HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19940816
,~
AGENDA
--
===-=---==---
~~=
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
. .
REGULAR MEETING
August 16, 1994, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
city Hall
----=========================
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II.
MINUTES
6/Z.~q tj
V.... 'I
P 'tIC HEARINGS
III.
A. Text Amendments, Kim Johnson & Mary Lackner
IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Zoline Rezoning, Leslie Lamont (continued from 7/ 19)~
B. Creektree SUbdivision/PUD Amendment, Mary Lackner/'
(continued from August 2) 1 '11'2..0
V. WORK SESSION
A. 939 E. Cooper Ave., Leslie Lamont
VI. ADJOURN
...
A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 16, 1994, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
6/zlIq q
III. CPU LIC HEARINGS
A. Text Amendments, Kim Johnson & Mary Lackner
IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Zoline Rezoning, Leslie Lamont (continued from 7/19)'
B. Creektree Subdivision/PUD Amendment, Mary Lackner:
( continued from August 2 )
V.- WORK SESSION
A. 939 E. Cooper Ave., Leslie Lamont
VI. ADJOURN
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: August 2, 1994
Regular.Meeting - September 6
Special Work Session with City Attorney
520 Walnut St. Landmark Designation (AA)
Regular Meeting - September 20
Independence Place SPA Designation and Conceptual SPA Plan (LL)
Aspen Youth Center SPA Amendment (LL)
Mountain Chalet Change in Use & GMQS Exemption (KJ)
MacCaskill Conditional Use Review for an ADU (KJ)
610 W. Hallam Landmark Designation (AA)
Regular Meeting - October 4
709 W. Main Landmark Designation (AA)
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
lJ6,
DATE: August 14.),,1994
RE: Staff Initiated Amendments to the Land Use Regulations
(Public Hearing)
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of a list of
technical amendments to the land use regulations. These proposed
changes are intended to clarify or def ine unclear code sections or
to correct errors found by staff.
Each Commissioner has a code book. It might be helpful for you to
refer to the affected sections for more detailed context.
PROCESS: Code amendments follow a two step review process. The
Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the amendments at a
public hearing, then forward its recommendations to the City
Council for ordinance adoption (also a public hearing).
STAFF COMMENTS: This review is the first in a series of amendment
reviews proposed by staff to improve the function of the land use
regulations. Within this initial group of amendments there are
changes to definitions which are unclear or vague or new
definitions altogether. Also included in this review are some
items which staff must address based on previous Council direction,
errors found in the current land use text, or items which have been
standing policies of the Planning Office which need to be codified.
Throughout the upcoming months, staff will present other groups of
code amendments which will include technical and substantive
changes to our regulations which staff believes are necessary to
bring the code up to date with current community needs or desires.
This memo is formatted to present and discuss each proposed
amendment individually. The list of recommended changes is:
1) allowance for limited seating (up to 10 seats) for food stores
in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone districts:
The NC zone permits "food store" as a use by right. There is no
definition of food store in the code, but the zoning staff has
historically interpreted that a food store primarily sells packaged
and/or bulk fresh foods. In 1989 the City Council directed staff
to formulate a text amendment which will allow limited seating with
no table service in a food service establishment in the NC zone.
H
I
This was in response to an application by Jour de Fete to add
"delicatessen" as a conditional use in that zone, and to allow up
to 15 seats. During the 1989 review of Jour De Fete's proposal,
the P&Z recommended denial, but Council voted 3-2 to allow a code
change, which language was to be brought back for adoption. Staff
recently realized that this had never been finished and is
therefore recommending the following text changes:
Section 24-5-212 B.2. (Neighborhood Commercial zone - permitted
uses) change "food store" to "food market" to be consistent with
a term used in the CC zone.
Section 3-101 (definitions) add the definition: "food market means
a store which primarily sells packaged, bulk and fresh foods, which
may have indoor seating up to ten (10) seats, and no wait service."
,-2) GMQS Exemption by the P&Z for net leasable expansion of 250
to 499 square feet:
In 1992 the code was amended to allow the Planning Director to
approve GMQS exemptions for net leasable expansions from zero to
250 square feet. Previously, the P&Z reviewed net leasable
expansions from zero to 500 s.f. in area. Because the Council
changed a portion of the wording of the text during adoption, the
text ended up neglecting to read (as intended) that P&Z shall
continue to review and may approve GMQS exemptions for net leasable
expansions between 251 and 500 square feet. In effect, this change
is a replacement of the language which was in effect before the
1992 amendment.
The proposed new paragraph in section 24-8-104(B)(1) shall read:
"a. Expansion of commercial or office uses. The
expansion of an existing commercial or office
building of two hundred fifty-one ( 2 51) to five
hundred (500) net leasable square feet, excluding
employee housing, if it is determined that the
expansion shall have a minimal impact upon the city.
A determination of minimal impact shall require a
demonstration that a minimal number of additional
employees will be generated by the expansion, and
that employee housing will be provided for the
additional employees generated; that a minimal
amount of additional parking spaces will be demanded
by the expansion and that parking will be provided;
that there will. be minimal visual impact on the
neighborhood from the expansion; and that minimal
demand will be placed on the city's public
facilities from the expansion. Expansion of a
building which occurs in phases shall be limited to
a maximum cumulative total of five hundred ( 5 0 0 ) net
leasable square feet and shall be evaluated in terms
2
of the cumulative impact of the entire expansion."
(The remainder of Section 24-8-104 (B) (1) shall then be renumbered.)
-3) Clarification of the affordable housing mitigation
requirements for conversi qon of a single family residence to
a duplex, including deletion of the word "vacant" from section
24-8-104 (A) (1) (c) :
Ordinance 1 of 1990 began the affordable housing mitigation
requirements for new and demolished/replaced single family and
duplex development. The text currently requires mitigation for
new duplexes only if a single family dwelling or a duplex had been
demolished or if the new unit(s) is built on a vacant parcel.
