HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950516ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1995, 4:30 PM
I
I - SECOND FLOOR, CITY HALL
Water Place GMQS Exemption Review - CANCELLED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA
Plan, Leslie Lamont (continue to 7/18/95)
B. Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning and GMQS Exemption for
Change in Use, Leslie Lamont (cancelled until
further notice)
C. Residential Design Standards Text Amendments, Stan
Clauson
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Sale Sign Text Amendment, Stan Clauson
B. Aspen School District Text Amendments, Mary Lackner
(continue to 6/20/95)
C. Mocklin Subdivision, Special Review, Rezoning & GMQS
Exemption, Leslie Lamont (continue to 6/6/95)
V. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: May 16, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Overlay Committee - May 30
Longoria - 936 King St. (AA)
Hirschfield - 610 W. Francis (LL)
Braden - 926 E. Hopkins (AA)
Allen - Lacet Court (KJ)
616 W. Hallam (KJ)
Regular Meeting - June 6
Stauffer Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ)
Nichols Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ)
Farish ESA Review (KJ)
Trueman/Aspen Company SPA Use Variations (ML)
Mocklin Subdivision, Special Review, Rezoning & GMQS Exemption (LL)
Overlay Committee - June 7
Special Meeting - June 20, 4:00 PM, Joint Meeting with County P&Z
AH Zone District Amendments (LL/SK)
Regular Meeting - June 20
Timroth Access Road 8040 Greenline Review (ML)
Aspen School District Text Amendments (ML)
Water Place (KJ)
Overlay Committee - June 27
Regular Meeting - July 5
Hirschfield Conditional Use Review for ADU (LL)
616 W. Hallam Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ)
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE: May 16, 1995
RE: Independence Place Continued Public Hearing
SUMMARY: The Independence Place development proposal was first
reviewed by the Commission March 1994. The Commission tabled
review of the proposal after the Mayor suggested a community wide
"worksession" on the proposal. The application that was submitted
for review was a Specially Planned Area review requiring a map
amendment and other pertinent development reviews. A GMQS
allocation was also requested.
The applicants have proceeded to work with staff and the Council
to refine the development proposal. Recently, the owners of the
Bell Mountain Lodge requested an extension of their 1992 GMQS lodge
allocation. Council approved the extension but briefly discussed
the need to bring closure to the project's outstanding issues
either moving the project along or ending consideration of the
development proposal.
In light of the applicant's and Council's preference to keep the
discussions open, staff recommends a continued public hearing for
Independence Place development application. Staff recommends the
public hearing be continued to July 18, 1995.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continued the public hearing for
Independence Place to July 18, 1995."
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff
RE: Residential Design Standards Text Amendments
DATE: May 16, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The memorandum for this item will be distributed on Monday, May 15.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Code Amendment Affecting Temporary Sale Signs
(Public Hearing)
DATE: May 16, 1995
SUMMARY: The Planning Office supports a text amendment which would
allow increased duration of sale signs during the springtime off-
season.
APPLICANT: This amendment has been initiated by the Planning
Office after consideration of recent sign enforcement actions and
input from local business persons.
LOCATION: The proposed text amendment affects all locations in the
city where commercial signage is allowed.
STAFF COMMENTS: The existing code language restricts the amount
of time and repetition of sale signs as follows:
Section 24-5-412 C.3. Temporary Sale Signs. Temporary sale
signs, announcing special sales of products and services,
shall be subject to the following:
a. Type. The temporary sale sign shall be placed in the
window or windows of the business holding the sale.
b. Number. There shall be permitted not more than one
temporary sale sign in any window, and a total of not
more than three (3) temporary sale signs for each use.
C. Area. Each temporary sale sign shall not exceed three
(3) square feet.
d. Duration. Temporary sale signs may be maintained for a
period not to exceed fourteen (14) days, and shall be
removed on the day following the end of the sale.
The proposed language for standard "d." is:
d. Duration. Except for the end -of -season period of March
1 through April 15, temporary sale signs may be
maintained for a period not to exceed fourteen (14 ) days,
shall be removed at the end of fourteen (14) days or
on the day following the end of the sale, whichever shall
1
occur first, and shall not be replaced for at least three
months following the removal of the sign(s).
Temporary sale signs may be maintained during the end -
of -season period of March 1 through April 15 provided
that they are removed following the end of the sale and
no temporary sale sign has been displayed for a period
of 30 days immediately preceding the display and,
provided further, that no temporary sale signs shall be
permitted for a three (3) month period following the
display of end -of -season signs.
Review Criteria for Text Amendments:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
response: It is consistent with the basic zoning regulations.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
response: The Commercial/Retail Action Plan within the AACP does
not address signage.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
response: This will only affect the commercial zones. No impacts
to adjacent zones is anticipated.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
response: The proposal will not affect roads or traffic.
