as the representative of the Aspen School District, I have held
several discussions with you to review a proposed amendment to the Aspen Land Use
Regulations to enact school land dedication standards. Together, we have reviewed State
enabling legislation, the methodology for calculating land dedication standards and various
administrative issues.
Attached to this memo is the resulting application for a Code amendment. To simplify your
processing of this application, I have provided a copy of this application on computer disk,
in Wordperfect 5.1, so it can be easily incorporated it into the Code.
At this time ` Iam only submitting a single copy of the application to you. Once you have
had an opportunity to review the submission internally, please let me know if you require
any additional copies.
According to Section 24-7-1103 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, "A development
application for an amendment to the text of this chapter may be submitted at any time
during the year". It is not necessary, therefore, for the application to be sponsored by the
Planning Commission or Council for it to be submitted today. Further, you have previously
stated that since the Aspen School District is a public body, the City would waive the
requirement for an application fee to be paid. We have not, therefore, submitted an
application fee at this time.
The Aspen School District is anxious to have this proposal considered by the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council as soon as possible. We would
appreciate it if you would schedule this application on the first available agenda. The School
District Board has indicated to me that they are available at any time if either body feels
there is a need for a work session to be held prior to the public hearing on this matter.
Mr. Stan Clauson
March 15, 1995
Page Two
Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time if you have questions regarding the
materials we have submitted or if there is any additional information I can provide to you.
E
Very truly yours,
n,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
A01m^
Alan Richman, AICP
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENTS TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
Background
In the last 5 years, the Aspen School District has experienced growing student enrollments.
Enrollments have grown as follows:
1990:
988 students
1991:
1,080 students
1992:
1,125 students
1993:
1,160 students
1994:
1,197 students
It has become increasingly common nationwide for public service providers in growing
communities to adopt impact fees to fairly apportion the costs of growth to new
development, so that existing taxpayers are not solely responsible for the costs of growth.
However, because of a recent Colorado District Court ruling involving school impact fees
in Douglas County, the Aspen School District has decided not to consider impact fees at this
time.
School land dedication standards, on the other hand, represent a more traditional means of
mitigating the impacts of development on schools in Colorado. Land dedication standards
have been adopted by a wide range of communities throughout the State, including, only by
way of example, Boulder, Eagle County and Mesa County.
Included herein is an examination of State authority granted to local governments to address
the impacts of new development on schools. Also included is documentation of the
methodology and calculations used by the School District to evaluate these impacts and to
determine the proposed school land dedication standards. Several administrative issues
associated with the adoption of such standards are then examined, and solutions are
proposed. Finally, the language of the proposed Code amendment is presented.
Authority
The Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) provide express authority for counties to include
provisions in their subdivision regulations to require reservation or dedication of sites and
land areas for schools, or payment of cash -in -lieu of such reservations or dedications. C.R.S.
30-28-133 (4) reads as follows:
"(4) Subdivision regulations adopted by the board of county commissioners pursuant to
this section shall also include, as a minimum, provisions governing the following
matters:
(a) Sites and land areas for schools and parks when such are reasonably necessary
to serve the proposed subdivision and the future residents thereof. Such
provisions may include:
(I) Reservation of such sites and land areas, for acquisition by the County;
(II) Dedication of such sites and land areas to the county or to the public
or, in lieu thereof, payment of a sum of money not exceeding the full
market value of such sites and land areas or a combination of such
dedication and such payment; except that the value of such
combination shall not exceed the full market value of such sites and
land areas. If such sites and land areas are dedicated to the county or
the public, the board of county commissioners may, at the request of
the affected entity, sell the land. Any such sums, when required, or
moneys paid to the board of county commissioners from the sale of
such dedicated sites and land areas, shall be held by the board of
county commissioners:
(A) For the acquisition of reasonably necessary sites and land areas
or for other capital outlay purposes for schools or parks;
(B) For the development of said sites and land areas for park
purposes; or
(C) For growth -related planning functions by school districts for
educational purposes."
The Colorado Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974 also provides more general authority
to local governments to regulate the use of land to address the impacts of development, as
stated in C.R.S. 29-20-104:
"...Each local government within its respective jurisdiction has the authority to plan for and
regulate the use of land by:
(f) Regulating the use of land on the basis of the impact thereof on the
community or surrounding areas."
These statutory provisions provide Aspen and Pitkin County with express authority to enact
school land dedication standards.
Formula
The formula we have used to calculate the standards for school land dedications is one
which has been used by a number of other local governments. The formula is as follows:
N
Land area provided per student x students generated per
dwelling unit = land dedication standard.
The following sections describe how to calculate this formula.
1. Land Area Provided Per Student
The determination of land area provided per student reflects the actual level of service
currently provided within the Aspen School District, considering the following two factors:
a. The amount of land currently owned by the School District which is used for
educational purposes; and
b. The existing capacity of the schools.
The School District owns two parcels of land which are currently used for educational
purposes, these being the main campus on Maroon Creek Road and the school site within
Aspen (a/k/a, "the yellow brick school"). These two parcels comprise a total of 31 acres of
land. The School District also owns a 35 acre parcel of land in the Frying Pan Valley, near
Reudi Reservoir, used for outdoor education purposes. To be conservative in the calculation
of these standards, the Reudi site has not been counted in this formula.
The School District has determined that the capacity of the three schools in the District is
as follows:
Elementary:
500-550 students
Middle:
350-500 students
High:
300-400 students
Total:
1,150-1,450 students
For purposes of this analysis, the mid -point in the capacity range, 1,300 students, was used.
Applying these two factors results in the following calculations:
31 acres = 1,350,360 square feet.
1,350,360 square feet - 1,300 students = 1,039 sq. ft. provided per student.
2. Students Generated Per Dwelling Unit
To determine the number of students generated per dwelling unit, it is first necessary to
decide how to categorize units. Research indicates that for purposes of these calculations,
many other communities categorize units as "single-family" and "multi -family". This is a
relatively simple approach which allows Census or other readily available data to be used
to identify the number of students generated by each type of unit.
3
It has been Aspen and Pitkin County's experience, however, that bedroom count is a far
better indicator of all forms of occupancy, including student generation, than is the type of
structure. Therefore, it was decided to use bedroom count, rather than unit type, as the
measure of student generation.
Since no local data was available on the number of school age students generated per
dwelling unit within the School District, it was decided that a survey should be conducted.
A map of the School District boundaries was obtained from the Pitkin County Assessor, so
a survey area could be defined. The map illustrates that the Aspen School District includes
Aspen, what Pitkin County calls the "Aspen Metro" area, Owl Creek/Brush Creek and most
of Snowmass Village, Woody Creek and that portion of the Highway 82 Corridor stretching
as far as Gerbazdale.
Next, a survey sample needed to be defined. Using records maintained by Pitkin County,
through its growth management system, it was determined that contacts with a minimum of
300 households would represent a valid sample, and this became the survey target.
A sample population was created by randomly selecting households out of the 1994 Polk
Cross Reference Directory, which provides a listing of each telephone number in the 920,
9239 925 and 544 exchanges, corresponding to the telephone exchanges for the subject area.
Obvious business numbers were excluded from the sample.
Direct telephone contacts were made to each household in the sample and the following
questions were posed:
1. Do you live/work in Pitkin County year-round?
If the answer was no, the survey was discontinued.
If the answer was yes, the following questions were posed:
2. Where do you live?
Within Aspen City Limits
Aspen Area (to Brush Creek Road)
Snowmass Village
Brush Creek Village/Woody Creek/Aspen Village/Gerbazdale
3. How many children from your household attend elementary, middle or high school?
4. How many bedrooms are there in your home?
A total of 331 surveys were completed. These 331 households generate 198 of the students
who attend the Aspen Public Schools, accounting for approximately 1/6 (16.5%) of the
student body. Table 1 summarizes the results obtained from the survey.
4
The validity of these results is demonstrated by the fact that U.S. Census data for the
Mountain Region indicates that a typical single family dwelling unit in the Region generates
about 0.8 public school students and a typical multi -family unit generates about 0.3 public
school students. The results obtained in the survey are quite consistent with these regional.
factors. It would not be statistically valid, however, to attempt to establish factors for
students generated per each unit type for geographic sub -areas within the School District,
given the size of the survey sample.
Table 2 completes the calculations, illustrating the proposed land dedication standards by
unit type.
5
Administrative Issues
Several administrative issues must be addressed to implement these standards. The
following proposals are made in this regard.
1. Cash -In -Lieu Values
We propose that applicants who wish to pay cash, rather than dedicating land to the School
District, be permitted to do so. Land value should be determined in the following manner:
a. For new subdivisions, land value shall be market value at the time of the cash -
in -lieu payment, including site improvements such as streets and utilities, but
excluding residential dwelling units.
b. For all other developments, land value shall be the most recent land value
assigned by the Pitkin County Assessor, net of the value of the dwelling and
other improvements.
We have reviewed the Assessor's files to determine if their data will apply to this formula.
Their data appears to be quite usable for both single family dwellings and condominiums,
as there is an actual land value given for each property. For condominiums, it appears that
the land value is relative to the size of the unit as compared to the other units in the
complex. To obtain the land value per unit for multi -family units under single ownership,
it will be necessary to divide the number of units in the complex by its total land value.
We tested the formula by obtaining land values for selected lots and units, as follows:
Meadowood:
$500,000
City Townsite Lots:
$6007000
Brush Creek Village:
$175,000
Little Elk Creek:
$1159000
Twin Ridge:
$ 40,000
Centennial:
$ 189000
Gant:
$ 75,000
Applying the formula to apply to these lots results in the following sample calculations:
5 bedroom home in Meadowood:
3 bedroom home on City Townsite Lots:
4 bedroom home in Brush Creek Village:
3 bedroom home in Little Elk Creek:
3 bedroom home in Twin Ridge:
2 bedroom condominium in Centennial:
1 bedroom condominium in Gant:
0
$500,000 x .0284 = $14,200
$600,000 x .0162 = $ %720
$175, 000 x .0248 = $ 4, 340
$115,000 x .0162 = $ 19863
$ 40,000 x .0162 = $ 648
$ 18,000 x .0095 = $ 171
$ 75,000 x .0012 = $ 90
The above numbers illustrate that the fees for a large home on an expensive lot will be
considerable. Since there are obviously lots in our market which are valued at $1 million
and more, the Aspen School District has considered several alternative approaches to this
formula. Our research indicates that while a local government cannot establish a standard
which is hlg_her than has been calculated by formula, the courts consider it to be fair and -
reasonable for a local government to establish a dedication standard which is less than that
calculated by formula.
First, we considered proposing a district -wide land value for the formula, instead of using
the value of the property being subdivided/developed. This value might reflect the cost of
land which the School District would purchase, instead of the cost of the lot being
developed. The major problem with this option is it penalizes the owner of a lower priced
lot, while rewarding the owner of a high priced lot. This approach also runs contrary to that
established by the state enabling legislation. We have, therefore, rejected this option.
We feel that a better approach would be to set a top -set amount in the formula for the land
value of the property being subdivided/developed. A more complex approach would be to
use a sliding scale which would limit the maximum amount of the fee which would be
collected. Another approach would be to phase -in the fee, by only deciding to collect a
percentage of the calculated amount (say 25% or 50%) at this time.
Our proposal reflects the simplest, most effective approach to this problem, which is to
establish a top -set amount in the formula for the land value of the property being
subdivided/developed. We suggest a maximum land value of $150,000, which would result
in a maximum fee of $4,260 for a five bedroom home, $3,720 for a four bedroom home and
$2,430 for a three bedroom home. Of course, we would welcome other approaches
suggested by the City during the process of adopting these amendments.
2. Applicability to Affordable Housing and to Seasonal Units
We propose that the land dedication standards apply to both affordable housing units and
to seasonal housing units. Given the growing emphasis of the affordable housing program
on family style housing, such units are one of the significant generators of school students,
both today and in the future. This conclusion is verified by the survey research we have
recently conducted.
While seasonal residential units occupied by visitors may not generate students each school
year, it is commonly recognized that a unit which is occupied seasonally one year is occupied
full time the next year. Since there is no way to monitor or limit such occupancy, it is also
reasonable to apply the standards to such units.
3. Applicability to Previously and Newly Subdivided Lots
We propose that the land dedication standards apply to the development of a new unit on
7
either a previously subdivided lot or a newly subdivided lot, since both lot types will generate
students. The only exemption from the standards would be for any lot within a subdivision
which had previously made a school land dedication or cash -in -lieu payment pursuant to a
prior City development approval.
We also propose that land dedication standards apply to the addition of a bedrooms to an
existing residence. The land or cash dedication should reflect the incremental difference in
standards between the two unit types. Development which does not add any residential
bedrooms would be exempt from the standards.
4. Time of Dedication/Payment
We propose that the applicable land dedication or payment of cash occur prior to and on
a proportional basis to, the issuance of building permits.
Proposed Ordinance
The precise wording of the amendment we propose to the Aspen Land Use Regulations has
been drafted in the form of a proposed ordinance, on the pages which follow.
F'3
Exhibit B
PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING SCHOOL LAND DEDICATION STANDARDS
WHEREAS, in the last 5 years, the Aspen School District has
experienced growing student enrollments, as follows:
1990:
988
students
1991:
1,080
students
1992:
1,125
students
1993:
1,160
students
1994:
1,197
students
WHEREAS, the Aspen School District has determined that the capacity
of the three schools in the District is as follows:
Elementary: 500-550 students
Middle: 350-500 students
High: 300-400 students
Total: 1,150-1,450 students
WHEREAS, Section 29-20-104 (f) of the Colorado Revised Statutes
provides authority to local governments to plan for and regulate
the impacts of development on the community and surrounding areas.