Staff has seen a loophole develop in that the code does not address
mitigation when an existing single family dwelling is expanded to
create a duplex. Because it was the intent of Ordinance 1 to
require mitigation for new residential units which are GMP exempt,
staff formed a policy early on to require mitigation for a new unit
which it created by the expansion or remodel of an existing single
family residence. At this time staff believes this policy should
be codified with the following language
8-104 A.1.c. - Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit.
The construction of one (1) or two ( 2 ) detached residential
units or a duplex dwelling on a lot which was subdivided or
was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977,
which complies with the provisions of section 7-1004(A)(5) or
to replace after demolition one (1) or two (2) detached
residential units or a duplex dwelling, or the remodel or
expansion of a single family dwelling into a duplex dwelling.
(the rest of the section remains unchanged)
4) Clarification of "net livable area" versus "allowable floor
area" for measurement of accessory dwelling units (ADUs):
Ordinance 1 of 1990 established a limit to the size of accessory
dwelling units at 850 s.f. of "net livable" area, defined basically
as the internal dimensions of the unit minus mechanical and storage
area. Ordinance 60 of the same year reduced the allowable size of
ADUs to 700 s.f. For some reason, the term "allowable floor area"
was used to define the space rather than "net livable area". This
is not a satisfactory situation because it allows an ADU be larger
than these units were contemplated to be.
A situation arose recently where a detached ADU was approved with
approximately 600 s.f. of net livable area which was located on
natural grade. When the building permit was submitted, it included
a basement level of another 600 s.f., which effectively expanded
the unit to about 1,200 s.f. The argument was successfully made
by the architect that the project complied with the language of
Ordinance 60 because only the upper 600 s.f. counted toward the
3
0
code limitation of 700 s. f. of "allowable floor area". Thus the
basement level did not exceed the code.
Since ADU's are intended to be small, secondary units on a single
family parcel, staff believes that the language in Section
24-5-510 A.1. should revert back to the original term of "net
livable area" as follows:
"Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three
hundred (300) square feet of net livable area and not more
than seven hundred (700) square feet of net livable area. (the
rest of the section remains unchanged)
Staff also recommends that the definition of "net livable" in the
land use code be replaced by the definition contained in the 1994
Housing Guidelines. The current language in Section 3-101 reads
"net livable area means the interior living area or rentable area,
as defined by the housing designee and shall include private
storage area." The proposed definition would read:
"net livable area means that area calculated on interior
living area and is measured interior wall to interior
wall, including interior partitions. Also included, but
not limited to, habitable basements and interior storage
areas, closets, and laundry area. Exclusions include,
but are not limited to, uninhabitable basements,
mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages
(either attached or detached), patios, decks, and
porches."
The current code references the Housing designee's definition.
Staff believes that it is more appropriate to cite the definition
rather than simply refer to it.
V�) Change the public notice requirements for text amendments to
follow regular ordinance adoption process:
Section 24-6-205(E) (4) (d) refers to newspaper publication
requirements in Section 24-6-205(E) (3) (a) . This requires
publication of public notice for code amendments in addition to
ordinance adoption requirements of newspaper notice. This means
that currently the Planning Office and the City Clerk's Office are
both paying to provide newspaper notice of a code amendment being
considered by City Council.
The proposed change will require only the Clerk's office to print
the entire ordinance as public notice. Section 24-6-205 E.4.d.
shall read:
"d. Amendment to the text of this chapter. Amendment to the
text of this chapter requires publication of notice pursuant
to Section 24-6-205 E.3.a. for Planning and Zoning commission
4
public hearing and ordinance adoption procedures for City
Council public hearing."
6) Add the requirement for a site improvement survey to the
submission requirements of Section 24-6-202(B):
Staff from Engineering, Zoning, Parks and other departments are
regularly asked to comment on land use applications. We frequently
hear from these departments that an improvement survey prepared by
a registered land surveyor would provide more accurate and reliable
information for their review purposes. This adds some up front
costs to the application process, but would ultimately be required
for building permit submittal. Section 6-202 B. should read:
B. Application. All development applications shall include,
at a minimum, the.following information and materials.
1. The applicant's name, address and telephone number,
contained within a letter signed ny the applicant stating
the name, address, and telephone number of the
representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
2. The street address and legal description of the parcel
on which development is proposed to occur.
3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which
development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current
.certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney
licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all
mortgages, judgments. liens, easements, contracts and
agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the
owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
4. An 8 1/2" x il" vicinity map locating the subject
parcel within the City of Aspen.
S. A site improvement survey, including topography and
vegetation, performed within one (1) year of the date of
submission of the application certified by a registered
land surveyor licensed in the State of Colorado. (This
requirement may be waived by the Planning Director if the
project is determined not to warrant a survey document.)
6. A written description of the proposal and an
explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how
the proposed development complies with the review
standards relevant to the development application.
7) add a definition of "building envelope": There has been
confusion in the past about the term building envelope because
the land use code does not specifically define it. During the
East Cooper AH Subdivision review, building envelopes were
platted but people involved with the project formed different
opinions on the nature of the envelopes. In order to prevent
this situation from happening again, staff proposes the
following definition change in Section 3-101:
"building envelope: For purposes of subdivision, PUD, SPA or
other land use approvals, a described building envelope shall
equate to "setback" and "yard" as defined by this section and
be subject to those restrictions applicable to "setbacks" and
"yards". However, building envelopes may be further
conditioned by a land use approval to further restrict
development between the building envelope and the property
line to protect slopes, vegetation, water courses, privacy or
other considerations. Such conditions shall be described on
the recorded plats, development plans, ordinances or
resolutions, and building permit site plans."
8 ) Amend definition of "lot area" to exclude open ditch easements
when calculating lot area for proposes of determining
allowable floor area.
