HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse.code amendment.Lot Line Adjustments.A6-93
~
.,,-.;.
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE COMPLETE:
I I
PROJECT NAME: Code Amendments:
Exemption
Project Address:
Legal Address:
APPLICANT:
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Representative Address/Phone:
Aspen, CO 81611
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
DRC Meeting Date
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
city Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space Board
Other
Other
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
DUE:
;~~~~=;;~;~;~7================;~;;=;;~;;;7=~;;Ji~~~~~;~~~7=~u).
___ city Atty ~ city Engineer ><:zoning ___Env. Health
___ Housing ___ open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
"',
"
'<'''--,
".,",
\
,
'\
.
'..,
i-" r--,
tf355938 '-,,"/16/93 09:42 Rec $25.00 Bf< /08 F'G 919
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
Xr!
ORDINANCE 13
(SERIES OF 1993)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, AMENDING
CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE REGULATIONS, TO PROVIDE
THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS AND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS FOR COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE
BUILDING EXPANSIONS IN NET LEASABLE FLOOR AREA OF UP TO 250 SQUARE
FEET.
WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 of the Municipal Code provides that
amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use
Regulations", shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission
at public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or
disapproved by the City Council at public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has proposed and recommended
for approval text amendments to Chapter 24 relating to Lot Line
( Adjustments and Growth Management Quota System Exemptions for
expansion of existing commercial or office buildings by not more
than 250 square feet of net leasable area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning, and Zoning Commission reviewed the
proposed text amendments at a public hearing on February 16, 1993,
and recommended approval of the amendments pursuant to the
procedure as authorized by Section 24-6-205(A)8 of the Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds that the proposed text
amendments will encourage efficiency in government by streamlining
the land use review process and will be consistent with promoting
the public welfare and the purposes and intent of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code.
-,..
1
~
/"'-'
~CJ559~38 04/-~).o/93 09: 4.2 RE'C $25. 00 B~::: 7~..... pc; 920
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Cle~k, Doc $.00
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN COLORADO:
section 1:
That section 24-7-1003 (A) (1), "Lot Line Adjustment," of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"1. Lot Line Adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between
contiguous lots if all the following conditions are met.
a. It is demonstrated that the requ~st is to correct
an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat
or is to permit .an insubstantial boundary ~hange
between adjacent parcels; and
b. All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted
shall provide written consent to the application;
and
c.
It is demonstrated that the request is to address
specific hardship; and
(..
\
\
d.
The corrected plat will meet the standards of this
division, .and conform to the requirements of this
chapter, including the dimensional requirements of
the zone district in which the lots are located,
except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot,
in which the adjustment shall not increase the
nonconformity of the loti and
e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will
not affect the development rights or permitted.
density of the affected lots by providing the
opportunity to create a new lot for resale or
development."
Section 2:
That section 24-6-205, "Review of a development application
by decision-making bodies", of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended at subsection (A) (1), "Planning
Agency Staff Review",. to read as follows:
(
"1. Planning Agency Staff Review: Permitted uses, exemptions
2
(
~.....
/"",,", .-.
~'355938 (. 16/93 O"i': ~.2 Pee $25.00 Bf< )8 PG 921
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc ~.OO
of development in H, Historic Overlay District and/or of
historic landmark, environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) ,
GMQS allotments, and subdivision exemption for a lot line
adjustment."
section 3:
That section 24-6-204, "Review of a development application
by decision-making bodies", of the Municipal Code of the city of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by adding a new subsection
(A) (1) (f) to read as follows:
"f. Exemption from subdivision for Lot Line Adjustments.
Exemption of development from the terms of subdivision
for lot line adjustments shall be granted by the Pl~nning
Director pursuant to the terms established in Section 24-
7-1003 (A) ('1) ."
section 4:
That section 24-7-1003, "Exemptions", of the Municipal Code
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended at subsection
(B), "Procedure", to read as follows:
"B. Procedure. Before any development proposed to be
exempted from the terms of this division may be
considered for exemption, an application for exemption
shall be submi ttedto the Planning Director. After a
determination of completeness pursuant to Section 6-204,
the Planning Director may approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for a Lot Line
Adjustment. For a Lot Split or Condominium conversion,
the Planning Director' s recommendation shall be forwarded
to the City Council which shall approve, approve with
condi tions or deny the application at a hearing. An
exemption for an approved subdivision shall only require
submission of an application for a building permit. An
application for a lot split shall require a public
hearing."
section 5
That Section 24-a-104(B) , "Exemption by Commission", of the
Municipal Code of the, City of Aspen, colorado, is hereby amended
to delete section 24-a-l04(B) (1) (a), "Expansion of Commercial or
3
~,
r--'
;*3559:38 Ic. ,/1.6/93 09: 42 Rec $25. <)0 Bf':, 08 F'G 922
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
Office Uses", 'and to renumber the remainder of Section 24-8-
104(B) (1).