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: This criteria does not apply.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
2
response: As the proposed change affects urban areas of town, no
impacts are expected.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
response: This amendment would not appreciably affect the
character of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
response: No particular changes within Aspen are noted. However,
many retail businesses believe that the current regulations do not
address the seasonal needs of retailing. End of season sales are
important for both the businesses and shoppers (primarily locals),
and increased signage allowances will facilitate the sales.
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 proposal does not conflict with public interest.
It still provides time limits and frequency limits for sale signs.
Recommended motion: "I move to recommend to Council approval of
an amendment to the Aspen Land Use Regulations to revise the
temporary sale sign section as presented in this memo."
3
-%4
i
ALLEN-SHARKEY-BRADEN MCCORMICK
May 12, 1995
Mr. Bruce Kerr
All P & Z members present at May 9, 1995 meeting
I wish to thank all of your and commend you for your decision to table the Resolution for
an Adoption of a Residential Design as recommended by city staff on May 9, 1995.
I have been designing a house in conformity with the existing code for the last nine
months. I voluntarily reduced the size of that house to 85% of my allowable FAR to be
within the spirit of Ordinance 3 5. This size reduction has been very time consuming and
expensive. The additional time caused me to miss the May 9 deadline for submission,
which was arbitrarily created by staff. I missed that deadline by a few hours. It looked as
if I was "out of luck."
I am acutely aware that there are occasions when the interest of the individual may have to
be subjugated to the greater interest of the whole. The democratic process only condones
those actions when it is clear what the will of the community truly is. For staff members
to arbitrarily impose their views by means of giving notice that a new ordinance is being
"considered" is very much a contradiction of the democratic process. Aspen is not the
only place where the democratic process has been trampled by over zealous government
officials eager to force their vision of what is right for the citizens.
Mayor John Bennett's narrow defeat of Augie Reno anti big brother campaign for mayor
is a reflection of the public's concern about these government abuses.
Once again, I applaud Planning and Zoning for recognizing the nature of these
government "shenanigans" as you put it. You have partially restored my faith in the ability
of local government to act wisely in trying to defend what is the true will of the
community.
Respectfully, j
John McCormick
JM:ms
610 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ■ SUITE 101 ■ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ■ OFFICE: 303.920.1234 ■ FACSIMILE: 303.920.4432
LAW OFFICES OF
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
LEONARD M. OATES
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
TED D. GARDENSWARTZ
OF COUNSEL:
May 16, 1995
JOHN THOMAS KELLY
HAND DELIVERED
Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning &
Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Proposed Residential Design Standards
and Revisions to Floor Area Ratio Calculations
Dear Commission Members:
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 920-1700
TELECOPIER 920-1121
On behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership we have been asked to commend to you the
recent efforts of the Aspen Community Development Staff, the Aspen Historical Preservation
Planner and their consultant, Solomon Architecture and Urban Design, in dealing with the
media -styled "Monster Home" problem in Aspen. In general, Savanah endorses the approach
of Staff set forth in the proposed resolution as being both reasonable and enlightened -
particuliarly the design standards. In your deliberations of the proposed resolution and any
recommendation to City Council, we would, nonetheless, like you to consider the following:
First, just as a strong case can be made for exempting the R-15B Zone District from the
zoning changes recommended by the proposed resolution, a strong case can be made for
exempting the previously approved Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area and Subdivision.
Here is why:
a. Many of you were involved in the lengthy and extensive planning process
that attended the much awaited and celebrated final approval of the Aspen
Meadows SPA, which paved the way for a secure future for our non-profit
cultural institutions. As you may recall, one of the components of that
approval was the creation of four single family lots - Lots 7-10 - at the
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C.
Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
May 16, 1995
Page 2
southern portion of the old Meadows racetrack. Initially, Savanah had
conceived of these lots as being 15,000 square feet in area, but agreed to
downsize them, if you will, to 12,000 square feet, because of their
relationship to the adjacent open space, the R-6 zoning across the street
and, most importantly, because of the fact that the dimensional features
of the homes to be constructed on the lots (4,540 square feet of FAR,
excluding a 500 square foot garage, but including a 500 square foot
accessory dwelling unit) was agreed to and assured in the Aspen Meadows
SPA Agreement. These dimensional features were related less to the
square footage of the lots involved than to the myriad other considerations
that were traded off and exchanged between the parties during the
approval process, including FAR provisions which are unique to these lots
- e.g., a mandatorily sized ADU which counts in its entirety against the
allowed FAR. It goes virtually without saying that had Savanah known
that, a short three (3) years after its agreement with the City, these
bargained for dimensional features would be facing compromise, it would
never have agreed to reduce the size of the lots to 12,000 square feet and
would have assured the dimensional features of the homes by means of
larger lot sizes.
b. The Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement mandates a design review board for
the Aspen Meadows Lots, one of the members of which must be
designated by the Aspen Historical Preservation Commission.