In an effort to promote and protect open irrigation ditches which
are an important character element in some Aspen neighborhoods,
staff wishes to codify a Planning Office policy to include the area
encumbered by ditch easements in lot area for purposes of
calculating FAR. The recommended language alters the definition
of "lot area" in Section 3-101 as follows:
"lot area means the total horizontal area within the lot lines
of a lot. When calculating floor area ratio, lot area shall
exclude that area beneath the high water line of a body of
water and that area within an existing dedicated right-of-
way or surface easement, but shall include any lands dedicated
to the City of Aspen for the public trail system, lands
covered by an open irrigation ditch easement, or any lands
subject to an above or below surface easement. (the rest of
the paragraph remains unchanged)
9 ) Amend the definition of "fence"
A couple of years ago the Building Department revised the Municipal
Code to delete a provision specific to fences and similar visual
obstructions on corner lots. This needs to be inserted into the
definition of fences in the land use regulations because it is an
important safety issue. The proposed addition to Section 3-101 is:
"Fence means a structure which serves as a barrier intended to
prevent escape or intrusion, to mark a boundary, to shield or
screen view, or to serve any similar purpose. Fences shall be
permitted in every zone district provided that no fence shall
exceed six (6) feet above natural grade. Fences visible from the
public right-of-way shall be constructed of wood, stone, wrought
iron or masonry. On corner lots, no fence, retaining wall, shrub,
tree or similar object shall be erected or maintained which
obstructs the traffic vision, nor on corner lots shall any fence,
C
to
retaining wall, shrub, tree or similar obstruction be erected or
maintained which exceeds a height of forty-two (42) inches,
measured from street grade, within 30 feet from the lot corner.
Plans showing proposed construction, material, location and height
shall be presented to the building inspector before a building
permit for a fence is issued.
10) new definition of "kitchen":
The current definition of kitchen found in the land use code reads:
"that portion of a structure which includes a stove, refrigerator,
and a sink." The Building Department uses a another, simple
definition of kitchen found in the Webster's dictionary: "a room
or some other space (as a wall area or separate building) with
facilities for cooking". Also, the Housing Guidelines now contain
specific standards for kitchens in accessory dwelling units. In
order to be consistent with these other departments, staff
recommends updating Section 3-101 definition of kitchen as follows:
"kitchen means a room or some other space with facilities for
cooking. For Accessory Dwelling Units, a kitchen must contain
a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and
a 6 cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer."
11) Fractional parking space provision: Section 24-5-301 E. states
"When any calculation of off-street parking results in a required
fractional space, such fraction shall be rounded off to the next
higher number of spaces if it is one-half (1/2) or greater, but
shall be disregarded if it is less than one-half (1/2) space."
This text was written prior to the establishment of the cash -in -
lieu allowances for parking, which reimburses the parking garage
fund and other transportation projects. Staff has seen over the
years several instances where commercial projects have been
"waived" of fractional shares of less than one half of a parking
space. It would be far more equitable to have development pay for
these fractions of spaces rather than not mitigate whatsoever. In
addition, rather than round up fractional spaces between .5 and .99
spaces, staff believes that these should pay only that proportion
of the cash value of a space. Staff recommends the following text
for Section 24-5-301 E.:
"When any calculation of off-street parking results in a
required fractional space it shall be paid cash -in -lieu."
12) Characteristics of off-street parking spaces: Section 24-5-
302.A. reads: "Off-street parking must be paved with all weather
surfacing or be covered with gravel and maintained in a usable
condition at all times."
Staff has been asked on occasion to allow the use "grass -ring" or
"grass -Crete" paving systems as an alternative to paving or gravel.
7
1
These systems call for open -cell cast concrete units which are
installed on graded ground, spread with soil, then seeded so that
grass grows in the soil pockets. We see this as an acceptable
situation on single family or duplex properties in order to soften
the visual impact of multiple parking spaces in residential
neighborhoods. The recommended text is:
"Off-street parking must be paved with all weather surfacing
or be covered with gravel. For single family and duplex
development, a grass -ring type surface may be used for up to
one-half of the required parking spaces for each unit, but
shall not exceed two spaces for each dwelling unit. All
parking shall be maintained in a usable condition at all
times."
13) Correction of Code Citations: Staff has encountered the
following necessary corrections:
Section 24-8-103 D.1 should read:
111. The quality of the proposed development substantially
exceeds that established in the minimum threshold for the
scoring established in Section 8-106 E.71 F.5, or G.S.
whichever is applicable..."
14 ) Floor Area Ratio Definition " Clarifications for ADUs ( Section
3-101) :
Subsection C. - Regarding exemptions for garages and carports,
staff recommends the following sentence be added after the text
which exempts up to 500 s.f. of garage/carport from FAR:
"There shall be no exemption of f loor area for garage or
carport parking for Accessory Dwelling Units."
Staff has maintained this position as a policy because there is no
assurance that an ADU will have access to an exempt covered parking
space.
Subsection G. - As an incentive for property owners to develop
above -grade accessory dwelling units (thus improving livability of
the units), the code provides that a portion of an above -grade
accessory unit be exempt from being calculated into the FAR of the
principal dwelling as a bonus. There is confusion however because
the exemption language in the code speaks of the ADUs in terms of
"allowable floor area", but elsewhere in the code and Housing
Guidelines the ADUs are measured by "net livable area". Also,
based on a recent case where a split-level ADU was approved, staff
would like to clarify that an exemption is allowable for up to 50%
of the above grade living area of a split level ADU. The following
language is proposed as a clarification:
"(G) Accessory dwelling unit. For the purposes of calculating
8
floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose
principal use is residential, the following shall apply: The
allowable floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit
shall be excluded up to a maximum of two hundred and fifty
(250) square feet of allowable floor area or fifty (50)
percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit, whichever
is less; a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be excluded
up to a maximum of three hundred and fifty ( 3 5 0 ) square feet
of allowable floor area. The floor area exclusion only
applies to the above -grade living space of an accessory
dwelling unit, in the event that the unit has limited below
grade space. (Allowable floor area for an accessory dwelling
unit shall be that measurement of all exterior wall dimensions
of the unit, not the "net livable area", or interior
dimensions of the unit.)