Section 6
That Section 24-8-104 (A), "Exemption by Planning Director",
of the Municipal Code of the city of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby
amended at 24-8-104 (A) (1) (d), "Expansion of commercial or office
uses", to read as follows:
(
\
"d. Expansion of commercial or office uses. The expansion
of an existing commercial or office building by not more
than two hundred fifty (250) net leasable square feet,
excluding employee housing, if it is demonstrated that
the expansion will have minimal impact upon the ""city.
A determination of minimal impact shall require a
demonstration that a minimal"number of additional
employees will be generated by the expansion, and that
employee housing will be provided for the additional
employees generated; that a minimal amount of additional
parking spaces will be demanded by the expansion and that
parking will be provided; that there will be minimal
visual impact on the neighborhood from the expansion; and
that minimal demand will be placed on the city's public
facilities from the expansion. Expansion of a building
which occurs in phases shall be limited to a maximum
cumulative total of two hundred fifty (250) net leasable
square feet and shall be' evaluated in terms of the
cumulative impact of the entire expansion."
section 7:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and
shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now
pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 8:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held inva 1 id or
\
,
4
/
(
,
"
'........,.
, -..
;--., ~
#~3559~38 f~ 1.6/9::') 09: 42 Rec $25. 00 B~<< ...)8 PG 923
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
section 9:
A public hearing on this Ordinance shall be held on the't~
,
day of ~~, 1993 in the city Council. Chambers, Aspen City
Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing
of public notice of the same shall be published 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
f?'?1 ~ , 19~n.
,. .
on the --I..r.6~.'''''
~:-
day of
7
k/~~
John'Bennett, Mayor
~~
this
/~
of
approved
day
adopted,
, 1993.
passed
and
John
Bt:-tt:~~
or4.codeamend.cc
5
,,.....,.
.~
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Mayor and city council
Amy Margerum, city Manager ~
Diane Moore, city Planning Direct~
Francis Krizmanich, Deputy Director / Zoning Administration
Kim Johnson, Planning
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
April 12, 1993
RE:
Land Use Code Text Amendments:
1. To Allow Planning Director Approval of Lot Line
Adjustments; and
2. To Allow Planning Director Approval of GMQS
Exemptions for up to 500 Square Feet of Net Leasable
Area.
Second Reading of Ordinance 13, Series 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office is proposing two Land Use Code Text
amendments in an effort to streamline the review processes.
The first proposed amendment is to Section 24-7-1003, to allow Lot
Line Adjustments to be approved by the Planning Director and to
amend the language to allow lot line adjustments when the SUbject
lots are owned by the same person. The Code currently requires Lot
Line Adjustments to be approved by city Council.
The second proposed amendment is to amend section 24-8-104(B) to
allow the Planning Director to approve Growth Management Quota
System (GMQS) Exemptions for commercial and office increases in net
leasable floor area of up to 500 square feet. The Planning
Commission currently reviews these GMQS Exemptions.
At the first reading of the proposed GMQS amendment on March 8,
1993, the council expressed two main concerns regarding this
amendment. The first concern was that the Aspen Area Community
Plan (AACP) directs comprehensive revisions to the GMQS system
which may result in major revisions, including significant changes
to GMQS exemptions. The second concern was that the 500 square
foot exemption may be too large to classify as an exempt activity
wi th "minimal impact upon the ci ty. " In response to these
concerns, the staff opinion is that the proposed comprehensive GMQS
revision will provide the opportunity for a second look at the
exemption process and will either validate the proposed amendment
or recommend revisions to it. The size of the GMQS exemption - up
1
r"\
.~
to 500 square feet - is a concern due to the potential impacts of
that quantity of net leasable area. One alternative to this issue
is that the exemption size could be reduced; the staff suggests
that 250 square feet could provide for a reasonable level of
development through the exemption process while insuring that the
impacts of new exempt developme,nt truly create "minimal impacts
upon the city." If Council believes that the 250 square foot
Exemption is an appropriate amount, then Ordinance 13 could be
amended at the April 12, 1993 public hearing to reflect the
reduction in the square footage exemption.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Chuck Roth met with Planning staff to
the proposed amendments and agrees that the changes will
future applicants as well as staff and the approval
workload.
