HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19921020
A G L N D A
=====; -~======--=============--===========~. =======================
""""'-
,.PEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 20, 1992, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
===============~=================================================
cm" 1'S
Cor .. 3sioners
Plar.r.ing. st, .'f
Public
II. MINU'l ES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
.. ~"
A.
alberg Condit'.
Use Rev
Kim Johnson
B. Mocklin Rezoning, ~~slie Lame:!:
IV. NEW BC~INESS
A. Design Workshop Spe ial Review for Ps' ng, Leslie
Lamont
V.
OLD BCc'
.S
A. uba Non-Compliance, Leslie Lamont
VI. WORK SECSION
A. Pi
'ande Conec.. :._~ _ "PA Master Plan, Leslie Lamont
VII. ADJOURN
"
•
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Debbie Skehan, Office Manager
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: October 15, 1992
Special Joint Meeting with County P&Z - October 22nd 4:30 P.M.
Pitkin County Library
Aspen Area Community Plan Adoption, continued (CH)
Regular Meeting - November 3rd
419 E. Hyman Conditional Use for Satellite Dish, (KJ)
Bell Mountain Lodge Tourist Accommodations GMQS, Code Amendment for
Parking in the LP Zone, Special Review for Parking (KJ)
311 W. North St. Landmark Designation (RE)
Block Conditional Use Review (KJ)
Regular Meeting - November 17th
City Shop Master Plan Adoption (RE)
Text Amendment FAR Revisions (RE)
&V 41'alt4 a � 7� UU
Regular Meeting - December Sth
Ritz -Carlton Hotel Subdivision PUD Amendment, Lot 1 (DM)
a.nex
i
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations)
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
as follows:
I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before
the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of Monica
and Peter Mocklin's application to rezone Tracts A and B of their
property from r-15A to R/MFA was given by 1) posting of notice
containing the information required in Section 6-205.E.2., which
posting occurred on October 8, 1992, in a conspicuous place on the
subject property and 2) mailing Notice of said development applica-
tion to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property, which mailing occurred on October 9, 1992.
Applicant:
MONICA AND PETER MOCKLIN
By
The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this day of October, 1992, by Sunny Vann
on behalf of MONICA AND PETER MOCKLIN.
WITNESS my hand and offici 1 s al.
My commission expires: 5 ��
Notary Public
RACZAK
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I. Janet Lynn Raczak, hereby certify that on October 9, 1992, I
placed true and correct copies of the attached public notice in the
U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid to all those on the attached
list.
f,
,Janet Lynn Raczak
0234 Light Hill Road • Snowmass, Colorado 81654 • 303-927-4800
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOCRLIN MAP AMENDMENT FOR REZONING TO R/MFA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, October 20, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen to consider an application
submitted by Peter Mocklin, P.O. Box 807, Aspen, CO, requesting
approval of a Map Amendment application to rezone Tracts.A and B
of the Mocklin property from R-15A to R/MFA. The R/MFA Zone
District permits detached residential dwellings, multi -family
dwellings, home occupations, accessory buildings and uses, and
dormitories: The property is located at 0202 Lone Pine Road, more
specifically described as a metes and bounds parcel in Section 7,
Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County,
CO. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Off ice, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-
5090.
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 2, 1992
City of Aspen Account
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
August 14, 1992
I t FA i Z I r
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Mocklin Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
Please consider this letter an application to rezone a portion of the Mocklin property
from R-15A, Moderate Density Residential, to R/MFA, Residential/Multi-Family
(see Exhibit 1, Pre -Application Conference Summary, attached hereto). The
application is submitted pursuant to Section 7-1103 of the Aspen Land Use Regula-
tions by Peter and Monica Mocklin, the owners of the property (see Exhibit 2, Title
Insurance Policy). Permission for Vann Associates to represent the Applicants is
attached as Exhibit 3.
Existing Conditions
As the accompanying survey illustrates, the Applicants' property consists of three (3)
separately described meets and bounds parcels. Tracts A and B, which are located
adjacent to the intersection of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road, contain approxi-
mately 3.26 and 0.24 acres, respectively. Tract C contains approximately 0.59 acres
and is physically separated from Tracts A and B by Gibson Avenue. Tracts A and B
are located within the so-called Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine annexation area,
and are most likely considered merged for development purposes.
Man-made improvements to the property include an eight (8) unit apartment
building, which is located on Tract A, and the Spring Street right-of-way, which
traverses Tract C. Tracts A and B-are zoned R-15A, while Tract C is zoned R-30,
Mandatory Planned Unit Development. The existing free market apartment building
is a legally established non -conforming use in the R-15A zone district.
Background
The Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine annexation area was formally annexed to
the City of Aspen via the adoption of City Council Ordinance No. 15-89 on March
230 East Hopkins Avenue - Aspen, Colorado 81611 - 303/925-6958 - Fax 303/920-9310
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 14, 1992
Page 2
29, 1989 (see Exhibit 4, Annexation Map). The annexation area contained approxi-
mately sixty-one (61) acres, and included single-family, multi -family and public land
uses. More specifically, the annexation area consisted of the Mocklin, Moran,
Friedberg, Rowland, Scully, Oden, Cowee and Braden properties, the Community
Center, and the Hunter Long House, Lone Pine, Hunter Creek and Centennial
apartment/condominium complexes.