This floor area exclusion provision applies to accessory
dwelling units which are subject to review and approval by the
planning and zoning commission pursuant to conditional use
review and approval, Section 7-304 of Chapter 24 of this
code."
REVIEW `STANDARDS: The proposed changes are meant to improve the
workability of the land use code by clarifying vague areas or
correcting errors. Staff believes therefore that the following
review criteria have either been met or do not specifically apply:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
D . The of f ect of the proposed amendment on traf f is generation and
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.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
9
N
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposed text amendments
are within the spirit of the AACP and comply with the review
criteria A -I above, and should be approved by the P&Z for
recommendation to the City Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend adoption of the proposed
amendments to the land use regulation contained in staff's memo
dated August 16, 1994."
10
EXHIBIT C
C�
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE
I, Suzanne L. Wolff, being or representing an Applicant to the City
of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public
notice requirements pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land
Use Regulations.
Sign ure
Si ed before me thisday of
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
M Commission Ex es: MY Commission expires 9!97/9c
No ary Publi
1994 by
69L
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ZOLINE OPEN SPACE AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, July 19, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application
submitted by the City of Aspen, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO to
rezone the Zoline Open Space Parcel from AF-2 PUD in the County,
to OS, Open Space, in the City. Property description: an
approximately 57.15 acre parcel of land in Sections 2 and 11,
Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. For further
information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5101
slBruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on July 1, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Aspen Account
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
RE: City -Owned Zoline Open Space Property - Zoning
Designation to Open Space (OS)
DATE: August 16, 1994
SUMMARY: The Zoline open space parcel was purchased by the City
with open space funds. Although this property is in the County,
the City has begun annexation procedures to bring the property into
the City. The bulk of the acreage is currently being developed as
part of the Maroon Creek Golf Course per the terms of a long term
lease with the City. A portion of the annexation contains the
highway right-of-way. The parcel must be rezoned within 90 days
of the annexation. Staff recommends rezoning the Zoline open space
parcel to Open Space (OS).
The Commission first reviewed the rezoning at the July 19, 1994
meeting. The Commission tabled the review of the rezoning because
of three outstanding issues: ownership of the sliver of land
between the public open space and the river; the intent of
including all of Highway 82 to the Maroon/Castle Creek
intersection; and the ownership of the property that is to be
rezoned.
The answers to those questions are as follows: Mr. Zoline retains
ownership of the land between the river and the open space parcel.
Annexation requires one -sixth contiguity to the City in which the
land is being annexed, therefore the entire strip of Highway 82
along the golf course is necessary to comply with the contiguity
requirements. In addition, there has been some confusion as to
whether the Maroon/Castle intersection is in the City or County.
This annexation will clear that up by bringing the intersection
into the City (which is already patrolled by the City). Finally,
the City Attorney has researched Mr. Zoline's question about
ultimate ownership. Please see Mr. Worcester's memo, Exhibit A.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen
LOCATION: The parcel is 57.15 acres and is located on the north
side of Highway 82 on the west side of the Maroon Creek Bridge.
A large scale map of the parcel and surrounding land will be
presented at the P&Z meeting.
ZONING: County zoning AF-2 PUD
E
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Within 90 days of annexation into the City,
a parcel must be zoned to a City zone district. The annexation
was approved at Council on first reading August 8, 1994. A
rezoning recommendation by P&Z is sought at this time.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff considered appropriate zoning for this
parcel and determined that Open Space would offer adequate
protection to limit development. The purpose of the OS zone is to
"preserve, protect and enhance lesser developed or undeveloped
areas within the City containing unique naturally occurring or
manmade landscape features which provide visual relief and
enjoyment while reflecting or representing community artistic or
architectural statements. Development on the Open Space (OS) zone
district should emphasize and be consistent with the natural
dynamic state of the land and minimize disruption of existing
natural conditions."
Permitted uses for the OS zone are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Paved and unpaved walkways
benches
sculpture
water features such as
architectural lighting
for walkways and trails
sculptured or manicures
fencing
conditional uses: none
ponds, streams, or fountains
and downcast low -illumination lighting
landscape features
The limitations of the OS zone will preclude the golf course from
building any structures on the property. Staff originally
considered the Park zone district or the Golf Course Overlay
designation, but these allowed a host of structures as permitted
or conditional uses such as recreation building, sport shop,
restaurant facility, maintenance buildings, conference facilities,
active recreation facilities such as tennis courts and swimming
pools, housing, parking lots and lodge. These are clearly
undesirable at this location from staff's perspective given the
fact that the property was originally purchased with open space
funds.
Map Amendment for Rezoning to Open Space (OS):
Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 the standards of review for an
amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: There are no conflicts with the zoning code. A parcel
is required to be zoned by the City within 90 days of annexation.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan has set forth the policy
to "preserve key open space parcels which help to establish the
character of the Aspen Area". While this site was not specifically
identified in the Plan, this OS rezoning proposal will strictly
preclude any structures on the property.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The surrounding county zoning is AF-2 PUD on the south,
west and north, and AF-1 to the east. The Maroon Creek development
surrounds this site on two sides. Other adjacent properties are
larger acreage residential parcels, also in the county. The OS
zone will limit development according to the permitted use list
which does not include structures.
The Highway 82 right-of-way is included in a portion of this
rezoning. However, staff interprets the right-of-way as a pre-
existing condition with little bearing on the rezoning effort.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: The development of the Zoline open space parcel as part
of the Maroon Creek Club locks in this use for the next 90 plus
years. The site itself will not be specifically responsible for
traffic generation above and beyond the golf course. If this use
ceases however, the OS zone will maintain the site in an open,
green state, not subject to radical use alternatives.
