HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Building Code Amendsy
Building Code Amendments
C
CITY ' ASPEN
130 soil a stre.e.t
asp en, i ..:. 81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 6, 1975
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: Sandra M. Stuller
RE: Attached Proposed Draft of Revision of.
Article VIII (Planned Unit Development)
of Zoning Code
We have approached the complete revision of the City's
land use regulations in three stages. First, we completely revised
the zoning code, but made only those changes to the PUD ordinance
that were necessary to accommodate the new zoning district map.
Secondly, we completely revised the subdivision regulations, up-
dating the review procedures and incorporating the engineering
design requirements imposed by the City Engineer. Now we.are
ready to go back and completely redo the PUD sections of the
code, to correlate PUD procedures with subdivision procedures (with
PUD and Subdivision Regulations, and add new elements to the PUD
review that address some of the aspects of a PUD development which
have been of concern in the past but never subject to review (e.g.
architectural and design features).
Synchronizing PUD and Subdivision Procedures
The first objective of the proposed revisions is to amend
the PUD procedures so that an applicant may concurrently proceed
with PUD and Subdivision review, i.e., can schedule simultaneous
hearings on both. Secondly, to inject the Council in the conceptual
approval stage (as they are in subdivision review) so that we again
eliminate the problem of the City Council being presented with the
PUD plan only at its final stages. This always puts the Council in
the position of totally upsetting the apple cart or accepting a
fait accompli.
Third, we have attempted to eliminate the,duplications in
Members of City Council
October 6, 1975
-Page 2-
the PUD and Subdivision Regulations. The.following schedule drafted
during the Clarendon project review shows which areas of concern
were addressed in both the existing PUD and Subdivision Regulations,
an unnecessary duplication:
CRITERIA
PUD
SUBDIVISION
1.
Water pressure
x
x
2.
Utility adequacy
x
x
3.
Road adequacy
x
x
4.
Site suitability:
x
x
-zlope
x
x
instability
x
x
mud flow
x
x
rock falls
x
x
avalanche
x
x
natural watershed
x
x
runoff
x
x
drainage
x
x
soil erosion
x
x
water pollution
x
x
5.
Air quality
x
6.
Design and location of:
structures
x
roads
x
x
driveways
x
x
trails
x
x
7.
Compatibility with
terrain
x
8.
Grading
x
9.
Placement & Chisterina
x
1.0.
Building height
x
1.1.
Building scale
x
12.
Fire protection
x
13.
Bridges
x
14.
Landscaping
x
15.
Surveying
x
16.
Title
x
17.
Improvements
x
18.
Growth patterns
x
As can be seen, areas generally not reviewed under subdivision
but reviewed under PUD, are the building design criteria (6, 7, 8, 9,
10 and 11 above), which are the legitimate areas of concern in PUD
provisions.
Members of City Council
October 6, 1975
-Page 4-
development.
Another new element is the requirement of submission of
a detailed landscape plan. Section 24-8.16 also establishes an
escrow/bonding procedure so that the City will be assured not only
that the landscaping plan will be implemented, but that the veget-
ation will be maintained for at least two years.
Section 24-8.17 permits the reduction in the off-street
parking requirements which will be a complement to an efficient
transit system within the City. It also encourages a subdivider
to provide alternate transit for PUD owners and to provide for
joint use of parking facilities.
Section 24-8.19 is new and provides some guaranty that
common open space and recreational areas will be maintained by
condominium/homeowners' associations. Section 24-3.20 makes
compliance with a proposed construction and phasing schedule
mandatory. This should prevent (1) applications for PUD's before
financing is certain, (2) applications being made to avoid zoning
changes (The Gant), (3) the construction of fewer than all the
residential units of a PUD to generate income without construction
of the recreational and service facilities needed by the early
owners, and (4) the leaving of construction of public facilities
and roadways until last.
Section
City may enforce
and residents are
restates a common
benefit of the Ci
so benefited.
24-8.'23 for the first time determines that the
the conditions and provisions of a PUD plan. Owners
also given standing in this section. Subsection C
law provision that any condition running to the
ty or owners may be waived by the person or thing
Section 24-8.24 anti.civatPs a nroblem that bas not yet
occurred within the City, namely, what to do with a plat of record not
coning to fruition.. This section provides a technique for unburdening
the land of the record plat if the improvements already on the site
comply with the existing zoning code provisions and conditions im-
posed by the PUD plan.
Section 24-8.25 addresses the question of resubdividing
a PUD and 24-8.26 the question of amending a PUD plan. Loth sections
are new. Section 24-8.26A eliminates the possibility of having to
duplicate the entire PUD procedure for minor changes to a PUD plan.
Conclusion
This proposed ordinance is being submitted to you on my
own initiative with a request that you forward it to the P&Z with
a request that they consider, and hold public hearing on, this pro-
posed zoning code change. I anticipate a lot of recommended
changes from both the P&Z and administration but would appreciate
your initiating the amendment procedures at this time.
SS/pk
ft
Members of City Council
October 6, 1975
-Page 3-
Specific Chances
A basic structural change was made making the PUD review
procedures identical -to subdivision review procedures, but at each
stage requiring additional information concerning overall design of
the project, architectural features of the buildings, landscaping
elements of the project and construction or phasing schedules. This
draft also specifically authorizes averaging of lot area and cluster
development. In addition, Section 24-8.3 itemizes exactly which
provisions of the zoning code may be varied to accommodate a PUD.
As is clear in this section, all PUD's must conform to the permitted
uses and densities in the zone district in which they lie, but other
regulations of Chapter 24 may be varied if these variations are
accurately recorded on the final plan. :action 24-8.4 makes clear
that the obbectives of PUD will sometimes require that less than
the maximum allowable density in a district be authorized.
Section 24-8.5 attempts to make clear the correlation
between the PUD and subdivision regulations created by this draft
ordinance. Sections 24-8.6 and 24-8.7 establish the initial re-
view procedure which is a conceptual review before the P & Z. The
presentation must contain all materials required for conceptual
subdivision approval but include, in addition, (1) a.written state-
ment of the planning objectives to be achieved by the PUD, (2) a
written statement of the proposed method of ownership, (3) a des-
cription of the proposed location of the improvements, and (4) pre-
liminary landscaping plans and architectural renderings. This
same presentation is then made to the City Council for its approval.
The next stage is a preliminary plan, more detailed and,
subject to the only public hearing in the procedure. This plan
incorporates the detail required for preliminary subdivision approval,
but __ ;uires g .. _ � d bui ldir,gz ,
r-gat detail ray_ s::�, i-. �s�or. c.. iccs,.lc.. ��
architectural features, construction timing, and landscaping plans.
The notice and hearing requirements for the P&Z public hearing are
identical to those for subdivision approval. Subsequent to the public
hearing, the Final Plan is presented to the City Council accompanied
by the landscaping plan and construction schedule in their final
form. In addition, you are to receive the PUD agreement which, in
most cases, will also be the subdivision agreement.