The annexation area was rezoned pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 26-89,
which was adopted on June 14, 1989 (see Exhibit 5, Ordinance No. 26-89). At the
time of the annexation, the Centennial and Hunter Creek complexes were zoned
AR-2, Accommodations and Recreation District, a multi -family residential zoning
category. The remainder of the annexation area was zoned R-15, Residential
District, a single-family residential zoning category.
As the official zone district map illustrates, the City Council rezoned the Friedberg,
Rowland and Scully properties to R-30, Low Density Residential, Mandatory
Planned Unit Development. The Oden, Cowee, Mocklin and Moran properties were
rezoned to R-15A, Moderate Density Residential, while the Community Center was
rezoned to PUB, Public. Both the Oden and Cowee properties were also designated
Mandatory Planned Unit Development.
The Centennial, Hunter Long House, Hunter Creek and Lone Pine complexes, and
Ralph Braden's Mountain View project, were rezoned to R/MFA, Residential/Multi-
Family, a new zone district which was created to reflect their existing densities and
floor areas. Apparently, the dimensional requirements of the City's existing R/MF
zone district would have allowed significant increases in these project's buildout
potential. The R/MFA category, therefore, was designed to allow existing multi-
family developments in the annexation area to be conforming, but to preclude or
significantly limit their future expansion.
The Planning Office initially recommended that the Mocklin property also be
rezoned to R/MFA. The staff recommendation was based on the fact that the
property was surrounded by multi -family development, and that a R/MFA designa-
tion was necessary to make the existing multi -family use conforming. The staff,
however, subsequently changed its recommendation to R-15A, based solely on the
argument that "... zoning the property R/MFA in the absence of a development plan may
not be in the best interests of the Community" (see Exhibit 6, Planning Office May 22,
1989, Memorandum). The staff apparently did not object to the R/MFA zone
district category, but rather to the lack of a specific development proposal for the
property.
While the staff did not elaborate on its position, a review of the Planning Office's
files, and the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council minutes, indicates
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 14, 1992
Page 3
that the staff felt that the City would have greater control over the property's future
development if it were rezoned concurrent with the review of a specific development
application. In other words, the Planning Office apparently wished to use the
rezoning process to control any future development of the Applicants' property.
Although the P&Z voted to recommend rezoning to R/MFA, the City Council
concurred with the staffs position and rezoned the property to R-15A.
Proposed Rezoning
As noted previously, the existing apartment building is a non -conforming use in the
R-15A zone district. The Aspen Land Use Regulations define a non -conforming use
as "... any use of land, building or structure which was established pursuant to the zoning
and building laws in effect at the time of its development, but which use is not a
permitted or conditional use under the regulations imposed by this Code for the zone
district in which it is located". Pursuant to Section 9-102 of the Regulations, non-
conforming uses are allowed to continue, but are subject to numerous restrictions.
More specifically, non -conforming uses may not be expanded, and normal mainte-
nance is limited to ten (10) percent of the building's current replacement cost in any
given twelve (12) month period. In addition, such uses must be terminated if
abandoned or discontinued for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months. While
buildings containing such uses may be reconstructed following their demolition or
destruction, the non -conforming uses may only be restored if less than seventy-five
(75) percent of the building is demolished or destroyed. An exception to this rule,
however, exists for uses which are demolished or destroyed by an act of God. In
such cases, the use and building may be restored regardless of the extent demolished,
provided that a building permit is issued within one (1) year of the demolition.
The above limitations impose significant hardships on the Applicants which are not
imposed on neighboring multi -family uses. For example, the Applicants are expressly
precluded from any expansion of their building's floor area, despite the fact that it is
located on approximately three and one-half (3-1/2) acres of land. In addition, the
nature and extent of improvements to the existing units is limited by the requirement
that only normal maintenance be permitted. Finally, the building's non -conforming
status is an impediment to the sale of the property and to the obtainment of
mortgage financing. To alleviate these problems, the Applicants propose to rezone
Tracts A and B from R-15A, Moderate Density Residential, to R/MFA, Residen-
tial/Multi-Family. Tract C, however, will remain R-30 as presently zoned.
Review Requirements
Pursuant to Section 7-1103, a private application for an amendment to the City's
official zone district map may only be submitted on or prior to February 15 and
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 14, 1992
Page 4
August 15 of each year. The applicable review criteria for such applications, and the
proposed rezoning's compliance therewith, are discussed below.
1. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this chapter."
The proposed rezoning complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter 24
of the Municipal Code, The Aspen Land Use Regulations. As no demonstrable
benefit would result from terminating the existing multi -family use, the rezoning of
the property to R/MFA would eliminate its present non -conforming status, thereby
bringing the structure into compliance with the use requirements of the Land Use
Regulations. No variation in the dimensional requirements of the R/MFA zone
district, or waiver of any applicable provision of the Regulations, is requested by the
Applicants.
2. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
As discussed in the 1991 Phase One Report which was prepared by the
Planning Office in connection with the current Aspen area community planning
effort, there is no single document which constitutes the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan. Instead, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan consists of a variety of individual
elements and neighborhood plans which have been adopted since the preparation of
the original Aspen Area General Plan in 1966. Although the Planning Office prepared
a neighborhood master plan for the annexation area in 1982, the plan was never
adopted by either the City or the County. A number of the recommendations
contained in the plan, however, have been implemented.
The only adopted element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan which
contains recommendation which specifically address the Applicants' property is The
Aspen Land Use Plan which was prepared in 1973. This plan depicts the Mocklin
property as being within the Residential/Multi-Family land use category. The
proposed rezoning of the Applicants' property to R/MFA, Residential/Multi-Family,
therefore, is consistent with The Aspen Land Use Plan. To the best of the Applicants'
knowledge, no other adopted element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan contains
recommendations which preclude, or otherwise pertain to, the proposed rezoning.
