Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Lot Split Requirements.1986 ~ \:.JjJ 1\ RevicMcd by: {,,;pen ~ . ~'(-- . Ci ty Council "'~ , " Code. 1l/ll~~J/IK:~ti MI J..{..f1.p1o'lU h"",i~} i. , .............c ___ _.u\,O.... -. _a. _..._........ yaL 1 ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning: Commissi< voted on April 8, 1986 - 5 in favor, 1 opposed, to recommend the Council deny the proposed Code amendment. . Rcvie\H~a By: P&Z Ci ty coun~ PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On Apr i1 28, 1986, City Counei unanimously approved first reading of the proposed Code amend ment. _._.____ 'n,__"_ "~n ;..spen OI'A fl~ ~71)q1 i Ci1yCPVl1c1 )'1~~/)~~ 1 O~U1/- Jf, , I'J'\"',.,',, \0 ,-... ,~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: FROM: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager Steve Burstein, Planning Office f'il........ Municipal Code Amendment: Maintenance Shops and Employee Housing in the Public Zone - 2nd Reading RE: DATE: May 20, 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------~------------------------- BACKGROUND: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has submitted an application for an SPA Amendment to build a mainte- nance shop, office and employee housing at their r<orth Mill Street location zoned Public. The Sanitation District has meanwhile resubmitted an application deleting the maintenance shop and employee housing from the proposal. The Planning Office has continued to bring this Code amendment forward because lie believe that it is a logical and beneficial amendment is its own ri gh t . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODI'!': Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code includes under the permi tted use in the Publ i c zone di s- trict: " essential governll!ental and publ ic util ity uses facilities, services and buildings (excluding maintenance shops) . . . " Employee housing is neither a permitted nor conditional use in the Public zone district. The intention of the Public zone district as stated in Section 24-3.2 is: "To provide for the development of governmental and quasi- governmental facilities for cultural, educational, civic and other governmental purposes." PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On April 28, 1986, City Council unanimously approved first reading of the proposed Code amend- ment. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: maintenance shops are in any zone district, It is perhaps odd that public utility not specifically stated as an allowed use but are specifically eXCluded in the Public 1 -- ~ zone district. The only similar use, a park maintenance build- ing, is a conditional use in the E'ark zone district. In about 1975, there was a proposal to build an electric switch station building in what is currently known as Bugsy Barnard Park (corner of State Highway 82 and Cemetery Lane), zoned Public at that time. It appears that as a result of the opposition to this proposal, the 1975 re\Hite of the zoning code excluded mainte- nance buildings from the Public zone district. At this time the following properties in the City of Aspen are zoned E'ublic: the Sanitation District parcel on North Mill, Wate r Treatment pI ant (Thomas pa r cel), E'ubl ic Library, Fi re Station, City Hall and the County Courthouse. The Planning Office believes that maintenance buildings are clearly within the intention of the zone district, and can be highly appropriate on some of the properties zoned Public. In addition, because the area and bulk requirements are established by an adopted specially planned area (SPA) precise plan, the location, size and open space requirements are SUbject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Employee housing for employees of the public use may also be compatible with other uses in the public zone district. In some cases, having a caretaker is essential for the, security and safety of the public facility. Additionally, it appea,rs that there ,may be a neat "fit" bet\veen the level of aqHvHy at. a facility during normal working-hours and the relative q;uiet during off-hours for the enjoyment of the employee residents. ,It should be c1 ear that th is employee housing would only be; avaiI- a;ble f orempl oyees of the public use, as it is conceived to be accessory to the public facil it}'. Employee housing projects are not appropriate in this zone and should be located in residential zones. Both maintenance buildings and employee housing may be appropri- ate in some public ,zones ,while not in others. Therefore, they should both be conditional uses in the E'ublic zone district. It should be noted that the Water Department's operation includes both a maintenance facil ity and employee housing even though the pUblic zone does not currently an ow' the us,es. whether or not the Sanitation District site is determined to be appropriate for these uses, we feel that this Code amendll\ent if> a beneficial correction of the use table. As we noted above, the specific determination of the appropriateness of the proposed use at the Sanitation District site will be made through consideration of an SPA amendment and conditional use review at future meetings of the E'l anni ng Commission and City Council if Council chooses to approve this Code amendment. The E'lanning Commission voted to recommend denial of this proposed Code amendment. The main issues in their di scussi on 2 ,~ r\ were: 1) the appropriateness of bringing forward changes to the Public zone district uses at a time when there are a number of questions about the location and operation of public maintenance facilities; 2) desirability of setting all uses in the Public zone district through the SPA process, rather than depending on underlying zone's specified uses; and 3) concerns about the appropriateness of further developing the Sanitation District due to the open space potential of the site. In the view of the Planning Office, this Code amendment is a logical improvement to the Public zone district use table. The amendment recognizes the existing use situation at the Water Treatment Plant and allows the Sanitation District to take forward their application. For these reasons, the Planning Office is bringing this amendment to Council for second reading even though the Planning Commission recommended denial. The uses are consistent with the intention of the Public zone district, although clearly not appropriate on every site zoned Public. The Public zone district is an amalgamation of uses, each of which has unique qualities. Area and bulk requirements are set by SPA so to be able to specially address the demands of each si te. Making the maintenance facility and employee housing conditional uses gives further discretion for City determination of appropri- ateness. Finally, Ordinance 20, Series of 1985 (SPA Code amendments) specifically addressed the question of use variations in the Publ ie, Par k and Academic zones, where the area and bul k requi re- ments are Set by adoption of a precise plan. It was recognized at that time that whil e the size of buildings in these zones might need to be varied due to unusual circumstances, the uses could be specified in advance. Therefore, the P&Zs objection to amendment of the use tables to specify additional conditional uses in the Public zone is an inappropriate action on their part. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted on April 8, 1986 - 5 in favor, 1 opposed, to recommend that Council deny the proposed Code amendment. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that City Council approve second reading of Ordinance No., --,-' Series of 1986, amending Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code the use table for the Public zone district, to include as conditional uses mainte- nance buildings and employee housing for employees of the public use. SB.22 3 - ,-. MEIIDRANDUM FROM: Aspen City Council ~ Hal Schilling, City Manag~ Steve Burstein, planning Office -f\bZ. TO: THBlJ : DATE: Municipal Code Amendment: M,aintenance Shops and Employee Housing in the Public Zone - 1st Reading April 21, 1986 RE: ================================================================ BACKGROUND: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has submitted an application for an SPA Amendment to build a mainte- nance shop, office and employee housing at their North Mill Street location zoned Public (scheduled before P&Z on April 22 1986). The Planning Office is asking City COuncil to initiate this Code amendment in conjunction with the Sanitation District's request . APPLICABLE SEC-nONS OF THE CODE: Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal COde includes under the permitted use in the Publi c zone di s- trict: " essential governmental and public utility uses f acil i ti es, serv ice s and buildings (excluding maintenance shops) . . . " Employee housing is neither a permitted nor conditional use in the Public zone district. The intention of the public zone district as stated in Section 24-3.2 is: "To provide for the developnent of governmental and quasi- governmental facilities for cultural, educational, civic and other governmental purposes." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: It is perhaps odd that public utility maintenance shops are not specifically stated as an allowed use in any zone district, but are specifically excluded in the Public zone district. The only similar use, a, park maintenance build- ing, is a conditional use in the Park zone district. In about 1975, there was a proposal' to build an electric switch station building in what is currently known as Bugsy Barnard Park (corner of State Highway 82 and Cemetery Lane), zoned Public at that time. It appear s that as a result of the opposition to this proposal, the 1975 rewrite of the zoning code excluded mai nte- nance buildings from the Public zone district. ""'" ,-." At this time the following properties in the City of Aspen are zoned Public: the Sanitation District parcel on North Mill, Water Treatment Plant (Thomas parcel), Public Library, Fire Station, City Hall and the County Courthouse. The Planning Office believes that maintenance buildings are clearly within the intention of the zone district, and can be highly appropriate on some of the properties zoned Public. In addition, because the area and bulk requirements are established by an adopted specially planned area (SPA) precise plan, the location, size and open space requirements are SUbject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Employee housing for employees of the public use may al so be compatible with other uses in the public zone district. In some cases, having a caretaker is essential for the security and safety of the public facility. Additionally, it appears that there may be a neat "fit" between the level of activity at a facility during normal working hours and the relative quiet during off-hours for the enjoyment of the employee residents. It should be clear that this employee housing would only be avail- able for employees of the pUblic use, as it is conceived to be accessory to the public facility. Employee housing projects are not appropriate in this zone and should be located in residential zones. Both maintenance buildings and employee housing may be appropri- ate in some public zones while not in others. Therefore, they should both be conditional uses in the Public zone district. It should be noted that the Water Department's operation includes both a maintenance facility and employee housing even though the public zone does not currently allow the uses. Whether or not the Sanitation District site is determined to be appropriate for these uses, we feel that this Code amendment is a beneficial correction of the use table. As we noted above, the specific determination of the appropriateness of the proposed use at the Sanitation District site will be made through consideration of an SPA amendment and conditional use review at future meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council if Council chooses to approve this Code amendment. The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of this proposed Code amendment. The main issues in their discussion were: 1) the appropriateness of bringing forward changes to the Public zone district uses at a time when there are a number of questions about the location and operation of public maintenance facilities; 2) desirability of setting all uses in the Public zone district through the SPA process, rather than depending on underlying zone's specified uses; and 3) concerns about the appropriateness of further developing the Sanitation District due to the open space potential of the site. In the view of the Planning Office, this Code amendment is a ,'-'" ,'-'" logical improvement to the Public zone district use table. The amendment recognizes the exi sting use sit uation at the Water Treatment Plant