Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19930216 AGE N D A ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING C0MMISSION , REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1993, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room city Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ I. COMMENTS ~ II . MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARING '........" A. Text Amendments, Francis Krizmanich and Kim Johnson 1. Lot Line Adjustments 2 . GMQS Exemption B. Text Amendment for Trellises in Open Space, Kim Johnson (continued from February 2, 1993) IV. ADJOURN _. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: February 16, 1993 Regular Meeting - March 2 E. Cooper Final Subdivision/PUD Map Amendment, GMQS Exemption, Condominiumization, Special Review, Vested Rights (KJ) Gordon/Callahan PUD Amendment (LL) Special Meeting - March 9 Worksession with HPC - Parking and Dimensional Requirements Special Meeting - March 15, 5-7 PM Worksession with City Council - Implementation of AACP Regular Meeting - March 16 Transierra Accessory Dwelling Unit (KJ) Schermer Hallam Lake Review (KJ) a.nex MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Deputy Director/Zoning Administration Kim Johnson, Planning RE: Land Use Code Amendments: 1. To Allow Planning Director Approval of Lot Line Adjustments; and 2. To Allow Planning Director Approval of GMQS Exemptions for up to 500 Square Feet of Net Leasable Area. DATE: February 16, 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning Office is proposing these two Land Use Code amendments in an effort to streamline the review processes. The first proposed amendment is to Section 7-1003, to allow Lot Line Adjustments to be approved by the Planning Director and to amend the language to allow lot line adjustments when the subject lots .are owned by the same person. The Code currently requires Lot Line Adjustments to be approved by City Council. The second proposed amendment is to amend Section 8-104 (B) to allow the Planning Director to approve Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions for commercial and office increases in net leasable floor area of up to 500 square feet. The Planning Commission currently reviews these GMQS Exemptions. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Chuck Roth met with Planning staff to review the proposed amendments and agrees that the changes will benefit future applicants as well as staff and the approval bodies' workload. STAFF COMMENTS: I. Lot Line Adjustment The existing Code, Section 7-1003(A)(1) states: 111. Lot Line Adjustment. An adjustment, of a lot line between contiguous lots which are under separate ownership if all the following conditions are met. a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels; and 1 b. Both landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted provide written consent to the application; and C. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship; and d. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division, and conform to the requirements of this chapter,'including the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot; and e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development." The staff proposes amending this Code provision for two reasons: to allow the Planning Director to approve lot line adjustments so that minor amendments can occur in a more timely fashion and to delete the requirement that adjoining properties be in separate ownership. Staff believes that it is immaterial whether two or more lots wishing an insubstantial change are held by separate or common ownership. The proposed exemption language would be: "1. Lot Line Adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots wh-ieh--ar-e k*-nd-e-r &e r-ate-ou+i-er-sh4p if all the following conditions are met. a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in 'a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change .between adjacent parcels; and b. Any 1i- landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted provide written consent to the application; and C. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship; and d. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division, and conform to the requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot; and e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development." 2 If you agree with the recommendation to allow the Planning Director to approve lot line adjustments pursuant to the above standards, the following Code sections must also be amended: * Section 4-501 (authority of the Planning Director) Add: 1113. To exempt lot line adjustments from subdivision pursuant to Section 7-1003(A)(1)."; remainder of Section to be renumbered. * Section 6-205(A)(1) (Planning agency staff reviews) Add: "subdivision exemption for a lot line adjustment." * Section 7-1003(B) (Subdivision Exemptions) "Procedure. Before any development proposed to be exempted from the terms of this division may be considered for exemption, an application for exemption shall be submitted to the Planning Director. After.a determination of completeness pursuant to Section 6-204, the Planning Director may approve.. approve with conditions or deny an application for a Lot Line Adjustment; for a Lot Split or Condominium conversion.. the Planning Director's recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council which shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application at a hearing.. An exemption for an approved subdivision shall only require submission of an application for a building permit. An application for a lot split shall require a public hearing." ---------------------------------- II. GMOS Exemption: Expansion of Commercial or office Uses Section 8-104 (B)(1) provides that the Planning Commission may exempt up to 500 square feet of net leasable space from Growth Management competition. This section states: "B. Exemption by commission. 