The mandatory PUD requirements of Section 24-3.13 are not
new, except that they specifically authorize row houses (an issue
that arose earlier with reference to the Clarendon).
Section 24-8.14 describes when common open space is an
appropriate element in a PUD and how ownership in the same must be
held.
Section 24-8.15 is entirely new and authorizes architectural
review of PUD projects. This anticipates a reoccurrence of the
situation the Council faced with the Villas project at which time it
had no authority to object to the architectural features of the
0
CITY OF ASPEN
13 0 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 2, 1976
TO: Members of City Council
FROM-Vandra M. Stuller
RE: Proposed Amendment to the Open Space Requirements
- erection 24-3.7(d) of the Municipal Code
One element of the open space requirements of the City, found in
Section 24-3.7(d) of the zoning code, has given me difficulty for
a considerable time. As you know, the City has no prohibition
against open air vending (i.e., you need not be in a building to
merchandise) and there is a tendency for land owners in the
commercial core to either sell goods (or rent space for others to
do so) within those areas of their premises which are designated
open space under the code.
It has been my understanding that the purpose of the open space
requirement was to provide a visual and physical relief to the
facades and concentrated uses made of commercial core lots (witness
the prohibition against structures in open space areas and limita-
tion of improvements to "fountains, -�)athways, fences and landscaping"
in subsection (d)). However, I cannot enforce this perception until
and unless the P & Z and Council join in this bias by adoption of an
appropriate amendment to that effect.
On June lst the P & Z conducted a public hearing on an amendment to
Section 24-3.7(d) which read:
Anything hereinabove to the contrary notwithstanding,
no area of a building site designated as required open
space under this section shall be used for any commercial
activity, including, but not by way of limitation, the
storage, display and merchandising of goods.
The Commission recommended approval, with one amendment. Specifically,
they wished to permit commercial use of open space area if in conjunc-
tion with a permitted use on an abutting right-of-way. Consequently
an owner could use the open space if he has a lease extension on the
mall, if Mick had authorized the use of the adjacent street and side-
walk for a public event, et cetera. The acceptable and public nature
Members of City Council
June 2, 1976
Page 2
of the use of the open space would thus be guaranteed inasmuch as
City approval of the use of the abutting right-of-way would have
to precede use of the privately owned open space area. An ordin-
ance incorporating this recommendation is attached.
SS/pk
Attachment
+► 0
CITY - a_ ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, Colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: `?arch 12, 1976
TO: Hal Clark
FROM/?Oandra M. Stuller
RE: Notice to Condominium Owners
Attached is a proposed ordinance to permit the City
in variance, subdivision and zoning public hearings to give
notice to residential condominium unit owners via their home
owners association. inasmuch as the ordinance would affect
certain sections of the zoning code, it must be reviewed by
P & Z which also, of course, must conduct a public hearing on
the matter. If the proposed ordinance meets your objectives,
please present it to the P & Z.
SS/pk
Attachment
Rt
F ASPEN C T "O
I Y
aspen,colorado, s1sn hox v
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 17, 1976
TO: �M,/embers of City Council
FROMY�/tS/andra M. Stuller
RE: Graphics on Structures or Buildings
- Requested Ordinance
As you will recall, last summer the Aspen Arts Founda-
tion city-wide amateur painting contest caused a great deal of con-
cern among Council Members over the City's lack of any control over
graphics on privately owned buildings and fences. Last fall, a re-
quest was'made that I consider proposing some legislation so the
City is not without regulations again in the 1976 building and
summer season.
The Municipal Code has a variety of provisions con-
cerning outdoor signing, none of which reach the precise problem
at hand.
1. Chapter 3 is concerned with temporary outdoor
signs and banners for special events which cannot be
displayed more than six (6) days before (or twenty-four
(24) hours after) the program advertised, and are
limited to advertising events of community interest.
2. Article V of Chapter 24 of the Code (zoning
code) has very detailed sign regulations, but they
are limited in their application to signs used to
identify a premises or advertise a product.
Consequently, although temporary banners and commercial signing is
well regulated, we, at present, have no ordinance provisions that
will control the painting of large scale permanent graphics not
used for advertising purposes, but only for their artistic effect.
The Historic Preservation Committee, while wishing
•
Members of City Council
February 17, 1976
-Page 2-
to encourage the duplication of historical signs (usually advertis-
ing), has had continuing concern that most modern graphics would
not be compatible with the facades they try continually to preserve
and enhance in the Historic District. They should, I think, be in-
volved in any review process for graphic permits issued.
My recommendation to
define graphic designs in Article
a permit must be applied for them
on approval from the City Council
HPC when appropriate). A proposed
SS/pk
Attachment
deal with the problem is to
5 of Chapter 24, and provide that
which permit can be issued only
(after recommendation from the
ordinance is attached.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 5, 1976
TO: Members of City Council
FROM%andra M. Stuller
RE: Attached Ordinance Amending
"Area & Bulk Requirements"
The Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning Office
have initiated a series of minor changes to the "Area and Bulk
Requirements" chart of the Zoning Code which is part of Section
24-3..4 and found at Page 1453. The P & Z conducted a public
hearing on the proposed changes February 3rd and recommended
approval. The changes can be illustrated on the attached three
sheets; the first showing the chart as it presently is, the
second with the changes crossed out and inserted by hand, and
the third showing the chart after the deletions and changes.
The effect of the changes is:
1. To delete all references to a distinction between
"unsubdivided" and "subdivided" lands in the "Minimum
Lot Area" and "Hinimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit" and
"Minimum Lot widths" in the R-15, R-30, R-40 and RR
districts. As originally conceived, the chart imposed a
penalty on rural and unsubdivided lands by requiring
more lot area to support a proposed development. The
P & Z found (a) this inequitable, and (b) of no effect,
in fact, because all lands proposed for development are
either already subdivided or propose subdivision prior
to development. (This is because of the continuing ex-
pansion of the definition of subdivision over the years.)
2. To delete the "9,000 Dup" and "3,000 Dup" in
the"Minimum Lot Area" and"Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling
Unit" categories, respectively, in the R/MF district,
because the P & Z would like duplexes to be limited in
the number of bedrooms in the same fashion as multi-
family structures, and have a minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet similar to all structures.
I1eml,er:, of City Council
February 5, 1976
-Faq 2-
Note that by deleting the "9,000 Di,p" in the "Minimum
Lot Area" in the R/MF, the retention of the "6,000 MF" and
"4000 I3d IIs" distinctions become redundant, and they have also
been dropped.
If you are interested in the recommended changes, an
ordinance incorporating them is attached for your consideration.
SS/pk
Attachment
d
o �
., •�
1
u
U' J
00
U J
p•
w
t
ti
S.