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 Maroon Creek development is providing water and
drainage utilities necessary for the site. Without structures,
this site will place little demand on transit, schools and medical
facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
3
9
RESPONSE: After completion of the golf course, the site will
remain green and maintained. Per the permitted uses, there will
be few alternatives for the property which could be considered
environmentally detrimental.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The proposed OS zone allows the entry to Aspen to remain
free from typical development. This use is consistent with the
Aspen Golf Course property across the Maroon Creek Bridge, as well
as the remainder of the Maroon Creek golf facilities across Highway
82.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: As mentioned earlier, a parcel being annexed in to the
City must receive City zoning within 90 days.
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: The OS zone offers the public the best protection for
this parcel to remain in a less developed state versus the Park or
Golf Course Overlay zones. Staff believes that the proposal is in
harmony with the land use regulations.
RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the rezoning
of the Zoline open space parcel and highway right-of-way to Open
Space (OS) upon annexation.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of zoning the
Zoline open space parcel and highway right-of-way to Open Space
(OS) upon annexation into the City."
EXHIBITS
A. City Attorney Letter
B. Map of Annexation Area
C. Proof of Public Notice
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Suzanne Konchan, County Planning Director
FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, County Zoning Officer
RE: Deutsch Scenic Foreground Overlay Review
DATE: August 11, 1994
APPLICANT(S): Bob and Renee Deutsch
APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE: Self
PARCEL ID #:
LOCATION / LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST: Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 3-604, the Applicant
requests approval of an administrative scenic foreground overlay
review. Section 3-604 authorizes the Planning Director to approve
development within the mapped scenic/ridgeline overlay area when
development is found to have an insignificant impact on the visual
quality of the ridgeline or overlay area. The Planning Director may
approve development with conditions upon a finding that:
(circle)
a. Development cannot be seen from the following designated
corridors: State Highway 82, Brush Creek Road, Snowmass
Creek Road, and Capitol Creek Road.
b. In the case of additions or remodels to existing homes,
visible development is thirty percent (30%) or less of
the existing square footage of the structure, or
C. For areas not mapped within the Scenic Overlay but
included in Ridgeline mapping, such development shall
not break a ridgeline.
Site is visible from :
[ ] State Highway 82 [ ] Capitol Creek Road
[X] Brush Creek Road [ ] Snowmass Creek Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / SITE DATA: The applicant proposes to
construct an adobe style single family residence with a flat roof.
The proposed residence is located at least 200 feet above Brush
Creek Road. The site is not on a ridge, and has the greater
portion of the mountain located behind the proposed building site.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed residence does not break a skyline or
ridgeline.
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning
Director approve this Scenic Foreground Overlay Review pursuant to
Section 3-604 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations
made in the building application.
2. The Applicant shall use non -reflective roof materials and
exterior finish materials which are natural in character and
color.
3. The use of exterior facade lighting is prohibited.
4. Natural vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent
possible. The existing vegetation shall be used to screen
development (if applicable).
Applicant Signature / Date
APPROVED:
Suzanne Konchan / Date
Community Development Director
N
EXHIBIT A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont
FROM: John P. Worcester 14--w
DATE: August 1, 1994
RE: Zoline Re -Zoning
The City purchased the subject property from the Zoline Foundation. A Warranty Deed for the
parcel was recorded on August 10, 1987. (Book 543, Page 408). A Deed of Trust was given to
the Foundation to secure payment of a promissory note for the portion of the purchase price
which was financed. Under Colorado law, the Deed of Trust is, in essence, a mortgage. A
mortgage is merely a lien on the property but does not grant title. The City of Aspen is the title
holder of the subject property and can seek to have the property annexed and rezoned in
accordance with state statutes.
I hope this answers your question.
1
i
L1
13
77
IN
IN
15
v ► � ► v t y 4
IN
Y\`< is • \' r Y\// %\ • /\ • `; .� �\/! )„< v\ • ),
IN
IN
.e NN' >;-`.';:`.):; r� ;(,�./<,�. <.•..,•; ,. <<-�<.:;
P i t k i n -Count y
` • :� • i� • i\ ,' ;: r /(! iC ! iC i! i� ! iC l! iC r -♦ , ;; . ♦^
� � t! � � � � t� �. �• � � ttts lt,� ttt• �
.,...�,�)/\ /\ /. .../\,n,n ,
� ! Y < �', , Y, . )\ ♦ ), � ). ♦ ); . )\ ♦ ), A 1, , Y . v < `; ,l
City of asps
•\l+Y�/•�,<'1rn•))n� ��►)\A�>)\/n.'%nii in•�,in•)•t'\<>y'`l>v�J(v/`
n•)'�,A•'\\AY
♦,(,,,(
, SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SoTI ON 2
IN
'\A• , ,.�, �, )..A,Y�•>�^<>�';< �';! ��(„ )� ^'
BUREAU OF LAND 11+kNAGE NE NT GRASS CAP
), ^ )fit^ )� ),c�,
(
Cry)`. v
IN
,A ), ANY,<� (<�„!/�^/)�^►)
INAy
m
a,
s'
p]
Im
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE
I, Suzanne L. Wolff, being or representing an Applicant to the City
of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public
notice requirements pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land
Use Regulations.
SigAed before me this— day of --, 1994 by
/'�7 '/7f 11)4w
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
M Commission E fires :
7MY CommMlon expires 917fto
No ary Publi
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ZOLINE OPEN SPACE AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, July 19, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application
submitted by the City of Aspen, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO to
rezone the Zoline Open Space Parcel from AF-2 PUD in the County,
to OS, Open Space, in the City. Property description: an
approximately 57.15 acre parcel of land in Sections 2 and 11,
Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. For further
information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5101
s/Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on July 1, 1994
City of Aspen Account
\10
ZOLINE OPEN SPACE
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Pearce Equities Co.
c/o Coleman, Aiken & Chase
181 East Evans
Florence, SC 29503
Joseph T. Zoline
900 Stage Road
Aspen, CO 81611
City of Aspen
City Manager
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Harold Harvey
421D AABC
Aspen, CO 81611
Sam & Joy Caudill
P.O. Box FF
Aspen, CO 81612
Arthur & Elizabeth Pfister
P.O. Box EE
Aspen, CO 81612
PSL Health Care Systems
c/o Rosemont & Assoc.