1. General. Development which may be exempted by the commission shall be as follows: a. Expansion of commercial or office uses. The expansion of an existing commercial or office building by not more than five hundred (500) net lea,sable square feet, excluding employee housing, if it is demonstrated that the expansion will have 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 S 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 of the cumulative impact of the entire expansion." The staff opinion is that these levels of exemption can, be processed as an administrative review with Planning Director approval. The criteria of review will remain the same. Currently staff prepares a list of mitigation needs for a proposed development for the Commission's consideration. If an applicant disputes the conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Director, the applicant must reapply for the proposed commercial square footage as a full Growth Management submission for competition pursuant to Article 8 of the Land Use Regulations (Growth Management Quota System). The staff recommends moving Section 8-104(B)(1), Exemption by Commission, to Section 8-104(A)(1)(d), Exemption by Planning Director - Expansion of Commercial or Office Uses. Review Criteria: Section 7-1102 provides standards that the Council and Commission shall consider for the review of amendments to the Land Use Code. These standards and staff comments follow: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Staff Response: The proposed revisions will not conflict with the applicable portions of this chapter. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response: The revisions appear to be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, however, the staff notes that revisions to the GMQS are contemplated as part of the Plan. The staff does not believe there will be any negative effects to the anticipated GMQS revisions with regard to the 500 square foot exemption. The proposed amendments will not affect the implementation of the Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Response: The proposed amendments are permitted at this 4 r time. They do not appear to create compatibility conflicts as the amendments only affect the review process, no the procedures or requirements. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Response: Not Applicable. 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. Staff Response: The proposed amendments do not change existing impacts, merely the review process. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Response: The staff does not expect any significant adverse effect to the environment as a result of these amendments. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Response: The proposed amendments streamline the review procedures; the actual Code provisions are not being significantly changed. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Response: Not applicable. 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. Staff Response: The proposed amendments have been initiated in an effort to "streamline" the review process by using the Planning Department to process simple, non -controversial development applications. It is hoped that these and other future amendments will help to free up the Council's and Commission's agendas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the text amendments to allow Lot Line Adjustments and GMQS 5 Exemptions for the expansion of commercial and office space of up to 500 square feet of net leasable space to be approved by the Planning Director. The staff recommends that the following amendments to the Land Use Code be approved: Lot Line Adjustment * Section 7-1003 (A) (1) , Amend: 111. Lot Line Adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between contiguous 1ofs w-hieh-ar-e *i-ndre-r-9 peis&t-e-awrre-r�4-p- if all the following conditions are met. a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels; and b. Any landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted provide written consent to the application; and C. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship; and d. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division, and conform to the requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot; and e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development." If you agree with the recommendation to allow the Planning Director to approve lot line adjustments pursuant to the above standards, the following Code sections must also be amended: * Section 4-501. Add: 1113. To exempt lot line adjustments from subdivision pursuant to Section 7-1003(A)(1)."; renumber rest of Section. * Section 6-205(A)(1). Add: "subdivision exemption for a lot line adjustment." * Section 7-1003(B). "Procedure. Before any development proposed to be exempted from the terms of this division may be considered for exemption, an application for exemption shall be submitted to the Planning Director. After a determination of completeness pursuant to Section 6-204, the Planning Director may approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for a Lot Line Adjustment; for a Lot Split or Condominium conversion, the Planning Director's recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council which shall approve, 0 approve with conditions or deny the application at a hearing. An exemption for an approved subdivision shall only require submission of an application for a building permit. An application for a lot split shall require a public hearing." GMQS Exemption * Section 8-104(B)(1)(a); Delete; renumber the rest of the 8-104 (1) . * Section 8-104 (A) (1) (d) , Revise to: "d. Expansion of commercial or office uses. 1. The expansion of an existing commercial or office use in a building which does not increase its net leasable square footage. 2. The expansion of an existing commercial or office building by not more than five hundred (500) net leasable square feet, excluding employee housing, if it is demonstrated that the expansion will have 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 of the cumulative impact of the entire expansion." 