(Q a)
O
O
G
\
CC
ar
1�+
C)
Ln m
cm)
cm)
C)
V 41
Y: N
O
Er
a 0
.,-+ N
VI U
O� y C
aj
N
O
ro
J V:
c rF••,-.
Ul CI Ia :.
h
U
U
.,Ni y 3
P.
v, C� .-i cr 1 1
O w
r-1
44 7 0
O C_q
C)
•� to En
m
W
(l a) N G
1
V F
a
a
H
In
•Q
14 0 C,
[K
CV
.. o t.
to C)
p0
M
iR
U t, o
v
C1 N J E-
N
m
N
`
U
W
v n .-j A t4
>,
vi
L aJ F O
4J :C
ro U 1 r
r
N
U� '�
m
t t+ H 1
W W w
N
.,..1 , c c�
� C: fn
1 1
N
N
'C3 ,l L:)
C. LeiS. ty
L. Ll TJ
N M
W Z, .-, Vi rV V
co GO l+ 00
.r, Ul L A
CL
V, A :2 CQ
V) C] VI I 1 1 N
.ni .Ci y ,Ci
OM Op OM ��
N
O
\
000 0
C) OC)
C)
C.�-1 N.4
►i
O
O O O O
O C O N D E U
10
+a '-, U •• 4
C,
cl A.0 0ri
+-,
O 0 apO
O O
Mai .rN MAY (n
V
O •,1 Q)
ro
I
i{
t1 'Ci .'a
�
N V7
1 1
Q
•C7 1
1
�� O VI ul >v O
m �
O
W V7
O
Cn .-1 U CP C N cn
41
,�
(y
U C -.-, O 1
i 1 a
i CI ro -.i -4 N
L 'O •--4 to En
b Z Q b m T C
i4 11 fJ
O
:J N
O V7
a N
.--1 Z1 'L7 ri N N CP
.-I •O •O .-i 00 N
to
Gl Cn W
-+ C -1 3 U
.4 c i C o
00
op
oo
0^
�� ro UA U•.i
p a ro o m 1
a
0 0
0 0
0 0
"` ri
q [l A �S C1
a o
Co
� N
O In I'-1
�•, U tT >, C)• •,i
r, a) mn0 >. d u m ea
O4 oN
A.
Ooo
a Y. G t, fn 7
G (v o A n -
� Q1 •.i O 1 N 1?
VI
fn JJ
'l. O
W F.
o
O
T
v
W O
p
M
a 1n
o ,n
o cn
1
N
4-3
tiff
O O
O
m
C. O
C) o
O O
CD o v
.-, .i
m
m
m
p1 u
G1
10
W •t1
N
�
C C
'aM
o
N 1 'O ul al v
ar
c�
o
a b>ro
ro
41 -H •11 C.
to
Vi
N1
JJ {J > V U
roEE
.�tr
,-O,v0)�
m 1
00 v
b
4 w
ro C) 7 44 c11
2 c
X W t,
C
C
C
s
00 .� t• C 7
Cl I ro
� cn
V
O V) m •.i O C) 1J
O V1
1
s~
-rC1 'U m 1 W .a
ro
r, r , . 1 O
'-
0 0 R7 •,1 c 0
p ,n
•p `t m m m T V%
Q .-,
Cn CL 11 Cq
1
[�
0 0
�O11WO
Oob
nr�
o�
.iv v w 00w
,i U C G O 1
p� p,
c�
C a.-,
i A 1
CD C)
X
7 L +i •.i VI
U
Q
N
ri O) N 4i
N 1 ro r, O dl
1J W 17 •c7 •-� v m m
, •� OO
�
1 of
o
o>.
1 I x
t1 C) C 44 to CO
N
¢ a) m A A w O
04
a�oo,d�
,d
v v
U
ri
W
p A
'C7
p
p
O
.--4 O T V1
v1
DG
P. r-1 ° ri
O
i i m 1
O
1
u m
4
i 00 U 00
1+ C U C
U
G
u
M
7
C Q•
In
J ro-4
�-
C) 0 >
.1 O rG ro co.
v N
v
u
v
�.
>
v
m
v
44
-•1 rJ t4
A > •., a, C)
v
7 •-, U E.
to
K A n. O N
v u
a v m
o
>+
:3 Vl U C+
H '0
4 w
`'
3
u
to CL
¢ c
a C
C
y
00
O1 +-1
•L1
..1
J N to V
W
•v
v u
7
(S.
7 m
:1 v C
:
7
7
pp
PG
El m
a
r.n
0
U tn
a)
H
''i
ti
?
cn 1>a
I
O
\
C)
I �a >4
CN
C)
N
O.O
+-�
N
CJ
V.
U N
>, 3 4-)0
-�i aJ 3
�
►i u
_
w 7 O
O
1
i ro N
w
w
U
w
d
O d
a
m
q
f') C)
o
O M
U
N 1 4J S
v
y � •.i A w
>,
U)
4) }J O
JJ
ro U •.i 1
•• t is is
H
•.i it C C x
LI w m m
I I
H
H
'LJ IJ a r3 4-1
C N ro
al H N t•'i C) 1
E'a .-• +J Lr)'J Ir
H T
c0 00 w 00
•J
•.i U)+j A
[4
(n 1J V] 1 1 I N
..Ga on •.Ga
QI
O
\
n
C, 0 0 0 0
CD r'1 7 •
.+
U' O N- O
O G H w H
ri
O
W
p
p
O r„I C7 Ln
CD
O O N r D u E U
D +a u
iJ
H •.i U
w 7 O U 7 .n
H
•• f
O O 'a
D
�D ro r7 c, M X UJ
P p H¢ p
4-1
O i a)
ro
1
ti
$4 C3
N
sL
0) 4-)1
Ll
N . 0) N 0 >.O
0
q y�
p
H C trU trl4 M
`
C H U C •14 O I
1 1 :D
•.i al ro -H .-i N
4J
ro t b H N V)
C
LI V !1
0
, i `a ro, i O a) to
-.� C •-+ 3 U C
O
O
p � i-) ro� Q u -4
Ln
a
o
C)
A a Qaro
$4
1!) - .-1
v
U Ca1
ri n >, CD � • A
a
1
N
r1 X C it M U7 :3
O I N .0
N
In 4J
N �
'
Wo
EL
�
O
o
H U
1J
O
a >
a
o
C) a�i
Ol
a
•�
a�
N
-
C)
- ro
b > b
w
R
+J4-)
O
a.ri
>1�, x
1W • A •ri C
4J V > iJ a
v,
14
(a .,A o -H u E
•J
.-i b+
c
� ro -4 ro
ro
ro F.•4
ro (1) E jw N
O C
t><. ra PC
R. En Q)
O
X W P
� �
Q C
a) C) I ro
N •ri C) a) iJ
�J '
ro
Q
ri H •.i O
is Cl. 1J q
ri
I
ro•riCoC
v,
C-)
0 27 X E�� 44
O
^ b
•.i a) Ln W
o>
w
H
i ro., O v
•i p4
:J C w N CO
VJ
ar000roro
—4
co 0 Z CQ
4J
1 1
to
v o
U
H H
W
ro
1
O
O
O H O T cn
O
Pi
p
p
.D co .--4 w H
p O
C. •
Ln
v-1 1 y 1
O
U N
G1
yJ
eD U 00
41
U
u
00
N
'•-1
CwJ i-.