WHEREAS, the Aspen School District has completed an evaluation of
the impacts of new development on the need for land for public
schools and has prepared a formula to calculate these impacts.
WHEREAS, the formula used by the Aspen School District to calculate
the standards for school land dedication is as follows:
Land area provided per student x students generated per
dwelling unit = land dedication standard.
WHEREAS, the Aspen School District provides 1,039 square feet of
land area per student.
WHEREAS, the Aspen School District conducted a survey and
determined the following number of students are generated per
dwelling unit within the District:
studio/1 bedroom: 0.05 students
2 bedroom:
0.40
students
3 bedroom:
0.68
students
4 bedroom:
1.04
students
5 bedroom:
1.19
students
WHEREAS, calculation of the formula results in the following land
dedication standards:
studio/1 bedroom: .0012 acres (52 sq. ft.)
2 bedroom: .0095 acres (416 sq. ft.)
3 bedroom: .0162 acres (707 sq. ft.)
4 bedroom: .0248 acres (1,081 sq. ft.)
5 bedroom: .0284 acres (1,236 sq. ft.)
WHEREAS, the Aspen School District submitted an application to the
City of Aspen proposing amendments to the Aspen Land Use
Regulations which would apply these land dedication standards to
new residential subdivisions.
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1995 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the
Aspen Land Use Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
That a new Section 24-7-1004 C.5 of the Aspen Municipal Code be
enacted to read as follows:
Section 24-7-1004 C.S. School Land Dedication Standards
a. Purpose. The Aspen School District requires land for
necessary school functions, which may include, but are not
limited to, school buildings, support facilities, open space
and recreation areas and housing for employees. The purpose
of this Division is to ensure that as development occurs and
enrollment in the schools grows, the current level of service
provided to students can be maintained. This is accomplished
by the adoption of standards for new development to provide
land, or cash -in -lieu thereof to the City, for use by the
Aspen School District. The standards are based on the number
of students the development generates and the current level
of service standard within the Aspen School District for land
area provided per student.
b. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be
assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen
which contain residential units.
C. Dedication Schedule.
(1) Land Dedication. School land dedications shall be
assessed according to the following schedule:
Unit Type
Land Dedication Standard
Studio/One bedroom .0012 acres (52 sq. ft.)
Two bedroom .0095 acres (416 sq. ft.)
Three bedroom .0162 acres (707 sq. ft.)
Four bedroom .0248 acres (1,081 sq. ft.)
Five or more bedroom .0284 acres (1,236 sq. ft.)
(2) Cash -in -Lieu Payment. An applicant may make a cash
payment instead of dedicating land to the City in order
to fulfill the standards of this Section. The amount of
the cash -in -lieu payment shall be calculated by
multiplying the area of the land required to be dedicated
by the current market value of the land to be subdivided.
(a) Current Market Value. Current market value means
the value of the land at the time of the cash -in -
lieu payment, including site improvements such as
streets and utilities, but excluding the value of
residential dwelling units and other structures on
the property.
(b) Substantiation. Market value may be substantiated
by a documented purchase price (if an arms length
transaction no more than two years old) or other
mutually agreed upon recognized means.
(c) Appraisal. In the event the developer and the
County fail to agree on market value, such value
shall be established by a qualified real estate
appraiser acceptable to both parties. The developer
shall pay for the appraisal.
(e) Maximum Land Value Per Unit. The other provisions
of this section notwithstanding, in no case shall
the land value used to calculate the amount of the
cash -in -lieu payment exceed $150,000 per dwelling
unit.
(3) Mixed Use Developments. When the proposed subdivision
contains a mix of residential, commercial, and other
uses, the required dedication shall be based on the
number of proposed residential units only.
d. Procedures for Land Dedication and Cash Payment.
(1) Land Dedication. Lands to be dedicated to the City to
fulfill the standards of this Division shall be
identified on the subdivision plat and shall be dedicated
to the City at the time of final plat approval.
( a ) Acceptance. Acceptance of the lands to be dedicated
shall be at the discretion of the Aspen City
Council.
(b) Criteria. Prior to acceptance, the Council shall
consider the comments of the Aspen School District,
to determine whether the lands proposed 'to be
dedicated are of adequate size and can be suitably
developed for school purposes or whether the lands
have the capability of being sold, with the proceeds
being used for school purposes. The Board shall
also consider the probable impacts on neighboring
properties of the development of the land for school
purposes. When the lands proposed to be dedicated
are not adequate or suitable for school purposes and
cannot feasibly be sold, the Council shall require
a cash payment in -lieu of the land dedication.
(2) Cash -in -Lieu Payment. Payment of cash in -lieu of a land
dedication shall be made to the City prior to and on a
proportional basis to the issuance of any building
permits for the residential dwelling units.
The formula to determine a cash -in -lieu payment is as
follows:
Market value of land x applicable land dedication
standard per unit x number of units proposed = amount of
cash payment.
For example, for a property having a market land value
of $100,000 on which one four bedroom house is proposed,
the payment would be:
$100,000 x 0.248 x 1 = $2,480.
e. Use of Land and Use of Funds.
(1) Land. All lands dedicated to the City pursuant to this
Section shall be held by the City for the Aspen School
District, until such time as they shall be requested by
the School District for school purposes. The Aspen
School District shall be responsible for maintenance of
said lands in a reasonable manner while they are being
held by the City.
(2) Funds. All funds collected pursuant to this Division
shall be transferred by the building inspector to the
finance director, for deposit in a designated interest
bearing account.
(a) City Shall Hold Funds. The City shall hold the
funds until such time as they shall be requested by
the Aspen School District for the acquisition of
land for school purposes, or for other capital
outlays or growth -related planning functions for
education purposes, at which time they shall be
released to the Aspen School District.
(b) Deed Restriction. A deed restriction shall be
placed on any land acquired by the School District
for housing, restricting occupancy of the units
solely to employees of the Aspen School District.
f. Periodic Review. In order to ensure that the land dedication
standards which are assessed are fair and represent the
current level of service provided by the Aspen School
District, the dedication schedule 'shall be reviewed by the
City, together with the School District, and amended as
necessary within three (3) years of its effective date and
every three (3) years thereafter.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Historic Landmark Lot Split Code Amendment - Work Session
DATE: June 20, 1995
BACKGROUND: Jake Vickery is seeking the Planning Commissions input
on a proposed code amendment. Exhibit A includes a copy of the
applicant's conceptual focus for a code amendment for a lot split
available for historically landmarked properties.
The code amendment would permit a lot split on a historically
landmarked parcel that splits the parcel in lots smaller that the
minimum lot area of the zone district.
ISSUES: There are several issues that the Planning Commission may
want to consider that are associated with this text amendment:
1. Recommendations from the Aspen Area Community Plan
stemmed the recent revisions to the residential GMQS
program that has limited lot splits within the City of
Aspen to one a year. The applicant's proposed code
amendment would amend the GMQS requirement and exempt
historic properties from the limitation of lot splits.
2. The applicant's proposal would permit the creation of a
non -conforming sized lot. (FAR analysis)
3. The Land Use Code presently permits the applicant to
develop the project but it is subject to the
condominiumization requirements. Staff believes this
procedure is a loop -hole and would prefer to see set
standards in a lot split procedure.
4. The best scenario for this code amendment is for the R-
6 zone district and specifically the 123 W Francis
project. The R-6 zone district permits two detached
residential dwelling units on a 9,000 sq.ft. parcel. The
applicant can condominiumize a property but cannot
subdivide the parcel to separately sell the two free
market units. This code amendment would permit a parcel
that is permitted to build two separate units by right
and to subdivide them though subdivision and GMQS
exemptions.
5. The applicant will provide a large map indicating all
parcels that could potentially take advantage of this
proposed code amendment. This map will be available at
the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: This is a work session and no complete application
has been submitted to the Planning Office for this request to be
officially acted on. Therefore, staff is requesting that the
Commission conceptually discuss the applicant's proposal, identify
pro's and con's, and provide the applicant feedback on the request.
......................
2
TO: MARY LACKNER
FROM: JAKE VICKERY
RE: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT
DATE: JUNE 14, 1995
A CODE AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF "RECEIVING SITES"
FOR HISTORICAL LANDMARKS. SUCH "RECEIVING SITES" WOULD BE
BETWEEN 3,000 AND 5,999 SF AND BE RESTRICTED AS TO THEIR MAXIMUM
FAR.
The purpose of this code amendment is to facilitate the following:
• increase to flexibility of dealing with historical resources
• increase the incentives given to landmarks to encourage new landmarks
• offset the renovation cost of historical structures
• encourage more responsible and authentic restoration efforts and strategies
• provide "designated" receiving sites for "orphan" historical structures
• reduce the amount of demolition
• simplify methods of ownership of historical properties
In addition its effect is to create more smaller houses and fewer larger houses. Smaller
units of density have less impact than larger units of density. These smaller houses, the
creation of which is all but non-existent, would better serve the needs of local residents
and are a counter measure to the production and existence of empty larger houses.
They balance the mix and fabric and are more in scale with traditional and historical
character. Smaller houses have more potential availability for local family ownership.
NOTES:
• focus is on method of ownership, the rest is consistent with existing rights
• condominium ization is a lot of legal red tape and expense
• produce more little houses, offset production of larger houses
• creating two fee simple ownerships is cleaner and simpler
• FAR would be apportioned
• no additional FAR or ownership units are proposed based of existing code
• small ownership units are preferable to larger ownership units
• condominium plats and documents cost legal and surveying costs which make little
since for 2 units rather than the intended 10 or more units.
• less preferable method of ownership with renovation costs are involved.
• discourage duplexes: jointed together forms are less desirable than singular
separated individual forms.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT
R-6 LOT SPLIT FOR LOTS LARGER THAN 9,000 SF (6,000 SF FOR
HISTORICAL LANDMARKS)
5-8-95
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE
In the R6 Zone, for lots of 9,000 sf or greater (or 6,000 sf or greater for properties
containing historical landmarks) where the code permits the construction of two single
family residences, such lots so developed may be split provided that the allowable
aggregate FAR of the two resulting lots be limited to the allowable duplex FAR of the
parent lot. For such newly created lots only, the minimum lot size shall be reduced to
4,500 (3,000 sf for properties containing historical landmarks) and the minimum lot width
shall be reduced to 45 feet (30 feet for lots containing historical properties). Except for
the reduction on allowable FAR, the newly created lots shall be treated as lots of record.
No new unit of density shall be created by such lot split. Such lot splits shall be exempt
from the subdivision process and exempt from GMQS by the community development
director. Where the property involves a landmark, (All) such lot splits shall be subject to
the approval of the HPC.
re: Ownership of historical properties DRAFT
by: Jake Vickery date: 1-12-95
landcon1.doc
This letter is to request consideration for a code change reducing the minimum lot size
and width for lots in the R6 zone containing an historical landmark.
BACKGROUND
Currently, the code, in the R6 zone, allows the following:
1. Two single family units or a duplex can be built on a on a lot of 9,000 sf or greater
provided their total FAR does not exceed that of a duplex. Minimum lot area
per unit in this case is 4,500 sf.
2. Two single family units or a duplex can be built on a lot of 6,000 sf or greater
provided their total FAR does not exceed that of a duplex if the property
contains an historical landmark. Minimum lot area per unit in this case is 3,000.
3. Lots of record containing historical landmarks need not meet minimum lot area
requirement of it's zone district. Receiving sites for historical landmarks of
4,500 sf (or even 3,000 sf) would be consistent with this general principle.
4. Currently, the only way that the two smaller houses can be owned individually is by
a condominium form of ownership. Condominium ownership in this case of 2
units which are totally separate houses is unnecessarily complicated,
cumbersome, and expensive, requiring establishment of common elements,
home owner's association, incorporation, declarations; bylaws, plats, etc.
5. Currently, a two unit lot split is exempt from Subdivision regulations and GMQS.
6. A full subdivision lot split requires 6,000 sf per lot with an aggregate allowable FAR
of both lots combined of 6,480 FARsf.
REQUEST
WHEREAS lots of 4,500 sf are common in the R6 zone, the minimum lot area per
smaller house is currently set at 4,500 (3,000 for properties containing historical
landmarks), the average FAR of such a house would be approximately 2,040 FARsf. (for
a 9,000 sf lot) and WHEREAS this scale of house is desirable for the community in lieu
of large houses and more accessible and practical for local ownership (smaller
increments of ownership being less expensive), and whereas this is consistent with the
AACP and HPC programs;
THEREFORE it would follow that if two smaller houses can be built on 9,000 sf then one
smaller house (particularly if historically landmarked) should be able to be built on (or
relocated to) a "receiving" lot of 4,500 sf. (3000?) and the minimum lot width should be
adjusted accordingly to 45 feet (30?) subject to HPC review.
The newly created lots would act as if they were lots of record in their underlying zone
except that the base allowable FAR of the 2 lots combined could not exceed that of a
duplex of the fathering lot, that no additional unit of density could be created, and that
the second unit and lot split be exempt from growth management and subdivision review
by community development director. Development on both lots is subject to HPC
review.
All bonuses available to the fathering duplex lot would be available to each of the newly
created lots per HPC finding of increased compatibility. It would also be contingent upon
HPC review as required for changes to a landmark.
i.e. for a 9,000 sf lot this would be a base allowable FAR of 2,040 (4,080 FARsf / 2) .
By comparison, an equivalent existing lot of record of 4,500 sf has an base allowable
single family FARsf of 2,820, a reduction of 780 allowable FARsf. All existing landmark
incentives would still apply.
In such cases involving a lot split, the FAR total of both lots would be limited to the total
allowed for a duplex prior to subdivision and distributed to each lot (equally or unequally)
by the Subdivision Agreement.