It should be noted that the first draft of the new Aspen Area Community Plan
Action Plan contains a recommendation that the Mocklin property be purchased for
park purposes. This recommendation is apparently intended to either supplement or
supersede the Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element of the Aspen Area Compre-
hensive Plan, which recommends expansion and improvement of the Mollie Gibson
Park to serve the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine annexation area. The new
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 14, 1992
Page S
plan, however, has not been formally reviewed or adopted. The Action Plan's
recommendations notwithstanding, the proposed rezoning does not preclude the
purchase of the Mocklin property should the City wish to develop it for park
purposes.
3. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics."
With the exception of the Williams Addition and the Oklahoma Flats
neighborhood, the majority of the area surrounding the Applicants' property is
presently zoned for multi -family use. As discussed previously, all existing multi-
family development in the area except the Mocklin property was rezoned to R/MFA
in connection with the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine annexation. The
Planning Office has previously acknowledged, however, that R/MFA is an appropri-
ate zone district category for the Applicants' property.
As discussed in the Planning Office's May 22, 1989, memorandum to the City
Council, the annexation area contained approximately six hundred (600) existing
multi -family units. This figure excludes the adjacent Smugger Mobile Home Park
property whose density is obviously multi -family in character, the Hunter Long
House apartment complex expansion, and the new Williams Woods condominiums.
It should also be noted that additional multi -family development is proposed on the
so-called Williams Ranch property, which is located adjacent to Centennial, and on
the nearby Community Center property.
Based on the above, the proposed rezoning of the Applicants' property to
R/MFA is compatible with existing zoning and land uses in the immediate site area.
The surrounding neighborhood is unquestionably multi -family in character, and
additional multi -family development has been proposed and approved in the area.
The appropriateness of the proposed rezoning is further substantiated by the
Planning Office's and P&Z's prior recommendations, and The Aspen Land Use Plan,
which was discussed under the preceding criteria.
4. "The effect of the proposed amendment on tragic generation and road
safety."
The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the area's existing
road system. Should further development of the property be proposed, the Land
Use Regulations are designed to ensure that potential impacts are mitigated in
connection with the review and approval of a specific development application.
Similarly, the nature and extent of any future development proposal would obviously
be limited by identified deficiencies in the surrounding road system.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 14, 1992
Page 6
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."
The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the City's public
facilities. Should further development of the property be proposed, the Land Use
Regulations are designed to ensure that potential impacts are mitigated in connec-
tion with the review and approval of a specific development application. Similarly,
the nature and extent of any future development proposal would obviously be limited
by identified deficiencies in the availability of public facilities and services.
6. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment."
The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the natural environ-
ment. Should further development of the property be proposed, the Land Use
Regulations is designed to ensure that potential environmental impacts are mitigated
in connection with the review and approval of a specific development application.
Any further development would also be required to comply with such additional
regulations as may be promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency which
are applicable to the property.
7. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen."
While compatibility with the City's "community character" is obviously a
subjective criteria, the proposed rezoning is clearly consistent with the property's sur-
rounding zoning and existing land uses.
8. "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment."
A basic change in conditions occurred when the Applicants' property was
annexed to the City of Aspen, and the surrounding area was rezoned to R/MFA.
The continued development of multi -family dwelling units in the area, e.g., the
Hunter Long House expansion, Williams Woods condominiums, and the proposed
Williams Ranch and Community Center projects, represents an on -going change
which supports the proposed rezoning.
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."
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 14, 1992
Page 7
Inasmuch as the proposed rezoning would remove the existing multi -family
structure's non -conforming status, the public interest would appear to be appropri-
ately served by approval of the rezoning request. As discussed previously, the
Applicants' proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose and intent of The Aspen
Land Use Plan's multi -family land use category and complies with all applicable
provisions of the Land Use Regulations.
In summary, we believe that the proposed rezoning complies with all of the review
criteria of Section 7-1102. In addition, both the Planning Office and the Planning
and Zoning Commission have previously supported the R/MFA zone district as being
an appropriate zoning category for the Applicants' property. The only issue appears
to be the belief that the submission of a specific development plan is a necessary
prerequisite to rezoning.
As you know, the City's Land Use Regulations contain no reference to such a
requirement. We believe that to require a specific plan for the Applicants' property
prior to rezoning represents an arbitrary and unreasonable demand that is neither
justified by the Regulations nor supported by any logical argument. The Land Use
Regulations clearly provide sufficient safeguards in the review and approval process
to ensure that any future development proposal complies with all applicable regula-
tions, and that all potential impacts are satisfactorily mitigated.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
VANN ASNOCIATES
Sunny Vann,
SV:cwV
Attachments
c:\bus\city.app\app19592.rez
CITY OF ASPEN U
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
EXHIBI 1
PROJECT: M��Q,
REPRESENTATIVE: APPLICANT'S
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:
OWNER' S NAME : -4 C__`
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application: M/V-N
2. Describe action/type of development being requested:
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) P&Z then to C
5. Public Hearing: (YES)--,, (NO)
6. Number of copies of the application to be s mitted:
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit.