.Ci
oOG ro to
w $w.
w U
3 of
w w
•� -�
rl U 4J "
7 w
Gi
ro 11 C
V C
w C
•,.{ Cl C)
v ti
w 7 w
D
U Ei 'b13
O
u tw.
Jr
C4 O U)
w-
w w m
V
fn U a)
c
w rJ
¢ C:
w W
¢
+a
3 e
1 1
u
w
u w
u O
to v a
G7
5'
C v
El V) Co
Fi
7 to
Ei y
V C
F7 00
7
�I w
C c
wCJ
'•a �;
a
>: :3
Iq
a
1
u
O
C)'
o
O
w
wN
N U
V N
C� N
H
N
G
00 w
N G)
G F w a.
V -4
•-a w rn c.
4J
N
." li
V)O
r :3 1 1
.
o
y)
w N O
CD,
pN
N 61
u
1
cc H 1
K
h
to H
v1 1 w 1 o ' a •`-1
w H v c=2
G•� U C wA
H w N +a
v 3 v H Tc
00 w •--
.i G .-1 C O
.a P. ro H U1 '
w N H w
H U [J T w U
H X G w 0 3 u=
¢ w M O N W-
0
v
m
w
03
In
m 1
- `v
o H
M +i T H 'l7 M
toH w G 7
G O 1 <c G
-H w fn1
i u c c o 1
O a-1 U +a -.a Ln
n nca-oH cn m
w H H w 00
H u v
� w w A to
1 Ln
N
Cy
Cd
4
N
O
.i3
M
5^
V
H
rHM.
c
A
L-7
a
.a
V
ca
o
(�
u
d
�
W
a
a
4
LJ.
0
M
Cd
O
M
v
V
V V
�1 0
I, l�
N •f•
7• d
N
Et �i N
O
p
L:
•cl r �
O O
.V vI
r
O
:y
i
G
A
N •�
�
A
N
^
V�
�
V 1 J ♦ ♦ ♦
`�
1
E�-
� ,� N i.n
• x c-i
O C� N .--. t7 •..
O V
N
7
C4
Cl
M
V
t,
V ro
�d
§
a rn to
T i
.`r a
" O•_
•
l n N � l: C. O,
I C•)
i
c4
O
to
V N •7
.
F. n�4A�
m N rOJ
.rJ U ¢ T V V J
G V O
V
t
Ct
7-3 G 7
G O
4 C; Q
i
t4
u mNQ
cci
0
m
d
m
a
I
mGooQ,�
G
V C O
A a n D w u •o
.-• cUi 'l7
O
8
p O
Q ,cam
to
'
•3
° m z
... to
•
F
T�
f:
L: U
O C- U
3
•r:
is
_
a
E c
7 d
o
7 d
d
I
cs
'+
.. . _ .-_ �..-. _. - _— e+,-w.r•..«.�.�.
..-..+.r...«....�.
_
- .. .,.«.._ems«-... _ .. �wrr
.. ... w.. ...... ��
_.wr••a .. _...r. ..�....�...,.
•...r�n.V.. +a+; w.•a M4M.
•
0
CITY O`�' ASPEN
13 0 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 10, 1975
TO: Members of City Council
FRO rr% , andra M. Stuller
RE: Ordinances 66 and 67
The Planning and Zoning Commission has held the requisite
public hearings and made recommendations with respect to Ordinances
66 and 67 as follows:
1. Ordinance 66 - Animals in Residential Districts
- recommend for adoption - this recommendation comes with-
out comment.
2. Ordinance 67 - Open Space at Grade - this zoning
code change was initiated by the City Council - the
Commission recommends against adoption, noting: 0 ;1 a 0
a. Below and above grade open space may achieve
the purposes of the open space dedication and yet
permit variety.
b. If the concern of the City Council is that
open space is not being used by the public, a build-
ing permit should be denied if the inspector feels
the design of the open space area will not encourage
public use or is univiting. This can be done through
an interpretation of the open space requirement as it
now reads.
The ordinances are attached for your further consideration.
SS/pk
Attachment
•
"N
cily C,;'_ _'f . ,, S .vim L.
w
130 suii11} a VeLia stye e
aspen.) v(p , o i,atir81 6.1 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 12, 1975
TO: Members of City Council
FROM:r)aandra M. Stuller
RE: Amendment to Sec. 24-9.2 of the Zoning Code
- Membership of HPC
The HPC has requested that you consider an amendment
to Sec. 24-9.2 of the Zoning Code to allow the appointment of
alternates to their committee. The HPC has experienced
difficulty in maintaining a quorum because of long absences
by various members.
The Zoning Code provides that amendments to its text
can be initiated only by the P & Z and City Council. Your
request for an amendment is submitted to the P & Z for
recommendation and then adopted by you by ordinance.
The HPC is asking that you increase committee member-
ship by three and designate all three as alternates. Please
let me know if you wish to honor this request.
SS/pk
cc: John Stanford
•
MEMORANDUM
0
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE:' Six (6) Month Leasing Restrictions for R/MF, 0, and C-1 Zones
DATE: December 9, 1976
On December 7, 1976 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
to the City Council the adoption of minimum six month lease requirements
for the R/MF, 0, and C-1 zone districts. As background material for
your consideration, we enclose the following information which was
considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission pertinent to their
recommendation.
1. August 30, 1976
2. October 15, 1976
3. November 11, 1976
4. November 14, 1976
5. November 23, 1976
6. December 7, 1976
Letter from Sandy Stuller
Memo from Planning Office
Memo from Planning Office
Public Hearing
Memo from Planning Office
P & Z Resolution
The Planning Office regards this amendment as the implementation of a
tool to issue compliance with the intentions of multi -family zones
within the City.
The Planning Office recommends adoption of the six month minimum leasing
restrictions as recommended by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Six Month Lease Restrictions
-DATE: November 23, 1976
The Planning Staff has met with the City Attorney to review the six
month minimum lease proposal. We recommend adoption of the following
code changes:
1. The adoption of a six (6) month minimum lease
restriction for new multi -family structures in the
R/MF, 0, and C-1 zone districts.
2. Exemption of present multi -family or multi -family
structures authorized by a building permit from
these restrictions.
3. Allowance of two (2) rental periods per year in
addition to the "master" long term rental of six
months duration.
4. Condominiumizations of existing multi -family structures
shall be subject to these lease restrictions.
5. Single-family and duplex units within these zone
districts shall be exempt from these provisions.