and allows the Sanitation District to take forward their application. For these reasons, the Planning Office is bringing this amendment to Council for first reading even though the Planning Commission recommended denial. The uses are consistent with the intention of the Public zone district, although clearly not appropriate on every site zoned PUblic. The Public zone district is an amalgamation of uses, each of which has unique qualities. Area and bulk requirements are set by SPA so to be able to specially address the demands of each site. Making the maintenance facility and employee housing conditional uses gives further discretion for City determination of appropri- ateness. Finally, Ordinance 20, Series of 1985 (SPA Code amendments) specifically addressed the question of use variations in the Public, Park and Academic zones, where the area and bulk require- ments are set by adoption of a precise plan. It was recognized at that time that whil e the siz e of buildings in these zones might need to be varied due to unusual circumstances, the uses could be specified in advance. Therefore, the p&ZS objection to amendment of the use tables to specify additional conditional uses in the Public zone is an inappropriate action on their part. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VerB: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted on, April 8, 1986 - 5 in favor, 1 opposed, to recommend that Council deny the proposed Code amendment. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that City Council approve first reading of Ordinance No. ~~, Series of 1986, amending Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code the use table for the Public zone district, to include as conditional uses mainte- nance buildings and employee housing for employees of the public use. SB.22 ,-... r\ TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: RE: Mayor & City Council i Harold Schilling, City Manage Dallas D. Everhart, Finance De rtment~ April 28, 1986 j _ - .-----.- Appropriation Ordinance No. ~_, Series of 1986. $N SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of this appropriation ordinance. You have previously reviewed all of these items. BACKGROU~~ and PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During the 1985 budget year, Council approved several expenditures which were not actually expended during the year, but the items were ordered during that year. These items were received and paid for in 1986. It is therefore necessary to re-appropriatethese previously approved 1985 budget items. The ordinance authorizes the necessary re-approp- ria tions. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend approval of this appropriation ordinance. PROPOSED MOTION: The proper motions on first reading would be: 1. "I move to read Ordinance No.l~, Series of 1986." 2. "I move to adopt Ordinance No. L?_, Ser ies 'of 1986 on first reading." The proper motion on second reading would be: 1. "I move to adopt Ordinance No.___, Series of 1986." ,-... ,-, EX'HIBI T "A:" GENERAu' FUND Revenues County Share-Envir. Health 345 Total Revenues 345 Expenditures C.C.L.C City Manager Finance Engineering Environmental Health Police Animal Control Parks Castle ridge Total Expenditures 32,000 25,650 4,390 43,541 690 4,610 12,500 4,000 45.325 172 ,706 ------- ------- LAND 'FUND Exnenditur~s Equipment Total Expenditures 23.500 23,500 ------ ------ ASSET REPLACEMENT FUND Exoenditures City Manager Finance Engineering 225 380 1.300 Total Expenditures 1,905 ----- ----- WATER' FUND Exoe.n'se ,...." """" Exhibit" A " cont. l'iTater Department Water Management ELECTRIC FUND Exne'ns'es Total Expenses Ruedi Construction Capital Improvement Program Total Expenses ICE GARDEN' FUND Exoense's Ice Garden Total Expense 3,840 148;000 29,100 306.500 4.160 151,840 ------- ------- 335,600 ------- ------- 4,160 ----- --_._- ,-... .1"""'" MEtDRANDUM FROM: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Steve Burstein, Planning Office TO: DATE: Municipal Code Amendment: Maintenance Shops and Employee Housing in the Public Zone - Public Hearing April 8, 1986 RE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has submitted an application for an SPA Amendment to build a mainte- nance shop, office and employee housing at their North Mill Street location zoned Public (scheduled before P&Z on April 22 1986). The Planning Office is initiating this Code amendment in conjunction with the Sanitation District's request. By holding thi s public hearing tonight the Code amendment will be able to proceed simultaneously with the Sanitation District's SPA Amendment application. APPLICABLE SECrIONS OF THE CODE: Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code includes under the permitted use in the Public zone dis- trict: " essential governmental and publ ic util ity uses facil ities, services and buildings (excluding maintenance shops) . . . " Employee housing is not a permitted or conditional use in the Public zone district. The intention of the Public zone district as stated in Section 24-3.2 is: "To provide for the developm,ent of governmental and quasi- governmental facilities for cultural, educational, civic and other governmental purp:>ses." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: It is perhaps odd that public utility maintenance shops are not specifically stated as an allowed use in any zone district, but are specifically excluded in the Public zone district. The only similar use, a park maintenance build- ing, is a conditional use in the Park zone district. In about 1975, there was a proposal to build an electric switch station building in what is currently known as Bugsy Barnard Park (corner of State Highway 82 and Cemetery Lane), zoned Public at that time. It appears that as a result of the opposition to this proposal, the 1975 rewrite fo the zoning code excluded mainte- nance buildings from the Public zone district. ,-... r\ At this time the following properties in the City of Aspen are zoned Public: the Sanitation District parcel on North Mill, Water Treatment plant (Thomas parcel), Fire Station, and the County Courthouse. The Planning Office believes that maintenance buildings are clearly within the intention of the zOne district, and can be highly appropriate on some of the properties zoned Public. In addition, because the area and bulk requirements are established by an adopted specially planned area (SPA) precise plan, the location, size and open space