!. Anticipated date of submission.l___�./
r �
9 COMMENTS . UNIQUE CONCERNS:
frm.pre_app
!-LTA Owner's Policy — Form B-- Amend+:d 10-17-70
rr;Tn WjPr A.$#&AJ�i�`S��J►J�t�.^�t4'�5 �?�:� "�tL P�Cv�4�: �':�►.'�•.�?�C�: �".�: �! �.1�"-�l�t� +�t� 1�t�..'�i t•�' �: �tJ►1�L�
s
POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY
STEWAnT 'PI'PLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY
COMPANY, a corporation of Galveston, Texas, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in
Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, and costs, attorneys'
fees and expenses which the Company may becpme obligated to pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by the insured by
reason of:
1. Title to the estate or interest described i\1and
ule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on e;
3. Lack of a right of access to and from the
4. Unmarketability of such title
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its
duly authorized officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A.
STEXVA1ZT TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
�CLE,CU
Countersigned:
Q:
Chairman of the Board
�7/c
Authorized Countersiggr ure President
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy:
1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or
prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or
hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions or area of the land, or the effect
of any violation of any such law, ordinance or governmental regulation.
2. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public
records at Date of Policy.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assurned or agreed to by the insured claimant, (b) not
known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date
such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and not disclosed in writing by the insured claimant to the Company
prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d)
attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or darnage which would not have been sustained if the insured
claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy.
M
I
Page 1 of + '
Policy Serial No. 0
ALTA OWNEWS POLICY - Amended 10/17/70
SCHEDULE A
Order No.: 8942 Policy No.: 0 323184
r
Date of Policy: AUGUST 10, 1979 AT 8:00 A.M. Amount of Insurance: $ 100,000.00
1. Name of Insured: PETER MOCKLIN AND MONICA tt . 14.0M, 'T.T.N , AS TO PARCEL A, AND
PETER �1nC'h'LI2', Ac TO PA1RC1,LC T; M-M C;
2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is:
IN FFE SI;-fPL"
3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in:
TIT --TER r!OCI-UJN A14D MONIC.A M . MOMIN , AS TO PARCEL A, AND
PETEF MOC&LIPT, AS TO PARCELS B AND C
4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows:
See EXHIBIT A
yQE 0012
Page 2
COPY FOR ISSUING OFFICE
GUARANTY COMPANY
SCHEDULE B
Order No. 8942
Policy No.p 323184
This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a
correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the
public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed
by law and not shown by the public records.
5.Taxes for the year 1979 and thereafter, and any special assessment or charges
not vet certified to the office of the County Treasurer.
6.The right of the proprietor of a vain or lode to ortract and intersectrtheVe his premisese
therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate
hereby granted, as provided by law, no reserved in united States Patent recorded
December 24, 1902, in Book 35 at page 116.
7.Right of way for electric line across the S�ITt.:k and NT,:!Is , - of Section 7, as
granted to James Il. Devereux by Deed recorded January 30, 1887, in Book 29
at page 582.
8.Right of way for gas pipeline conveyed to Rocky Hountai s Company by Ruth
C. Bisel recorded August 26, 1968 in Book 236 at page 1 ver the portion
of subject property included with in the fo lowing descri Lion: A strip of
�.
land 10 feet wide, West of and adjoining a 1 Inc described acs follows: Beginning
corner of Sec i 7 bears North 66'44' West,
2105.44
at a point whence the West , °"41
eet • thence South 89*20' Ess't, 85. 59 feet , to the True Point of. Beginning;
f .
thence on a curve to the ri it with a radius of 127 feet, a distance of 15.07
feet; thence SVnth 17*41' Eaht, 344.84 feet:
ALSO, from sa 'True point o 02 feet. b ginning, a line running north 47°57' West,
a distance of
1roads, ditches . pipelines anti'. utilities and
9.A11 existing roads, highways, raf
easements and rights of way therefor.
10.Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in 4:ater lf.rie Agreement recorded
December 5, 1966 in Book 224 at page 220.
ll.Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Memorandum of Trust Agreement
recorded June 5, 1972 in Book 264 at page 145.
12.Deed of Trust from Peter Mocklin and Monica M. Mocklin
th Public Trustdated
of Pitkin County for the use of The Bank of. Aspen to837 (affects
November 15, 1972, recorded November 16, 1972 in Book 268 at page
Parcel A).
13.Deed of Trust from Peter Mocklin to the Public Trustee of 2'recorded
Pit971County or
the use of Ruth C. Bisel to secure $27,000,00 dated June
June 7, 1971 in Book 255 at page 755 (affects Parcel A).
Anyntimvedseespage 3a)
Page (;(TAItA`TY-(;0MPANY
1613 copy r0a ISSUING C! ECLi
1
< California Lana I,nv ••
Standard Coverage Policy Form
Copyright 1963
Attached to and made a part of Stewart Title Guaranty Company Policy No. p 323184
Order No. 8942 _
Continuation of Schedule
B
I
14.Any tax, assessment, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of subject
property in Aspen Sanitation District. Aspen Street Improvement District,
Aspen Fire Protection District, The City of Aspen and Aspen Valley hospital
District.
Page In
COPY FOR ISSUING OFFICE ~ •1• j; OVA 1z.T rr I T L l:
1514 GUARANTY COMPANY
i:XEi i� i T A
PARCeI. A:
A tract
of land situated in
the Southwest it of Section 7, 'Township 10 South,
Range
84
West of the
6th Principal
Meridian, more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning
at a
point
whence
the center '4 corner of Section 7, Township 10 South,
Range
84
West of
the
6th Principal
Meridian, bears N 59°57'54" E 1.042.64 feet;
thence
S
17011'30"
E
1.47.88
feet;
thence
S
89"20'
00"
E?