6. Multiple ownerships or leases of single units shall be
considered a re -subdivision of these units.
The City Attorney will draft an ordinance incorporating your recommendations
for final consideration at your December 7, 1976 meeting.
1
11
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning Commission
Planning Staff (HC)
Multi -family Housing Restrictions - Six (6) Month Lease
November 11, 1976
This is a public hearing to consider propoed changes to the Aspen
Zoning Code so as to limit rentals of units in the R/MF, 0, NC, C-1
and S/C/I zone districts. The amendment to Section 24-3.7 of the
Aspen Municipal Code would prohibit the leasing for less than a six
month period of any multi -family structure.
Multi -family structures are allowed by right in the R/M/F, 0, and
C-1 zones. In the N/C and S/C/I zones they are allowed as conditional
uses for "accessory dwelling units".
The Planning Office recommends adoption of the minimum six month lease
restrictions for the R/M/F, 0, and C-1 zones where multi -family uses
are allowed by right. We enclose our memo of October 15, 1976 and the
memo from Sandy Stuller dated August 30, 1976 as additional background
material in support of this zoning change.
vy [13 RN 114
TO: Aspen Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Multi -family Housing Restrictions
DATE: October 15, 1976
We continue to experience difficulty with providing guarantees for
long term housing construction in the various multi -family zones,
particularly R-MF. The R-MF zone district clearly states the
intention to be the following:
"To provide for the use of land for intensive
long term residential purposes, with customary
accessary uses . . . "
The physical design of long term housing units is initially the
same as that for short term tourist oriented housing. Therefore,
the land use application, cannot distinguish the ultimate use of the
dwelling units. In addition, market pressures for the highest economic
return for the developer promote the building of tourist units to the
exclusion of long term housing units. A significant community need
exists for permanent housing which is being subverted by this market
pressure for tourist unit construction.
The Planning Office feels that the major zones impacted by this market
pressure are the R-MF, 0, NC, CC, C-1 and SCI districts.
The language for the proposed zoning amendment could be the following
to apply to the above listed zone categories:
No unit within a multi -family structure shall be let
for any term less than six (6) months.
We refer the Planning Commission to the memorandum of Sandy Stuller,
dated August 30, 1976, which discusses the background of the six (6)
month leasing provision and the merits of same. The R-6, R-15, and
R-30 zones are not subject to the intense tourist unit development
pressure as the more dense zones listed above. Therefore, we have
omitted them from the proposal for minimum six -(6) month leasing restrictions.
In summary, we agree with the City Attorney as to the probable difficulty
of enforcement of these restrictions, but feel the necessity for attempting
this use restriction is the over-riding issue. We are open to further
suggestions as to methods of insuring long term use of multi -family
structures.
•
•
CITY OFASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, col 0rado,,' 81 b 1 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 30, 1976
TO: Members of Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:f/andra M. Stuller
RE: Six Month Leasing Provision
Members of the P&Z:
At their last meeting the Council requested that I
initiate consideration of a new zoning code amendment requiring
six month leasing provisions for all building permit applicants
(in lieu of relying on the application of this requirement
only to subdividers who do not contest the issue). Your Com-
mission has continuously supported the insertion of this require-
ment whenever possible. Consequently, I think it appropriate
to once more initiate discussion of this matter and request that
the issue be put on an agenda at your earliest convenience. At
this point let me recount (for the benefit of new Commission
members) the history of a similar code provision earlier adopted
by the P&Z but rejected by the City Council. .
In 1973-1974 the Commission considered three drafts
of the new zoning code, the second and third of which contained
the following provision among the code's "supplementary regula-
tions":
o
I. Limitations on Leasing
1. In order to preserve the character of the
residential zone districts and provide necessary
housing for the community's permanent population,
there shall be imposed limitations on rental of
housing units as herein provided.
2. In the R-6, 1-11-15, R-30, R-40, and RR zone
districts, no residential unit shall be let more
than twice within any calendar year, provided that
Memorandum to Members of Planning and Zoning Commission
August 30', 1976
Page 2
nothing herein shall limit the term of any
such lease.
3. Within the R/MF, O, NC, or N/C/I
district, no -unit within a multi -family
structure shall be let for any term less than
six (6) months.
There was much opposition to this code provision and, although
its adoption was recommended by the P&Z, the City Council dropped
it on the second reading of Ordinance 11, 1975 (the recodifica-
tion of the zoning code). Let me attempt to summarize some of
the arguments made at the hearings in 1975 against its adoption:
1. Certain residential areas have historically short
termed to Institute -and other visitors, and this
activity has not undermined the residential character
of these areas.
2. The prohibition will not operate to provide
necessary housing for locals inasmuch as no local
will want to rent a residence which he must periodically
vacate when the absentee owner wishes to vacation in
Aspen; in addition, the City's restrictive zoning will
push housing costs to higher levels, and this rental
restriction cannot possibly off set this real cost
increase for residential housing in the community.
3. The prohibition will deprive all part-time resi-
dents of rental income without demonstrated benefit
to the community.
4. There may be a present imbalance between visitor_
accommodations and resident accommodations; but there
is no evidence of a surplus of single family and
duplex type accommodations (with their amenities)
that exist in the various residential districts and
the restriction can only reduce the availiabity of
this type of accommodation to visitors.
�. she restriction in the residential districts
limiting rental not more than twice within any
calendar year means that a single Christmas/New
Year's rental will count as two rentals (one in
each calendar year). Having done this the property
owner then faces the choice of (a) not renting during
the summer when we are seeking to attract more visitors,
or (b) not renting until after the following January 1,
thereby holding accommodations vacant during critical
overcrowding.
i
11
Memorandum to Members of Planning and Zoning Commission
August.30, 1976
Page 3
6. The prohibition seems to be of the type which is
very difficult to enforce; it will be honored more in
the breach than observance, and, consequently, work
an injustice to those who obey it while others flaunt
it.
7. The combination of owner use plus rentals has con-
tributed fiscally and aesthetically to the City; fis-
cally because rentals generate sales tax, and aesthe-
tically because income production permits an owner to
maintain and improve his property.
8. The six month lease provision may work a penalty
on a transient employee who wishes to stay less than
a full six months; specifically he would be liable
for rent for the entire period without regard to
actual time spent in Aspen.
Much of the opposition to the proposal was organized by Kay
Reid who informed all owners of her listings and introduced
letters of opposition from many into the record. They are
on file in the Clerk's office for your reading, if interested.
It was apparent that a substantial part of the oppo-
sition concerned applications of the leasing limitations to the
single family and duplex areas (R-6 and R-15 districts) although
some of the arguments made have equal applicability to leasing
limitations in multi -family districts. -'he planning office's
rationale for application of the restriction in all residential
districts was that:
1. It was necessary to concentrate tourist uses in
and'near the commercial core so as to supply necessary
mass transportation;
2. The restriction was necessary to maintain the
residential character of the west end and other single
family areas; and
3. Only by application of the limitations to all
districts can we insure that housing will remain
available to residents (not just seasonal employees).