review
benefit
bodies'
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council has directed
streamline the Code review procedures where possible.
code amendments are presented to further this goal.
the staff to
The proposed
CURRENT ISSUES:
I. Lot Line Adjustment
The staff proposes amending the text of the Land Use Code to allow
the Planning Director to approve lot line adjustments so that minor
amendments can occur in a more timely fashion and to delete the
requirement that adjoining properties be in sepaJ::"ate ownership.
staff believes that it is immaterial whether two or more lots
wishing an insubstantial change are held under separate or common
ownership.
The existing Code, Section 24-7-1003 (A) (1), with the proposed
changes would be as follows:
"1. Lot Line Adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between
contiguous lots .ffiich are under separate miRcrship if all
the fOllowing conditions are met.
a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct
an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat
or is to permit an insubstantial boundary Change
between adjacent parcels; and
b. All Afty ~ landowners whose lot lines are being
adjusted shall provide written consent to the
application; and
c. It is demonstrated that the request is to address
specific hardship; and
d. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this
division, and conform to the requirements of this
chapter, including the dimensional requirements of
the zone district in which the lots are located,
except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot,
2
r"\
,-,.
in which the adjustment shall not increase the
nonconformity of the loti and
e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will
not affect the development rights or permitted
density of the affected lots by providing the
opportunity to create a new lot for resale or
development."
If you agree with the recommendation to allow the Planning Director
to approve lot line adjustments pursuant to the above standards,
the following Code sections must also be amended:
* Section 24-6-205(A) (1) (Planning agency staff reviews) Add:
"subdivision exemption for a lot line adjustment."
* Section 7-l003(B) (Subdivision Exemptions) "Procedure.
Before any development proposed to be exempted from the terms
of this division may be considered for exemption, an
application for exemption shall be submitted to the Planning
Director. After a determination of completeness pursuant to
section 6-204, the Planning Director may approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for a Lot Line Adjustment;
for a Lot split or condominium conversion, the Planning
Director's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city
Council which shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
the application at a hearing. An exemption for an approved
sUbdivision shall only require submission of an application
for a building permit. An application for a lot split shall
require a public hearing."
II. GMQS Exemption: Expansion of commercial or office Uses
section 8-104 (B) (1) provides that the Planning commission may
exempt up to 500 square feet of net leasable space from Growth
Manageme~t competition. This section states:
"B. Exempt;ion by commission.
1. General. Development which may be exempted by the
commission shall be as follows:
a. Expansion of commercial or office uses. The
expansion of an existing commercial or office
building by not more than five hundred (500)
net leasable square feet, excluding employee
housing, if it is demonstrated that the
expansion will have minimal impact upon the
city. A determination of minimal impact shall
require a demonstration that a minimal number
of additional employees will be generated by
the expansion, and that employee housing will
3
~
..-..
be provided for the additional employees
generated; that a minimal amount of additional
parking spaces will be demanded by the
expansion and that parking will be provided;
that there will be minimal visual impact on the
neighborhood from the expansion; and that
minimal demand will be placed on the city I s
public facilities from the expansion.
Expansion of a building which occurs in phases
shall be limited to a maximum cumulative total
of five hundred (500) net leasable square feet
and shall be evaluated in terms of the
cumulative impact of the entire expansion."
The staff opinion is that this exemption can be processed as an
administrative review with Planning Director approval. The
criteria of review will remain the same. currently staff prepares
a list of mitigation needs for a proposed development for the
Commission's consideration. If an applicant disputes the
conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Director, the
applicant must reapply for the proposed commercial square footage
as a full Growth Management submission for competition pursuant to
Article 8 of the Land Use Regulations (Growth Management Quota
System) .
The staff recommends moving section 8-104 (B) (1) ,
Commission, to section 8-104(A) (1) (d), Exemption
Director - Expansion of Commercial or Office Uses.
Exemption by
by Planning
REVIEW CRITERIA:
section 7-1102 provides standards that the Council and Commission
shall consider for the review of amendments to the Land Use Code.
These standards and staff comments follow:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
staff Response: The proposed revisions will not conflict with the
applicable portions of this chapter.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
staff Response: The revisions appear to be consistent with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, however, the staff notes that
revisions to the GMQS are contemplated as part of the Plan. The
staff does not believe there will be any negative effects to the
anticipated GMQS revisions with regard to the 500 square foot
exemption. The proposed amendments will not affect the
implementation of the Plan.