Box 796877
Dallas, TX 75379-3877
Janice Zoline
624 N. Canon Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Paul & Virginia Soldner Family
Part.
P.O. Box 90
Aspen, CO 81612
Dayton Heidelberg Dist. Co.
1518 Dalton St.
Cincinnati, OH 45214
David L. Johnson
P.O. Box 4494
Aspen, CO 81612
CO Department of Transportation
222 S. 6th St., Room 317
Grand Junction, CO 81501-2769
Pitkin County
County Manager
530 E. Main St., 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Pomearanate
Sarah Jean Diamond
P.O. Box 2627
Aspen, CO 81612
Wendy Erickson
P.O. Box 400
Aspen, CO 81612
Barbara Moore Stanford
P.O. Box 380
Durango, CO 81302
George & Marianne Hartnett
240 Old Farm Rd.
Northfield, IL 60093
Ginny Williams
240 Dahlia St.
Denver, CO 80220
Barbara Gary
P.O. Box 2816
Aspen, CO 81612
Patrick & Nancy Mattison
Arthur & Kathryn Mattison
401 Whitney Blvd.
Belvedere, IL 61008
Virginia Hedrich Trust
Carly Hedrich Trust
1240 Thornapple Ln.
Northbrook, IL 60062
Walhart Realty Co.
899 Skokie Blvd.
Northbrook, IL 60062
Pomegranate Development Co.
899 Skokie Blvd.
Northbrook, IL 60062
John Nicholson
c/o Guild Management Co.
9911 W. Pico Blvd, Penthouse #A
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Ted & Cynthia Bartholow
3837 Carruth
Dallas, TX 75225
Scott & Suzanne Writer
P.O. Box 9705
Aspen, CO 81612
Jon & Meredith Hedrich
1240 Thornapple Ln
Northbrook, IL 60062
Minnesota Rubber Co.
c/o Lynn Sailor
3630 Wooddale Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Gail Boyd
P.O. Box 4130
Aspen, CO 81612
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: August 19,1994
RE: Staff Initiated Amendments to the Land Use Regulations
(Public Hearing)
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of a list of
technical amendments to the land use regulations. These proposed
changes are intended to clarify or define unclear code sections or
to correct errors found by staff.
Each Commissioner has a code book. It might be helpful for you to
refer to the affected sections for more detailed context.
PROCESS: Code amendments follow a two step review process. The
Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the amendments at a
public hearing, then forward its recommendations to the City
Council for ordinance adoption (also a public hearing).
STAFF COMMENTS: This review is the first in a series of amendment
reviews proposed by staff to improve the function of the land use
regulations. Within this initial group of amendments there are
changes to definitions which are unclear or vague or new
definitions altogether. Also included in this review are some
items which staff must address based on previous Council direction,
errors found in the current land use text, or items which have been
standing policies of the Planning Office which need to be codified.
Throughout the upcoming months, staff will present other groups of
code amendments which will include technical and substantive
changes to our regulations which staff believes are necessary to
bring the code up to date with current community needs or desires.
This memo is formatted to present and discuss each proposed
amendment individually. The list of recommended changes is:
1) allowance for limited seating (up to 10 seats) for food stores
in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone districts:
The NC zone permits "food store" as a use by right. There is no
definition of food store in the code, but the zoning staff has
historically interpreted that a food store primarily sells packaged
and/or bulk fresh foods. In 1989 the City Council directed staff
to formulate a text amendment which will allow limited seating with
no table service in a food service establishment in the NC zone.
1
0
This was in response to an application by Jour de Fete to add
"delicatessen" as a conditional use in that zone, and to allow up
to 15 seats. During the 1989 review of Jour De Fete's proposal,
the P&Z recommended denial, but Council voted 3-2 to allow a code
change, which language was to be brought back for adoption. Staff
recently realized that this had never been finished and is
therefore recommending the following text changes:
Section 24-5-212 B.2. (Neighborhood Commercial zone - permitted
uses) change "food store" to "food market" to be consistent with
a term used in the CC zone.
Section 3-101 (definitions) add the definition: "food market means
a store which primarily sells packaged, bulk and fresh foods, which
may have indoor seating up to ten (10) seats, and no wait service."
2) GMQS Exemption by the P&Z for net leasable expansion of 250
to 499 square feet:
In 1992 the code was amended to allow the Planning Director to
approve GMQS exemptions for net leasable expansions from zero to
250 square feet. Previously, the P&Z reviewed net leasable
expansions from zero to 500 s.f. in area. Because the Council
changed a portion of the wording of the text during adoption, the
text ended up neglecting to read (as intended) that P&Z shall
continue to review and may approve GMQS exemptions for net leasable
expansions between 251 and 500 square feet. In effect, this change
is a replacement of the language which was in effect before the
1992 amendment.
The proposed new paragraph in section 24-8-104(B)(1) shall read:
"a. Expansion of commercial or office uses. The
expansion of an existing commercial or office
building of two hundred fifty-one ( 2 51) to five
hundred (500) net leasable square feet, excluding
employee housing, if it is determined that the
expansion shall have a minimal impact upon the city.
A determination.of minimal impact shall require a
demonstration that a minimal number of additional
employees will be generated by the expansion, and
that employee housing will be provided for the
additional employees generated; that a minimal
amount of additional parking spaces will be demanded
by the expansion and that parking will be provided;
that there will be minimal visual impact on the
neighborhood from the expansion; and that minimal
demand will be placed on the city's public
facilities from the expansion. Expansion of a
building which occurs in phases shall be limited to
a maximum cumulative total of five hundred ( 500 ) net
leasable square feet and shall be evaluated in terms
2
of the cumulative impact of the entire expansion."
(The remainder of Section 24-8-104 (B) (1) shall then be renumbered.)