It is my recollection that during the rezoning process, the
planning office recommendation for allowable density in the R/MF
district was increased (in anticipation of the application of
the 6 month leasing provision), as a technique for encouraging
1pcal housing.
In any event, as is evident by the controversy generated
r
Memorandum to Members of Planning and Zoning Commission.
August 30, 1976
Page 4
to date on this question, you have your work cut out for you
on this issue. I would suggest that you must initially decide
(1) whether all residential. or just R/MF districts should be
considered,- (2) what enforcgment techniques are available
(so.that the prohibition is not illusory), (3) what can be done
about its application to existing structures (without flying
in the face of the prohibition against retroactive legislation),
and (4) what, if any, real impacts can this type of regulation have
on the City's housing problem.
SMS : MC
cc ✓Hal Clark
Bill Kane
Nina Johnston
i
0 •
DOCUMENTS ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING RECORD OF THE 0-OFFICE DISTRICT
1. Public notice published in the Aspen Times.
2. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting regarding
the development and discussion of the new 0-Office District
3. Planning Office memorandum establishing Criteria for Determination.
4. Land Use Plan for Main Street.
5. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolutions dated April 2, 1976,
and August 24, 1976 making various recommended Amendments to the
Aspen Zoning Code including the new 0-Office District.
6. Planning Office memorandum to Council discussing the Planning and
Zoning Commission Zoning Amendment REcommendations.
Vv
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office Staff
RE: Planning & Zoning Amendment Recommendations
DATE: September 20, 1976
Planning and Zoning Commission amendment recommendations are presented
below. Most of the recommendations were included in the April 2
Resolution, however, the 0-Office district has changed considerably
and the CC -Commercial Core FAR recommendation was acted on by Council
on ?avv ?i,51 / �Fv L.
These zoning amendments were initiated by Council's concern for the
excessive amount of building (primarily non-residential construction)
that occurred in the summer of 1975 shortly after adoption of the new
zoning code. Recommendations generally reduce building mass in
non-residential districts and change specific residential districts
to lower density zones. The proposed amendments are listed below
by zoning districts accompanied by comments that help explain the
proposal.
CC -Commercial Core - Council reversed the Planning And Zoning Commission
recommendation to alter the 2:1 external floor area ratio (FAR). The
recommendation provided for a net FAR of 1.5:1 with a bonus FAR by
Special Review to permit an additional 0.2:1 FAR Commercial when accompanied
by 0.3:1 FAR accessory residential (resulting in a gross maximum
FAR of 2:1). Council's action maintained the present FAR of 2:1 by right.
Cl-Commercial One - The Commission recommends that the external FAR
be reduced from 1.5:1 to 1:1. This will reduce building massing within
the C-1 district, however, the Commission further recommends that there
be given a density bonus of .5 for residential uses. The Commission's
opinion is that the mix of commercial"and residential uses is appro-
priate in the C-1 district.
The Commission recommends that the height limitation in this district be
reduced from 40 feet to 32 feet, with a right to construct to the full
40 feet being given only on Special Review. The recommendation is
made because the desired density -,reduction in this district can be
achieved by the change in FAR recommended above and in some instances
40 foot buildings may be desirable to encourage variations in building
heights within this district both to eliminate the now monotonous skyline
and provide view planes around structures.
CL-Commercial. Lodge - The Commission recommends a reduction of the
external FAR in this zone from 2:1 to 1.5:1, inasmuch as the existing
FAR would permit a building bulk and mass that could constitute an
unacceptable barrier between the City and its mountain surroundings.
The Commission recommends the height limitation in this district be
reduced from 40 feet to 28 feet, with a right to construct to the full
40 feet being given only on Special Review. The reasons and rational
for this recommendation are the same as those given above for the C1
district.
MEMO • •
CITY COUNCIL
P & Z 7.MI:NDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
September 20, 1976
,*Vi
NC-PUD-Neighborhood Commercial.-PUD - The Commission recommends the.
reduction of the existing external FAR from 1:1 to 0.5:1 to insure
that the Neighborhood Commercial developments are of a scale that is
compatible with the residential areas they are designed to service.
Also, the reduced FAR allows for a more reasonable building area to
lot area ratio since on -site parking is required at four (4) spaces
per 1,000 square feet of building area.
Example: 10,000 square feet of NC-PUD lot area
would require the following:
25% open space - 2,500 sq.ft.
Max.Building Area (0.5:1 FAR) = 5,000 sq.ft.
Parking (20 spaces -at 300 sq.ft.
per space) = 6,000 sq.ft.
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE = 13,500 sq.ft.
Excess square footage of
either building or parking
to be located above or below
grade level. = 3,500 sq.ft.
It is obvious that the present 1:1 FAR ratio in the NC district would
be almost impossible to develop and provde the required amount of
parking.
S/C/I-Service Commercial/Industrial - The Commission recommends the
reduction of the existing external FAR in the S/C/I districts from
2:1 to 1:1 because the existing FAR would permit buildings of a size
and mass incompatible with the areas in which the S/C/I zone has been
designated (the periphery of the center as opposed to the commercial
core).
0-Office - The Office district has undergone considerable study and
revision since Planning and Zoning's initial recommendation in April.
That recommendation was later altered to conform to more desirable
area and bulk requirements and to provide incentives to preserve a
number of historic structures that exist along Main Street and the
other Office districts near the center of town. The present recommend-
ation is presented here.
The Commission recommends the proposed amendment to the Office One (0-1)
and Office Two (0-2) zone categories to create one office district (0)
with the following elements:
INTENT - To provide for the establishment of offices and
associated commercial uses in such a way as to
preserve the visual scale and character of formerly
residential areas that now are adjacent to commer-
cial and business areas and along Main Street and
other high volume thoroughfares.
PERMITTED USES - Single family duplex and multi -family residence;
professional and business offices, accessory
buildings and uses; accessory dwelling units
recognized in an approved housing plan by special
review of the planning commission.
CONDITIONAL USES - Fraternal lodges, boarding houses, shop craft
industry, restaurants, antique store, furniture
store, bookstore, florist, visual arts gallery,
music store, (for the sale of musical instruments),
nursery -day care center, art, dance and music
studio, mortuary; provided, however, that conditional
uses shall be considered (1) only for structures
which have received historic designation, (2) for
no more than two such conditional uses in each
structure (not including within such limitatLon
accessory dwelling units recognized in an approved
-2-
MEMO • •
CITY COUNCIL
P & Z AMENDMENT RECOMM :NDATIONS
September 20, 1976
housing plan), and (3) only when off-street
parking is provided with alley access for
those conditional uses along Main Street.
Section 24-3.4 Area and Bulk Requirements
MINIMUM LOT AREA - 6,000 sq.ft.