4
1""'\
,~,
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
staff Response: The proposed amendments are permitted at this
time. They do not appear to create compatibility conflicts as the
amendments only affect the review process, not the procedures or
requirements.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
Staff Response: Not Applicable.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public, facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Response: The proposed amendments do not change existing
impacts, merely the review process.
F.
Whether and the extent to
result in significantly
environment.
which the proposed amendment would
adverse impacts on the natural
Staff Response: The staff does not expect any significant adverse
effect to the environment as a result of these amendments.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the city of Aspen.
Staff Response: The proposed amendments streamline the review
procedures; the actual Code provisions are not being significantly
changed.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Staff Response: Not applicable.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
Staff Response: The proposed amendments have been initiated in an
effort to "streamline" the review process by using the Planning
Department to process simple, non-controversial development
applications. It is hoped that these and other future amendments
5
,-..,
,-..,
will help to free up the Council's and Commission's agendas.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The proposed amendments will save council,
Planning Commission, and staff time. The amendments will save
applicants a minimum of $700 per application.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends approval of the text
amendments to allow Lot Line Adjustments and GMQS Exemptions for
the expansion of commercial and office space of up to 500 square
feet of net leasable space to be approved by the Planning Director.
The Planning and Zoning commission unanimously recommended approval
of the proposed amendments at their regular meeting on February 16,
1993.
ALTERNATIVES:
I. Lot Line Adjustments
1.
The Council may decide to retain the authority to
Lot Line Adjustments. The result would be that
would continue to have this review on the
resulting in no streamlining of the process.
approve
council
agenda;
2. The Council may decide to delegate the authori ty to
approve Lot Line Adjustments to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The result of this action would be the loss
of time on the Commission's agenda to deal with other
issues.
II. GMQS Exemption
1. If the council decides to keep the proposed GMQS
Exemption as a Planning and zoning commission approval
there will be no decrease in the Commission's agenda and
applicants will continue to pay a higher review fee.
2. The scheduled review of the Aspen Growth Management
System may result in future changes to the process. If
the Growth Management Review recommends significant
changes, this amendment could be disregarded. In the
interim, however, the proposed amendment may give
valuable insight as to the efficacy of administrative
reviews of this type.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No. 13, Series of
1993, to allow Planning Director approval of Lot Line Adjustments
and GMQS Exemptions for up to 500 square feet of net leasable area.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance 13, Series of 1993
6
r",
r'\
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and city Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Diane Moore, City Planning Director
Francis Krizmanich, Deputy Director/Zoning Administration
Kim Johnson, Planning
TO:
THRU:
DATE:
March 8, 1993
RE:
tand Use Code Text Amendments:
1. To Allow Planning Director Approval of Lot Line
Adjustments; and
2. To Allow Planning Director Approval of GMQS
Exemptions for up to 500 Square Feet of Net Leasable
Area.
First Reading of Ordinance ___, series 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning office is proposing two Land Use Code Text
amendments in an effort to streamline the review processes.
The first proposed amendment is to Section 7-1003, to allpw Lot
Line Adjustments to be approved by the Planning Director and to
amend the language to allow lot line adjustments when the SUbject
lots are owned by the same person. . The Code currently requires Lot
Line Adjustments to be approved by City Council.
The second proposed amendment is to amend section 8-104(B) to allow
the Planning Director to approve Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS) Exemptions for commercial and office increases in net
leasable floor area of up to 500 square feet. The Planning
Commission currently reviews these GMQS Exemptions.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Chuck Roth met with Planning staff to review
the proposed amendments and agrees that the changes will benefit
future applicants as well as staff and the approval bodies I
workload.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council has directed
streamline the Code review procedures where possible.
code amendments are presented to further this goal.
the staff to
The proposed
1
r'\.
..-,
CURRENT ISSUES:
I. Lot Line Adjustment
The staff proposes amending the text of the Land Use Code to allow
the Planning Director to approve lot line adjustments so that minor
amendments can occur in a more timely fashion and to delete the
requirement that adjoining properties be in separate ownership.
staff believes that it is immaterial whether two or more lots
wishing an insubstantial change are held under separate or common
ownership.