requirements are subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Employee housing for employees of the public use may al so be compatible with other uses in the public zone district. In some cases, having a caretaker is essential for the security and safety of the public facility. Additionally, it appears that there may be a neat "fit" between the level of activity at a facility during normal working hours and the relative quiet during off-hours for the enjoyment of the employee residents. It should be clear that this employee housing would only be avail- able for employees of the public use, as it is conceived to be accessory to the public facility. Employee housing projects are not appropriate in this zone and should be located in residential zones. Both maintenance buildings and employee housing may be appropri- ate in some public zones while not in others. Therefore, they should both be conditional uses in the Public zone district. Whether or not the Sanitation District site is determined to be appropriate for these uses, we feel that this Code amendment is a beneficial correction of the use table. As we noted above, the specific determination of the appropriateness of the proposed use at the Sanitation District site will be made at your next meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that you recom- mend that City Council amend Seetin 24-3.2 of the~lunicipal Code, the use table for the Public zone district, to include as condi- tional uses maintenance buildings and employee housing for employees of the public use. SB.2 CilliJ:: DISPOSITION: :tV c. c.".",J ~-l"J tL eJ ~ ,~ r.J unl;..,~~ ~#t-, CASE DISPOSITION: L O+Sp/.f Cui.( Afi1,~t Council, 'Wo--n.L~ ,L..r'T _pJ{+ "0',' OI,!M.~/() j "j J ;i (, I v""I.',",' ,.,. '.' ..';V v' ,'. i ',;J-/'-~'/I'_vr,' .-('-or-,f.. ci'1lltck:! /QS6 '\:''-;;\,j Li "")- }-1.,....,: \ ""'J' 1': -:Y,'("i',':,: / './ ',:1":: ", ! h, ~. .-' ('II" ,'4,{ " \ .j r _./' ,I.', ". .. .. ~" " \0 ,H ~., ,,~. _, I ';1 ,--I }\1. fii..;-'. '"'' " .../ '1"/ J t I '-":~>.Jlt P..evieHC:Cl By: ;~spen P&Z Ci ty Council ~ ,-..." MEM&lWIDUlI FROM: Aspen City Council ~ Hal Schilling, City Manag~ Steve Burstein, Planning Office ~ TO: THUR: RE: Municipal Code Amendment: Second Reading:- Lot Split Regulations DATE: March 4, 1986 ;=============================================================== SUIIIlARY: The amendment under consideration is to eliminate the requirement that to be eligiblE! for the GMP Exemption for a lot split, the property must have an existing dwelling unit. The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend final approval of a Code amendment changing the eligibility for a lotsplitGMP Exemption to allow splitting of undeveloped combinations of townsite lots, bul:: to entirely eliminate the ability to obtain a lot split GMP exemption in platted subdivi- sions. PREVIOl!J.S cOtn,elL AerlOR ARD BACKGROORD: Aspen City Council initiated this amendment to Section 24-11.2 (d) of the Municipal Code in response to a request from Gideon Kaufman (see the September 10, 1985 letter attached).. The subject section of the Code, Section 24-11.2 (d), is also attached for your review. The set of GMP Exemptions is an essential part of the Growth Manage- ment system, first enacted in 1'977 and thereafter amended. Relief from having to compete for development, rights is given through the GMP Exemptions for particular types of proj ects the City desires to encourage (historic structures, employee housing) or believes do not have significant growth impacts in the community (small commercial projects). The Exemption for lots splits was created in response to small property owners' hard- ships related to the merging of lots under Single ownership provided in Section 24-13.6(d) of the Zoning Code and also provides a "pressure relief valve" for owners of vacant lands who do not wish to go through full subdivision of their property. On February 10, 1986, City Council unanimOUSly passed first reading of Ordinance No.8, Series of 1986, which would accom- plishthe proposed Code amendment. PROBLEM DISCQSSI(i)R: !oIunicipal Code Section 24-13.6(d) makes two or more lots with contiguous frontage in si,ngle ownership an undivided parcel for purposes of City land use regUlations. Applying the GMP exemption for 101:: splits as presently written ,""" ,'-' enables a property owner to create a second parcel if it will meet minimum lot size requirements and if a residence al ready exists on the property. A lot split is also eligible for a subdivision exception pursuant to Section 20-19 of the Subdivi- sion Regulations. Entirely eliminating the eligibility require- ment of having a pre-existing residence would make it possible to split undeveloped combinations of townsite lots under single ownership, large lots in some newer subdivisions and unsubdivided parcels. Based on an inventory o,f vacant land in Aspen prepared by the Planning Office in 1982, there are an estimated 30-35 existing undeveloped parcels throughout the community that would be eligible for lot split exemptions. Arguments in favor of eliminating the requirement to have a pre- existing single-family residence to be eligible for the lot split GMP Exemption include: 1. The current provision gives incentive to build a single- family house or duplex in order to qualify for a lot split. The first residence may be a speculative development, unwanted and premature in the potential parcel development scheme. 2. The resulting density of development would be no greater without the pre-existing dwelling unit requirement. 3. The City would be encouraging infill of existing vacant residential lands, developed according to the area, bulk and density requirements of the zone. 4. The number of potential lot splits is not so great as to constitute a major development activity. Site and neighbor- hood impacts of lot splits are usually insignificant, and therefore do not require the degree of analysis entailed in the full GMP and subdivision process. Arguments in opposition of eliminating the existing single family requirement include the following: 1. It would be undesirable to create a loophole for the subdividing of a larger parcel wherein the first two lots are exempt and "free" from GMP competition. If the inten- tion is to create a multi-parcel subdivision, then the total development plan should be subjected to the full GMP and subdivision processes. 