There are approximately 56 parcels on the historical inventory which might be effected
by this code amendment. Approximately 28 of these parcels are currently Landmarked.
These numbers are deemed to be accurate to 5-10%. This includes all zones. The
Zones where this code amendment seem to make the most sense at the R6, RMF, O,
and �� I S
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MEMBERS AND APPOINTMENTS
Appointed
Term
Sara Garton, Chairperson
6-95
6-99
Jasmine Tygre, Vice -Chairperson
6-95
6-99
Roger Hunt
9-79
9-95
Tim Mooney
9-91
9-95
Robert Blaich
2-94
2-98
Marta Chaikovska
6-94
6-98
Steve Buettow
6-94
6-98
i!
-------� 1 �- -- -- - - - - - --
4.
i
rl
123 WEST FRANCIS
\ JAKE VICKERY ARCHITEm
• MAY 8, 1995
`z:k n
Cyr
77;4�rl-
zat ;
123 WEST FRANCIS
JAKE VICKERFARCHIT'ECTS �--
�c��,:_
. t
El
�-{ c � �e t c, �S�
123 WEST FRANCIS
JAKE: VICKERY ARCHnTCM
MAY 8, 1995
"T7
0
�--Pq
123 WEST FRANCIS
JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS
MAY 8, ' 1995
E3
4�c",-4
-: --� ..
.123
JAiIE NCI(ERy qRCHMECS
MAP 8, 1995
m
1�Q,w 4--E�,�se-
Lew- c
123 WEST FRANCIS
jAKE VICKERY ARCHrMCTS
MAY 8,1995
June 20, 1995
Mary Lackner
Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
RE: P&Z Review - Landmark Designation, Conditional Use for 2 ADU's and Text
Amendment for 123 West Francis.
Dear Mary,
I hereby certify that a sign stating all required information from the attached Notice of
Public Hearing was posted on or before Saturday June 10, 1995. 1 further certify that the
attached photograph is of that sign in place and was taken at the time of posting.
Sincerely,
Jake Vickery, Architect
PO Box 12360
Aspen, CO 81611
June 20, 1994
Mary Lackner
Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
RE: P&Z Review - Landmark Designation, Conditional Use for 2 ADU's, and Text
Amendment for 123 West Francis.
Dear Mary,
I hereby certify that the attached Notices of Public Nearing were mailed to the addresses
on the attached List of Surrounding Property Owners on or before Saturday, June 10,
1995.
Sincerely,
V
Jake Vickery Architect
PO Box 12360
Aspen, CO. 81611
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 123 WEST FRANCIS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS, LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN
MUNICIPAL CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, June 20, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before
the Aspen Planning and -Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 13-0 S . Galena St. , Aspen, to: consider - an application
submitted by Jake Vickery, requesting Conditional Use approval for
two accessory dwelling units - a -one bedroom unit in the proposed
new single family residence and a two bedroom unit in the existing
residence. The owner also requests Landmark Designation of the
site and amendments to the following sections of the Land Use Code:
Section 5-201, R-6 (Medium Density Residential) zone district;
Section 9-106, Non -conforming lots of record; and Article 8, Aspen
Area Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) , to allow a lot split
on a historic landmark, which would create one conforming lot and
one non -conforming lot. The property is located at 123 West
Francis; E z of Lot B. and all of Lots C, D and E, Block 56, City
and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mary
Lackner or Amy Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090
s/Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on June 3, 1995
City of Aspen Account
Mauricd N*., son
c/o 919 3rd Avenue
New York. NY 10022
caul Barnhart Jr.
2121 Sage Road
Houston Texas 77056
Elizabeth Paepke
c/o Holland & Hart
600 E. Main Street
Aspen CO 81611
i
Jerald M. Barnett Kll.Company
1000 N. Station St. Unit 514 P.O. Box 3129
Port Arkansas, Texas 78373 Aspen CO 81612
David Levy ,
Times Square Building
45 Exchange Street
Rochester NY 14614
Esther Leonard DeVos
P.O. Box 3238
Aspen CO 81612
Patricia Tisch
765 Buena Vista Avenue
Santa Barbara CA 93108
Yellow Brick School
Aspen School District
0235 High School Road
Aspen, CO 81611
Given Instit-Ce James P.S. Griffith Richard Horvitz Trust
Regents of University of 3417 Milam Avenue Ste. A Leonard C. As Trustee Horitz
Colorado Houston Texas 77002 85 Stonewood Rive
Boulder CO Moreland Hills OH 44022
Maurice Tobin George Vicenci Denise Ann Jurgens
Dorette Fleischmann P.O. Box 2238 P.O. Box 3780
1M K Street N.W. Ste 380 Aspen CO 81612 Aspen CO 81612
Washington D.C. 20006
i
i
Jan Tobin
1850 K. Street N.W. Ste 380
Washington D.C. 20006
Thomas & Noel Congdon
1100 Denver Center Bldg.
Denver CO 80203
Paul Fabry
1127 Bourbon Street
New Orleans LA 70116
Manclark O.P. Residence Trus
William & Darleen Manclark
313 E. Bay Front
Balboa Island CA 92662
Bonnie Sbarbaro
3Z9 Carlile Avenue
Pueblo CO 81004
Whipple Brewster Corp. Beryl Arthur Erickson
Colorado Corp. Mary Erickson
121 S. Galena St. Ste 203 P.O. Box 1027
Aspen CO 81611 Aspen CO 81612
Marybelle S. Robinson
2552 E. Alameda St. #97
Denver CO 80209
Maria Segall
101 E. Hallam Street
Aspen CO 81611
James & Carol Redd
Louis Scholnik
2400 E. Commercial Blvd.
Suite 820
Ft. Lauderdale FL 33308
Phillip & Susan West
2114 Mt. Calvary Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93108
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
Chairman Kerr opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, following the Joint. Growth Management Commission
meeting with the County, at 5:10 p.m.
Kerr requested roll call and attending were: Bruce Kerr, Jasmine
Tygre, Roger Hunt, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney, Robert Blaich, Marta
Chaikovska, and Steve Buettow.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Chairman Kerr thanked the clerk for completing the minutes from
June 6, 1995 in prompt manner. He stated there had been times in
the past, when minutes were not completed from six months to a
year, for whatever reasons, and may have had nothing to do with
staff at all, but he stated it was difficult to remember and make
corrections when minutes were completed six months to a year after
the meetings.
Kerr stated, I do not see on our agenda election of Chairperson and
Vice -Chairperson. Leslie Lamont of staff stated, it is not on the
agenda, but Sharon and I have already talked about it, and we can
do that now at the beginning of the meeting.
Kerr stated, with my departure soon from this group, we also need
to select someone to serve on the "monster home" committee, for
lack of a better term. We don't have to do it now, but it does
need to be done at some future time. Lamont stated, staff's
thinking on that is that, Amy will be talking to HPC about it. We
have members that serve on the Committee; Bob, Steve Buettow, and
Bruce. First off, do you want to continue to serve, secondly,
Bruce is leaving, so we need to appoint an alternate from the P&Z
to be on the Design Appeal Board and our thinking is we would take
that list again to Council and have Council ratify that list.
Garton asked, the Overlay Committee may go into the Design Appeal
Board? Lamont stated, our idea is that we will continue to use the
Overlay Committee if those members still want to function like that
and if Council ratifies the list. Garton stated, hopefully, the
Design Appeal Board may only meet twice a year, right? Lamont
stated, there is no set date when they meet, but our hope is that
it's a brief meeting once a month, at the most, and it will all
depend on how the Appeal Board structures itself. Chaikovska
asked, doesn't the Board of Adjustment do the appeal? Lamont
answered, the Board of Adjustment would do variances and appeals
to the actual code, but what the Design Appeal Board is established
to do, is decide when someone doesn't meet our checklist. Lamont
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
stated, there are things that we established in Ordinance 30 that
just changed the code, and then, we also just established the
checklist. They are different. For example, the requirement is
two parking spaces per dwelling unit now. If someone can't meet
that, they would go to the Board of Adjustment, they would not not
go to the Design Appeal Board. It's in the code.
Blaich asked clarification on Hunt's comments in the June 6
minutes. He stated, Roger, you were talking about berms and rocks,
and so forth. An example of that is where people are putting all
the rocks along the drainage ditches? Is that what you were
referring to? Hunt stated, yes. Hunt stated, as of today, Chuck
Roth of Engineering, knows that they have put boulders on the
street side of the ditch, which he doesn't approve of, and he's
going to inform them of that.
Mooney stated, I feel like I saw a really good working process from
the time that Roger Moore came in with "monster home" fears on what
happened on the City Council presentation approval. I think we
made a lot of allies and friends because of the way we put the
information together and put it out; I hope that we can always work
like that. It had the potential to be a very volatile issue and
there were a lot of people, because they were afraid and uninformed
to what we were doing, potentially who could have fought the issue,
but there was good communication, there was good presentation, and
overall, I thought it was a tough issue that was handled very well.
I think that the staff did a great job to get through the
information that they got through. Lamont stated, thanks.
Blaich stated, I would like to second that. I had the opportunity
to go twice before realty boards; once with Augie Reno, and the
next time with the mayor there and, of course, Leslie. I saw this
change, this rather dynamic change, and I had a lot of people call
me up at home and a lot of people I met at various events, and we
went into this whole thing. I just saw this switch, like you said;
people who were very nervous about what was going to happen, and
I think the key thing, of course, was going through without
changing the FAR. I agree with you, Tim, I think it was a very
good process, and a lot of people were involved with it, and I'm
finding out that the people in the community are asking more
questions as to how could this process be employed in some other
areas. I think it is a very good thing to use as a good example.
Hunt stated, I just had an
traffic on Main Street, two
Aspen. That's how far it wa
surprising. That's without
parking.
91
observation today, about 4:20 p.m.;
lanes backed up between Garmisch and
s backed up at 4:20 p.m. It was very
an HOV lane, folks, and with paid
PLAJNNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20. 1995
Hunt stated, the other annoucement, I will make, if it's not too
late, I will make a conditional application for re -appointment to
the P&Z, letting Council know that I have been on it 20 years and
if they want to appoint someone else, I won't be terribly upset
about it, I guess, but I am available and will commit to the time
that they see fit to re -appoint me. I don't particularly want to
go to an interview. Lamont stated, it is my understanding that an
advertisement has been placed in the papers for Bruce's vacation,
and until we appoint somebody, you said you would serve us until
the end of July? Kerr answered, my term, as I understand it
expires in September instead of July, as I once thought, but what
I will plan to do after tonight is only attend if I am required for
a quorum. I'd made other plans, assuming that at the end of June,
I would be done. I will attend thoughout the rest of my term is
we need a quorum or until such time as a replacement is appointed,
whichever is the least restrictive. If you need me for a quorum,
I'll be here, if possible.
Hunt asked, when will I get a so-called application letter? I,
Sharon, answered that I did not know, but that I would inquire into
the matter and get an application letter to him.
Blaich stated, it might be interesting, just for information, of
course, to see a list of who is on and when their terms do expire.
I, Sharon, have compiled the list and will submit it to the members
of the Commission for their information.
STAFF COMMENTS
Lamont stated, the two comments I had were that we need to appoint
someone to replace Bruce on the Design Appeal Board, and then we
will take that list to the City Council. Our Tuesday meeting fell
on July 4th, so we moved it to July llth.
Lamont also stated, I would really like to try and see if we could
do a special worksession on AH/RO "stuff" before August 1st. Kerr
said, we've got the 25th (July) open. Lamont said, if we could do
that I think that would help us.
Lamont stated, your July 18th meeting, there are only two items,
and what I will have then, I will be able to put into your boxes
this "cheat -sheet" of the different projects.
Mooney stated, I don't know if this is the long way around, or if
it is naive to think that this isn't such an enormous task, but if
it would save creating an AH zone district in the County that just
has theoretical applications, it occurs to me that there might be
only so many parcels in the County that might be available for
3
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
development and I don't know if it wouldn't be just as easy to
identify them and find out what is capable of happening there.
Let's say, as you move downvalley, we know that it's Bill Braun's
Ranch and then, it's Underwood's Property, and you can almost
identify parcels that could be developed because of their access
to the road or flat building sites, or elimination of 1041
problems. Instead of creating this theoretical kind of thing, this
zone district that's out in space; something that somebody may be
able to take out and put down on this property, throughout the
County, they must know the homeowners that have these properties
that have interest in developing these argricultural tracts or
these family ranches; do you think they would save time to
investigate these big family parcels or these big agricultural
parcels and then say, this is the scenario; they have the
possibility of building 500 homes on this one, and then, the next
rancher, who has the same amount of acreage, has the possibility,
because of the 1041, they can only build 100. Then, identify these
parcels and build some kind of a scenario for the parcels that
might be applied.
Lamont answered, to take a 954-acre ranch and sit down and identify
what we are applying and what we would get down to is huge ..to
write a code hoping to address all that "stuff", that is why our
code is so complicated now, because everybody comes in with their
own individual problem and parcel in an attempt to meet the code.
That's one of the reasons why we want to use PUD and leave site
planning up to the particular parcel and the applicants in the
surrounding neighborhood.
Mary Lackner stated, I think some level can be done to identify the
properties that already have big subdivision approvals on them,
Aspen River Valley Ranch is one, where they have restrictions
against greater subdivision. Now whether or not any of those
people would re -consider under a 35 or 40 acre parcel to come in
and do an age project, and whether or not the County would be
amendable to that, because a lot of them do have restrictions
against further development; I think the staff could put together
something like that and basically just look at the 82 corridor,
because I assume that's where the majority of the parcels would be.