The existing Code, Section 7-1003 (A) (1), with the proposed changes
would be as follows:
"1. Lot Line Adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between
contiguous lots ,..hich arc 1:'Iaaer sc)!'arate e,..aership if all
the following conditions are met.
a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct
an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat
or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change
between adjacent parcels; and
b. Any Bei;ftlandowners whose lot lines are being
adjusted shall provide written consent to the
application; and
c. It is demonstrated that the request is to address
specific hardshipi and
d. The corrected plat will meet the standards of.this
division, and conform to the requirements of this
chapter, including.the dimensional requirements of
the ~one district in which the lots are located,
except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot,
in which the adjustment shall not increase the
nonconformity of the lot; and
e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will
not affect the development rights or permitted
density of the affected lots by providing the
opportunity to create a new lot for. resale or
development."
If you agree with the recommendation to allow the Planning Director
to approve lot line adjustments pursuant to the above standards,
the following Code sections must also be amended:
* Section 4-501 (authority of the Planning Director) Add:
"14. To exempt lot line adjustments from subdivision pursuant
to Section 7-1003 (A) (1)."
* Section 6-205 (A) (1) (Planning agency staff reviews) Add:
"subdivision exemption for a lot line adjustment."
* Section 7-1003(B) (SUbdivision Exemptions) "Procedure.
Before any development proposed to be exempted from the terms
of this division may be considered for exemption, an
2
/"""'..
~.
application for exemption shall be submitted to the Planning
Director. After a determination of completeness pUrsuant to
Section 6-204, the planninqDirector may approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for a Lot Line Adjustment;
for a Lot split or Condominium conversion, the Planning
Director's recommendation shall be forwarded to the City
Council which shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
the application at a hearing. AD exemption for an approved
subdivision shall only require submission of an application
for a buildinq permit. AD application for a lot split shall
require a public hearinq."
---------------------------------~.
II. GMQS Exemption: Expansion of Commercial or Office Uses
section 8-104 (B) (1) provides that the Planning Commission may
exempt up to 500 square feet of net leasable space from Growth
Management competition. This section states:
"B. Exemption by commission.
1. General. Development which may be exempted by the
commission shall be as follows:
a. Expansion of commercial or office uses. The
expansion of an existing commercial or office
building by not more than five hundred (50~)
net leasable square feet, excluding employee
housing, if it is demonstrated that the
expansion will have minimal impact upon the
ci ty. A determination of minimal impact shall
require a demonstration that a minimal number
of additional employees will be generated by
the expansion, and that employee housing will
be provided for the additional employees
generated; that a minimal amount of additional
parking spaces will be demanded by the
expansion and that parking will be provided;
that there will be minimal visual impact on the
neighborhood from the expansion; and that
minimal demand will be placed on the city's
public facilities from the expansion.
Expansion of abuilding which occurs in phases
shall be limited to a maximum cumulative total
of five hundred (500) net leasable square feet
and shall be evaluated in terms of the
cumulative impact of the entire expansion."
The staff op~n~on is that this exemption can be processed as an
administrative review with Planning Director approval. The
criteria of review will remain the same. Currently staff prepares
a list of mitigation needs for a proposed development for the
3
1--
,-.
Commission's consideration. If an applicant disputes the
conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Director, the
applicant must reapply for the proposed commercial square footage
as a full Growth Management submission for competition pursuant to
Article 8 of the Land Use Regulations (Growth Management Quota
system).
The staff recommends moving Section 8-104 (B) (1) ,
commission, to Section 8-104 (A) (l)(d), Exemption
Director - Expansion of Commercial or Office Uses.
Exemption by
by Planning
REVIEW CRITERIA:
Section 7-1102 provides standards that the Council and Commission
shall consider for the review of amendments to the Land Use Code.
These standards and staff comments follow:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
staff Response: The proposed revisions will not conflict with the
applicable portions of this chapter.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Response: The revisions appear to be consistent with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, however, the staff notes that
revisions to the GMQS are contemplated as part of the Plan. The
staff does not believe there will be any negative effects to the
anticipated GMQS revisions with regard to the 500 square foot
exemption. The proposed amendments' will not affect the
implementation of the Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Response: The proposed amendments are permitted at this
time. They do not appear to create compatibility conflicts as the
amendments only affect the review process, no the procedures or
requirements.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
Staff Response: Not Applicable.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
4
r'\
r'\.
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
staff Response: The proposed amendments do not change existing
impacts, merely the review process.
F.