2. The original intent in giving the one unit exemption was not to provide the landowner with the ability to obtain multiple units outside of GMP, but instead to provide relief from the merger rule. By giving vacant parcels the right to two 2 ~ ,-" units at one time, we undercut the rationale for the exemption. From a legal standpoint, it becomes difficult to differentiate between two versus three units at one time, and so on. 3. In subdivisions where there are many over-sized lots that can be split, the GII1P Exemption may not be appropriate. Residents typicallY purchase property with the assumption that adj acent subdivision lots w,ould not be resubdivided. By making the proposed amendment, we would be encouraging lot splits by making them easier for undeveloped parcels. 4. If the City annexes land that contains undeveloped areas and lots with adequate square footage for splitting then the elimination of the existing house requirement would create a larger number of potential lot splits. The Planning Office and Planning Commission concluded that the advantages of Gideon's proposal outweigh its disadvantages and merits removal of the pre-existing dwelling unit criterion. In response to the major disadvantage No.3, which has been a concern of Council's in several recent lot splits, we recommend- ed, and P&Z agreed, that a distinction in lot split eligibility should be made between the lots in the original townsite and early additions as well as lots described by metes and bounds, and th,e lots created in platted subdivisions. We believe that through subdivision approval by the governing bodies there becomes an assumption on which the public relies that these lots were platted permanently. Reconfiguring into smaller lots should only be done through subdivision approval and GMP allocation of development rights rather than t,o provide an exemption which amounts to an incentive provision to split such lots. On the other hand, the original plats of the townsite and additions were simply recorded without being signed by City Councilor the Board of County Commissioners. No such reliance is built into that land division. Furthermore, the merger and lot area zoning requirements have substantially modified the old lot pattern. ADIHSORY COIIIII'l'lEB Vf.l'!'B: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously in 'favor of the recommended amendment (see Resolution 86-1 attached). RBCOIIIIBRDBD IIG'l'IOR: on second reading." "Move to adopt Ordinance, 8, Series of 1986, on second reading." "Move to read Ordinance ~ , Series of 1986, SB.331 3 ,I""',. f~ MEMORANDUM FROM: Aspen City Council ~ Hal Schilling, City Manag~ Steve Burstein, Planning Office ~ TO: THUR: RE: Municipal Code Amendment: First Reading - Lot Split Regulations DATE: February 4, 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The amendment under consideration is to eliminate the requirement that to be eligible for the GMP Exemption for a lot split, the property must have an existing dwelling unit. The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend first reading approval of a Code amendment changing the eligi- bility for a lot split GMP Exemption to allow splitting of undeveloped combinations of townsite lots, but to entirely eliminate the ability to obtain a lot split GMP exemption in platted subdivisions. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION AND BACKGROUND: Aspen City Council initiated this amendment to Section 24-11.2 (d) of the Municipal Code in response to a request from Gideon Kaufman (see the September 10, 1985 letter attached). The subject section of the Code, Section 24-ll.2(d) is also attached for your review. The set of GMP Exemptions is an essential part of the Growth Manage- ment system, first enacted in 1977 and thereafter amended. Relief from having to compete for development rights is given through the GMP Exemptions for particular types of proj ects the City desires to encourage (historic structures, employee housing) or believes do not have significant growth impacts in the community (small commercial projects). The Exemption for lots splits was created in response to small property owners' hard- ships related to the merging of lots under single ownership provided in Section 24-13.6(d) of the Zoning Code and also provides a Ppressure relief valveP for owners of vacant lands who do not wish to go through full subdivision of their property. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Municipal Code Section 24-l3.6(d) makes two or more lots with contiguous frontage in single ownership an undivided parcel for purposes of City land use regulations. Applying the GMP exemption for lot splits as presently written enables a property owner to create a second parcel if it will meet minimum lot size requirements and if a residence already exists on the property. A lot split is also eligible for a ,......, ,......,. subdivision exception pursuant to Section 20-19 of the Subdivi- sion Regulations. Eliminating the eligibility requirement of having a pre-existing residence would make it possible to split undeveloped combinations of townsite lots under single ownership, large lot.s in some newer subdivisions and unsubdivided parcels. Based on an inventory of vacant land in Aspen prepared by the Planning Office in 1982, there are an estimated 30-35 existing undeveloped parcels throughout the community that would be eligible for lot split exemptions. Arguments in favor of eliminating the requirement to have a pre- existing single-family residence to be eligible for the lot split GMP Exemption include: 1. The current provision gives incentive to build a single- family house or duplex in order to qualify for a lot split. The first residence may be a speculative development, unwanted and premature in the potential parcel development scheme. 2. The resulting density of development would be no greater without the pre-existing dwelling unit requirement. 3. The City would be encouraging infill of existing vacant residential lands, developed according to the area, bulk and density requirements of the zone. 4. The number of potential lot splits is not so great as to constitute a major development activity. Site and neighbor- hood impacts of lot splits are usually insignificant, and therefore do not require the degree of analysis entailed in the full GMP and subdivision process. Arguments in opposition of eliminating the existing single family requirement include the following: 1. It would be undesirable to create a loophole for the subdividing of a larger parcel wherein the first two lots are exempt and "freeP from GMP competition. If the inten- tion is to create a mUlti-parcel subdivision, then the total development plan should be subjected to the full GMP and subdivision processes. 