HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19930202
.
".
~'~"""-"
/"'-"
~,.,'-
-",~~...."
'.,~.--
AGE N D A
"
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 2, 1993, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
ci ty Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II . MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A.
Text Amendment for Trellises in Open Space, Kim
Johnson
B. Rio Grande Subdivision, Leslie Lamont
IV. ADJOURN
i~
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Kim Johnson,Planning
Text Amendment to Allow Overhead Structures in Approved
Open Space - public hearing
February 2, 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that discussion of this
text amendment to the definition of "Open Space" be opened and
continued to the HPC/P&Z workshop meeting scheduled for February
91 1993. The proposed amendment will allow overhead trellis -like
structures in required open space. Staff would like the Commission
and HPC to consider the most appropriate review process for such
overhead structures.
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."
However, staff forwards different language based, in part, on
referral comments from the HPC. Also, staff seeks input from the
Commission and the HPC regarding which review body is appropriate
in which situations. Please see Staff Comments section below.
2
a
Response: The structures will be used in conjunction with existing
buildings, and should have very limited impacts on existing
----J 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"
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.
-----------------------------------
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends that the P&Z and HPC
gather to discuss the proposed language and process alternatives
at the February 8, 1993 joint worksession.
Possible text amendments at this point are:
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
above ground level such as building eaves, and light -
penetrating landscape or garden -oriented structures) 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."
Section 7-404.A. (review standards for Special Review)"
0
s
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."
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
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.
5
rd
"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."
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
A
7
N
PLANNING A ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT 'A it I APPROM
LAW OFFICES OF 19 BY RESOLUTION
•
OATS S, HUGHES & KNIEZEVICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81.611 AREA CODE 303
ROBERT W. HUGHES TELEPHONE 920-1700
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH TELECOPIER 920-1121
TED D. GARDENSWARTZ
OF COUNSEL: November 24, 1992
JOHN THOMAS KELLY
Aspen/Pitidn Planning Office
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Attention: Kim Johnson
Re: Request for Textual Change to Definition of Open Space
Dear Kim:
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
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
February 2, 1993
Rio Grande Subdivision
SUMMARY: The City seeks subdivision approval for the Rio Grande
property. Subdivision is necessary for two primary reasons: past
legal descriptions and surveys have not been accurate and a
subdivision plat will clarify ownership; the City would like to
exchange portions of the land within the Rio Grande SPA with the
County and potentially adjacent property owners and the Municipal
Code prohibits the exchange or sale of land that has not been first
subdivided.
Attached for your review is the proposed subdivision plat, Exhibit
A.
Staff recommends approval of this application.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen
LOCATION: Rio Grande property between the Roaring Fork River and
Pitkin County Courthouse and the alley in block 86.
ZONING: Public with SPA overlay
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivision to create parcels for exchange.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering - The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to create
parcels with existing development so land may be exchanged and
ownership issues resolved.
The existing development on the Rio Grande Property has already
provided the infrastructure improvements that would be required of
a normal subdivision. Asphalt streets, concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalks, trails, street lights, trees, undergrounding of aerial
utilities have all been performed. The property has been partially
monumented with survey monuments, and the monumentation of the
boundaries will be completed in the spring.
A subdivision plat has been prepared which meets the requirements
of the Municipal Code.
PROCESS: Subdivision is a two step review. The Commission shall
make a recommendation to Council regarding this proposal.
RESPONSE: There are no natural hazards that exist on the site that
would endanger the current or proposed activities.
(b) Spattial Pattern - The proposed subdivision shall not be
designed to (,;r,�ate spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of
public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
RESPONSE: The purpose of the subc�ivision is to clear up
inefficiencies . s in land ownership and correct inaccuracies in
pr L Operty boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff reco.knmends approval of the Rio Grande
subd-ivision with the following condition:
1. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be reviewed and approved
by the Engineering and Planning Departments.
2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be filed with the Clerk
and Recorder within 180 days of final approval.
3. Any future development or exchange of the newly created parcels
shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission and Council.
q Ir
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to Council approval of
the Rio Grande subdivision with conditions 1, 2 & 3 listed in
Planning Office memo dated February 2, 1993.
EXHIBITS:
A. Draft Subdivision Plat
n,
ou
PLANNING & 02� I'' : _ _ :.� : S S I ON
==_ a EXHIBIT V ED
19
BY
V
MILL S
b 82.23 y 86.T9 tdo N i9
► o i m 1 v
W
,99'£91 „61►,04 0# 1 o f o w
z i 1 /i;
o _ ? J O, t �; I w• a_
a CA
i mwi m; i 1 �j m
t '
40
Nr
o -r — z w i z
72 -t
me
O C 1�+1�` +y 1 +A*9oe
1 50.26 •3
or
1°- m o�`�.o+ i N N 14°50'49"E ��So 91 Ss,A,
-1-- - - - - .co
I�
to
Z c • �1- ----J •• r p'/ Gv / ° / O .
•1 4 /
'` • �, v p u u /
m • • ZVq
aco tn
•• v O / ^ i
^7
i
C , 1. J
/ / O
wr % 40 IV
O
O
/
61'£8 M„64 ,09 opIS N N co
O i ! /
a
1S N3-1 J aw 4
1+ /
a o o
~ M 9092oiIS ! /
�•. d A \\ IN \I
O
\ \
. 9tKE p •o � ` ��. \ \ W
1
CD
we 0
r
C A
^ = Z
wrcy° ID
31
us NN �. / ! O o.
0
0o Op
,s£r6
0 m ; z
SN O o r Z W
m 0CD mo
p o
D 0m D o O O �_ N
z CZz Z C
m m O m = p wD r f Z
o- �z m
zm Cz ZC.
-
• rr z a • 1 v o,
f 6 7 00'
T'< 6 .'
149.90
N 16 04 9' 23 E
4 5.7 5
uS 6BERMEYER
"E
N 140 59649
37 .
LOT S LOT I
EDGE OF
4 RIVER
0 N670 33'W 92. 34'
S>So00, O
008,. O
F �;
�s®0, S 47009'00"W, 36.95'
S 40004100"E % 46.731
LOT 9*
r� 3 y
0 440
ro-
CD
ss
tl')
N
2
ILOT 2
OUX-LYNCH
3DIVISION
=D DURING CONSTRUCTION
:CED IN THE SPRING OF 1993
E S;;ECIVIS!Ct, Pl p.Tc
13►EE
'-"RETE MONUMENT
R FUETTNER 13166 WC
t N64oS9'Sg„ N�40S9 34„w
W 23t
00 9.49
0
0
cr
4 LOT 3
A = 92.24' CREEKTREE SUB`
R = 409. 26`
= 12054'47"
C.B=N51021'51W
C.L=92.04'
GLEE KER ST.
BLOCK 20
EAST ASPEN
TOWNSITE
�T 1 BLOCK 21
N
EAST ASPEN
Z TOWNSITC