Whether and the extent to
result in siqnificantly
environment.
which the proposed amendment would
adverse impacts on the natural
staff Response: The staff does not expect any significant adverse
effect to the environment as a result of these amendments.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
staff Response: The proposed amendments streamline the review
procedures; the actual Code provisions are not being significantly
changed.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which, support
the proposed amendment.
staff Response: Not applicable.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
Staff Response: The proposed amendments have been initiated in an
effort to "streamline" the review process by using the Planning
Department to process simple, non-controversial development
applications. It is hoped that these and other future amendments
will help to free up the Council's and Commission's agendas.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The proposed amendments will save Council,
Planning Commission, and staff time. The amendments will save
applicants a minimum of $700 per application.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends approval of the text
amendments to allow Lot Line Adjustments and GMQS Exemptions for
the expansion of commercial and office space of up to 500 square
feet of net leasable space to be approved by the Planning Director.
The Planning and Zoning commission unanimously recommended approval
of the proposed amendments at their regular meeting on February 16,
1993.
5
1""'"'\
1""'"'\,
ALTERNATIVES:
I. Lot Line Adjustments
1. The Council may decide to retain the authority to approve
Lot Line Adjustments. The result would be that Council
would continue to have this review on the agendai
resulting in no ~treamlining of the process.
2. The Council may decide to delegate the authori ty to
approve Lot Line Adjustments to the Planning and zoning
c01ll1llission. The resul t of this action would be the loss
of time on the C01ll1llission' s agenda to deal wi tb other
issues.
II. GMQS Exemption
1. If the Council decides to keep the proposed GMQS
Exemption as a Planning and Zoning Commisison approval
there will be no decrease in the Commission's agenda and
applicants will continue to pay a higher review fee.
2. The scheduled review of the Aspen Growth Management
System may result in future changes to the process. If
the Growth Management Review recommends significant
changes, this amendment could be disregarded. In the
interim, however, the proposed amendment may give
valuable insight as to the efficacy' of administrative
reviews of this type.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No. ____, to allow
Planning Director approval of Lot Line Adjustments and GMQS
Exemptions for up to 500 square feet of net leasable area.
6
"....,...,
,,-...,
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE
REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, February 16, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning & zoning commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to amend Sections 6-
205, 7-1003(A) (1), and 7-1006, to permit lot line adjustments as
a Planning Agency Staff Review; and to amend Section 8-104 to allow
the Planning Director to exempt up to 500 square feet of net
leasable cOlnmercial or office space from the Growth Management
Quota System. For further information, contact Francis Krizmanich
at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena st., Aspen,
Colorado 920-5090
s/Jasmine Tvqre, Chairman
planning and zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on January 29, 1993:
----------------------------------------~----~-------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Aspen Account
.~
--=-
$1
"-,
G
,~,
-"'"""',
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Francis Krizmanich, Deputy Director/Zoning Administration
Kim Johnson, Planning
RE:
Land Use Code Amendments:
1. To Allow Planning Director Approval of Lot Line
Adjustments; and
2. To Allow Planning Director Approval of GMQS
Exemptions for up to 500 Square Feet of Net Leasable
Area.
DATE:
February 16, 1993
======================================================-=~=-=-=-=-
SUMMARY: The Planning Office is proposing these two Land Use Code
amendments in an effort to streamline the review processes.
Th~first proposed amendment is to section 7__1?03, }j'tSjal18w:Lot
~J}neAdjustmentsto ", j:Je/a~~~9Ye<'ib~the, ,~l~!}ni!}g,Direct?r , ~nd to
am~n<'ith,~ langucigeto1,1<t110wl?tline adjustments>when the subject
,iots' ate owned by the s<tmeperson; The Code currently requires Lot
Line Adjustments to be approved by City Council.
T,h~ s~con<'iprc)posed amendment is to amend Sectio!} 8-104 (E) toHallow
€h:e'Planning Director to ,approve ,Growth Management Quota Syste)1\ ~
(~QSJ,Exemptions for commercial and ,office increases in net'
J.!"asaj:J).e floor area ojj; up to 500 square 'feet. The Planning --0
Commission currently reviews these GMQS Exemptions.
,,;.to
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Chuck Roth met with Planning staff to review
the proposed amendments and agrees that the changes will benefit
future applicants as well as staff and the approval' bodies I
workload.
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Lot Line Adjustment
The existing Code, Section 7-1003(A) (1) states:
"1. Lot Line Adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between
contiguous lots which are under separate ownership if all
the following conditions are met.
a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct
an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat
or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change
between adjacent parcels; and
1
r
S-o
,,.......,,
r',
b. Both landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted
provide written consent to the application; and
c. It is demonstrated that the request is to address
specific hardship; and
d. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this
division, and conform to the requirements of this
chapter, including the dimensional requirements of
the zone district in which the lots are located,
except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot,
in which the adjustment shall not increase the
nonconformity of the lot; and
e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will
not affect the development rights orpermi tted
density of the affected lots by providing the
opportuni ty to create a new lot for resale or
development."