18L.86
feet;
thence
S
00°40'20"
W
189.89
feet;
thence
S
89°20'00"
H
84.64
feet;
tlienc.e
S
1.5°31'
27"
11
277.34
feet;
lthence
N
56'01'
18"
W
81..12
feet;
thence
N
64°49'45"
W
103.50
feet;
thence
N
72°00'00"
W
100.03
feet;
thence
N
79°05'00"
W
50.25
feet;
thence
N
81*37'00"
W
1.00.00
feet;
thence
N
70055'00"
W
98.72
feet;
thence
N
48°00'23"
W
100.12
feet;
thence
N
27051'48"
E
404.48
feet to the point of. beginning.
PARCEL B :
A tract of land situated in the NEB of the SA of Section 7, Township 10 South,
Mange 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the center Z corner of said Section 7 bears N 45°28'51"
h E 948.45 feet;
I,l Whence N 00°40'00" E 24.84 feet to a point on the southwesterly right of way
of Lone Pine Road;
thence along said right of. way 105.56 feet along the arc of a curve to the right
liaving a radlue of 256.76 feet and whose chord heard S 27°18'07" E 104.82 feet;
Thence S 15031' 27" i' 127.21 feet along said right of way;
thence N 89'20'00" W 84.64 feet;
thence N 00°40'20" E' 189.89 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL C :
A L meet of hind s1 tui3ted in the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of
Sect i.on 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, being
more fully described individually as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the center quarter corner of said Section 7 bears
North 38°17'41" East 1302.96 feet;
thence North 80°46'20" West 108.10 feet;
thence North 70°4941" West 101.63 feet;
thence North 50°05'00" West 200.81 feet;
thence North 62°17'53" West 69.42 feet;
thence South 31°16'00" East 286.20 feet;
thence South,66°35'14" East 224.22 feet;
thence North 15'00" East 92.00 feet;
thence North 43045'00" East 48.50 feet to the point of beginning,
i•:XCE•:E'Tl.NG from said Parcel C any portion of said tract of lend located south
of Lbe centerline of [c�.Roaring F River, as set forth in Quit Claim Deed recorded
June 7 , 1.97 L in Gook 251a at pag 753.
AND EXCEPTING TIfERE1�R a public it -of -way for thr.�t portion of a road known
as G.ibson Avenue, as ;yet forth in Ouit Claim Deed recorded October 11, 1972
in nook 267 at page 697.
All parcels being [.n the County of P[tkin, State of Colorado.
EXHIBIT 3
August 12, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Ms. Lamont:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates,
Planning Consultants, to represent us in the processing of our application to rezone
our property which is located at 0202 Lone Pine Road in the City of Aspen. Mr.
Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably
pertaining to the aforementioned application.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do
not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
r 7 '
Peter Mocklin
P.O. Box 807
Aspen, CO 81612
(303) 925-3668
SV:cwv
EXHIB ;_ ,
y 14
• y ! -
•.: • v . . "- - -
`l
....
/ ...NOM
CP
1447
Z 0 o pn : w
UJ
1.
_ u, Z Z
w0
F- U U - W
l
a.._................_-_..._
133
b1S g 0717
H
00
00
7S�^}� •� nncc3 i3•l?D07AON xH J
„• 2a_Sa z 8 s
,w
O O
,
•
Cc �S
r
c
1\ ZZZ a 3� N _ g- moo.. Z.. .. oc
—0 _f�.�a Q__ w
— c�
`•`\ \ O W Zj -^ •� A ? 1. b •^ V Z --_--- - n — -- -�
�VZ zzO ; $n ov`...._ U..............._
Z -Q
yell F'•m0N'�' 8' Zrn Q
-
��°,� � •�� o ��� N 8 � Q Z3 y��cd ;
CP
Z
u'n r
o[ Z
Z w Oo
ti._ t- w
rT1
m Dti O ! F/'' •! O C7 ` ?
G \
LLJ
ov
0 w Z
� _..b�o Doti 1- O : v:' � ..• /.
go
R Er $ '®
w
W w
.w U Cie oz!"�Z— s j
\ p 8 LLJ S
'_,
v r.
�O OOY -
3 -------------
1
r.......... ..... _ . ,
D&ROW ROW-..._-• -o J 00e q>�� O °
134
Q 77
Q J�'� GG L� C74.nw
Z � w'� :1
00Z1� �nZ Z =maycc
0<IDy
Ark �(6 1° 3 oot LLJag��^ 0 w ayW��� 1 � �9r3 rT,
OS Flom %Iqwv
Q ((��� <�`S >'in`a6wi� ^-�z�
vUi�Fao .d t
.ozh � Ltd p� i"�`. ,.? •
:c `�'.
BOO G11- N46r:6,
V� Y
4
ORDINANCE NO. 26
(Series of 1989)
AN ORDINANCE ZONING THE CENTENNIAL/HUNTER CfZ?ER/LONE PINE
ANNEXATION AREA GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE BASE OF SMUGGLER AND RED
MOUNTAINS TO R-3 0 PUD, R-15A PUD, R-15A, PUBLIC, R/MFA AND R/MFA
PUD.