Mooney stated, here we would be talking about a finite number of
places that these applications could occur. It might behoove us
to know now just how many possible applications we might have that
these zoning regulations that we are trying to format now complies
with. Maybe some of these code amendments aren't going to be
necessary because there aren't parcels that would need this type
of work. Lamont answered, I think you shouldn't forget that the
AH zone district is going to be the only game in town. We have two
free market units available for competition. In the past years
we've seen very little residential competition, it's all demolition
4
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
and development "stuff". In the County, we have big parcels of
land, we want to get this AH zone adopted out there. The bigger
the parcel the more problems there are on the parcel, and you throw
in the client and the applicant, who has in their mind what they
want to get out of it, it is hard to do. We did that in the ACP,
we identified in the housing session, we "kinda" said, these pieces
of land will be good for low density and multi -family, and we got
a lot of criticism. I think that would be an interesting exercise
in the longer run.
Blaich mentioned, it is supposed to be on
if we could have it tapped where we could
at least so we could give you a prof ile on
that (referring to map) color -coded with
and the rest with question -marks; it might
a little more. Mooney stated, exactly.
MINUTES
MOTION
a County -wide basis, but
have some affect on it,
it, if we got a map like
things that you do know
cause us to dig into it
Hunt stated, I move to adopt the minutes of 6 June 1995. Blaich
seconded, vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion
carried.
ELECTION
Hunt nominated Jasmine Tygre for the Chair. Tygre declined the
Chair, but stated she would like to be Vice -Chairman. Hunt,
therefore, withdrew his nomination.
Garton moved to nominate Robert Blaich for Chairman. Hunt seconded
the motion. Blaich stated he thought there were other people on
the Commission who had much more experience. He stated that there
was a couple of times a year that there was a block when he was
away because of his business and those times could sometimes be up
to a month. He wanted to lay it on the table and asked for some
other nominations. He asked Sara Garton if she would consider the
Chair. Garton answered, yes, I would consider it.
Hunt nominated Sara Garton for Chairman. Jasmine seconded.
Vote commenced by secret paper for Chairman. 6 votes were in favor
of Sara Garton, 2 votes were in favor of Robert Blaich. Garton was
voted new Chairman.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
Hunt nominated Jasmine Tygre for Vice -Chairman. Blaich seconded.
The motion passed by acclamation. Tygre was elected new Vice -
Chairman.
WATER PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION
SPA AMENDMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION,
CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW
(CONTINUED FROM MAY 9)
Mary Lackner presented for staff, and stated, the applicant has
asked that this and the public hearing, come back to a worksession
on July 18th, to discuss all the issues you had back in the May 9th
meeting. Then, the applicant will go to City Council, after they
talk to you, in a worksession in formal discussion and talks of
policy issues with City Council about this project. The project
will either come forward or go away. That is what I have heard
from the applicants and if you have anything you want them to
specifically address on the 18th, I would be happy to forward that
to them.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to table any action on the Water Place
Affordable Housing, and close the public hearing, and basically
establish that they are going into a worksession-type process and
will possibly re-enter the public hearing phase. Tygre seconded.
Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Chaikovska requested that an explanation of the financing be done
on this project. Lackner asked, to see if public funds are used?
Chaikovska stated, the explanation that we had at that one meeting
was never really adequate; Tim had some questions, I had some
questions, and it was never really described fully so that we could
understand what public funds were being used. I have some
concerns, so I would like to see that.
Mary Lackner stated, Alan Richman, with the Aspen School District
Text Amendment, Item E. , is here, and the representative from North
Mill Station is not going to make the meeting, so I was thinking
we could move Alan forward on the agenda, so he does not have to
sit through these other items, if that's O.K. There was no
objection from the Commission, but Hunt did state that he had to
leave early and was particularly interested in the North Mill
Station item. Lackner stated, we can.do North Mill right after
this one. Hunt said, O.K.
n
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENTS
Garton opened the public hearing.
Mary Lackner represented staff and stated, the Aspen School
District has an application in to the Pitkin County and to the City
of Aspen to do a land dedication requirement with new subdivisions.
It has been heard by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning
Commission, but it has not been heard by the City Council yet or
the County Commissioners, and this is the first you are hearing of
it. It is enabled in the State Legislation, that school districts
can ask local governments to collect a land dedication requirement
for new school sites or school facilities that the school may need.
I put those citations into your memorandum.
Lackner said, the City of Aspen has never adopted this legislation,
so that the City can obtain money for the school district through
new subdivisions. That's, essentially, where money will be
collected; there's an original proposal where it says, all
additions of bedrooms on all new development, what we've gone back
and done, is new subdivision. So, it is not retroactive to any
existing buildings. Staff is recommending approval, and there is
an ordinance attached to this and the City Attorney has looked at
it, and believes that it is something that the City can adopt. I
know that Alan has a presentation also, and if you have any
questions, feel free to ask.
Alan Richman, representing the Aspen School District stated, Chuck
Brandt is here, as well as myself, and Chuck is the President of
the School Board. We have been working with City and County staff
on this now since really, just before the first of the year. I
think we have given this a lot of attention before you have even
seen it. It has actually gone through seven re -drafts and before
we even got into the part of drafting the code amendment, I spent
some time with both Planning Directors, City and County, as well
as, with both attorneys; first, to see if we could agree with the
methodology, and second, to see if we could all agree if there was
authority in the statutes to do this. The school board didn't want
to go to all the expense and trouble to getting into the code
amendment process, if there was a basic disagreement about it. We
have all come to a very clear agreement that there is authority
to do this in the State's subdivision statutes, and there are no
challenges to the methodology. We are agreeing on that, all along
the way.
7
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20. 1995
Richman stated, I think one thing we need to know is, that this is
not an impact fee. We are very purposely differentiating this from
the impact fee. One of the most important reasons is, both Douglas
County and Boulder County did adopt school impact fees during the
1990s and they were both struck down on district court decisions.
They haven't gone to the Court of Appeals, they haven't gone to the
State Supreme Court, there are lots of attorneys around the State
who think that those broader courts may actually reverse it, but
regardless of that, we're not doing an impact fee. What we are
doing, we are using a much more traditional form of regulation,
that's a subdivision. Really what we are doing here is proposing
a new subdivision standard for new residential subdivisions only.
It is residential only because those are the only kinds of
subdivisions that generate students. New commercial development
doesn't generate students and new lodges don't generate students,
it's only the housing that generates students.
Richman continued saying, just so you know, this isn't a case where
Aspen's on the leaning edge, as we often are in regulation affect,
we're really at the tail end here; there are many, many counties
and cities that have already done this, and not just the
progressive ones, but some of the least progressive cities and
counties in the State have this. For examples, Mesa County, which
is Grand Junction, which is about as conservative as it comes on
the western slope; Eagle County; Colorado Springs; some really,
very traditional places. Why are we doing this now, very simply,
the school district is experiencing growing enrollments, and has
been for a number of years, after a period throughout the 80's of
dropping enrollments. (Richman showed a graph of the enrollment
periods). Not only are we having increasing enrollments, there is
really a demand for a vast, new array of services and facilities,
and the school board is looking to take advantage of any
opportunities that it can before it goes to the governments for
money. Maybe, a way to think about this is, schools are very
limited by laws, what they can and cannot do, and they can't put
this charge on themselves, they have to come to the City and the
County if this is going to happen. What we are doing, really, is
what the statutes says that we're allowed to ask you to do. As I
said, our methodology is very simple, and it's been widely tested;
it has been used in a number of other communities.
Richman said, we culminate acreage per dwelling unit in a very
simple way; the amount of school land area that is provided per
student today, the existing level of service provided by the school
today, and the number of students generated per dwelling unit in
the Aspen area today. The second one we got by doing telephone
surveys on 300-400 households around the valley, so, all this data
is generated locally.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
Richman stated, one of the questions that came up when we presented
this before, we have put a maximum land value in the ordinance, in
other words, we have imposed a cap on the amount of money that
could be obtained from any new development. We have done that
ourselves. And that's if cash is being paid rather than land being
dedicated. I think we all know that the size of subdivisions in
the Aspen area is generally pretty small, and very few subdivisions
become land areas that would actually get dedicated to the school
district. What's going to end up happening is, probably, people
will pay cash instead. The land values that are used to calculate
the cash in this area, are obviously, extraordinarily high and the
school board just didn't feel comfortable with having an unlimited
number. They could be in the 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 dollars
a unit, and they didn't think that was fair. So, we put a cap on
writing some numbers; we decided 150,000 was a maximum land value
that we wanted per unit. Just so you know, that would result in
a fee of $2, 430 . 00 maximum for a three -bedroom unit, $3, 720 . 00 for
four, and $4,260.00 for a five. So, those are the absolute
maximums. For free market development, that is probably also what
will happen. On the other hand, affordable housing land values
are much, much less. Land values, for example at Twin Ridge,
(getting these right off of the Assessor's values) are $40,000
which would generate a fee of $648. Centennial is $18,000 a unit
and generates around $171. per unit. So, the affordable housing
has its own advantage built right into the system to make sure that
we're not asking for absorbent amounts from those units. That's
where we are at, and I' d be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
Hunt stated, number one, I suggest you set your maximum land value
per unit at $150,000 in a certain year's dollars that couldn't be
adjusted to the CPI. Number two, I've got a major concern, when
I see a studio/one bedroom and it equals 52 sq. ft. Take, for
example, the Marolt Housing; now there is a housing complex where,
it certainly doesn't generate any school requirement of the music
students in the summer, and it is primarily designed as bachelor
living in the winter. I don't know if any families live there. My
question is, why should that type of housing be included? I'm
concerned, particularly in the affordable rural housing of the
lower category that basically caters to single people, I worry
about the rationale that says, that kind of housing owes some
school money.
Richman answered, in the survey that we did, there were 41
responses and it is in the materials that you have; I had a student
generation factor of .05 per dwelling unit, and then multiplying
that out by the land per student, I get the 52 sq. ft. (Tables 1
and 2 in the Application for Amendments to Aspen Land Use
Regulations, page 5, attached in record). I think you are right
across the board, the vast majority of those studios and ones are
9
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
not going to be family -oriented units, but one out of twenty are
probably going to have a single mom or dad with one child. These
are average factors.
There was discussion at random between Richman and Hunt regarding
the formula and summary of survey.
Lackner asked, do dormitory units, like Roger is saying at Marolt
Housing, would they come under studio/l bedroom or is that a
generation that is not listed in there. Because we do have that
category of dormitory. I'm thinking it would be exempt. Richman
stated, I don't think we enventoried a pure dorm, it is almost
inconceivable to imagine sharing a dormitory type unit. Hunt
asked, can that be indicated in there? Lackner stated, we can
clarify that. That would be approved as that type of housing.
Hunt stated, exactly, I don't see a problem with that at all.
Kerr stated, in a practical sense, Alan and Chuck, you don' t really
expect to receive any land dedications, do you? Brandt answered,
not in the City, conceivably in the valley, it would be a pretty
large subdivision that would generate adequate land. Kerr asked,
and the money that is generated, is that to be used for general
school purposes; I mean, conceivably, when enough money is
accumulated, you can either buy another site for another school or
you could conveivably build a house. Brandt answered, they are
capital funds only, they aren't operating revenues. Kerr stated,
but you can buy other land for any purpose you need whether it's
playing fields, school buildings, teacher housing, or whatever, is
that right? Richman answered, we specifically listed teacher
housing as a use. Kerr stated, but you aren't restricted to that
use, are you? Richman answered, only for school purposes, the
statutes clearly state that, and as Chuck said, the statutes are
very clear, so, it couldn't go to pay teachers' salaries.
Lackner stated, those things would be determined at the time of
subdivision, and that would be proposed within a developer's
application, as the site is going to the school district, and if
so, what the use of that is. City Council makes the final
determination with the subdivision application if that is an
appropriate site for either open space or school buildings or
housing. So, that would be part of the developer's process, just
so you would be aware of that.
Garton stated, one of my concerns is, in the summer you mentioned
that the affordable housing will reflect the valuation of a deed -
restricted status on what you get for the land value there, and as
you mentioned, Alan, really the only game in town is going to be
affordable housing, and they generate most of the school
population. It's almost too bad you're not going to get enough out
of that development, are you? Brandt answered, apparently not,
10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 20, 1995
but there's a balancing maybe that we have to go through, and I
think it is a fair approach. Garton stated, it is fair, because
that is what your tax assessment is, and relects that, as well.
Blaich asked, what's the percentage of your students that are
outside the district, you indicated that's part of the growth.
Brandt answered, 30 percent. Blaich asked, and this will affect
the areas that they are coming from, or not? So, in fact, anybody
coming outside gets preferential treatment? Brandt answered, in
a sense, yes. Blaich stated, it seems to me that what you are
charging them, the rate, doesn't certainly cover any of that.
Richman stated, the actual land dedication requirement is being
enacted, or proposed to be enacted, County -wide. If you look at
us as one community of impact generation, that does get accounted
for. Brandt stated, the one thing I would add is, our out -of -
district student enrollment is basically capped at this time,
because we wanted to keep the classes relatively small, and by that
I mean, about 20 students, and we are no longer letting in other
district students in the elementary school and in some of the
grades in the middle school because, basically, the classes are
full. There are some exceptions, where students come out -of -
district, which have been in the system for a number of years.
Hunt asked, would you, f or the maximum land value per unit, so that
you don't have to amend this year after year, adjust that $150,000
or use the term, with 1995 dollars? Richman answered, I think it
is a good suggestion. I have put in some language here about a
new year update.
Garton asked, is there anybody here from the public that would like
to comment? There were no comments.