The staff proposes amending this Code provision for two reasons:
to allow the Planning Director to approve lot line adjustments so
that minor amendments can occur in a more timely fashion and to
delete the requirement that adjoining properties be in separate
ownership. staff believes that it is immaterial whether two or
more lots wishing an insubstantial change are held by separate or
cOmmon ownership. ,
The proposed exemption language would be:
"1. Lot Line Adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between
contiguous lots wb;i,eh-al'e ~d-ei" sel?arat-e-o_e'!;!06l14f> if all
the following conditions are met.
a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct
an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat
or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change
between adjacent parcels; and
b. Any ~ft- landowners whose lot lines are being
adjusted provide written consent to the application;
and
c. It is demonstrated that the request is to address
specific hardship; and
d. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this
division, and conform to the requirements of this
chapter, including the dimensional requirements of
the zone district in which the lots are located,
except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot,
in Which the adjustment shall not increase the
nonconformity of the lot; and
e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will
not affect the development rights or permitted
density of the affected lots by providing the
opportunity to create a new lot for resale or
development."
2
,-.
,/"""\
If you agree with the recommendation to allow the Planning Director
to approve lot line adjustments pursuant to the above standards,
the following Code s,ections must also be amended:
* Section, 4-501 (authority of the Planning Director) Add:
"13. To exempt lot line adjustments from sUbdivision pursuant
to section 7-1003(A)(1)."; remainder of section to be
renumbered.
* Section 6-205(A) (1) (Planning agency staff reviews) Add:
"subdivision exemption for a lot line adjustment."
* section 7-1003 (B) (Subdivision Exemptions) "Procedure.
Before any development proposed to be exempted from the terms
of this division may be considered for exemption, an
application for exemption shall be submitted to the Planning
Director. After a determination of completeness pursuant to
section 6-204, the Planning Director may approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for a Lot Line Adjustment;
for a Lot Split or Condominium conversion, the Planning
Director I s recommendation shall be forwarded to the city
Council which shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
the application at a hearing. An exemption for an approved
sUbdivision shall only require submission of an application
for a building permit. An application for a lot split shall
require a public hearing."
II. GMOS Exemption: Expansion of commercial or Office Uses
section 8-104 (B) (1) provides that the Planning commission may
exempt up to 500 square feet of net leasable space from Growth
Management competition. This section states:
"B. Exemption by commission.
1. General. Development which may be exempted by the
commission shall be as follows:
a. Expansion of commercial or office uses. The
expansion of an existing commercial or office
building by not more than five hundred (500)
net leasable square feet, excluding employee
housing, ff it is demonstrated that the
expansion will have minimal impact upon the
city. A determination of minimal impact shall
require a demonstration that a minimal number
of additional employees will be generated by
the expansion, and that employee housing will
be provided for the additional employees
generated; that a minimal amount of additional
parking spaces will be demanded by the
expansion and that parking wili be provided;
that there will be minimal visual impact on the
neighborhood from the expansion; and that
3
~
r'\,
minil1)al demand will be placed on the city's
public facilities fram the expansion.
Expansion of a building which occurs in phases
shall be limited ta a maximum cumulative total
of five hundred (500) net. leasable square feet
and shall be evaluated in terms .of the
cumulative impact of the entire expansian."
The staff .opinion is that these levels of exemption can be
processed as an administrative review with Planning Directar
approval. The criteria .of review will remain the same. Currently
staff prepares a list of mitigation needs for a prapased
development for the Commission's consideratian. If an applicant
disputes the conditions of approval as determined by the Planning
Director, the applicant must reapply for the proposed commercial
square footage as a full Grqwth Management sUbmission far
competitian pursuant t.o Article 8 of the Land Use Regulatians
(Growth Management Quota system).
The staff recommends moving Section 8-104 (B) (1) ,
Commission, to sectien 8-104(A) (1) (d), Exemption
Director - Expansion of Commercial or Office Uses.
Exemption by
by Planning
Review criteria:
section 7-1102 pravides standards that the Council and Commissien
shall consider for the review .of amendments to the Land Use Cade.
These standards and staff cemments fellow:
A. Whether the propased amendment is in conflict with any
applicable pertions .of this chapter.