(square feet unless
designated in acres)
MINIMUM LOT AREA PER
DWELLING UNIT -
(square feet unless
designated in acres)
EXCLUSIVE OF
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
6,000 SF
3,000 Dup
1,000 St
1,250 - 1 Br*
2,100 - 2 Br*
3,630 - 3 Br*
Br &1 - SR
For maximum density
see Sec. 24-3.7 (k)
* On sites 9,000 square feet or less, the following square footage
requirements: 1,200 - 1 Br
2,000 - 2 Br
3,000 - 3 Br
MINIMUM
LOT WIDTH -
(feet)
60
MINIMUM
FRONT YARD
- Principal
Bldg. -
10
(feet)
MINIMUM
SIDE YARD -
5
(feet)
MINIMUM
REAR YARD -_Principal
Bldg.
15
(feet)
Accessory
Bldg.
15
MAXIMUM
HEIGHT -
Principal
Bldg.
25
(feet)
Accessory
Bldg.
21, on front 2/3 of lot
12, on rear 1/3 of lot
MINIMUM
DISTANCE BETWEEN
PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY
BLDG.
(feet)
10,
PER CENT OF OPEN SPACE -
REQUIRED FOR BUILDING
SITE (percentage) No requirement
EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO - .75 by right;
.25 accessory dwelling
units recognized in an
approved housing plan;
type and mix of units
to be determined by the
planning commission and
housing authority
INTERNAL FLOOR AREA No requirement
-3-
' MEMO . •
CITY COUNCIL
P & Z AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
September 20, 1976
Section 24-4.5(c) Off-street ParkingL Requirements
That the parking requirements for the 0 and 0-2 office districts
be repealed and that there be established the following off-street
parking requirements for the newly established 0-Office District.
LODGE RESIDENTIAL OTHER
USES USES USES
NA 1/Bedroom 3/1000 sq.ft. by
right. Fewer spaces
can be permitted by
special review (SR)
by the Planning and
Zoning Commission but
no less than 1.5
spaces per 1000 sq.ft.
Considerable discussion centered on several of the Office district
regulations, namely permitted and conditional uses, determination
of how the type and density of accessory housing units would be
determined, floor area ratio and parking. Initially the Planning Office
proposed that professional and.business offices be a conditional
use and be located in a designated historic structure. The Planning
and Zoning Commission included offices as a use by right since the
only other uses by right, particularly for non -historic or vacant
properties, were residential.
A list of conditional uses were selected to stimulate preservation of
the historic structures along Main Street as well as in the other Office
areas around the commercial center of town. The primary criteria for
the initial list of uses was that they not create excessive parking
and that they not be exclusively tourist oriented. Two additions to
the list are restaurants and shop craft industries. Restaurants were
included since they can serve various lodges adjacent to and near Main
Street. Shop craft industries were also added at the request of Terese
David who plans to sell her present botique and open a new specialty,
handmade clothing store next door.
The Planning Office developed a land``use plan for Main Street and a list
of suggested criteria by which these conditional uses would be reviewed.
The plan recommends that conditional uses be more restricted in their
number and intensity as the distance from the commercial core increases.
For instance, the Main Street properties between Aspen and Monarch Streets are
more appropriate for limited commercial development due to close
proximity to the commercial core and the present land use pattern.
Limited commercial along Main Street between Paepcke Park and Fourth
or Fifth Streets should be carefully analyzed according to the particular
use proposed, the exact location, adjacent development and size of the
proposed use. The extreme western section of Main Street is flanked by
primarily small residential structures and additional development here
should be very restricted and limited to office use. These same con-
siderations should be used in reviewing proposals in the other Office
district locations also.
The Commission recommends a FAR of 0.75:1 for the new Office district,
a reduction from 1:1 of the former 0-1 Office One district. A FAR
bonus of an additional 0.25:1 for accessory housing is also included
in the recommendation which would permit buildings to increase the
FAR to 1:1. The .75:1 FAR together with front, rear and side yard
setbacks and the 25 foot height limit was derived to encourage new
-4-
MEMO
CITY COUNCIL
P & Z AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
September 20, 1976
developments to have a massing that would be sympathetic with the
remaining residential structures in the Office districts. Based on
the recent processing of one proposal along Main Street, there is
justification to consider a further reduction in FAR. However, due to
the complexity of these present amendments, the Planning Office
recommends that Council act on these amendments and then request a
new look at the Office District FAR.
The parking requirement are similar to the former office districts,
three (3) spaces per 1,000 square feet of building. The P & Z reso-
lution fails to include a parking requirement for restaurants (4 spaces
per 1,000 square feet). This requirement was deleted at the time
restaurants were eliminated as a conditional use and it was an over-
sight that the restaurant parking requirement was not added when
restaurants were reintroduced as a conditional use.
Amendments to the parking requirements also included the provision
to permit by special review less than the three (3) spaces per
1,000 square feet of building area but no less than 1.5 spaces
per 1,000 square feet. This provision will allow flexibility to
reduce parking for those office and limited commerical uses that
can clearly demonstrate that the three (3) spaces per 1,000 square
feet is in excess of the parking demands that will actually be
generated.
Determination of the type and density of dwelling units accessory to
offices was confusing given the requirements for minimum lot area
per dwelling unit and the bonus FAR for office buildings incorporating
housing designed for long term occupancy and incorporated in an approved
housing plan. P & Z recommended that the type and mix (density) of
accessory housing could be reviewed and determined by special review
with assistance from the City/County Housing Authority.
CC and C-1 Floor Area Ratio Calculations - The Commission recommends
that in calculating FAR in the CC and C-1 districts all basements and
subbasements shall be included in FAR calculations regardless of use
with the exception of basement or sub -basements devoted to off-street
parking. Accessory basement and sub -basement storage areas and parking
in districts other than CC and C-1 s1,4all not be included in FAR cal-
culations.
Chanties to the Square Footage Limitations of Section 24-3.6 - Food store.
The Commission recommends the reduction from 20,000 square feet to
12,000 square feet net for food products only, and an additional 3,000
square feet for additional grocery accessory products and storage
.(gross total 15,000 square feet) because it will preclude the construc-
tion of massive groceries, and force the development of smaller
localized food service areas which are both more compatible with the
scale of the Aspen area and will generate less cross-town traffic.
Major Applicance. The Commission recommends the reduction from 12,000
square feet to 9,000 square feet as the square footage limitation for
major applicance stores, as 9,000 square feet is adequate for this use
and will insure construction of such stores at a scale compatible with
the Asepn Area.
Rezoning of Lots D, E, F, G, H and I of Block 78 from Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) to the Office (0) District.
The Commission recommends against the rezoning of Lots D, E, F, G,
H and I of Block 78 from Neighborhood Commercial./Specially Planned
Area (NC/SPA) to the new Office (0) district inasmuch as there has
been no demonstration that the present zoning is inappropriate and the
office designation has received no support at all.