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson,Planning RE: Text Amendment to Allow Overhead Structures in Approved Open Space - continued public hearing DATE: February 16, 1993 SUMMARY: The public hearing for this case was opened on February 2 and tabled until after a February 9 joint HPC workshop to discuss the issues involved in this amendment. Based on discussions between P&Z and HPC, the Planning Office proposes language which establishes review by Special Review (with HPC referral on any parcel with an historic overlay or with an historic district) and minimum design requirements. APPLICANT: This text amendment is being proposed by the Chitwood Plaza Company, on behalf of The Cantina Restaurant. Project representative is Bob Hughes. LOCATION: This will affect zones districts in the city which have open space requirements established by the Land Use Code. These zones are: R/MF (Residential/Multi-Family), R/MF-A, AH (Affordable Housing), CC (Commercial Core), C-1 (Commercial), S/C/I (Service Commercial Industrial), NC (Neighborhood Commercial), L/TR (Lodge Tourist Residential), CL (Commercial Lodge), and LP (Lodge Preservation). Open space requirements in these zones range from 25% to 35% of the parcel. BACKGROUND: In 1992 the Cantina experienced a severe aphid infestation in the trees on the dining patio next to the building. They decided to remove the trees rather than continue battling the problem given the horticultural constraints of the site. In place of trees in the courtyard, the Cantina would like to erect an overhead garden structure to provide visual interest to the space and to allow for intermittent rain protection in the summer. The Land Use Code definition is very specific in its current language prohibiting this type of structure in "Open Space": "...any portion of a parcel or area of land or water which,is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky (with the exception of permitted architectural projections, such as building eaves, above ground level) and shall include areas maintained in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains, landscaping, and similar 1 areas which provide visual relief from the mass of the buildings." Currently, the code allows the P&Z to approve reductions in open space through Special Review / cash -in -lieu approval. The Cantina decided to propose a code amendment which will allow "trellis" structures in open spaces, specifically for commercial restaurant users. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the application text and sketches. PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted new language for inclusion in the definition of "Open Space", Section 3-101. This text as proposed would read: "Open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky (with the exception of permitted architectural projections, such as building eaves, above ground level and trellis -like structures approved for use in connection with a commercial restaurant under Subsection J, below.) and shall include areas maintained in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains, landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual relief from the mass of the buildings." Subsection J of 3-101 would be changed to read: "J. Commercial Restaurant Use. ...required open space may be used for commercial restaurant use if, the commission shall determine that such use is compatible with or enhances the purposes of these open space requirements and that adequate pedestrian and emergency vehicle access will be maintained. Additionally, following application and approval under the provision of Section 7-401, et seq, and, as applicable in the case of historic buildings, review and approval by the HPC, trellis or similar overhead structures with supporting members designed to give some protection from the elements may be installed in required open space in conjunction with commercial restaurant uses where the effect thereof (1) does not appreciably impact the view into the open space from the street at the pedestrian level, (2) maintains visual relief from the mass of adjacent buildings, and (3) does not otherwise adversely affect the public's enjoyment of the open space." The Applicant is agreeable to the concept discussed by the P&Z and HPC of allowing these structures in any open space or zone. REFERRAL COMMENTS: A summary of City Engineer and Parks Department comment is as follows. Complete memos are attached as Exhibit "B". �q Z Engineering: Engineering would have some concern about snow and rain drainage into public rights -of -way. No encroachments shall be involved. Open framing is preferable shade than canvas, but canvas coverings may be employed for 90 days during the summer. Special Review is appropriate place for consideration of these type of details. Parks: Umbrellas are more suitable for shade because they are isolated to tables and are removable. They also provide better rain protection than an open trellis structure. A trellis with vines may invite the same insect problem as the trees at the Cantina location. Staff sees no benefit to the proposed amendment. Historic Preservation: On January 13, 1993, the HPC discussed the proposal to provide referral comments to the Planning Office. The Board was overwhelmingly in support of the concept. The following individual statements were made: 1. Umbrellas are difficult shade. protectors - either you're in full shade or in full sun. A varied approach to dealing with the sun should be sought. 2. Rain can cause problems with dining - allow detachable canvas covers to be used with the framework. Be flexible to enhance function and creativity. 3. The structure itself must be architecturally exciting on its own. 4. Under the old parachute at the Epicure (now the Cantina) was the most delightful space to sit and eat. Structures should be non- permanent (a reversible situation can add to flexibility and changing creativity). Use of glass/plastic tops should be allowed. 5. We want to see these type of structures used in any application, not just al fresco dining. 6. Operative words are "open -sided", "translucent (light emitting)", "landscape & garden oriented structure". Avoid the noun "trellis", or town will be invaded with inappropriate trellises. PROCESS: An amendment to the Land Use regulations in the Municipal Code requires a two-step review: recommendation by the Planning Commission and final adoption via ordinance adoption by the City Council. The Commission believes that review of proposed structures be handled under Special Review by the Commission. To save the Applicant some processing time, Special Review for the Cantina's proposal could occur at this time concurrent with Commission review ki of the text amendment (contingent on final Council approval of the amendment). However, at the time of writing this memo, the Applicant has not had the opportunity to respond to the proposed subsection "Kit language or the Special Review standards, which are attached as Exhibit licit. Tabling the amendment for one meeting would allow the Applicant the opportunity to provide additional information necessary for Special Review under the pending code language. The Applicant supports the tabling proposal. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff, HPC and the majority of the Commission believe that the new text apply to any open space, not only commercial outdoor dining. Small seating areas facing south would be likely candidates for such "landscape / garden -oriented" shade structures. The Commission majority opinion wants P&Z Special Review approval for any proposed structures rather than administrative through Engineering, Planning - and Zoning staff. HPC review is automatically required for historic parcels or within historic overlay districts, and their referral comments would be forwarded to the Commission. There was brief discussion about having HPC review all proposed structures in open space because of design related issues and the HPC's design review experience. However, the HPC declined this concept. Any Special Review for dimensional requirements (within which open space is considered) must consider : 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping, and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in such manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding land uses or will mitigate those impacts, including bu not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking or blocking of a designated viewplane. At the workshop session, Roger Hunt urged the text amendment to address minimum design criteria to insure that overhead structures not become roof -like, obscuring view of the sky or mountains. To address this concern, staff proposes adding a new subsection to the Open Space definition reinforcing this idea. Language added since February 2 is in capital letters. Section 3-101 (definitions): "Open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky 4 u (with the exception of permitted architectural projections above ground level such as building eaves, and light - penetrating landscape or garden -oriented structures AS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION "K" BELOW) and shall include areas maintained in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains, landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual relief from the mass of the buildings." K. OVERHEAD COVERAGE. ANY STRUCTURE SHALL BE APPROVED SECTION 24-7-404 A.1. AND 2. THROUGH THE STRUCTURE SHALL STRUCTURE SHALL BE REVERSIBLE. Section 7-404.A. (review standards PROPOSED OVERHEAD LANDSCAPE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO MINIMUM TOTAL OPENING PERCENT NOT BE LESS THAN 75%. H 1 S wv 64Qvis r"t" d bw� brN -nj -L3 for Special Review) II "A. Dimensional Requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, or when an overhead landscape structure is proposed within an open space area, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amounts, of open space, landscaping, and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in such manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding land uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking or blocking of a designated viewplane." Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the review criteria for text amendments: 1) Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the zoning regulations, but is an expansion of the regulations. 2) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: This proposed amendment will provide for flexibility within the code, while allowing appropriate staff and the P&Z/HPC to review any proposals. This amendment will add a certain level 01 of visual interest or vitality to the streetscape, in agreement with the new AACP. 3) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: As proposed, the amendment would apply to the downtown area and multi -family areas surrounding the center of town. Each proposal would receive individual consideration through Special Review (and HPC where required) before an owner could receive a building permit. Yard setback requirements per each zone district must still be met with any proposal. 4 ) The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: No impacts are anticipated. 5) 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: No impacts are anticipated. 6) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: The structures will be used in conjunction with existing buildings, and should have very limited impacts on existing groundforms or vegetation. 7) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: The HPC felt a scattering of these structures in the city would be a visual and functional addition to the streetscape or yard areas in town. They believe that these type of structures would be fairly easily moved or replaced (rather than permanent walled -in affairs) which would allow for more creativity. 8) Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: As this applies to many different zone districts, any specific conditions cannot be pinpointed. However, as addressed above, the new AACP touches upon recapturing a certain "vitality" N 6 in town which this amendment can actualize in a small way. 9) 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 proposal does not conflict with public interest. It should enhance the conditions of those areas which require certain amounts of open space. ----------------------------------- OTHER DISCUSSION: At the February 9 workshop, there was a certain level of discomfort with the idea that two reviews (HPC and P&Z) for parcels in the commercial core and those with historic overlay. One suggestion was that if HPC is required to review a proposal, HPC would have final review authority and the P&Z would not be involved. However, the Planning Commission is seen as being the best review body to consider land use and/or functional aspects of a development. Staff recommends that, as with all other Special Review proposals, both the HPC and P&Z be called upon to consider the merit of a plan. The HPC shall focus on design issues and visual compatibility. The P&Z shall consider the functional aspects of proposals. One area of potential conflict with