2. The original intent in giving the one unit exemption was not to provide the landowner with the ability to obtain multiple units outside of GMP, but instead to provide relief from the merger rule. By giving vacant parcelS the right to two units at one time, we undercut the rationale for the exemption. From a legal standpoint, it becomes difficult to differentiate between two versus three units at one time, and so on. 2 ,......, .-"""\ 3. In subdivisions where there are many over-sized lots that can be split, the GMP Exemption may not be appropriate. Residents typically purchase property with the assumption that adjacent subdivision lots would not be resubdivided. By making the proposed amendment, we would be encouraging lot splits by making them easier for undeveloped parcels. 4. If the City annexes land that contains undeveloped areas and lots with adequate square footage for splitting then the elimination of the existing house requirement would create a larger number of potential lot splits. The Planning Office and Planning Commission conclude that the advantages of Gideon's proposal outweigh its disadvantages and merits removal of the pre-existing dwelling unit criterion. In response to the maj or disadvantage No.3, which has been a concern of Council's in several recent lot splits, we recommend- ed, and P&Z agreed, that a distinction in lot split eligibility should be made between the lots in the original townsite and early additions as well as lots described by metes and bounds, and the lots created in platted subdivisions. We believe that through subdivision approval by the governing bodies there becomes an assumption on which the public relies that these lots were plotted permanently. Reconfiguring into smaller lots should only be done through subdivision approval and GMP allocation of development rights rather than to provide an exemption which amounts to an incentive provision to split such lots. On the other hand, the original plats of the townsite and additions were simply recorded without being signed by City Councilor the Board of County Commissioners. No such reliance is built into that land division. Furthermore, the merger and lot area zoning requirements have SUbstantially modified the old lot pattern. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously in favor of the recommended amendment (see Resolution 86-1 attached). RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to read Ordinance C5 , Series of 1986, on first reading." "Move to approve Ordinance 8 , Series of 1986, on first read- ing." SB.331 3 ,......, .-"""\ RBSOLO'l'IOJII OF TBIl ASPEN PLANNUG AND ZONIIG COllHISSION RECQIoIMIlNDIIG '.rBAT crn COONCIL MEND '.rBE ELIGIBILITY I.lllQOI~Il".IlN'.rS FOil THIl GMP IlXEMPTION FOR Lor SPLITS . Resolution NO. 86---1- WBIlRllAS, at.a ~~eting on September 23, 1985 and in response to a request by a mem.ber of the public, the Aspen City Council did initiate an aJIlendment to the MuniciPal Code of the City of Aspen to eliminate the requirem.ent. that there must be a pre-existing dwelling unit on a parcel of land i.n orQ.e.r to be eligibh for e lot split GMP exemption; /lnd WBIl~IlAS, the Asp~.n Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter .CoJ!llllission") Q,1Q ho.;J.d /I public hearinq on January 7, 1986 to consider the amendm~n.t :lnit.i.~.tecd by Council and t.he recommended modification initiatecd by t.M !,c;J..ann~.ng Office; and NIl:ll:aM$, t.b.ec CI:>:pis.$.io.n did accept the recommendation of the PlannJng Of.f:il'lE! 101itb. t\ec$.pe.e.t. to thE! pro.po$.ed amendmE!nt of eliminating the E!ll,1$tin..g dliI.E!;J.l.i.n.gll.nitrE!.quirement for lot splits of original to\?nsite /I.nd ~arlY d.dit.io:n lots, while also .eliminating the ability for par.cels in lleWEl.r 1l.1lJ!>.divisions and /lnnexed areas to be eligible for the lot split GM.1' ~".~p.tion altogether, as a result of having made the following find.ings: 1. The splittin.g of merged lots in the oriqinal townsite and . subse.que.nt additions has minimal qrowth and development impacts. Permitting a GMP exemption for this activity providE!.s a pressure relief value from the merger provisions of the Code. However, requiring a pre-existing unit on the lot to have it split may cause speculative development s.imply to gain the eligibility to create the second lot and is therefqr~ ullQ.esirE!ablE!. 2. In-fiUing of exhting residential neighborhoods that may .resqlt from this code amendment is generally desireable from the lltandpqints of /lvailableservice, efficient land utiliza- tion, and property taxation. 3. The nqmber of potential lot splits in newer subdivisions and are/ls that might be annexed is greater than the potential in the older p/lrt o.f the City and could entail significant growth and development i~pacts. . 4. Neigh.bors should be able to rely on the assumption that larqe subdivision lots zoned for more than one unit will not be.resubdivided without undergoing the full GMP and subdivision proc.ess to better address development impacts. NOW, THIlREI'ORE, B.E IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does herebY recomm~nd t.h~ following action t'o Aspen City Council: - . 1"""\ ,......,. Resolutio~ NO. 86--1-- Pagfi! 2 s~et. f.on I! 'I'hat Section 24-11.2(d) be repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: (new !anqu~gfi! is in bOld, old language is crossed out) (d) 'I'he co.nstru.ction of one single-family residence on a lot fopaed bYll ;J.ot split gtllnted subsequent to suaei~ieee af~el Npvember 14, 1977, where the following cond~tions are met: Cl,)"". l'iB,e/,t4\~,a\',.ef,la9Ei'vh!efl '.,tas'slissi-.