Staff Response: The preposed revisions will not conflict with the
applicable portions of this chapter.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Cemprehensive Plan.
staff Response: The revisions appear to be consistent with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, however, the staff netes that
revisions te the GMQS are contemplated as part .of the Plan. The
staff does not believe there will be any negative effects ta the
anticipated GMQS revisions with regard ta the 500 square faot
exemption. The prepesed amendments will not affect the
implementation of the Plan.
C. Whether the propased amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
staff Response:
The proposed amendments are permitted at this
4
r"',
~
time. They do not appear to create compatibility conflicts as the
amendments only affect the review process, no the procedures or
requirements.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
staff Response: Not Applicable.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amen<:iment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
staff Response: The proposed amendments do not change existing
impacts, merely the review process.
F.
Whether and the extent to
result in significantly
environment.
which the proposed amendment would
adverse impacts on the natural
staff Response: The staff does not expect any significant adverse
effect to the environment as a result of these amendments.'
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
staff Response: The proposed amendments streamline the review
procedures; the actual Code provisions are not being significantly
changed.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
staff Response: Not applicable.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
pUblic interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
staff Response: The proposed amendments have been initiated in an
effort to "streamline" the review process by using the Planning
Department to process simple, non-controversial development
applications. It is hoped that these and other future amendments
will help to free up the Council's and commission's agendas.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
the text amendments
The Planning staff recommends approval of
to allow Lot Line Adjustments and GMQS
5
"-.,,
."-"
Exemptions for the expansion of commercial and office space of up
to 500 square feet of net leasable space to be approved by the
Planning Di'rector. The staff recommends that the following
amendments to the Land Use Code be approved:
Lot Line Adiustment
* section 7-1003(A) (1), Amend:
"1. Lot Line Adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between
contiguous lots wfli-eh-ape -i:ltl.~-ee~l!'€l't-e-owner-sfl4fr if all
the following conditions are met.
a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct
an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat
or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change
between adjacent parcels; and
b. Any -e~& landowners whose lot lines are being
adjusted provide written consent to the application;
and
c. It is demonstrated that the request is to address
specific hardship; and
d. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this
division, and conform to the requirements of this
chapter, including the dimensional requirements of
the zone district in which the lots are located,
except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot,
in which the adjustment shall not increase the
nonconformity of the lot; and
e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will
not affect the development rights or permitted
density of the affected lots by providing the
opportunity to create a new lot for resale or
development."
If you agree with the recommendation to allow the Planning Director
to approve lot line adjustments pursuant to the above standards,
the following Code sections must also be amended:
* Section 4-501. Add: "13. To exempt lot line adjustments from
subdivision pursuant to section 7-1003 (A) (1)."; renumber rest
of Section.'
* Section 6-205(A) (1). Add: "subdivision exemption for a lot
line adjustment."
* section 7-1003 (B) . "Procedure. Before any development
proposed to be exempted from the terms of this division may
be considered for exemption, an application for exemption
shall be submitted to the Planning Director. After a
determination of completeness pursuant to section 6-204, the
Planning Director may approve, approve with conditions or deny
an application for a Lot Line Adjustment; for a Lot Split or
Condominium conversion, the Planning Director's recommendation
shall be forwarded to the City Council which shall approve,
6
~
,~
" ..;
approve with conditions or deny the application at a hearing.
An exemption for an approved subdivision shall only require
submission of an application for a building permit. An
application for a lot split shall require a public hearing."
GMOS Exemption
* section S-104(B) (1) (a); Delete; renumber the rest of the
8-104 (1).
* section S-104(A) (1) (d), Revise to:
"d. Expansion of commercial or office uses.
1. The expansion of an existing commercial or office use
in a building which does not increase its net leasable
square footage.
2. The expansion of an existing commercial or office
building by not more than five hundred (500) net leasable
square feet, excluding employee housing, if it is
demonstrated that the expansion will have minimal impact
upon the city. A determination of minimal impact shall
require a demonstration that a minimal number of
additional employees will be generated by the expansion,
and that employee housing will be provided for the
additional employees generated: that a minimal amount of
additional parking spaces will be demanded by the
expansion and that parking will be provided; that there
will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhood from
the expansion: and that minimal demand will be placed on
the city's public facilities from the, expansion.
Expansion of a building which occurs in phases shall be
limited to a maximum cumulative total of five hundred
(500) net leasable square feet and shall be evaluated in
terms of the cumulative impact of the entire expansion."
· 'J f!J