WHEREAS, the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine area was
annexed to the City of Aspen on March 24, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office held a neighborhood meeting
with residents of the Centennial/Hunter Creek/ Lone Pine area to
receive input regarding zoning of the area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearings on February 21, 1989, to consider zoning
of the Lone Pine area and April 25, 1989, to consider zoning of
the Centennial/Hunter Creek area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission and has determined the
proposed zoning to be compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land use in the vicinity of the site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Section 1
That it does hereby zone the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone
Pine annexation area as illustrated on the attached map.
Section 2
That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the
zoning described in Section 1 and the Planning Director be
authorized and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning
1
change.
eoox 611
P4�L,M
Section 3
That the City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this
ordinance to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4
If any section, sub -section, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by and court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, district and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 5
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed -to affect any
right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to
the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /�-
day of 1989 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
,.% - y
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ��"--eday of
2
n
co
H o
=•� W
U W
H v
� U
2::2:
i H r-4
Z �
� O
r ..
000i G11- Fay,- 60 t. 71
_ R z LL W
t W '
cc
itr!:l a 1 O
g°� "X3.�
'II
�'o /l ;1 GG.x., ' "X� � � '�' Sim _.O_•_ % ��A �
OH � ,
Z ' r W p -
LL
co
J •O _
�r 4 r 0Ir
W -
N- �'�O
zz
rr
r / uj Q J
J •� i: ..
4 O :. W OAS - • - •^,. 1 L
�t Q V "L —1
(WO < Ste.' - v ! .(_:bap ►— }""�
(i `�_.... oor boo• . ZrVc A; i
p < v t .fl -•
LA
DCrC v W
D L RGW ROW .•Q J .._..5 ...... .- K < 2 °° y l•t - ` aq o t �{ r-��{
W z z
2 HL
1� oz
LA
u
t r ; I! o
s1914 _
�� C rc r • I � D
1989.
Ploox 6.11, N,4GE6;.18
William L. Stirling, Mayor_
ATTEST:
-/A
Kathryn S ! Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
-�- 1989.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk
annex.cen.hc.lp.ord.zon
3
William L. Stirling, May r
EXHIBIT 6
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office W
RE: Zoning: Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine Annexation
DATE: May 22, 1989
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that
Council zone the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine Annexation
area as follows: create a new zone district called R-30A which
precludes duplex development and zone the Friedberg, Scully and
Rowland properties R-30A PUD; zone the area north of the
Community Center and east of Red Mountain Road R-15 PUD; zone the
Community Center Public; create a new zone district called R/MFA,
which has lower FAR's than the R/MF zone district, and zone Lone
Pine, the Mountain View condominiums parcel, the Mocklin parcel,
Hunter Longhouse, Hunter Creek and the Moran property R/MFA; and
zone Centennial R/MFA PUD.
For the most part staff agrees with P&Z. However, staff suggests
that Council review the recommended zoning for the Moran and
Mocklin parcels. Staff finds that the community may best be
served if the zoning of these parcels -to R/MFA were done in the
_context of_a development plan and until then the appropriate
zoni_n for these arcels is R-15A: Additiona y, s a
recommends that the area north of —the ommunity Center be zoned
R-15A PUD rather than R-15 PUD, this was an oversight on staff's
part in our recommendation to P&Z. Finally, if Council finds
that Ordinance 21 is acceptable, this ordinance requires all
future duplex units to be 50%.deed restricted, then the. need to
create a new R-30A may be diminished because the Community has
determined that duplex units, based upon Ordinance 21, are
desirable.
For Councils information staff has included seven (7)
attachments.
Attachment 1 - Parcel names
Attachment 2 - County Zoning
Attachment 3 - P&Z Zoning Recommendations
Attachment 4 - Staff Zoning Recommendations with Ord. 21
Attachment 5 - Staff Zoning Recommendation without Ord. 21
Attachment 6 - Ordinance Creating the R-30A Zone
Attachment 7 - Ordinance Creating the R/MFA Zone
Attachment 8 - Ordinance Zoning Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone
Pine
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: There was no previous Council action.
This area was annexed by special election on March 24, 1989.
BACKGROUND: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
zoning for this area on two separate occasions. In February the
P&Z reviewed the Lone Pine annexation area and in April P&Z
reviewed the Hunter Creek/Centennial area. This two meeting
review was brought about by the citizens petition for annexation
which caused the annexation election on March 24, 1989.
According to State law, the City must zone annexed areas within a
90 day period after annexation or development can occur without
limit.
Neighborhood Meetings: The Planning Office held neighborhood
meetings on December 21, 1988, for the Lone Pine annexation area,
and on April 27, 1989, for the Centennial/Hunter Creek area, in
order to determine the goals of the residents. In the December,
Lone Pine meeting the majority of the residents who attended were
from the Lone Pine multi -family project, however, Mr. Peter
Mocklin, a large parcel owner, also attended. The Lone Pine
residents who attended seemed to agree that the appropriate zone
district for the Lone Pine complex was R/MF. Mr. Mocklin feels
his parcel should also be zoned R/MF.