-!aea,aaaa pEe enistiRlJ aw,~,~-11J!l,~' l:1f1i'e ; (1) The tr.act of land is not locatfi!d in a subdivision which . re.c,eiYfi!.d approval by either tbe Board of County Commis- sio~.ers or City Council, excepting any land subj ect to a subdivision exemption by tbe City Council since JanuarY 1, 19841 or tbe tract of land is described as a mete.s and bounds parcel which bas not been subdivided since tbe adoption of subdivision regulations by tbe City of 4spen on March 24, 1969; (2) NO more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision; (3) 'I'he lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subj ect of an exempt ion under the provisions of this section or a "lot split" exception or ~xemption pursuant to Section 20-19. (4) A s.u,bdivision plat is submitted and recorded by the apPli,cant after City approval indicatinq that no fUI,tb,llr subdivision may be qranted for these lots nor a.d,Qitiond units be built without receipt of applicable IIp,p,r.o'l1/1.1S pursuant to Chapter 20 and an allocation P,\l,r,sll,ant to Section 24-11.1: (5) '.rl\,e IilPplication was reviewed by the City Council at a p,ub;J.ic h.earin.g held pursuant to the standards of Se,Clt,ion,s 2,4-12.5(c) (1) and (2). 4SPEN PLANNIIG AND ZONIIG cOllHISSION A'.rTES'r: cj{~, ~~l~d Kim Wilhoit, D.ep.ll.ty .c.ity Clerk SB.Ol ,..--'" ,~, .~/!1f A.PROFE5SIONAl CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 . x LAW OFFICES GIDEON.!. KAUFMAN GIDEON I. KAUFMAN DAVID G. EISENSTEIN -iONE ~ 303 8166 q \rv\y )' Over the last few years, an inequity in the City Lalld ~!; Use Code has been vividly brought to my attention. Currently, the lot split regulation of Section 24-11 (2d) I ~,/ requires a pre-existing dwelling on a parcel of land before . r the parcel qualifies for an exempted lot split. This requirement exists even if the lot split is being utilized to divide pre-existing City lots merged by Section 20-4 of the Code. Therefore, undivided 'parcels as vJell as pre-existing City lots are treated the same. This unfort.unate requirement forces people to build a house on their property even if the house is 110it desired. This regulation, therefore, encourages unwanted developmenL It is important to note that if you cannot build a house to accomplish the lot Split it forCeS you. to, compete in the Gro\"th.. Hanagement .li'liOln.. tg.~.. Elcdditional . development and density. I. can unoer5,tan4 ilJt@City's desires to examine 'properties through the subdivision process. However, I do not understand why the City wE;lu!d require people to develop their land in order to subdivi4e it. September 10, 1985 William L. Stirling, Mayor City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado Street 81611 Dear Bill: I write this letter to you and request a City Council sponsored code Alma Beck was forced to build a house in order to split off her property. I have other clients who are in the same situation. I think that an examination of this Code Section would reveal that allowing the lot split without an existing house would keep the same density, and would also prevent a situation from arising where people had to build a house they didn I t want to build. I look forward to discussing this . matter with the Council and hope that you will agree thai: this item should be changed. Thank you for your help and cooperation. Very truly yours, OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUF~ffiN, .. Corporation GK/bw By ^ ^ " MEK>RANDUM FROM: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Steve Burstein, Planning Office TO: RE: Municipal Code Amendment: Lot Split Regulations DATE: January 3, 1986 ===================================================================== SUMMARY: The amendment under consideration is to eliminate the requirement that to be eligible for the GMP Exemption for a lot split, the property must have an existing single family dwelling unit. The Planning Office recommends that the eligibility' for a lot split GMP Exemption be changed to allow splitting of undeveloped combination of townsite lots, but not more recent subdivision lots. BACKGROUND: Aspen City Council initiated this amendment to Section 24-11.2 (d) of the Municipal Code in response to a request from Gideon Kaufman (see the September 10, 1985 letter attached). The SUbject section of th~ Code, Section 24-11.2(d) is attached for your review. The set of GMP Exemptions is an essential part of the Growth Management system, first enacted in 1977 and thereafter amended. Relief from having to compete for development rights is given through the GMP Exemptions for particular types of projects the City desires to encourage (historic structures, employee housing) or believes do not have significant growth impacts in the community (small commercial projects). The Exemption for lots splits was created in response to small property owners' hardships related to the merging of lots under single ownership provided in Section 24-l3.6(d) of the Zoning Code and also provides a "pressure relief valve" for owners of vacant lands who do not wish to go through full subdivision of their property. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Munici pal Code Section 24-13.6 (d) makes two or more lots with contiguous frontage in single ownership an undivided parcel for purposes of City land use regulations. Applying the GMP exemption for lot splits as presently written enables a property owner to create a second parcel if it will meet minimum lot size requirements and if a single-family residence already exists on the property. A lot split is also eligible for a subdivision exception pursuant to Section 20-19 of the Subdivision Regulations. Eliminating the requirement to have a pre-existing residence before a lot split GMP Exemption can be considered which would make it possible to split undeveloped combinations of townsite lots under single ownership, large lots in some newer subdivisions and unsubdivided parcels. Based on an inventory of vacant land in Aspen prepared by the Planning Office in 1982, there are an estimated 30-35 existing undeveloped parcel s throughout the community that would be el igibl e for lot spl it ft 1"""'. ,-.." > exemptions. Arguments in favor of eliminating the requirement to have a pre- existing single-family residence to be eligible for the lot split GMP Exemption include: 1. The current provision gives incentive to build a single-family house or duplex in order to qualify for a lot split. The first residence may be a speculative development, unwanted and premat ure in the potential parcel development scheme. 2. The resulting density of developnent would be no greater without the pre-existing dwelling unit requirement. 