Kerr asked, the funds that are collected and held by the City,
maintained in an interest -bearing account, is there any provision
for a management fee to be put into the City for maintaining this?
I'm not suggesting that that be done. Richman answered, the
statute definitely tells us that the City has to hold the funds,
the funds couldn't come directly to the school district. I think,
practically, John Worcester is anxious to see those funds not have
a major management responsibility for the City. So, I don't know
how that would be addressed.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to recommend adoption of the Aspen School
District Code Amendment -Establishing Land Dedication Requirements,
with changes; one, exempting funds, and the other, either putting
in an automatic adjustment factor or the recognition of 1995
dollars. Kerr seconded. Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in
favor, motion carried.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
NORTH MILL STATION SPA AMENDMENT
(CONTINUED FROM JUKE 6)
Garton opened the public hearing.
Mary Lackner represented staff and stated, to update you from our
last meeting, staf f did go back and f ind some "stuf f " from Roger' s
memory, actually on paper. The North Mill Station (Trueman) is
zoned Neighborhood Commercial but also has the permitted uses of
the SCI zone. It would also be eligible for the conditional uses
of SCI, but those would have to come through the conditional review
process. There was also a find regarding the sidewalk. It was in
the original subdivision approvement agreement that at a later date
the City can ask that a sidewalk be constructed and the developer
will pay the City back, or the City can build it and they have to
pay the City back within 60 days, along Puppy Smith Street. So,
that was something that was originally talked about, but they did
not require it back then; they said that at the time it was needed
the City could get assistance on that. So, that's something
that we are not going to ask as a condition anymore, because it is
already built into the appovals.
Lackner stated, what I would like to do, and get some feedback from
the Commission, is go through the list of 23 items that the
applicant has asked to have at Lot 1 of Trueman. I would like an
idea from the Commission, if any of these you would recommend to
be added down there, what should be conditional, or whether they
should not be pursued. On the first and second pages is that list.
The bold ones are what we found were added through SCI, and I think
the question with most of them would be, when the application comes
in we would have to make sure that it does meet the intent of the
SCI zone. You can't have constant sales of items, I mean, like a
kitchen store; can it be with shops, or can it be like more of a
cabinet shop that does improvements to kitchens, I mean, there is
a fine line there. We would look at the way SCI is set up to make
the call on whether or not that kitchen shop is permitted. So, if
we could just go through these.
Hunt asked, you didn't find anything, as far as the distribution
of SCI and NC? Lackner answered, no. Hunt stated, I remember,
very definitely that the attitude, when this got approved, was that
the basement floor area more or less was the SCI, that didn't mean
SCI had to be in the basement, but more or less, the distribution
on that basis of the square footage. That was very important back
then, and I think it is even more important now, because as we tend
to re -zone things, that square footage area of SCI is not
recognized, then you will just end up with Neighborhood Commercial
uses because that ends up being higher and better use. The side
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
affect is, that they will get more money out of their property and
we will lose it as an SCI zone. That's what I don't want to see
happen. Lackner stated, the only floor area breakdowns were
between residential and commercial, but I don't recall anything
between NC and SCI.
Hunt asked, do we have an idea of what the present breakdown is
between SCI and NC uses, excluding the residential, I'm just
concerned about the commercial aspect. We have the commercial
bakery there, the hardware store, the key shop, you know, there are
SCI uses there. Lackner stated, I don't have that breakdown. Hunt
stated, I would, somehow or another, through this process, try to
get it established, an approximate square footage area in that
entire complex that should be SCI. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
Garton stated, since this is an SPA amendment, it would be like we
could actually put those figures into the amendment to the SPA.
Hunt added, establish, at least what they have now or whatever the
square footage is of the basement, that that be the goal for SCI
uses in the entire building. Nobody ever cared whether the uses
were in the basement or not, that I remember. It was perfectly
fine for the key shop to be upstairs. I know no one wanted to
eliminate that kind of flexibility in the use of the building. I
don't know why that attitude didn't get through in the paperwork.
Garton asked, do you think it might be more efficient to just go
through with what staff recommends, which is on page 3, and then,
if there are objections to that?
Blaich said, I have a question I would like to inject before we do
that. What affect, if any, does this have on this adjacent
property across the street on Puppy Smith? Lackner stated, it has
none. Blaich stated, because a number of the things that are not
allowed, are over there; for example, sporting shop is over there.
Any decision we make on this might have an affect; they may come
in and want a variance on what they have. Lackner responded, what
this is siting is just Lot 1 of Trueman, and that's where the
parking lot and grocery store is. Blaich stated, I understand
that, but I'm just saying, because it is an adjacent property, if
we decide on something, will that trigger something. Lackner
answered, their SCI needs to meet those requirements, I think over
time the bike shop has expanded from just bike repair to sales.
They will have to come and stand on their own merits. Blaich
stated, O.K., so, we're not setting precedent here because it is
an adjacent property, that someone will say, how come there and not
here.
Leslie Lamont from staff commented that staff was getting a lot of
pressure from that area and was in the process of drafting letters
for polling of the area. She stated, what we would like to do,
13
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20_,_ 1995
because Mary's done such good work so far in analyzing the uses,
we'd like to roll this into, maybe, an analysis of our SCI zone
district. The SCI down there versus the SCI here in the Bass
Building has become very different, and we need to take into
account the buildings next to the river with the Rio Grande Park;
we may want to re -think our uses in there. Blaich stated, that's
what I was getting to, because there is so much, and one thing is
going to trigger another. Lamont stated, there is so much pressure
from people to find a way to squeeze in there. Some people have
some really great ideas, but the code doesn't allow them to do
that.
Garton stated, you see on Page 3 what is self-explanatory and what
is permitted in the SCI zone district, and staff recommends the
following uses be added to the uses currently permitted by right;
second hand store, office supply, florist, and catalog store.
Is there any discussion?
Chaikovska asked, this is specific to this property, as to what we
think is appropriate in this property, is that correct? Is that
what we are doing here? Lackner stated, what is appropriate on the
property, it does have an overlying NC zone, which is the
Neighborhood Commercial Zone, so things need to comply with that.
Chaikovska stated, there are some things, for example, the sporting
goods store, that I heard you comment would be more appropriate in
the core, than in here, so it's also subjective? Lackner stated,
do you think a sporting goods store is appropriate in the NC zone,
is more the question, specifically, on that site? Blaich said, I
see that this whole thing is really excluded from the original
list; optical lab, sporting goods, clothing/shoe store, and bed and
bath. It covered all the others in one form or another, from the
original request. Chaikovska stated, I guess, to continue in terms
of the ones you are recommending the permitted by right, I guess
I would think the second hand store would be something that we
would want to look at, and maybe, make that a conditional use,
rather than a permitted use. To me, it really doesn't fit down
there at all, it's more of a grocery, hardware, all supply, kind
of thing, rather than a retail clothing establishment.
Tygre stated, I really don't like to see a great expansion of uses
by right on this property. On the property, you are getting so
much pressure for uses that can't quite fit in, but maybe they can.
This indicates to me that as many conditional uses as are now
allowed, should remain conditional uses, unless we see something
that overwhelmingly belongs in there by right. This space seems
to me too precious to be able to have additional uses by right go
in, unless there is something that got left out in the original
intent. That's my position on this memorandum, and I think your
analysis is great, but I really would like to put the burden on the
applicant to have these great ideas; to be able to come in with a
14
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
conditional use application and convince us that their particular
application really belongs there.
Garton stated, my feeling in the last meeting was that, and the
Commission feels generally, there should be no additions to
permitted rights, especially now -that we see permitted rights are
accepted under the SCI. How does the Commission feel about
expanding the conditional use list?
Tygre stated, I think most of the things that are listed in the
first paragraph of conditional uses, I agree with Marta. I don't
think that a second-hand store is necessarily right, but they might
be able to convince us. Hunt asked, is that second-hand clothing
or second-hand appliances, or second-hand what? Tygre said, I
would like to look into that. I don't want to see retail
operations, such as a children's toy store; a bookstore, as much
as I like reading, a bookstore is a retail operation. An appliance
store is questionable. Furniture shop, children's toy store,
bookstore, pet store, to me, are retail operations and I don't
really want to see them on the conditional uses. The other ones
look O.K.
Mooney said, it seems to me there is a hardware store there, a
hardware store can sell appliances, can sell locks, can sell
lighting, we are getting down to some things like a furniture shop
could basically be a lighting store also, unless it is a high -end
retail furniture store that isn't flexible because of their decor
lines, or something. It seems to me that there are some
overlapping things. A toy store, it almost could be arts and
crafts
Blaich said, I was thinking, basically, the same point, because if
you go into the hardware store you can buy a lot of these items.
The lighting store that is across the street in the other area,
sells furniture also. We are starting to get these dual
situations; office supply already exists down there because it
started as a place to get your "stuff" packed up and it has turned
into an office supply house, not as much as Sandy' s, but it is, and
it does carry an awful lot of "stuff". I think it is a good use
of that facility down there. Catalog store, I don't know, I have
some problems with that.
Mooney said, I think a garden shop is, basically, a florist, in a
lot of ways. They have to service what the public needs are, I
think if you have a really good florist they will sell garden
supplies.
Garton stated, we're not discussing any more uses by right. We are
now discussing, and this is correct, only categories that might be
added to a conditional use to the Trueman SPA. Staff recommends
15
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
that last list of four to also be now conditional uses and they
would like to see them added by right? I have a problem with that,
I would like to see them conditional uses.
Hunt said, let's start on the last four here, but I have things up
above, as well. The laundromat is already a permitted use in the
SCI, so I have no problems with the laundromat. Lackner stated,
it is conditional use in the SCI. Hunt said, O.K., I see no
problems with the conditional use in the SCI. I think the hardware
store, the paint and wallpaper store, and the garden shop, those
can also be, the way the SCI has been transitioned, we can include
those in the SCI as well. Garton asked, by right, Roger, or by
conditional review? Hunt answered, here's my problem. I don't
want to make these presently conditional uses in the NC zone
district. Lackner stated, just for the Trueman property. Hunt
stated, I prefer identifying it, these are SCI uses, and they are
able to use up so many square feet of SCI uses on the Trueman
property.
Garton asked, following what Leslie said about certain uses
stemming up because of the drive of the neighborhood, does anyone
here wish to propose an addition to the list permitted by right on
Lot 1, the Trueman property? There were no responses. Garton
asked, would you like to see the use of the conditional uses
expanded on the Trueman Lot where the NC zone is?
Blaich answered, I could see, under the recommendations, the office
supply because it exists, and the florist. I question the catalog
store and the second-hand store. The second-hand store needs a lot
clearer definition for me. I would certainly not want to see it
added to the right.
Garton stated, let's just go down this list and I'll ask for a
raise of hands. This is for additions to the conditional use in
the NC zone on Trueman Lot 1.
The second-hand store, how many would like to see that? 3.
How many for office supply? 4
How many for a florist? 3
How many for a catalog store? (It was not recorded)
Garton stated, now adding to conditional uses?
Furniture shop? 2
A children's toy store? 2
Bookstore? 3
An applicance store? 2
A pet store? 2
16
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
Garton said, the following lists are presently conditional uses
and the staff wanted to see them become permitted by right, but we
have decided we don't want to see them all permitted by right.
Garton asked, how did the floral shop get into the Trueman
Property? Lackner answered, it came in as a Beauty Supply Shop
because they sell a lot of soaps and body cleansing type "stuff"
with flowers and plants. It is excess on the side.
Kerr stated, the reason I voted in favor of all of them as a
conditional use is because we have the option to review it.
Circumstances and times changes, and there may be one of those uses
now that we may not think appropriate, but five years from now they
may be totally appropriate. If it is there as a conditional use
we have the ability to review it, and make case -by -case independent
decisions. Whatever it is, I don't have any problem with any of
these as conditional uses, I agree that we should not add any of
them as additional permitted uses. That was the reason for my vote
in favor of all of them.
Chaikovska stated, I just don't understand the logic of why the
majority voted against a florist; to me,. that's one of those things
that you go into a grocery store, and a hardware store, and to buy
some flowers, where would you do that? It's part of that whole
type of environment. Personally, I wouldn't vote for the second-
hand store or the catalog store or the appliance store, to me they
are more browsing type of places than the places where you come to
do your errands.
Garton stated, my reasoning on voting against it is, I don't want
to see that mix be driven out of the commercial core. If suddenly,
florists and others are springing up down there because it's a
better rent, then, truely, our commerical core will be T-shirts and
boutiques. I want the mix up here in the commercial core, I don't
want to see that open up to that variety of shops down there.
Hunt stated, I think that an optical laboratory could come under
the guides of the SCI area, and should we think about adding that
to the SCI? Is there a reason why staff didn't recommend it?
Lackner answered, I think our feeling there was that a lot of these
optical laboratories sell retail.
Mooney stated, in talking about Marta' s idea about the floral shop,
I think there's a redundancy there, I think City Market already
sells a lot florist -type things, the Aspen Branch is already in the
Obermeyer Complex which is SCI, and again, to create another
opportunity to displace and, Roger, what is a balanced market
because of the way it's worked out, I didn't vote against it, I
didn't feel like I wanted to all of a sudden open up another area
for more competition which would be a redundancy.
17
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
for more competition which would be a redundancy.
Buettow stated, the optical shop, the bookstore, the off ice supply,
and the florist were all competing establishments with what we have
in the core area here; if we open an opportunity down there,
they'll start moving down there when we really want to keep this
up here very strong. Then that becomes a mall -like situation down
there, and in my hometown they just killed the downtown area, it
became a shell.
Hunt stated, I would just like to add, it's not only those
operations down there, to me, the worst thing is the displacement
of the uses down there that could no longer afford it because they
just upped the rent. That's why I would, at this point, tend to
establish a goal for a balance of SCI-type uses.