3) Clarification of the affordable housing mitigation
requirements for conversion of a single family residence to
a duplex, including deletion of the word "vacant" from section
24-8-104 (A) (1) (c) :
Ordinance 1 of 1990 began the affordable housing mitigation
requirements for new and demolished/replaced single family and
duplex development. The text currently requires mitigation for
new duplexes only if a single family dwelling or a duplex had been
demolished or if the new unit(s) is built on a vacant parcel.
Staff has seen a loophole develop in that the code does not address
mitigation when an existing single family dwelling is expanded to
create a duplex. Because it was the intent of Ordinance 1 to
require mitigation for new residential units which are GMP exempt,
staff formed a policy early on to require mitigation for a new unit
which it created by the expansion or remodel of an existing single
family residence. At this time staff believes this policy should
be codified with the following language:
8-104 A.1.c. - Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit.
The construction of one (1) or two (2) detached residential
units or a duplex dwelling on a lot which was subdivided or
was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977,
which complies with the provisions of section 7-1004(A)(5) or
to replace after demolition one (1) or two (2) detached
f-residential units or a duplex dwelling, or the remodel or
expansion of a single family dwelling into a duplex dwelling.
(the rest of the section remains unchanged)
4) Clarification of "net livable area" versus "allowable floor
area" for measurement of accessory dwelling units (ADUs):
Ordinance 1 of 1990 established a limit to the size of accessory
dwelling units at 850 s.f. of "net livable" area, defined basically
as the internal dimensions of the unit minus mechanical and storage
area. Ordinance 60 of the same year reduced the allowable size of
ADUs to 700 s.f. For some reason, the term "allowable floor area"
was used to define the space rather than "net livable area". This
is not a satisfactory situation because it allows an ADU be larger
than these units were contemplated to be.
A situation arose recently where a detached ADU was approved with
approximately 600 s.f. of net livable area which was located on
natural grade. When the building permit was submitted, it included
a basement level of another 600 s.f., which effectively expanded
the unit to about 1,200 s.f. The argument was successfully made
by the architect that the project complied with the language of
Ordinance 60 because only the upper 600 s.f. counted toward the
3
M
code limitation of 700 s. f. of "allowable floor area". Thus the
basement level did not exceed the code.
Since ADU's are intended to be small, secondary units on a single
family parcel, staff believes that the language in Section
24-5-510 A.1. should revert back to the original term of "net
livable area" as follows:
"Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three
hundred (300) square feet of net livable area and not more
than seven hundred ( 7 00) square feet of net livable area. ( the
rest of the section remains unchanged)
Staff also recommends that the definition of "net livable" in the
land use code be replaced by the definition contained in the 1994
Housing Guidelines. The current language in Section 3-101 reads
"net livable area means the interior living area or rentable area,
as defined by the housing designee and shall include private
storage area." The proposed definition would read:
"net livable area means that area calculated on interior
living area and is measured interior wall to interior
wall, including interior partitions. Also included, but
not limited to, habitable basements and interior storage
areas, closets, and laundry area. Exclusions include,
but are not limited to, uninhabitable basements,
mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages
(either attached or detached), patios, decks, and
porches."
The current code references the Housing designee's definition.
Staff believes that it is more appropriate to cite the definition
rather than simply refer to it.
5) Change the public notice requirements for text amendments to
follow regular ordinance adoption process:
Section 24-6-205(E) (4) (d) refers to newspaper publication
requirements in Section 24-6-205(E) (3) (a) . IThis requires
publication of public notice for code amendments in addition to
ordinance adoption requirements of newspaper notice. This means
that currently the Planning Office and the City Clerk's office are
both paying to provide newspaper notice of a code amendment being
considered by City Council.
The proposed change will require only the Clerk's office to print
the entire ordinance as public notice. Section 24-6-205 E.4.d.
shall read:
"d. Amendment to the text of this chapter. Amendment to the
text of this chapter requires publication of notice pursuant
to Section 24-6-205 E.3.a. for Planning and Zoning commission
4
public hearing and ordinance adoption procedures for City
Council public hearing."
6) Add the requirement for a site improvement survey to the
submission requirements of Section 24-6-202(B):
Staff from Engineering, Zoning, Parks and other departments are
regularly asked to comment on land use applications. We frequently
hear from these departments that an improvement survey prepared by
a registered land surveyor would provide more accurate and reliable
information for their review purposes. This adds some up front
costs to the application process, but would ultimately be required
for building permit submittal. Section 6-202 B. should read:
B. Application. All development applications shall include,
at a minimum, the.following information and materials.
1. The applicant's name, address and telephone number,
contained within a letter signed ny the applicant stating
the name, address, and telephone number of the
representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
2. The street address and legal description of the parcel
on which development is proposed to occur.
3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which
development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current
certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney
licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all
mortgages, judgments. liens, easements, contracts and
agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the
owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject
parcel within the City of Aspen.
5. A site improvement survey, including topography and
vegetation, performed within one (1) year of the date of
submission of the application certified by a registered
land surveyor licensed in the State of Colorado. (This
requirement may be waived by the Planning Director if the
project is determined not to warrant a survey document.)
6. A written description of the proposal and an
explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how
the proposed development complies with the review
standards relevant to the development application.
7) add a definition of "building envelope": There has been
confusion in the past about the term building envelope because
the land use code does not specifically define it. During the
East Cooper AH Subdivision review, building envelopes were
platted but people involved with the project formed different
opinions on the nature of the envelopes. In order to prevent
this situation from happening again, staff proposes the
5
following definition change in Section 3-101:
"building envelope: For purposes of subdivision, PUD, SPA or
other land use approvals, a described building envelope shall
equate to "setback" and "yard" as defined by this section and
be subject to those restrictions applicable to "setbacks" and
"yards". However, building envelopes may be further
conditioned by a land use approval to further restrict
development between the building envelope and the property
line to protect slopes, vegetation, water courses, privacy or
other considerations. Such conditions shall be described on
the recorded plats, development plans, ordinances or
resolutions, and building permit site plans."