Additionally, the SPA Agreement requires the recordation of private
protective covenants, which in turn incorporate architectural guidelines
which were uniquely developed for the Aspen Meadows Lots. As a
practical matter, the guidelines incorporate and respond to most, if not all,
of the design issues addressed in the proposed resolution but, more
importantly, were created especially for this particular area and are more
appropriate for this site than the design guidelines contained in the
proposed resolution which, of necessity, are more general in nature. The
approved building envelope for the Aspen Meadows Lots are in conflict
with some of the set back and other provisions of the zoning changes
contemplated by the proposed resolution. It seems unfair and onerous to
require the ultimate purchasers of those lots to have to go back and either
amend the SPA or obtain a variance merely to build what all agreed to a
short three years ago.
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C.
Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
May 16, 1995
Page 3
C. The entire Aspen Meadows approval process was a unique and
unprecedented exercise in trying to determine just what was the scale of
development at the Meadows that could economically sustain the ability
of Savanah to give the campus land to the non-profit institutions. The
City actually engaged its own economic advisers to determine this critical
point. The result, of course, was a precisely crafted development plan,
including the four single-family lots, a seven unit townhome project and
permission to upgrade the existing trustee townhomes which, while it
came nowhere near Savanah's reasonable and legitimate investment backed
expectations, held a slim potential for Savanah to recoup some of its
investment, while the non -profits moved forward with the gift of the
campus land. In these circumstances, after Savanah has already given the
land away, it would be manifestly unfair to deprive Savanah of any part
of what it was to receive in exchange.
Second, with respect to garages, we would commend to you the many well -reasoned
citizen comments presented at last week's P&Z meeting. Altering the FAR exclusion for 500
square foot garages strikes us as being unnecessarily counter -productive to many long held
community values. Whether we like it or not, the 500 square foot garage (2 cars and reasonable
storage space) has become something of a staple in this community, not just for the second home
owner, but for the local full-time resident with growing family, as well. Tinkering with the
exclusion for garages is as likely as not to result, not in a smaller home, but in sacrificed garage
space, cars on the street, temporary ,storage sheds, and unwarranted inconvenience to the
homeowner -a "mixed bag" result at best.
Savanah is presently in the midst of attempting to sell the Aspen Meadows lots and, for
obvious reasons, has been following the so-called "Monster Home" debate with keen interest.
While, given the effort that Savanah put into the Aspen Meadows approvals, it was difficult
enough to accept any adjustment to the 500 square foot garage exclusion, Savanah was
particularly dismayed to learn that the adjustment of .25 square feet to garages between 250 and
600 square feet that had been recommended by the City's private design consultant at the "brown
bag" lunch work session on design standards was simply doubled to .50 at the staff level for no
particuliarly compelling reason. While we do not at all feel that an adjustment to the 500 square
foot garage exemption is necessary, if there must be an adjustment then let's start with what the
paid expert consultant recommends - more than that is simply punitive.
Once again, and so that we do not end this on other than a positive note, on behalf of
Savanah we do want to express our enthusiasm for the general approach that the Community
Development and HPC staff have taken to date. They have done a remarkable job with a very
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C.
Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
May 16, 1995
Page 4
difficult and emotional problem. We urge your favorable consideration of their work and hope
that our concerns, as set forth above, can find their way into your recommendation to Council.
Thank you for your consideration.
Y9
OATS, #UG411S & KNEZEVICH , P.C.
0
RWH/mlp
Robert W. Hughes
Emen
Igi
ARCHITECTURE • INTERIORS
POST OFFICE BOX 737
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
3 0 3- 9 2 0- 1 7 5 2
POST OFFICE BOX 521732
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84152
May12,1995 8 0 1 - 5 6 0 - 3 2 7 5
Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
re: Resolution No. 95
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members,
Aspen and Pitkin County is a unique place to live. Not only are its' residence culturally
and politically astute, but they have the ability and desire to control their built
environment. It is evident that when one observes the Roaring Fork Valley, Aspen and
Pitkin County have applied restraint to physical development. The Land Use Code guides
this development.
There should be no debate as to the value of this Land Use Code, because of it we have a
more desirable place to live. Like a Master Plan though, it needs to be able to evolve, just as
the community does.
I have been a resident of Aspen for 9 years, am a Registered Architect and partner in a local
design firm, Anderson Klein Architecture Interiors, Ltd. I attended the Design
Symposium, participated in my local Neighborhood Caucus and assisted the Planning Staff
with Case Studies to test the Design Guidelines for this resolution before you.
The current Land Use Code is complicated, difficult to understand, but important. I do not
agree with all of its' contents but feel that it should continue to evolve. Resolution No. 95
should be adopted.
The effort to modify the code should continue though and I hope that the Planning Staff is
directed to undertake efforts to simplify the code.
Thank you for your attention.
IS'S' e � ,
Ri and Klein,Architect