At the April, Hunter Creek/Centennial meeting, which was attended
by five people, two questions were asked - first, would this
zoning effect Centennial or Hunter Creek in any positive or
negative way? Staff answered that it was -the City's intention to
zone the annexed areas in a manner which made them conforming and
did not effect their development potential. Although the. new
• R/MFA zone district shows an increase in FAR for the Centennial
project it is not staff's intention that Centennial should
increase in FAR. This was done only to ensure that Hunter Creek
remain conforming. The second question was asked by. Mr. James
Moran. Why was staff's recommendation for his parcel R-15A and
not a higher zone? The neighborhood has changed significantly
because of Centennial and the proposed Mountain View
Condominiums. Staff's intention was to zone the Moran parcel in
a manner comparable to what the zoning is in the County, which is
R-15. The R715A zone allows duplex units but requires 50% to be
deed restricted. The County's R-15 zone allows only- single-
family dwellings. Given the Community's affordable housing
problem staff -finds this appropriate. In terms of the upzoning
issue, staff finds that in the absence of a development plan any
upzoning will not be in the City's best interest.
Guidelines: The City Annexation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan outlines guidelines for annexing new areas into the City.
These guidelines are as follows:
1. Guideline
Generally, an adopted Master Plan for an annexed area
2
2.
addressing land use and capital facilities improvements
should be a pre -requisite to annexation.
Explanatory Comments
Most of the areas earmarked for annexation have been
Master Planned. The Master Plans establish guidelines
for zoning decisions and capital facilities
improvements. The Master Plan, in combination with
general wishes of property owners and neighbors, should
be a basic consideration in the land use decision
making process.
Guideline
Apply zoning to annexed areas
the same development rights
unincorporated areas.
Explanatory Comments
which generally maintains
within the City as within
The general idea behind this guideline is that annexa-
tion and subsequent zoning should not create a change
in the character of an annexed area. Instead, the City
land use regulations should be oriented to maintaining
the "character of the neighborhood."
3. Guideline
Strive to avoid zoning designations which make conform-
ing land uses and structures nonconforming.
4. Guideline
The City should generally try to maintain Floor Area
Ratios comparable to the County's for annexed proper-
ties, unless it is demonstrated during the zoning
process that the Floor Area Ratios are unreasonably
high or low.
County Zoning: The entire annexation area was zoned. R-15
(single-family, 15,000 s.f. lots) except for the Hunter Creek,
Mountain View and Centennial parcels which were zoned AR-2 (high
density, multi -family).
Description: The Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine Annexation
area consists of 61.092 acres and is made up of single-family,
multi -family and community service uses. Staff will discuss this
annexation area in smaller pieces so that Council can respond to
individual areas.
Rowland, Friedberg, Scully - This area is in the western
3
portion of the area, (see attachment 1). These lots are
over 30,000 s.f. and are single-family in nature. At the
P&Z's public meeting, Marc Friedberg requested that P&Z zone
this area to exclude duplex units. The P&Z agreed and
directed staff to create a new zone called R-30A, which is
identical to the R-30 zone, but does not permit duplex
units. Since this issue was brought to P&Z prior to the
development of Ordinance 21 staff makes the following
suggestion. If Ordinance 21 is acceptable to City Council,
then we recommend that this area be zoned R-30 PUD. Staff
takes this position because the concerns that Marc Friedberg
has, likely revolved around bulk and density. Ordinance 21
will require that 50% of all duplex units developed be deed
restricted. Affordable housing units are much smaller than
free market units, so the bulk concern is eliminated. The
density issue is not resolved, but the Community has
determined that duplex units which are 50% deed restricted
are important to the Community; therefore, the Community
need for affordable housing should override the neighborhood
concern for density. If Ordinance 21 is not acceptable to
Council, then staff recommends R-30A PUD.
Oden, Cowee - This area is directly north of the Community
Center, (see attachment 1). In December, staff recommended
that this area be zoned R-15 PUD and P&Z agreed. The City
has consistently taken the position that annexed land which
is zoned R-15 in the County should be zoned R-15A in the
City. The County's R-15 zone prohibits duplex units. The
City's R-15A zone allows duplex units provided that 500 of
the units are restricted to affordable housing. Therefore,
this policy provides for an increase in the property's
development potential and at the same time provides the
potential for affordable housing. While the P&Z
recommendation is for R-15 PUD, this recommendation is an
oversight. Staff recommends R-15A PUD.
This is an area which can be effected by Ordinance 21. if
Council approves Ordinance 21, then the R-15A gone is
unnecessary because the R-15 zone will achieve the same end.
Community Center'- Staff and P&Z agree that the Community
Center should be zoned Public.
Hunter Longhouse, Lone Pine, Hunter Creek, Mountain View,
Centennial - These are all multi -family developments which
require R/MF zoning. When staff and P&Z compared the
buildout potential in the R/MF zone to what existed in these
developments it was discovered that the City's existing R/MF
zone provided a significant increase in the buildout
potential for all of these developments. Due to this
analysis, it became clear that the City needed another R/MF
zone district which was designed to reduce the density and
4
floor area of large developments and to provide a zone
district which matched the buildout potential of the
existing developments.
The R/MFA zone district was designed to allow the existing
developments in the annexed area to be conforming, but not
to allow for significant increases in development potential.
Therefore, the R/MFA zone district (attachment 6) is
identical to the R/MF zone district in all but two areas,
multi -family FAR and minimum lot size. The multi -family FAR
has been reduced for lots greater than 27,000 s.f. This is
to ensure that the existing developments do not have the
potential to expand inappropriately. The minimum lot size
category has been increased to 27,001 s.f. to ensure that
parcels are not subdivided to take advantage of higher
FAR's.
For Council's review staff has included information about
each project.