Lamont asked, you mean that via square footage? Hunt answered,
yes.
Hunt stated, whatever the square footage is presently, the
commercial square footage is below grade right now, whatever that
square footage number, that's the goal that they should have with
SCI uses of that square footage, let's say, plus or minus 15 per
cent, or something like that.
Garton stated, that's not a part of the applicant's proposal,
though.
Lackner stated, you could make a recommendation. I don't know if
you are expanding any of these conditional uses or not, but from
the votes we took, the most we had was three, and that would not
be a passing vote. Without you approving anything on the
application, I don't think we can put a further restriction. If
you were to approve additional conditional uses, you may then want
to say, we want to preserve the basement square footage, plus,
minus, 15 per cent, as SCI. If you are giving them something, then
you can write a condition on it.
Garton stated, because this is a public hearing, is there anyone
from the public wanting to comment on the requests of the Trueman,
Lot 1? There were no comments. Garton then closed the public
hearing.
Hunt stated, I'm just trying to get something in there, give them
a little carrot, somehow or another, so we can get the stick as
well.
Mooney asked, what were some of the ones that were voted as three.
I'll change my vote to give Roger the opportunity to restrict the
floor area.
18
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUKE 20, 1995
Kerr stated, I'm having a hard time understanding why we would
permit a garden shop, that has a conditional use in the SCI, but
will not permit a florist. That makes to sense, whatsoever, tome.
Lackner answered Mooney stating, the four that got three votes
were; second hand store, office supply, florist and bookstore.
Mooney stated, I change my vote on f lorist to allow the opportunity
to move that into a conditional category, in order to put forth a
motion to amend the conditional uses and go along with the
applicant's request..
Hunt stated, it is not a 50/50 thing, because the basement is much
less square footage than the entire Clark's Market. It's the
approximate square footage of the basement. If you can come up
with a number of the commerical square footage of the basement, and
say heh, it's this square footage folks, it happens to equal the
square footage of your basement, and it doesn't matter where those
uses are placed in the complex.
Lackner stated, we can say the square footage of the basement, plus
minus 15 per cent, and I can look at the plans that were approved.
Do you want me to bring the number back to you at the next meeting?
Hunt answered, I don't need the number back if you can establish
that number. Does this go to Council? Lackner answered, yes.
Hunt asked, if you could have that number for Council and explain
the rationale for that number and where it came from over the
years. Lackner stated, in my conversations with the applicant, I
don't think he's going to pursue it to Council with one use.
Kerr stated, I really have a problem with this. It doesn't seem
like fairness or fair -play or fair -dealing, at all. This "guy" has
come here and asked for a bunch of "stuff " and we throw him a bone
in order to slap some restrictions on him. In spite of Roger's
wonderful memory, if the record is not clear when the developer did
his original proposal as to what is SCI and NC, then, that's our
fault, that's the City's fault. And I really have a problem with
this, picking out one abitrary conditional use in order to slap
conditions on him. If I were the applicant, I would say forget it.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to add to the conditional use list those uses
we have discussed at this meeting; the florist shop, and the
recognition of the entire SCI list of permitted and conditional.
The goal is to have the useage split on Trueman, Lot 1, in going
back to the original approval, which apparently we can't track,
that the square footage of the basement level be for SCI uses,
however it is not necessary for all SCI uses to be in the basement,
they can be mixed everywhere. Mooney seconded. Garton called for
a roll -call vote. Blaich, yes; Tygre, yes; Chaikovska, no; Hunt,
19
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUKE 20, 1995
yes; Kerr, no; Mooney, yes; Garton, no. Vote was 4 to 3 in favor,
motion carried.,
Discussion of Motion
Tygre asked for clarification asking, the conditional uses in the
NC zone now, remain, even though they are permitted in the SCI, so
we are adding no additional permitted uses at all, right? Is that
what your motion says?
Hunt answered, if they are permitted in the SCI, I don't think each
one is permitted as conditional. Tygre stated, the last paragaph
of 4, says, the following uses are presently conditional in the NC,
are we adding those as conditional or are we adding those as
permitted, I'm confused, because I thought we were adding no more
permitted. Lackner stated, you are adding no more permitted uses.
We were asking if they should be permitted, but they are already
in there as conditional. Tygre asked, so we are not adding
anything in permitted? Lackner stated, correct. Garton added, but
Roger's motion does add florist as a conditional. Tygre stated,
I just wanted to make sure I understood the motion.
Hunt stated, it does add the recognition of the permitted uses in
the SCI. Tygre stated, as conditional uses? Hunt answered, I look
at them as permitted uses, because the SCI already has restrictions
within the ratio.
Lackner stated, the original SPA agreement called out the uses in
SCI are allowed on site. We didn't know that until Roger sent us
back to do our homework last meeting.
Blaich asked, could you clarify for me, Exhibit 1, page 6 for the
SCI? So, any of those things could go down there, if there's a way
to do it? Lackner stated, you are not approving that, that is
something they already have on their property. Blaich stated, if
they want to come back now and have appliances, and put rental or
automobile repair, all these things; in each case, they would have
to be approved? Lackner stated, no, these would come in, and they
are allowed by right, assuming they were, the bottom of number 1
says, "All of these uses are permitted provided they do not create,
etc." Blaich stated, I would have a major problem if this whole
thing were to shift into that. Economically, it doesn't make
sense.
Hunt stated, it is not likely. I would just like to add in the
discussion; it doesn't have too much to do with this motion, but
I guess I'm a little upset with this Trueman property, generally,
because Trueman 3, got through the approval process, and when it
went through the approval process, that piece of property was
supposed to have nothing but light recreational, but somehow or
MCI
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
another after it got through Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council, someone got an erasure on the plat and changed things
around before it got filed. So, there was a grievous error created
by someone between the official approvals and the official filing.
Lamont asked, what's on there now? Hunt answered, the City had to
buy Trueman 3 to make the thing whole again for the transportation
plan. I'm just sort of wary that this SCI tended to get lost in
the shuffle there, possibly in the same way. That's why I'm
totally protective of it. Thank God Mary found what little there
was in the record concerning it. So, that's my piece and I don't
think we're doing anything unfair.
Hunt dismissed himself from the meeting due to personal reasons.
Lackner asked that the 123 W. Francis Historic Landmark Designation
by added to the agenda. It was on the agenda as a tabled item.
MOTION
Garton stated, I make a motion that we will add the Historic
Landmark Designation to the agenda for 123 W. Francis. Mooney
seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion
carried.
123 W. FRANCIS HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION
VICKERY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Amy Admidon of staff represented for staff and stated, Leslie
(Lamont) has asked, that I very briefly tell you what this project
is about, so you won't be confused by the next three items. This
is a parcel in the west end that's a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, or so.
Jake and Della (Vickery) are requesting landmark designations on
the entire site. They are attempting to create two units on the
parcel, you can have two detached units with at least 9,000 sq.
ft., historic landmark, or not. The idea is that the historic
structure will have a very small addition on it and the new
structure will be of average size for new houses in the west end.
An ADU is being proposed for each unit, the one in the historic
structure is voluntary, it is below grade as Mary will describe.
The one in the new structure is totally above grade; it's required.
They will also discuss a code amendment that's related to how the
land is owned, a possible lot split is proposed. I think that's
a basic summary of what is going on here. This is going to have
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
total zone review at HPC, it's already gotten its conceptual
approval.
Lackner stated, the worksession is a proposed code amendment that
would allow a lot split on an historically designated parcel. What
the applicant is seeking or can obtain, right now in the land use
code, is kind of a piece -meal of different approvals to obtain,
basically, the same ideas, historic lots, but it's a kind of a
jury-rigged way of doing it. They would be getting two conditional
uses, one on the new and one on the historic parcel. They will be
condominiumizing the lot, so he can sell off the new parcel and
retain the historic building. If the condominiumization, the sale
of land, which is different than a lot split; you can do a
condominiumization now, you can't do a lot split now. The only
thing is, the Planning Director approves a GMQS exemption for a
second house on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot. The applicant has obtained
that, that's a lot by right on the 9,000 sq. ft. parcel. The
difference of the lots, the code amendment, is that we just make
a much cleaner project, instead of just kind of piece-mealing it.
Kerr stated, is the landmark designation of subdivided lot, the
second lot, the second house, somehow now have landmark designation
status? Amidon answered, the entire property. In this code
amendment we are going to discuss only what will be available for
historic landmarks. It's the ownership that's different than what
would be allowed, anyway. The idea is that he would be creating
somewhat of a smaller receiving parcel for an historic structure.
Kerr stated, I haven' t thought this through very carefully, I' m not
sure I understand the reasoning behind having a landmark
designation status for a new piece of property, new ownership, new
building; by having designation on that half of it, that creates
some additional responsibilities. I don't know what the procedure
would be to accomplish what Jake wants to accomplish, I don't have
a problem with putting two houses on the lot, having a historic
house be designated and get all the benefits that comes out of that
designation; I do have a little bit of a problem with the new
house, the new lot, having the same landmark.
Lamont stated, just one point of clarification. In the R-6 zone
district you do not have to have an historic landmark parcel to do
two detached structures on the property. Kerr stated, I guess what
I don't understand is, why not do the lot split, and then
designate? Amidon stated, there are other properties that have
gone through a lot split and still retained the historic
preservation conditional review over the entire parcel. They are
still considered as one site, you still have very specific impacts
to the original resource and this feature's landscape, and
whatever. This is part of the code amendment that I don't think
22
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 20, 1995
we would want to allow a lot split and then sort of free the other
parcel from any level of review. I understand that maybe you are
suggesting it shouldn't accrue all the benefits, necessarily. Is
that your point? Kerr answered, yes.
Jake Vickery stated, I also might be able to add a little to this.
The way the code amendment is set up is the maximum FAR for both
lots together is the duplex FAR. That's the way the code reads
right now. And the only way there is to divide or portion that FAR
between the two lots or building sites is through a site specific
development or whatever. The site specific development plan is
kind of like a hand -in -hand thing, where the two houses are working
together on the site and there are variations. Kerr said, like
mini-PUDs? Vickery said, it is sort of like a hand -in -hand, or
intrical relationship between the two lots that tie them together.
Chaikovska stated, I just want to clarify a little bit. What is
the FAR for the total parcel? Vickery answered, the FAR is the
same, it is set up that way, to be the same. What I ought to do
is start with a presentation of the code amendment, so I can hit
all these things, rather than answer questions. I can lay out the
whole thing and start from stratch.
Lackner said, the way we have it set up, we have broken Jake's
request into three different areas, since he can do a conditional
use on each lot or on each house right now, before any kind of code
amendment we were going to hear that, and see if he gets
conditional use on one or both houses, or whatever, and take care
of that issue. And then do the one land designation because he is
seeking that in the parcel regardless of whether he gets the
historic lot split. Then, we go into a worksession since we don't
have a formal application before us right now, and talk
conceptually this idea of the historic lot split; how would it
work, is it something you would want to see in the form of an
application before you. The proposal he has now he can do without
an historic lot split designation, he can do it without historic
designation. That's why we are taking the conditional uses forward
right now, and maybe if we do those and then go to the worksession
and just discuss this conceptual.
Blaich said, I just would like clarification of Bruce's question.
Your question, why would you designate a new structure, historic
landmark? I have the same question. I have another question, is
this property for a client to move into? Vickery answered, we are
purchasing the property and we can't afford the whole property.
Blaich asked, so you are going to live on it yourself. Vickery
stated, yes.
23
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
Kerr stated, I think I understood you to say, he could do this
without historic designation. So why? Vickery answered, we can
do everything except one thing, I can do everything except a
condominium. A condominium is where both house owners own all the
land together; there has to be a condominium association, a
condominium declaration; if I want to do something I have to go
and ask the other "guy". It's just a complicated thing; if you've
got ten units, you've got common stairs, common pool, common
parking, common trash, that's what the mechanism for condominium
is really for. Kerr asked, so by virtue of the lot split you are
required to condominiumize? Vickery answered, no, but the lot
split is what we are proposing to be a really simple way to own it.
Lackner stated, there is no provision to do a lot split on this
parcel now. There is a mechanism under condominiumization for him
to split the parcel, and to sell that other interest. That's the
mechanism Jake is not interested in because condominiumization has
these "weird" agreements between the property owners. It seems
that he can do this project now under condominiumization; it would
make more sense in a lot split -type hearing or procedure. It just
seems like a better way to clean up the code to allow something
like this to happen, but not go through the condominiumization
process.
Mooney stated (The clerk apologizes, but at this point the tape had
to be changed and part of Commissioner Mooney's statement did not
get recorded), I'm familiar with the Wyckoff/Billings, two houses
on one lot and Wyckoff brought in historically designated housing
and put it on the lot next to another more historically designated
house. They lived compatiably for a long time, and I sold the
Wyckoff house off, and now Billings is for sale separately and it
didn't seem to propose any problems or weird situation or stress
between the owners, and they, basically, had to take one more step
to condominiumize the land, which is legal in the State of
Colorado, and it's, basically, maybe easier than the actual code
amendment to allow it to happen. To make a code amendment, to me,
means we don't have the mechanisms in place to do what he wants,
I think we do. And I think that condominiumization is something
that is a clear-cut path that will allow us not to have to make a
code amendment.
Lackner stated, the City Attorney had advised staff that the
condominiumization of raw land should be something that we should
amend, as it is a loop -hole to our lot split procedures. As you
know, the recent James West "stuff" we adopted in early of this
year limited lot splits to one a year. With condominiumization
sitting out there the way it is written is a loop -hole to a lot
split procedure. That's a loop -hole we have to clean up, and it's
out there now, and Jake has come in before any changes to that have
happened. We are going to be tightening that up and we want to
24
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
find an historic incentive, I think to have this kind of proposal
going forward. There are some definite incentives to this kind of
text amendment, and Jake is just bringing this forward because that
is what he would prefer to do as opposed to condominiumizing.