3. The City would be encouraging infill of existing vacant residential landS, developed according to the area, bulk and density requirements of the zone. 4. The number of potential lot splits is not so great to constitute a major developnent activity. Site and neighborhood impacts of lot splits are usually insignificant, and therefore do not require the degree of analysis entailed in the full GMP and subdivision process. Arguments in opposition of eliminating the existing single family requirement include the following: 1. Rationale for the GMP Exemption had been hardship for small property owners caused by the merger regulation. The Ci ty was particularly interested in not encouraging speculative developnent. The reasoning for the exemption may be weakened. Therefore, the GMP system would be weakened, and further erosion may occur at a later time. 2. It would be undesireable to create a loophole for the subdividing of a larger parcel wherein the first two lots are exempt and "f ree II from GMP competition. If the intention is to create a multi-parcel subdivision, then the total development plan should be subjected to the full GMP process. 3. The original intent in giving the one unit exemption was not to provide the landowner with the ability to obtain multiple units outside of GMP, but instead to provide relief from the merger rule. By giving vacant parcels the right to two units at one time, we undercut the rationale for the exemption. From a legal standpoint, it becomes difficult to differentiate between two versus three units at one time, and so on. 4. In subdivisions where there are many over-sized lots that can be split, the GMP Exemption may not be appropriate. Residents typically purchase property with the assumption that adjacent subdivision lots would not be resubdivided. By making the 2 1""'. I"'" .. proposed amendment, we would be encouraging lot splits by making them easier for undeveloped parcels. 5. If the City annexes land that contains undeveloped areas and lots with adequate square footage for splitting then the elimination of the existing house requirement would create a larger number of potential lot splits. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends that you direct us to draft a resolution recommending that City Council amend the eligibility for the lot split GMP Exemption be changed to allow splitting undeveloped townsite lots, but not lots in platted subdivisions. In our view, such lot splits have minimal growth and development impacts. The in-filling of residential neighborhoods that might result from this Code amendment -- although only a few such situations exist -- are generally desireable from the standpoints of available services, efficient land utilization and property taxation. Furthermore, Council retains the power to review all GMP Exemptions for lot splits. Parcels in newer subdivisions on the periphery of the City, as well as in areas that might be annexed, should not be eligible for this exemption. The number of potential lot splits is much greater and could entail significant growth impacts. Furthermore, neighbors should be able to rely on the assumption that large undeveloped subdivision lots will not be resubdivided without undergoing the full GMP and subdivision process to better address development impacts. SB.33 , D y ~)'1 \lhJr I J:, ~,~ H, k., 1 !J 1, 1,/1-] ; 11-v- 3 '. ,-, ,- . ~ 24.11.2 ASPEN CODE ~ 24.11.2 or duplex units may verify the number of units to be de" molish~ through an application for a demolition permit through the building department. Applications to verify the number of units contained within a multifamily or lodge use, or to verify the commercial square footage of an existing building shall be submitted to the planning office and building department so that a record of that which is to be demolished can be established. Failure to verify the existing number of dwelling units and/or commercial square footage prior to their demolition shall result in the loss of credit for their reconstruction. (b) The enlargement of, or change of use in a structure which has received individual historic designation. (c) The construction of one single.family or duplex structure on townsite lots or lot subdivided prior to November 14, 1977. f;;;;\ The construction of one single.family residence on a lot \:.J subdivided after November 14, 1977, where the following conditions are met: (1) The tract of land which was subdivided had a preexist. ing dwelling unit~" """ ""-,~..,,,,,\'" .,,\-,').6 Ie) (2) No more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision; (3) The lot under consideration, or 'any part thereof, was, not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this section or a "lot split" exception or exemption pursuant to section 20-19. (4) A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded by the applicant after city approval indicating that no fur' ther subdivision may be granted far these lats ner additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 20 and an allocation pursuant to section 24-11.1. (5) The application was reviewed by the citycauncil at a public hearing held. pursuant to the standards of see" tions 24-12.5(cX1l and (2). (e) All construction of essential public facilities other than housing, subject to the approval of the city council upon Supp. No. 29 1508.8.2 ( h t ~ -,0 "rpIVf, ~ hlT I1,eMJ.dt'lvj by, (-<d'"!,, 11~ ( f"""';. ~ POBLIC NOTICE RE: City of Aspen Municipal Code Amendment: Section 24-11.2(d), GMP Exempt ions NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on January 7, 1985, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council Chambers, l30 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an amendment to Section 24- 11.2 (d) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code with respect to the elimination of the requirement that to be eligible for GMP exemption to obtain a lot split, the property must have an existing sing1e- family dwelling unit. For further information, contact the Aspen/pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street,. Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. sic. Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Published in the Aspen Times on December 5, 1985. City of Aspen Account. ',"P"'""'''lo.:",!~\",':~~~-:,,,.~\ l:..; '.':f~j,.'-~,.. 1~':""<"C', 'y.:.... '1;:1 ,~ ''''~':i!o!''1~ .i'~'" ,""'. ',.'. 1~~~~....N."il!\. '. . _'. ',", ,".. . '''.:;;1),,-: ':.. ".l. ''', ' " . " ~'::tj.~:,....;, .tl...,,~ '. :"'.:' f . I ,'j '.:' "~' . . ':, . . . ," " f'~'f~;:,. ,>)~,,"'~I;.'< ~,.. ," .~,. '\ " l"::j:~~;:"'" ~ . " J. .:1" i,' i !. :,! .! ,j .' ,-1.." i !. ! .j I, ~ r .! ! -.1, , .1 ...... . . " "i' I i:", , " ! ..1:,."'....;..,'...., . ".~.,..'i .: :.:.~.:... 'i' i" j':" i '1 --, .".:>, ~- ce C)'C: ... - ... 'C c: .., ~ .e , Q.-:' C .. -- ~C,) ~'ii f.e oS ~, "