the above scenario is that the HPC may grant setback variances on parcels they review. It has been determined that HPC variances supersede P&Z conditions. This situation may conflict with recommendations of the City Engineer or Planning Staff. There was also discussion "net leasable" area within the context of this application, and whether or not overhead structures would create new net leasable area. Net Leasable Commercial and Office Space is defined in the Land Use Code as:. "those areas within a commercial or office building which are or which are designed to be leased to a tenant and occupied for commercial or office purposes, exclusive of any area dedicated to bathrooms, stairways, circulation corridors. mechanical areas and storage areas used solely by tenants on the site" Staff believes that development of overhead structures does not create net leasable area. The Land Use Code requires that any restaurant seeking to utilize open space for dining must go through Conditional Use Review by the Commission. At that time, evaluation of employee generation, trash generation, impacts to circulation, etc. is made, and mitigation requirements become conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends the proposed language for text amendments to the open space and special review sections of the Land Use Code: 7 7 Section 3-101 (definitions): "Open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky (with the exception of permitted architectural projections such as building eaves, and light - penetrating landscape or garden -oriented structures AS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION "K" BELOW) ) and shall include areas maintained in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains, landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual relief from the mass of the buildings." K. OVERHEAD COVERAGE. ANY PROPOSED OVERHEAD LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SHALL BE APPROVED BY SPECIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-7-404 A.1. AND 2. MINIMUM TOTAL OPEN NG TH OUCH THE STRUCTURE CANNOT BE LESS THAN 75%. E. Section 7-404.A. (review standards for Special Review)" "A. Dimensional Requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, or when an overhead landscape structure is proposed within an open space area, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping, and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in such manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding land uses or will mitigate those impacts, including bu not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking or blocking of a designated viewplane." Exhibits: "A" - Application Information and ,Graphics "B" - Referral Memos "C" - Review Criteria for Special Review - Section 24-7-404.A.1- 4. trellis.text.memo 8 N PLANNING i ZONING COMMISSI= EXHIBIT "11 , 9PPROM ► 19 BY RESOLUTION LAW OFFICES OF OATES, HUGHES & KNEZE'TICH LEONARD M.OATES ROBERT W.HUGHES RICHARD A KNEZEVICH TED D GARDENSWARTZ OF COUNSEL: JOHN THOMAS KELLY Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Attention: Kim Johnson PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 November 24, 1992 Re: Request for Textual Change to Def~caution of Open Space Dear Kim: AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 920-1700 TELECOPIER 920 1121 We herewith submit the following to supplement the application for the above - referenced request: Request This application requests the following textual amendments to the land use regulations of the City of Aspen: First, add to the end of the parenthetical in the second and third line of the definition of open space in Section 3-101 on page 1588 of the Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen (Land Use Code), the following: * * * and trellis -like structures approved for use in connection with a commercial restaurant under Subsection J, below. Second, add to the end of Subsection J to the definition of open space in Section 3-101 on page 1589 of the Land Use Code, the following: Additionally, following application and approval under the provisions of Section 7-401, et seq. and, as applicable in the case of historic buildings, review and approval by the HPC, trellis or similar overhead structures with supporting members designed to give some protection from the elements 2 OATES, hl UGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Attention: Kim Johnson Page 2 December 4, 1992 may be installed in required open space in conjunction with commercial restaurant uses where the effect thereof (i) does not appreciably impact the view into the open space from the street at the pedestrian level, (ii) maintains visual relief from the mass of adjacent buildings, and (iii) does not otherwise adversely affect the public's enjoyment of the open space. Background This request is made on behalf of The Chitwood Plaza Company, a Colorado general partnership, the owner of The Cantina Restaurant located at 411 East Main Street, Aspen. The Cantina Restaurant contains approximately 4,207 square feet of indoor space and 759 square feet in a courtyard between the restaurant and the walkway that affords access to and egress from the Pour U France restaurant next door. The indoor capacity of the restaurant, disbursed among 34 tables, is 130 people. The courtyard accommodates 7 tables with seating for 30 individuals. Presently, during the summer months only, the courtyard is used to accommodate diners. This use of the courtyard has never resulted in an actual increase in the number of dining patrons. Rather, when weather permits, diners tend to fill up the courtyard first and, thereafter, begin seating inside. Never in the history of the restaurant operation have both the courtyard and the inside seating been filled to capacity. Initially, shade from the sun in the courtyard area was afforded through several large potted trees. These proved to be unworkable because of aphid infestation and were replaced with umbrellas. A trellis -like apparatus, along the lines of that shown on the accompanying drawings, in place of the umbrellas would not only accommodate and preserve the essential qualities of open space but will result in far preferable aesthetics from the pedestrian level than the several umbrellas. An umbrella is just that - an umbrella. Its use is essentially restricted to function. As the accompanying drawings show, a trellis or similar apparatus can be made architecturally far more compatible with surrounding buildings, can better accommodate a more sophisticated landscape plan and can, thus, enhance the open space experience for the public. /0 I OATES, H UGHES & KNEZEViCH, P. C. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Attention: Kim Johnson Page 3 November 24, 1992 Review Standards The review standards set forth in the Land Use Code for map or textual amendments to Chapter 24 appear to relate primarily to map amendments. In any event, with respect to those review standards we offer the following: a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portion of Chapter 24. Response: The proposed amendment seeks to expand features that might be incorporated into required open space and, to that extent, conflicts with existing provisions (i.e. Section 3-101, definition of open space, subpart J thereof) in this regard. We have been unable to find any other portions or provisions of Chapter 24 with which the proposed amendment conflicts. b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: Yes 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 contemplates review and approval under Section 7-401, et seq. of the Land Use Code which will insure compatibility of any use proposal with existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The proposed amendment seeks only to expand features that might be incorporated into required open space, not to eliminate open space, and only after special review approval. The proposed amendment would not appear to have any impact whatsoever on traffic generation, and 49 OATES, H UGHES & KNEZEViCH, P. C. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Attention: Kim Johnson Page 4 November 24, 1992 any effect upon road safety in a given instance could be addressed during special review. 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 would not result in any increased demands upon public facilities. f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: The proposed amendment seeks only to expand features that might be incorporated into required open space within building improved environments, as opposed to the natural environment. Moreover, the proposed amendment would facilitate more ambitious landscape plans within required open space and conduce the incorporation of more natural and vegetative materials into the building environment - a highly desirable objective. g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character and the City of Aspen. Response: The proposed amendment, particularly given the requirement of special review and, as applicable HPC review, would not foster any inconsistencies with the community character of the City. And, because of the increased landscaping flexibility the proposed amendment would foster, the public's open space experience ought to be enhanced. h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. rz DATES, H UGHEs & KMr-zEVICH, P. C. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Attention: Kim Johnson Page 5 November 24, 1992 Response: Not applicable. 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 proposed amendment is drafted such that the qualitative features of open space (i.e. view from pedestrian level) must be preserved. To this extent there would not appear to be any conflict with the public interest. We look forward to discussing this request with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council at the earliest possible agenda times. Accompanying this letter are: a. The completed Land Use Application Form; b. The check of the applicant in the amount of $1,002.00 to cover the filing fee; C. A disclosure of ownership of the property on which The Cantina Restaurant is situate; and d. An 8-1/2 X 11 vicinity map locating The Cantina restaurant parcel within the City of Aspen. e. The letter of the Applicant. confirming its representatives authorized to act on its behalf in connection with the application. Let us know if there is anything further with which we might supply you. !3 __j 1 -1 --- - - - ---1'1 .1 . % Z PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT r�►, APPROVED ► 19 BY RESOLUTION • MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office , THRU: George Robinson, Parks Directo FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: January 5, 1993 RE: Text Amendment for Open Space as Requested by the Cantina Restaurant/Chitwood Plaza Company Upon review of the request for a textual change to the definition of open space as detailed in the Aspen Land Use Code, chapter 24, section 3-101, I would recommend against any change to the definition. As stated in the code, open space is defined as "any portion of a parcel or area of land or water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky (with the exception of permitted architectural projections, such as building eaves, above ground level)...". The request to include trellis -like structures in the definition, as requested by the Chitwood Plaza Company, significantly alters the original intent of the definition of "unobstructed from ground to sky". Additionally, an eave only projects a maximum of 1-2 feet into an open space area, whereas the trellis would cover the entire area of open space. A trellis is also a permanent structure. Umbrellas are much more suitable and compatible with the open space of the Cantina outdoor seating because they are isolated with the individual tables and are removable structures. Additionally, a trellis would most likely provide less protection from the elements due to the open slats between the frame structure. An umbrella provides at least some protection during a light rain. I do not see the landscape benefit of the trellis to the open space. If the intent of the trellis is to grow vines, then the Cantina may be setting up the same type of problem they had with the trees, insect infestation. This request can set an unnecessary precedent for permanent structures in open space. While a trellis can allow for an open feeling to the outdoor seating, I would recommend against amending the code for trellis -like structures in open space. I do not see the benefits of the structure to warrant an amendment to the code. ;7 MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer Date: January 15, 1993 Re: Text Amendment to Open Space Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: The Engineering Department has no objection to the text amendment proposal. As we discussed, we would be concerned at the time of Special Review about snow and rain being drained onto the public rights -of -way. We would want to be certain that no encroachment into the public rights -of -way is involved. In the apparent spirit of open space, it might be preferable for the patio shade covering to be limited to open, "trellis -like" or lattice framing rather than a solid covering such as canvas. On the other hand, canvas type structures might be employed more on a seasonal basis, being in place for only the 90 days of the summer season, with the open space truly open for the remainder of the year. In any event, I am sure that details of particular situations can be worked out during the Special Review process. cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director PLANNING i ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT st '_, APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION • LAND USE REGULATIONS § 7-4 4 Sec. 7-403. Applicability. Special review shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen designated for special review in Article 5, Divisions 2 and 3. Sec. 7-404. Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements Bet forth below. A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compat- ible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. 3. For the reduction of required open space in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district only, the applicant demonstrates that the provision of less than the required amount of open space on -site will be more consistent with the character of surrounding land uses than would be the provision of open space according to the standard. As general guidelines, the applicant shall take into account the following. It may be appropriate to have open space on the site when the building is located on a street corner, or the open space can be linked to neighboring pedestrian ameni- ties, or the open space provides relief intended to maintain the prominence of an adjacent historic landmark, or the open space is intended for a particular func- tional purpose, such as dining or the protection of an existing tree. It may be inappropriate to have open space on the site when other buildings along the street front are built to the property line, especially along public malls, or when the open space is configured in such a manner as to serve no public purpose. When the commission determines open space is inappropriate on the site, it may reduce or waive the requirement if the applicant shall make a payment -in -lieu according to the following formula: "Appraised value of the unimproved land, multiplied by the percentage of the site required to be open space which is to be developed, equals value of payment." The appraised value of the property shall be determined by the submission of a current appraisal performed by a qualified professional real estate appraiser. The payment -in -lieu of open space shall be due and payable at the time of Supp. No. 1 1697 �9 § 7-404 ASPEN CODE issuance of a building permit. All funds collected shall be transferred by the building inspector to the finance director, for deposit in a separate interest bearing account. Monies in the account shall be used solely for the purchase or development of land for open space, pedestrian or recreational purposes 'within or adjacent to the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. Fees collected pursuant to this section may be returned to the then present owner of property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the fees have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless the council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific project, in which case the council may extend the time period by up to three (3) more years. To obtain a refund, the present owner must submit a petition to the finance director within one (1) year following the end of the seventh (7th) year from the date payment was received. For the purpose of this section, payments collected shall be deemed spent on the basis of the first payment in shall be the first payment out. Any payment made for a project for which a building permit is cancelled, due to noncommencement of construction, may be refunded if a petition for refund is submitted to the finance director within three (3) months of the date of the cancellation of the building permit. All petitions shall be accompanied by a notarized, sworn state- ment that the petitioner is the current owner of the property and by a copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of the fee. When the HPC- approves the on -site relocation of an Historic Landmark into required open space, such that the amount of open space on -site is reduced below that required by this Code, the requirements of this section shall be waived. 4. For the ResidentialrMulti-Family(R/MF) zone district only, increases in external floor area shall only be permitted on sites subject to the requirements of Article 5, Division 7, Replacement Housing Program. To obtain the increase, the appli- cant shall demonstrate a minimum of two-thirds (26) of the additional floor area allowed is used to increase the size of the affordable housing units beyond the minimum size standards of the city's housing designee and the development complies with the standards of Section 7-404 A.I. and 2. B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to establishment or reduction by special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. In the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Office (0), Commercial Lodge (CL) or Lodge,Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone districts, the applicant shall make a one-time only payment -in -lieu of parking to the city, in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per space required, based on the cost for such spaces stated in the report entitled "Physical and Financial Conceptual Design for Two Parking Facilities for the City of Aspen" prepared by RNL Facilities Corporation. Approval of the payment -in -lieu shall be at the option of the commission. In Supp. No. 1 1698 �r