Chaikovska stated, this is only for historic properties that you
will make this exception, but how do you feel about that, because,
to me, historic properties to be broken up and have a lot of
buildings crammed on them, makes it counter -productive. It doesn't
look historic anymore.
Amidon answered, it is a matter of scale; I agree with you, that
what you have right now is a 10,000 sq. ft. lot with one small
structure, basically, in the center of it. This is going to
involve re -locating it and adding on. And typically, I don't
believe in re -locating buildings, but what you would end up with
then, is a 1,700 sq. ft. building with a 3,000 sq. ft. addition on
the back, or something. That's an exaggeration, but this is a way
of lessening that problem and breaking up structures, and getting
smaller structures, and no, it isn't absolutely the way it was
authentically, but it is a better scale, a better resolution
initially than we have been getting on some of these sites.
Blaich said, I guess this has been done before, I happen to live
in a house where this was done and Bill Clark did it, when he owned
a house, and there is an existing house that was expanded as a
small little guest cottage right next to it, and it was
condominiumized, so I bought it. The rights we have is first right
of refusal, and right to approve any major change in the house.
If he wants to do any significant change, he has to get my
approval. In fact, I went to him when I wanted to change the color
because the houses had been painted to look similar. I wanted to
change it and we just agreed on it. We never had a problem, but
I understood, because when I first bought the house, I went to City
Planning because I wanted to make some changes. They told me this
deal was so bad that they would never do it again. I don't know
what the issue was at the Planning Department; the people I talked
to are no longer here, but were really livid over what they said
was a "boon-doggle".
Mooney stated, when Wyckoff was sold, the City really didn't like
the condominium declarations that they had put together, they were
lesser documents and not really, well-done documents, and so, they
did have to go back and amend their condominiumization by-laws and
documents in order to sell the property and the new owner had to
go and do this in order to protect his interest in this house that
he bought. But they co-habited on the lot, on two houses, owning
the same ground underneath two houses very comfortably for a long
time. I can see that, basically, it is a loop -hole, and I can see
that we would rather have, maybe, the code amendment that you are
99
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
proposing.
Garton stated, since we have accomplished a lot of what should be
in the worksession, and keeping in mind that the City wants to
close this condominiumization loop -hole, let's just go ahead and
let Jake work through the Conditional Use Review for an ADU and
then we will proceed to an Historic Landmark Designation, which I
know, is somewhat connected to the third item, but let's go with
the Conditional Use Review first.
Lackner stated, there are two accessory dwelling units being
requested; there is one in the historic structure which is below
grade, it has lightwells, and the applicant has not shown the
entranceway; what is shown in the plans is not covered or protected
from the elements, so we have concern with that. It is an
approximate 700 sq. ft. unit, that one is voluntary. I think if
we can find a way to protect the stairway from the elements, some
kind of overhang or shed roof or something, as long as it is
compatiable with HPC, that's improved. I know you have concerns
with the low-grade units; there is some lightwell in this, we would
like to see a lightwell to the south, but then, that's where the
driveway is and the garage. So, that's really not feasible. We
do have some concern with the ADU in this historic structure, but
remember this one is a voluntary unit.
Lackner said, as far as the unit in the free market house, the new
unit, we like that a lot. It's above grade and it will be about
500 sq. ft. It's got protected stairway from the elements, inside
it's got nice soft exposure, and we don't have any problems with
that one at all.
Garton stated, I don't know if I opened the public hearing, so I
do so at this time. Garton asked, does the applicant have any
problems with the conditions?
Vickery responded saying, the only problems I have with the
conditions relate to the parking.
Vickery made a presentation of the project showing the site plan
and stated, it is a 10,500 foot parcel, it is located over by the
Red Brick School. It is a north -facing parcel, and our intention
is, and we already have taken this through HPC conceptual, to move
the historical house over to this side (shown on map), we are
proposing an addition of a couple of bedrooms, one is a master -
bedroom for us, then, below that, a bedroom for Cody, our child.
We're recyling the garage structure and adding a second new garage.
The very basic idea is to move as much of the development abilities
over to the big site here (referring to map) . We will put on a
basement, probably an unfinished basement, to begin with, and
complete it as we can. This is something that will be done by
26
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
phases, over time, as we can afford to do it. What we promised the
HPC, was authentic restoration, as much as we can, on this
historical house and we are trying to set this up so it can be
developed by someone else. We have a couple of very large trees,
like 75 ft . high and a couple of trees that are about 35 ft . high.
The views are out to the south and kind of toward Aspen Mountain;
we have really nice views.
Vickery stated, just a little history on the ADU, we are
volunteering to do an ADU on our site, primarily, one reason is
because we may end up having to live in it and rent out the house,
or move in the house and rent the ADU out, to help pay for the
mortgage. So, that's our motivation for doing that, in addition
to wanting to be good citizens. The ADU over here (referring to
map) is a required ADU and I brought in a model of the ADU, which
I will pass around. The reason I did not bring in the whole model
is that we are still in the design phase, and I'm not confortable
right now with where I am at in this, but I am comfortable with
what we are doing back here with the ADU, so I brought that part
of the model with me. This is like a one-story house, we had to
actually go in and get a coverage variance for this from HPC,
because it is all one-story except for the two-story portion that
has the master -bedroom above it. We have very little open space;
right now there is a grove of aspen trees in here that we are
trying to preserve as much as possible, and the reason I don't want
to put the parking space here is that I would like to have as much
open space and aspen trees in here as I can preserve. It is
possible to put parking space in here (referring to map), but what
I have decided to do, and I think it is in the memorandum, is to
make this ADU, instead of being a one -bedroom unit, make it a
studio unit. A studio unit is not required to have any parking,
so that's what I would like to do there to resolve that. Again,
because of these trees in the f ront , it has pushed the house to the
back towards the alley, so, I just hate to take up this space with
cars. We already got this parking waived by HPC.
Lackner asked, how many parking spaces do you have on your
historical site? Vickery answered, there are two spaces, and there
are two spaces here (referring again to the map).
Lackner stated, staff's concern on the parking spaces, especially
on the historic unit, is in the plans submitted. It showed a total
of 7 bedrooms in the historic structure and we didn't feel that 2
parking spaces was adequate. The plans showed a 5-bedroom house
and then a 2 bedroom ADU, and that's why I want to have one more
space for the ADU. I have talked to Jake and he says the floor
plans in the basement showing those additional bedrooms is still
questionable, it is not final.
27
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 20, 1995
Garton asked, how do you respond to staff Is concern on the historic
ADU about the overhang? Vickery answered, I don' t have any problem
putting the overhang over the stairs.
Garton asked, you mentioned that you needed to sell off the new
house and the development was up to them, but it sounds like you
are designing it; they will buy the design from you? Vickery
answered, what they will get is a design, but I can't build it.
So, they will have to do that. Whether it' s a developer or whether
it' s somebody who wants to come in and live there, I don' t know who
it is; I' m trying to keep the door open as much as possible on that
site.
Garton stated, but you hope that they buy into the design, it' s not
a requirement on this parcel? Vickery answered, yes, it would be.
They have one of two choices; they can make a minor modification
of it that wouldn't really change its character or if they want to
do something major, they have to start from scratch and recycle
through it. They've got to live with the FAR that has been
apportioned to that site and they have to go back to HPC and give
the whole conceptual review package again. Garton stated, if we
should approve the text amendment, from then on, it will always go
through HPC review, whether it is burned down?
Lackner stated, one thing is, the design for the ADU, if the new
unit is changed, there are procedures under conditional use, if it
is changed more than such per cent and size, or significant change,
that would all come back.
Blaich said, I would have a problem if I thought that this was a
real possibility that they could then go and do something
completely different, and I'm trying to reflect back on the
question of historic preservation on a new building. I think what
you are trying to do here is consistent with a lot of the goals you
are trying to achieve, and I think it is even better, even those
two separate structures, than some houses where the original
structure was minute and this "monster" historic house was built
behind it. There was a house on the west end, I forget the street
location, but a small structure was moved over there and then built
on the rear. The whole house is designated historic. That's an
example, but this other one, which I think is well designed; I'm
not complaining about the design, but you go there and all there
was was this little cottage and everything else was completely new,
but all one house. The difference here, you get two houses, two
different families and you keep a scale in the community, which I
think is what we are trying to do. I think this kind of an
approach is a healthy approach, and I'm willing to bend a little
if we have to.
28
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
Kerr stated, Jake, would it be a fair assessment to say, the
problem with the condominiumization, what it does is affect the
saleability and the marketability, and in affect, placing
incumbence on that other half of the lot. That's really the
problem. Vickery stated, I've got the request in for
condominiumization through the Planning Director simultaneously,
with the lot split, because a) I don't know if the lot split thing
is going to happen, and b) I don't know when it's going to happen.
So, I'm dual tracking it. I still believe that it's cleaner and
it's better to have it single-family lots than a condominium. I'm
not sure that I agree that a condominium ownership is all that
elegant. Because the way it is,.the entire property is owned by
both entities and anytime you want to do something, you have to go
and ask the other "guy". The Condominium Association has to pay
taxes, it's just a kind of big chain around your neck and I don't
see any benefit to the public wealth for it, I guess is my real
point.
(There were motorcycles that affected the taping of the
conversation between Kerr and Vickery at this point. The clerk
again apologizes. ) Kerr and Vickery were discussing bonuses.
Kerr asked, the total FAR that you would end up with on each side
is, what? Vickery answered, it is in the packet. Kerr stated, let
me ask it this way, the total FAR of the two houses is no greater
than the FAR of what one house could be on the 10,500 lot, is that
right? Vickery stated, right.
Garton asked, how do the Commissioners feel about the parking
request, Condition 8? Jake mentioned that HPC has waived that, but
staff has expressed their concerns.
Amidon stated, by the way, just so you understand, the reason HPC
waived it, is in the spirit of the new code amendment, only two
spaces per unit are required. I understand there is an additional,
there's ADUs here, but that was their reasoning.
Garton stated, there is room for another space behind a new house,
Jake. What do you think of the grass creep? Vickery, I don't
think it's good in the climate in our area. I've seen it in
southern California, it looks great, but here with snowplowing,
I don't think it works well. I just don't want the car there.
Mooney asked, where is the car going to go? Vickery stated, it
goes on the street or it's so close, and within walking distance
to town, you can get anywhere from that location. Garton asked,
can you get an RO permit? Is that an RO permitted area? Lackner
responded, yes, for all cars registered at the site.
29
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 20, 1995
Garton asked, any discussion about the parking? Vickery stated,
well, it looks like we're not going to get it anyway. I would like
it, but HPC has already waived it, but I don't know if it is worth
holding up this application.
Mooney stated, I would like to see if there is a car attached to
this ADU, that they do have the opportunity to park someplace. I
think they work as much as they don't work, and if we were to make
the effort to put them on the property, that doesn't diminish the
green space and it enhances the opportunity for someone to put a
car off the alley and on the property. I think that's a fair
trade-off. I think it gives us the satisfaction when we request
to restrict the rest of the neighbors to parking requirements. At
least we have some cooperation from everybody.
Vickery again showed the site plan and it was discussed at random
regarding the parking and possibilities. Vickery was concerned
about the open space element. Blaich mentioned the possibility of
parking on the street, because they would have a permit anyway.
He stated, as long as they have a permit they won't get ticketed.
Garton stated, Mary, also, your concerns about the overhang in the
lightwell, are they met by Condition #9, "all material
representations made by the application shall be adhered to"? Do
you want to see us add conditions that the deck will be made
larger? Lackner stated she would like the deck to be made larger.
Mooney asked, are we in complete compliance with all the setbacks?
Vickery answered, the B unit is, the 6,000 ft. unit is in
compliance. It depends on what you mean by compliance. I would
have to say, no, we're not in compliance. Vickery showed the site
plan and the setbacks. Mooney stated, I understand all those
points, Jake, but it seems to me that you are then putting the
responsibilities on your neighbors of living with a house closer
to their setbacks. I'm concerned that there is more usable area
between the houses that can be used to keep the density which you
are requesting on your lot and not push your density against your
neighbors lot lines. Vickery said, right, but here is my argument.
This is a one-story, low impact house. It means there is no big
two-story wall running down the property line like you see in some
places. There is a variety to the form, it angulates out, goes in
and out, and creates an open space here (referring to site plan).
This "guy" already is only 3 ft. from the property line, on this
side. So, I'm asking for flexibility in the setbacks, which is
what I asked from the HPC, in order to create a composition that
I felt fitted into the neighborhood, although it might not meet to
the letter of the setbacks. The variance has already been given
by HPC. Amidon asked, but for the 6,000 sq. ft. lot, don't look at
it as a whole, don't you meet your setback requirements? Vickery
answered, if you were to treat these as separate lots, this lot
M
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
(referring to site plan) would have a total of 10, it does encroach
in this one area right here because HPC was adamant about keeping
this portion of the historical house. This one here has the 15
feet required for the 6,000 sq. ft. lot.
Garton stated, actually, this item is only considering the
conditional uses for two ADUs to be located within two residences
at 123 W. Francis. Is there a motion?
Mr) rrTnKT
Kerr stated, I make a motion, with the motion being conditioned on
the further approvals that are necessary to create a lot split and
everything that goes with it, and text amendment. Based on that
condition, I move to approve the Conditional Use for two accessory
dwelling units to be located within the proposed two residences at
123 W. Francis with all 9 Conditions as recommended in the Planning
Office memorandum. Blaich seconded.