The remaining amendments relate to zone district changes in residential
areas that would reduce densities. The P & Z did not accept all the
original proposals and P & Z's actions on these areas are included.
-5-
. , MEMO .
CITY COUNCIL
P & Z AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
September 20, 1976
Mixed Residential (West)_ - The Commission recommends the change of
the zoning of this area from I1-6 to R-15 inasmuch as the area (i) pro-
vides a transition area with adjacent county zone districts, (ii) is
limited in its development by the potential acquisition and utilization
(for public transit) of the Midland Right -of -Way, and (iii) will pro-
vide a gracious residential neighborhood for the community.
Oklahoma Flats - The Commission recommends the rezoning of this
area from R-15 PUD to R-30 PUD because the area has limited access
and other development constraints that preclude intelligent develop-
ment at R-15 densities.
Holy Cross Property - The Commission recommends the rezoning of this
tract from R-15 PUD to R-30 PUD.as such zone (1) will be compatible
with adjacent zone districts, and (ii) recognizes the reduced develop-
ment of the area anticipated in the Aspen Area Greenway Plan.
Aspen One - The Commission recommends the rezoning of this property
from R-6 PUD to R-15 PUD for the same reasons described for the
Hold Cross Property.
Riverside Property - The Commission recommends the rezoning of this
area from R-6 PUD to R-15 PUD becauue (i) it is shaded by high bluffs
resulting in a sunless area, not suitable for intense residential
development, and (ii) the area has very steep terrain.
Spring and Main (NE Block) - The Commission recommends against the
rezoning of this area from R/MF to R-6 PUD inasmuch as the present
zoning is correct as the area offers an appropriate site for multi -family
development.
Lakeview Subdivision - The Commission is satisfied that, because of
limited access, the area is comparable to Oklahoma Flats in its
development potential, and that, consequently, reduction in allowable
density is appropriate. The Commission would recommend, however,
that the area be rezoned from R-6 to R-30 PUD but realize that,
because this change was not advertised, the Commission is (at this time)
limited to a recommended change to R-15 PUD.
R-15 Lodge (PUD) - The Commission recommends against the rezoning of
R-15L PUD districts to R-30L PUD inasmuch as retention of the R-15L
PUD should encourage the construction'of additional lodging units at
the base of the mountain.
-6-
r-I
LJ
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF CONDITONAL USES ALONG MAIN STREET
The review and approval of conditional uses along Main Street should
first meet the code requirements as specified in the permitted and
conditonal uses chart Section 24-3.2 in the 0-Office District. These
requirements are:
1. That the conditional use be located in a structure that
has received H-Historic Designation,
2. That off-street parking be provided with access from the
alley, and
3. That no more than two uses be allowed in each structure.
-- -_- -_ — When the -proposal sati sf i es these requi rements- the P & _Z shoul-d__
review the use based on the suitability of conditional uses as
specified in Section 24-3.3 and its compatibility with the Future
Land Use Plan for Main Street.
The Future Land Use Plan for Main Street identifies three basic
categories of development character; they are
Limited Commercial
- office=Limited Commercial; an -- - - --
- Office
Each of these distinctions expresses a recommended policy for determining
the appropriateness of future conditonal use requests.
Limited Commercial (unrestricted mix of uses)
Office - Limited Commercial - (balanced mix of uses)
Office - (restricted mix of uses)
Limited Commercial - This land use category is located along the one
block section of Main Street adjacent to the commercial core. Existing
development is a mix of small single-family structures, commercial
structures, a lodge and a service station. Several of the residential
structures contain commercial uses. Future limited commercial uses
can be developed in this area at a greater intensity than along the
remainder of Main Street due to the close proximity to the commerical
uses. Maintaining a "mix of uses" is less important provided the
►requirements of historic designation and parking are met.
Office - Limited Commercial - This largest segment of Main Street
between First and Fifth Streets is characterized by a mix of large
and small residences (some converted to multi -family and lodge uses),
lodges, office buildings and some commercial businesses (florist,
restaurants -bakery). This present "mix of uses" provides an interesting
composite that identifies the resort and historic characteristics
of the town. Increased commercial development along these blocks should
not duplicate any existing commercial uses on Main Street (for instance,
Main Street now has four(4) food establishments between Monarch and
Seventh Street and any substantial increase will begin to change the
present nature of the street to resemble a "restaurant row"). Also,
the "mix of uses" should be maintained by requiring new commercial
businesses to locate adjacent to non-commercial uses. Offices,
however, can be developed mroe intensely and adjacent to one another
since they do not require as much visibility as commercial uses, and they
can better maintain the existing residential appearance of historic
structures.
U
•
Office - This area is generally characterized by small residential
structures. Existing uses are single-family homes, a two story
multi -family structure, two real estate offices and a restaurant.
Future changes in land use should be more restricted than along the
remainder of Main Street and limited to office and residential.
Gradual conversion of the small single-family homes to offices will
allow for an increase in land use intensity without deteriorating the
environment for the remaining residences.
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen ,cof ora do, &16ii box v
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council, Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (JS) -�
RE: Definitions of Restaurants in the Zoning Code
DATE: October 8,'1975
Further analysis of potential developments along Main Street has identified
the need to clearly define restaurants. They are permitted in historic
structures along Main Street as a special review use in the 0-2 district
pending adequate off-street parking and request for official historic
designation. The code does not, however, define the range of food service
outlets to be included in the term restaurants, and restaurants along
Main Street should be allowed only when they do not conflict with the
planning considerations developed for Main Street.
The planning considerations for Main Street are as follows:
1. Main Street should be maintained as the primary east -
west thoroughfare in Aspen for the present and fore-
seeable future.
2. Main Street provides the major vehicular access to the
City and as such, establishes the first image or impress-
ion that tourists have of the City. Therefore, the
appealing qualities of the town and Main Street
(Victorian architecture, residential -lodge character,
small scale structures, etc.) should be preserved as an
important support to the tourist economy.
3. The number of existing lodges without food service
along or near Main Street establishes a limited demand
for such services. However, these restaurants should
operate in such a way that they do not a) create excess-
ive traffic congestion or b) detract from the visual image
of Main Street. The present code attempts to address
these first two planning considerations. It does not,
MEMORANDUM
Definitions of Restaurants in Zoning Code
October 8, 1975
Page Two
however, prevent restaurants from providing short
order services that attract high turnover customers
who use curb parking rather than required off-street
parking accessed by the alley. Hence, the higher
turn -over parking (five to ten minutes) along Main
Street creates an obstruction to free flowing
traffic and potential traffic hazards.
Therefore, the Planning Office recommends an amendment to Chaoter
24-3.1 to include a definition of restaurants that separates short
order food services from full dinner services. It is further recom-
mended that the Office 2 (0-2) District specifically allow only
restaurants and exclude high turnover, short order food establishments.
xc: Bill Kane
Hal Clark
Sandy Stuller