8 ) Amend definition of "lot area" to exclude open ditch easements
when calculating lot area for proposes of determining
allowable floor area.
In an effort to promote and protect open irrigation ditches which
are an important character element in some Aspen neighborhoods,
staff wishes to codify a Planning Office policy to include the area
encumbered by ditch easements in lot area for purposes of
calculating FAR. The recommended language alters the definition
of "lot area" in Section 3-101 as follows:
"lot area means the total horizontal area within the lot lines
of a lot. When calculating floor area ratio, lot area shall
exclude that area beneath the high water line of a body of
water and that area within an existing dedicated right-of-
way or surface easement, but shall include any lands dedicated
to the City of Aspen for the public trail system, lands
covered by an open irrigation ditch easement, or any lands
subject to an above or below surface easement. (the rest of
the paragraph remains unchanged)
9 ) Amend the definition of "fence"
A couple of years ago the Building Department revised the Municipal
Code to delete a provision specific to fences and similar visual
obstructions on corner lots. This needs to be inserted into the
definition of fences in the land use regulations because it is an
important safety issue. The proposed addition to Section 3-101 is:
"Fence means a structure which serves as a barrier intended to
prevent escape or intrusion, to mark a boundary, to shield or
screen view, or to serve any similar purpose. Fences shall be
permitted in every zone district provided that no fence shall
exceed six (6) feet above natural grade. Fences visible from the
public right-of-way shall be constructed of wood, stone, wrought
iron or masonry. On corner lots, no fence, retaining wall, shrub,
tree or similar object shall be erected or maintained which
obstructs the traffic vision, nor on corner lots shall any fence,
0
�.
floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose
principal use is residential, the following shall apply: The
allowable floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit
shall be excluded up to a maximum of two hundred and fifty
(250) square feet of allowable floor area or fifty (50)
percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit, whichever
is less; a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be excluded
up to a maximum of three hundred and fifty ( 3 50 ) square feet
of allowable floor area. The floor area exclusion only
applies to the above -grade living space of an accessory
dwelling unit, in the event that the unit has limited below
grade space. (Allowable floor area for an accessory dwelling
unit shall be that measurement of all exterior wall dimensions
of the unit, not the "net livable area", or interior
dimensions of the unit.)
This floor area exclusion provision applies to accessory
dwelling units which are subject to review and approval by the
planning and zoning commission pursuant to conditional use
review and approval, Section 7-304 of Chapter 24 of this
code."
REVIEW STANDARDS: The proposed changes are meant to improve the
workability of the land use code by clarifying vague areas or
correcting errors. Staff believes therefore that the following
review criteria have either been met or do not specifically apply:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
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.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
9
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposed text amendments
are within the spirit of the AACP and comply with the review
criteria A -I above, and should be approved by the P&Z for
recommendation to the City Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend adoption of the proposed
amendments to the land use regulation contained in staff's memo
dated August 16, 1994."
10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Creektree Subdivision/PUD Amendment
DATE: August 16, 1994
Please bring your Creektree memorandum that was in the August 2,
1994 packet.
This case was tabled to this evening's meeting because the
applicant needed time to obtain approval from the Eagles Club to
process the proposed plat amendment.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: August 16, 1994
RE: 939 East Cooper - Worksession
SUMMARY: The Commission reviewed a subdivision/AH proposal from
Bob and Darnell Langley several months ago. The Langleys have
revised that proposal and would like to review their new proposal
with the Commission before they submit a development review
application.
The new proposal includes a subdivision, Landmark Designation of
the entire property and preservation of the house and barn, and
rezoning to affordable housing.
The Langleys will have site plans and renderings for their
presentation at the meeting.
This is only a worksession and the Commission cannot give any
approvals.
EXHIBIT A
MEMORANDUM
THE CITY OF ASPEN
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
TO: Leslie Lamont
FROM: John P. Worcester
DATE: August 1, 1994
RE: Zoline Re -Zoning
The City purchased the subject property from the Zoline Foundation. A Warranty Deed for the
parcel was recorded on August 10, 1987. (Book 543, Page 408). A Deed of Trust was given to
the Foundation to secure payment of a promissory note for the portion of the purchase price
which was financed. Under Colorado law, the Deed of Trust is, in essence, a mortgage. A
mortgage is merely a lien on the property but does not grant title. The City of Aspen is the title
holder of the subject property and can seek to have the property annexed and rezoned in
accordance with state statutes.
I hope this answers your question.
1
q n O
EXHIBIT B
13 14
IN
IN
^�+y>,>, ( ivy t ^..+•>vV♦\Ca>�`>,�t
y J
IN (+^; `0
IN X �);,<jr();(►pis; �^
IN A IN
IN
v ) v v
IN
IN IN
;C"),.< y^<V ,(•)„(wJv r^,�V`i^!yy^•�Y^w))/�p�16
O
)0 w ( J IV,^ , )� • IC w,r l , ryIN
%^ J i, J/ )C ry" ♦r �'
;Cw)v^`+)`,<>)i C<))�(•>i CC♦" )�(1+)�C(i ��<> �1t ,`��t , ��t>��<
IN
♦ < q + St • it 'r �C • �1 > �n > n > 1 > n >„1 >,�<
IN
„♦,(>, tr w >,w )\� )gyp ).� ),w ),p ),^ >\ w Y` < v: C' ii y Of As p e
♦ ), l )� I'(i"< i i it i rC i r i rt J, IN J n n
), tY` • ( SOUTH QUARTER COANE R OF S TI ON 2
f.♦`("v1(►v�(wvw,<wV^<>`�^<>�nC"„<! `♦(' �(� )♦CAT')
',,%o. :�;C,�.C�:t %tJ'�>'�►)��"�� �(I) ; BUREAU OF LAND MkNAGE1rENT BRASS CAP
t <, ^,e >)\^py),<>" �C+ACC+)�^<);.A) ,
IN
IN
♦♦ )♦IN
I,
O '\ 21
4
4
m.�
c
<�
o
A )�
7