Garton asked, so, you want two designated parking spaces in
Condition #8. Kerr responded, I want 6 parking spaces. It's not
what I want, it is what staff has recommended. Lackner said, I
have a question, since he can do this without the text amendment,
do you want to condition this on the text amendment? Kerr
answered, I am just saying, it is subject to our other actions,
whatever they may be on the parking space. Vickery stated, I don' t
see what the relationship is to the text amendment versus the ADUs.
Kerr stated, I want to remove the condition. Vickery stated, I'm
going to ask that you table it then, because I don' t know what this
is that we're doing. This is a sort of a "screwy" deal, and I
prefer that you didn't vote on it. I don't understand what it is
that you are doing.
Kerr withdrew his motion.
MOTION
Kerr stated, I move to approve the Conditional Use for two
accessory dwelling units to be located within the proposed two
residences at 123 W. Francis with 9 Conditions recommended in the
Planning Office memorandum. Blaich seconded. Garton called for
a roll call vote. Chaikovska, yes; Bruce, yes; Sara, no; Tim, yes;
Robert; yes, Steve, no. Vote was 4 in favor, two opposed, motion
carried.
Discussion of Motion
Kerr stated, the problem I have with Jake's method is we're
approving a conditional use of two ADUs prior to a lot split taking
31
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995
place.
Vickery asked, in the interest of compromise, would the Board
entertain in putting another parking space on this lot, and forego
the parking space on this one, for the reasons I have mentioned
earlier. All I'm going to do here is withdraw the application for
the ADU, this ties our hands in terms of financing, and potentially
find options on how to pay for this thing. If you really feel
strongly that it's my ability to work with the Board, if you really
feel strongly as a group that a) you can justify that, even though
that's a studio, b) that you need it, I will provide it, in the
interest of working with the Board. But, I don't know how you
justify it since it is a studio.
Garton stated, I was going to vote against this motion because I
don't agree with conditions in it, in the spirit of the new
requirements for parking.
Garton stated, next is the Historic Landmark Designation, which is
a public hearing for 123 W. Francis.
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION
123 W. FRANCIS
Amy Amidon of staff stated, staff and HPC recommend that the P&Z
approve the landmark designation finding, the Standard b, e, and
f, and this is an historic cottage with some alterations. It is
a unique building because, apparently, it must have had a separate
unit, sort of a duplex; there were two front porches, two front
doors, and most of that will be restored as part of the applicant's
proposal. The house will be rehabilitated to contribute to the
character of the block again.
EVIOU&Nr6111i
Mooney stated, I make a motion that we approve the Historic
Landmark Designation for 123 W. Francis on the condition that the
three b, e, f, have been met. Blaich seconded. Vote commenced,
vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Garton asked, is there discussion on the motion. There was none.
Is there anyone from the public who wants to address this issue?
There were no comments. Garton closed the public hearing.
Vickery asked, do I have to put three cars on both sites? Is that
where it ended up?
32
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUKE 20, 1995
Amidon stated, I don't mean to complicate things, but just for your
knowledge, I think we'll have to have some discussion to figure out
how the HPC and P&Z members can work together. I understand you
have conditioned a conditional use approval on that parking space
but those spaces were waived. So, I think we will just need to
clarify that. Vickery added, plus the fact, that's a studio, and
there's no requirement for a parking space for a studio. I don't
see how you can do it, in good conscience, to tell you the truth.
Lackner stated, just to let the Commission and you know, you can
find under conditional use, the need for additional parking, than
what is specified for ADUs.
Vickery asked, what happens with the HPC "stuff", I mean, it all
goes down the drain?
Garton stated, that's interesting, Jake, I wanted to ask that, but
we have a ruling on that. Lackner stated, we'll run that through
the attorneys.
Mooney stated, I think that is something we need to clear up, who
has final say on parking, because we have run into this before.
Lackner stated, I will look this up and report at the next meeting.
The Clerk was dismissed and the regular meeting adjourned at 8:00
p.m. The Commission continued in a worksession.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Carrillo
Deputy City Clerk
33
JOINT MEETING
ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS
June 20, 1995, Tuesday
Joint Meeting - Second Floor Meeting Room
City Hall, Aspen, Colorado
This meeting involved a discussion on the Affordable Housing Zone District Code Amendments.
Present and Voting:
City - Bruce Kerr, Sara Garton, Robert Blaich, Angie Ryte, Marta Chaikovska, Timothy Mooney,
Roger Hunt and Steven Buettow
County - George Krawzoff, Suzanne Caskey, David Guthrie
Planning Office - Leslie Lamont
Housing Office - Dave Tolen
George Krawzoff chaired this meeting.
Guthrie: I am concerned that if we vote on this kind of thing, that the worksessions are not necessarily
happening with the P&Z and I don't agree with a lot of things being proposed. At one time there were
income and asset limitations on RO and now there are not. It seems like we are missing the decision and
solution process. It seems like we are approving something that we have very little to do with. We don't
need to schedule special meetings but we are getting caught at the tail end.
Krawzoff: It is difficult to read some of the technical language and correlate that language into the
community. I spoke with Dave Tolen and was able to grasp some of the concept. I would like to know
what we hope to accomplish today.
Lamont: Cindy Houben worked with the Commissions a year or so ago on this concept. Right now, the
County does not have an affordable housing zone district. The majority of the emphasis was on affordable
housing and to create this zone district in the County. It has been a long time since the Planning and
Zoning Commissions have seen this and things have changed since then. We wanted to bring back to
the P&Z's for their ideas and final decisions. A lot off issues are still not decided. Other things have
surfaced in the last three or four months. We could go through the memo section by section, discuss the
issues that you are uncomfortable with, and possibly do another worksession with both P&Z's, the BOCC
and City Council. We paraded some existing projects in front of the BOCC to get a sense of what this
code amendment would mean.
Krawzoff: The City is familiar with the information in this code amendment since they have been working
with the AH zone district, but the County is not familiar with this concept. I suggest going through the
memo and see how far we can get.
Garton: Does the County have RO? Have RO houses been approved without an ordinance?
Planning and Zoning Commission Joint Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 2
Tolen: The ordinance established is the one that is included in the Housing Guidelines.
Lamont: At this point, RO is laid out in deed restrictions and is particular to those deed restrictions. This
RO stuff is a program out of the Housing Office but is not codified.
Tolen: What is in the memo is what is presently in the Housing Guidelines.
Lamont: We talked about a menu approach to RO.
Garton: So now we want to codify RO that is in the Guidelines and the affordable housing zone district
will be in the County and City Code. It is the affordable housing zone district that requires a public
hearing, not the RO.
Krawzoff: I would like to open the public hearing and take public comment at this time.
Mooney: This is a philosophical question, but the AH zone district is an artificial real estate zone, and not
a natural zone, creating this division of real estate. It has certain parameters and is not market driven but
community driven. As you move down the valley, there is more opportunity for a balanced real estate
development. If we create the affordable housing zone because it is needed up here and inflict it on
somebody down valley, then are we perpetuating some type of artificial zone or reality. Density really
matters up here. Should we be considering in the County some kind of concentric circle type division.
Just to create a real estate category is going to push something out of balance eventually.
Lamont: There will be three affordable housing zones established -- AH1 for the City, AH2 for the metro
area and AH3 for further down valley. Further down, less density is allowed.
Mooney: The most obvious is that the commercial is driving the growth. We need to get at some way to
balance out the commercial development. If we did this, then we might not have as big a problem with
residential as we have now. The County will be severely impacted. This is good residentially but we need
to do something commercially.
Tolen: A commercial cap in GMQS?
Lamont: We have not tackled that in the Code. That is the next step in the growth management section.
The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) talked about not lowering the FAR in the downtown core, but
shifting that. We are trying to propose changes to the existing City's affordable housing zone district, AH1,
AH2 in the metro area and AH3 which is outside the metro area to Aspen Village. The changes in the RO
program will be addressed in the Housing Office's Guidelines. The biggest change is in the City's AH zone
and the different allowable FAR. The AACP is trying to push smaller scale structures and get away from
the bigger multi -family buildings. We took the sliding scale for the multi -family and for duplexes and came
up with an in-between. Page 5 is proposing a new sliding scale. We talked about an overall floor area
to the "fathering" parcel. As the parcel gets larger, the allowable floor area would be less. The City
Council and the BOCC thought they needed to rethink allowable densities and just using this sliding scale
for allowable floor area ratio was enough. We are also recommending to require allowing the AH to have
a mandatory PUD overlay. We are also suggesting dimensional requirements be established by the PUD
also. The AH zone district should be a floating zone. Keeping the flexibility to site design and site
planning can better plan a project that fits with that neighborhood. The sliding scale is allowed up to 85%.
Planning and Zoning Commission Joint Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 3
If someone wants to use 100% of allowable floor area, they must go through a special review. The
densities in AH3 are a little bit less.
Tolen: The key question is can we look at some projects that a private developer has done. In looking
at things like Juan Street, East Hopkins, Williams Ranch, all of these could be accomplished by these
guidelines. We don't have the full FAR by right, and have to get approval for what is appropriate. It
seems to work as to actual projects.
Garton: Will the reviews be joint between both Boards?
Lamont: Some, yes, and the 100% AH projects are joint also. Anything in the metro area that is exempt
from GMQS that affects the allotment pool will be required to be reviewed jointly.
Guthrie: 85% FAR by right, for mixed projects, all 100% affordable or everything.
Lamont: AH implies a mixed project. 100% we may want to consider a little FAR and density for 100%
AH projects. We may consider a bonus for 100% AH projects. The smaller projects done in the City, the
density is pretty much right on. The bigger projects, i.e., Williams Ranch, the density is less than what
could be developed.
Garton: Why is all of this necessary? Is there no AH in the greater metro area?
Tolen: The Guidelines in place allowed the FAR and density for multi -family, higher than for single family.
It made sense to change the Code to make it consistent. We encourage the detached buildings now.
Sunny Vann: If the AH is totally within the City limits, does it require a joint review.
Lamont: Yes.
Sunny Vann: if it is exempt, is it subject to joint review? I am not sure of the AH3 zone district outside
the metro area. Is there one allotment pool for the metro area.
Lamont: All residential projects will have to comply with the residential checklist. This will be done by P&Z
as part of the review.
Lamont: Any more problems or need any more information? The proposed text amendments are creating
two new zone districts. The Council and the BOCC are worried about taking existing and making them
in noncompliance.
Sunny Vann: If there is a control on FAR for the fathering parcel, with mixed free market and AH, is it the
applicants' discretion on how to distribute FAR?
Lamont: We are not eliminating caps on free market. The category units have to be at least a minimum
size, through that and PUD there should be enough flexibility.
Mooney: Is there input about continuing the developers' choice of who goes in?
Lamont: We will go into that:
Planning and Zoning Commission Joint Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 4
Mooney: On a property 945 acres and 350 acres are on a plateau or meadow above and off the regular
property, and the road to get to it wouldn't pass the normal 1041 review, is that density allowed to be
developed on the 600 acre parcel?
Bob Daniel: It would depend on the public right-of-way.
Lamont: The PUD allows the ability to cluster and move the density around to take into account
topographical problems. We have to consider the surrounding neighborhood.
Kerr: Look at Exhibit 1, second page, Dimensional Requirements, I do not understand the minimum lot
size.
Lamont: If 27,000 square feet is the fathering parcel, this is the amount of land, not the house size. The
AH zone districts will be going through the same criteria and standards for growth management.
Alternative transportation is one of those criterias.
Kerr: Why is number 4, Transit facilities, a permitted use. This should be a conditional use.
Krawzoff: How will we continue in the future? It is almost 5:00 and the County P&Z needs to continue
our regular meeting.
Lamont: We have projects coming through right now that we want to bring under these regulations. If it
makes more sense to dedicate an entire meeting to this, we will. We will consider a separate meeting
date on this and will go through this top to bottom.
Nancy (Public): All projects now, are they going under the old code?
Lamont: They will be coming under the old regulations. Williams Ranch went under the new guidelines.
The RO guidelines are in place in the City right now. Is there anything that was missing that we need to
bring back at the next joint meeting?
Garton: I can't understand why Category 5.
Lamont: That is not on the table any longer. Regarding transfer of development rights, we need more
information on rural and remote and as to transfer to noncontiguous parcels.
Kerr: Should we set up another joint meeting, do a continuation of the public hearing and take action?
Lamont: We do not have to schedule to a date certain.
Krawzoff: This looks like an extra Tuesday. I suggest to go to August 1.
Sunny Vann: Do both have to be adopted before they become effective? Could the City adopt while the
County needs to hash out problems?
Lamont: It is all tied together. We will try and schedule another joint meeting for August 1.
Planning and Zoning Commission Joint Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 5
Krawzoff: Let's schedule August 1 tentatively and we will discuss that further in our County meeting. Any
sort of aid that you can provide that will help me visualize what these numbers will translate into in terms
of development would help.
Lamont: We don't have to wait until our next worksession to get information to you. We will put together
a sheet with West Hopkins, size of parcel, density, FAR, we will put those in your boxes, and then you
can, on your own, go look at West Hopkins and see how that feels to you. East Hopkins, etc., rather that
schedule a joint field trip.
Krawzoff: When you do that, if you could state how the proposed changes would affect that development,
that information would also help.
Chaikovska: A summary of the changes is what we would like, put what is being done now, and compare
to what is being proposed.
Krawzoff: On that note, I will close the public hearing, and if there is not any objections, I would entertain
a motion to adjourn the joint meeting.
So moved and seconded.
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitte
Cindy Christ sen
CLC Services, I nc.