Centennial
17.012 AC. (DEVELOPMENT)
240 D.U.
51 STUDIOS
86 1 BR
83 2BR
20 3BR
177,000 s f floor area
.24:1 FAR
Hunter Creek
18.4 AC.
295 D.U.
26
STUDIOS
75
1BR
135
2BR
59
3BR
238,000 sf floor area
.30:1 FAR
Mountain View (Proposed)
1 AC.
8 D.U. Two-family
5
8 3BR
15,010 sf floor area
.34:1 FAR
Hunter Longhouse
73,511 s.f.
14 1BR
14 2BR
5 2BR (PROPOSED)
20,800 sf floor area
.28 FAR
Lone Pine
128,371 sf
40 D.U.
4 STUDIOS
14 1BR
22 3BR
44,878 sf floor area
.35 FAR
The R/MFA zone district makes all of the existing
developments conforming and provides some buildout potential
for each development. In the case of Centennial, however,
the zone district provides for a large increase in buildout
potential. This is because of the size of Hunter Creek. In
order to make Hunter Creek conforming the FAR. needed to be
such that Centennial would be significantly under its
potential.
The issue of buildout potential'for-Centennial may be a moot
point. Centennial was developed in the County as a PUD with
an agreed upon square footage limitation of 177,000.
Currently, Centennial is within 2000 square feet of this
number. Therefore, regardless of the zone district's FAR,
Centennial is essentially built out, pursuant to the PUD
agreement, unless this agreement is amended by the P&Z and
Council. Therefore, P&Z and staff recommend that Hunter
Creek, Lone Pine, Hunter Longhouse and Mountain View be
zoned R/MFA and that Centennial be zoned R/MFA PUD.
Mocklin - The Mockiln parcel (attachment 1) consists of
approximately five ( 5 ) acres and contains- an eight ( 8 ) unit
6
multi -family structure. The property is zoned R-15 in the
County. Staffs on final recommendation was to zone this
area R/MFA because this parcel is surrounded y R7MF type
development. Further, to make the parcel conforming, a
multi -family zone district would be required.
After much thought, staff feels that zoning the parcel R/MFA
in the absence of a development plan may not be in the best
interests of the Community. If the City zones fne pro e
R-15A, the non -con ormi y which existed in the County stays
in place in the City. While P&Z recommends R/MFA staff
finds that the Community may best be served if the property
is zoned R-15A and any rezoning to R/MFA be done in
combination with a development plan.
If Ordinance 21 is acceptable to Council, then staff
recommends this area be zoned R-15.
Moran - The Moran parcel is approximately 53,000 s.f. with
one single-family dwelling. P&Z finds that this property
has been exposed to a significant amount of change, in terms
of neighborhood character, and recommends R/MFA. Staff
agrees that the neighborhood has undergone significant
change, but in the absence of a development plan, staff
finds that the most appropriate zone for this parcel is R-
15A.
If Ordinance 21 is acceptable to Council, then staff
recommends this area be zonedR-15.
RECOMMENDATION: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends the following zoning for the Centennial/Hunter
Creek/Lone Pine Annexation area. Create two (2) new zone
districts R/MFA (attachment 6) and R-30A (attachment 5). Zone
the area as follows: the Rowland, Friedberg, Scully area R-30A
PUD; the Oden, Cowee area R-15 PUD; the Community Center Public;
the Hunter Creek, Lone Pine, Hunter Longhouse, Mocklin, Mountain
View and Moran parcels R/MFA and the Centennial parcel R/MFA PUD.
The Planning Office recommends the following. If Ordinance 21 is
acceptable*to Council, then create a new R/MFA zone district and
zone the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine annexation area as
follows: the Rowland, Friedberg, Scully area R-30 PUD; the Oden,
Cowee area R-15 PUD; the Community Center Public; the Hunter
Creek, Lone Pine, Hunter Longhouse and Mountain View parcels
R/MFA, the Centennial parcel R/MFA PUD; and the Mocklin and Moran
parcels R-15.
If Ordinance 21 is not acceptable to Council, then _create the R-
30A and R/MFA zone districts and zone the Centennial/Hunter
Creek/ Lone Pine annexation area as follows: the Rowland,
Friedberg, Scully area R-30A PUD; the Oden, Cowee area R-15A PUD;
7
the Community Center Public; the Hunter Creek, Lone Pine, Hunter
_Longhouse and Mountain View parcels R/MFA, the Centennial parcel
R/MFA PUD; and the Mocklin and Moran parcels R-15A.
PROPOSED MOTION:• I move to adopt the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation and approve on 1st Reading Ordinance
•• No. (Series of 1989) to create the R-30A zone district,
Ordinance No. (Series of 1989) to create the R/MFA zone
district and Ordinance No.. (Series of 1989) zoning the
Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine Annexation area as follows: the
Rowland, Friedberg, Scully area R-30A; the Oden, Cowee area R-15
PUD; the Community Center Public; the Hunter Creek, Lone Pine,
Hunter Longhouse, Mocklin, Mountain View and Moran parcels R/MFA
and the Centennial parcel R/MFA PUD.
I move to approve on 1st Reading Ordinance No. (Series of 1989)
to create the R/MFA zone district and Ordinance No. (Series of
1989) zoning the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine Annexation
area amended to reflect Ordinance 21 being acceptable to the
Council.
I move to approve on 1st Reading Ordinance No. (Series of 1989)
to create the R-30A zone district, Ordinance No. (Series of
1989) to create the R/MFA zone district and Ordinance No.
(Series of 1989) zoning the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine
Annexation area amended to reflect Ordinance 21 not being not
being acceptable to the Council.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION:
annex.cen.hc.lp.cc
E:1