The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.19880621 .. AGENDA ::::=------- ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 21, 1988 - Tuesday 4:30 P.M. Old City Council Chambers 2nd Floor City Hall REGULAR MEETING I. COMMENTS commissioners Planning Staff ** Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson II. NEW BUSINESS ~ Pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment v~ I A. B. Anderman 8040 Greenline Review C. Rappaport 8040 Greenline Review III. PUBLIC HEARING A. Bell Mountain Lodge Rezoning/PUD (cont'd) (in addition to this packet, please bring memo on Bell Mtn. Lodge from previous packet) IV. ADJOURN MEETING structure. The proposed lower deck will extend from the existing structure towards the north. Once again, the visual impact from this addition will be minimal and reduced to an even greater extent once the 700 South Galena project is completed. In summary, the Planning Office does not object to the proposal if the referral agency conditions are adequately met. Specifically the conditions regarding the geotechnical engineer should be addressed. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the application for an 8040 Greenline Review for the Anderman parcel with the following conditions: 1. The applicants shall submit a copy of a geotechnical engineering report regarding the retaining wall and caissons. This report shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department. It shall be the obligation of the applicant to follow the recommendations made by the geotechnical engineer and the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the property. 2. If mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps are found during excavation,. the applicants shall report this to the - Environmental Health Department prior to initiation of construction. 3. The applicants shall install a residential sprinkler system in the house which shall be inspected by the Fire Marshal prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. CH.ANDERMAN 4 development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. RESPONSE Criteria 8, 9 and 10 address purpose e. This develo ment complies with all aspects of these criteria. p CRITERION 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Are Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open S ace Tra' a map is dedicated for public use. p / ils Plan RESPONSE There are no trails proposed for this parcel. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends tabling of the Rappaport 8 040 greenline application in order to address the following concerns: • o the driveway design is excessive, the driveway should provide direct access to the garage from Ute Avenue and be minimized as much as possible; o that the applicant demonstrates that this design or alternate design aids in the transition of devel from urban uses to forestry uses, opment (purpose c) ; o that the applicant demonstrates that this design or alternate design enhances the natural mountain setting, (purpose f ) ; . g, If the P&Z finds the current design appropriate or finds alternate design appropriate, the staff recommends the following in condition: g o the applicant shall provide, to the satisfaction of the Planning Office, a driveway design which direct access to the provides garage from Ute Avenue and minimizes the driveway, as much as possible; o that only one fireplace be installed and that fireplace contain and burn only gas logs; o prior to start of construction a fugitive dust control plan be submitted to the Environmental Health office; o if mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps are encountered during excavation the Environmental Health office should be contacted; o a geotechnical engineer should be retained to verify that the Chen recommendations are implemented correctly 5 I ea and that a Certificate of Occupancy will only be issued after the geotechnical engineer is satisfied (in writing) that all recommendations were followed; o... prior to construction a detailed storm drainage plan and a detailed revegetation plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department; and o culverts and improvements to the existing drainage ditch shall be part of driveway regrading, this shall be done to the satisfaction of the Engineering Office. 2 2 1 J U N 1988 LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109,201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III June 10, 1988 Roger Hunt Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 1.30 South Galena. Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Rezoning Standards Bear Roger-. TELEPHONE (303) 925-7116 You were inquiring at the meeting the other day what the courts might do with rezoning requests. I have noted a few cases where a court has reviewed rezoning requests, and the general holdings in rezoning requests are as follows. Maintenance of stability in zoning and resulting conservation of property values based on existing regulations are prime considerations in denying applications for zoning changes. Nopro v. Cherry Hills, 504 P.2d 3441, (1972). The standard for acceptance of zoning change is that proposed zoning action must either be in compliance with master plan, in which case it need only relate to general welfare of the community, or, where it would be contrary to master plaD, there must be some change in the conditions of the neighborhood to support the change. King: Fill Homeowners v. Westmi.nister, 557 P.2d 1186 (1976). Property owners have the right to rely on existing zoning regulations where there has been no material change in character of the neighborhood which may require rezoning in the public interest. _Roosevelt v. City of Englewood, 492 P.2d 65 (1971). Prohibited "spot zoning" occurs only when it appears that rezoning order is designed to relieve a particular property owner from applicable zoning restrictions and not when the purpose of the order is substantially to enhance the public welfare information. Please v. H.O.C.C. Morgan. County, 600 P.2d 86 (1979) . A landowner cannot create his own hardship and then require the zoning regulations be changed to meet that hardship. CoF. Lytle Company v. Clark, 491 F.2d 834 (C.A. Colo. 74) Roger Hunt June 10, 1988 Page 2 (Pitkin County Case). To obtain rezoning to permit specif- ic use, applicant must prove that it is not possible to use and develop property for any other use enumerated in existing zoning. Garrett v. City of Littleton, 493 P.2d 370 (1972). One seeking to lower classification of zoning must prove it is not possible to use and develop land for any uses permitted in the zones which are in between zones sought in the existing zone. Garrett, supra. Although owner might well maximize his profits by obtaining a requested rezoning, there is no constitutionally protected right to use one's property in the most economically beneficial manner possible. Richter v. Greenwood Village, 513 P.2d 241 (1973). There are myriad cases of this type. If you would like full text copies of any of those cases, call my office. With respect to the requested rezoning in this case the standards in the new code are found in Section 7-1102 on page 7-113 in subparagraphs a. through i. I believe the least subjective and probably most important criteria are those found in subparagraphs g., h. and i. Subparagraph g. asks whether the proposal is consistent and compatible with the community character (which is now a small lodge and neighborhood commercial). Subparagraph h. asks whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the amendment. (There has been little change in the neighborhood.) Subparagraph i. asks whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest. (Preserving a diversity of lodging is in the public interest.) Section 7-1101 states that the purpose of allowing amendments to the zoning code is not intended to relieve any particular hardships or confer special privileges to anyone. Very truly yours, oseph E. Edwards, Jr. JEE ch L/16