Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Lot Split Requirements.1986ICAUO - CAA - 01 i i requ°ram�4t Reviewed by: ispen P& City Council 1 ,efh&yer -- --' -A JL �L17ijORY 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. Reviewee, Bv: Aspen PLZ City Council PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On April 28, 1986, City Council unanimously approved first reading of the proposed Code amend- ment . (l /� Jq d,4j ;� �1 ) q� ` Ci-��,r *Cpvrc' 6tm �iw ri /1e cti't�,/lp ^.� � 01' dt m • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager pp�� FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office (V_ RE: Municipal Code Amendment: Maintenance Shops and Employee Housing in the Public Zone - 2nd Reading 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 North 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 we believe that it is a logical and beneficial amendment is its own right. APPLICABLE SECTIONS 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 public utility 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: 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 1 0 i 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 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 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 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 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 2 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 site. Faking 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 while 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 0 0 ME MORANDU M TO: Aspen City Council THR7: Hal Schilling, City Manag ' 1 FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office ­A,1-- RE: Municipal Code Amendment: Maintenance Shops and Employee Housing in the Public Zone - 1st Reading DATE: April 21, 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 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 SECT IONS OF THE CODE: Section 2 4-3 .2 of the Municipal Code includes under the permitted use in the Public zone dis- trict: if . . . essential governmental and public utility 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 2 4-3 .2 i s : "To provide for the development 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 appears that as a result of the opposition to this proposal, the 1975 rewrite of the zoning code excluded mainte- nance buildings from the Public zone district. 0 i 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 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 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 0 0 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 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 while 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&Z s 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 first reading of Ordinance No. lib , 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 0 • TO: Mayor & City Council THRU: Harold Schilling, City Manage FROM: Dallas D. Everhart, Finance De rtment�k9G DATE: April 28, 1986 RE: Appropriation Ordinance No.LJ_, Series of 1986. SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of this appropriation ordinance. You have previously reviewed all of these items. BACKGROUND 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 -appropriate these previously approved 1985 budget items. The ordinance authorizes the necessary re -approp- riations. 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./S, Series of 1986." 2. "I move to adopt Ordinance No.L , Series of 1986 on first reading." The proper motion on second reading would be: 1. "I move to adopt Ordinance No.___, Series of 1986." • -S�: ��r,% F X H I P I T "A" GENERAL FUND Revenues County Share-Envir. Health 345 _ Total Revenues 345 E C.C.L•.0 32,000 City Manager 25,650 Finance 4,390 Engineering 43,541 Environmental Health 690 Police 4,610 Animal Control 12,500 Parks 4,000 Castleridge 45,325 Total Expenditures 172,706 Expenditures Equipment 23,500 _ Total Expenditures 2.3,500 ASSET REPLACEMENT FUND Ex City Manager 225 Finance 380 Engineering 1,300 Total Expenditures 1,905 WATER FUND Exhibit " A " cont. Water Department Water Management Total Expenses ELECTRIC FUND 3,840 Ruedi Construction 29,100 Capital Improvement Program 306,500_ Total Expenses Ice Garden Total Expense 151,840 335,600 4,160 • • MENDRANDU M TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Municipal Code Amendment: Maintenance Shops and Employee Housing in the Public Zone - Public Hearing DATE: April 8, 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 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 this public hearing tonight the Code amendment will be able to proceed simultaneously with the Sanitation District's SPA Amendment application. APPLICABLE SECTIONS 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 public utility uses facilities, 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 development 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 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. • E 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 also be compatible with other uses in the public zone district. In some cases, having a caretaker is essential for the security and saf ety of the public f acil ity . 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 Sectin 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code, the use table for the Public zone district, to include as condi- tional uses maintenance buildings and employee housing f or employees of the public use. SB.2 (;AS-E DISPOS IT ION: L_Dj� I;T (-0jJ+ tie�e.Am�n t Reviewed by: (�]_spC1A*&Z City Council• 10.9 P c� Z of4 u'a %irn��yr I J� �� � r !r►�Q crx �nmwal, t% 47, �, 11� �t:� to J b J i:,5 6 ,Y P e30 4 jf if QIAV�w�t►'mf1 + � � �- CASE DISPOSITION: L p + -s 4- L A ft*-r 1.Tm YJ Revi-owed by: Aspen P&Z City Council Jn (1 Rev i ewc;: T,- Taper, P&7 City1 Council MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THUR: Hal Schilling, City Manag FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office �. RE: Municipal Code Amendment: Second Reading - Regulations DATE: March 4, 1986 Lot Spl it 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 final approval of a Code amendment changing the eligibility 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 subdivi- sions. 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 24-11.2(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 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' 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- plish the proposed Code amendment. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Municipal 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 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. 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. Rased 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 "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 o. • 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 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 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 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 platted 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 Council or 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 , Series of 1986, on second reading." "Move to adopt Ordinance 8, Series of 1986, on second reading." SB.331 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THUR: Hal Schilling, City Manag r 1 FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office+� RF: 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 24-11.2.(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 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' 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. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Municipal 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Council or 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 a , Series of 1986, on first reading." "Move to approve Ordinance � , Series of 1986, on first read- ing." SB.331 3 • • RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GMP EXEMPTION FOR LOT SPLITS Resolution No. 86--j— WHEREAS, at a meeting on September 23, 1985 and in response to a request by a member of the public, the Aspen City Council did initiate an amendment to the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen to eliminate the requirement that there must be a pre-existing dwelling unit on a parcel of land in order to be eligible for a lot split GMP exemption; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") did hold a public hearing on January 7, 1986 to consider the amendment initiated by Council and the recommended modification initiated by the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the Commission did accept the recommendation of the Planning Office with respect to the proposed amendment of eliminating the existing dwelling unit requirement for lot splits of original townsite and early addition lots, while also eliminating the ability for parcels in newer subdivisions and annexed areas to be eligible for the lot split GMP exemption altogether, as a result of having made the following findings: 1. The splitting of merged lots in the original townsite and subsequent additions has minimal growth and development impacts. Permitting a GMP exemption for this activity provides 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 simply to gain the eligibility to create the second lot and is therefore undesireable. 2. In -filling of existing residential neighborhoods that may result from this code amendment is generally desireable from the standpoints of available service, efficient land utiliza- tion, and property taxation. 3. The number of potential lot splits in newer subdivisions and areas that might be annexed is greater than the potential in the older part of the City and could entail significant growth and development impacts. 4. Neighbors should be able to rely on the assumption that large subdivision lots zoned for more than one unit will not be resubdivided without undergoing the full GMP and subdivision process to better address development impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby recommend the following action t*o Aspen City Council: Resolution No. 86--L- Page 2 That Section 24-11.2(d) be repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: (new language is in bold, old language is crossed out) (d) The construction of one single-family residence on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to subdi;-ided _G4__ November 14, 1977, where the following conditions are met: (1) The tract of land is not located in a subdivision which received approval by either the Board of County Commis- sioners or City Council, excepting any land subject to a subdivision exemption by the City Council since January 1, 1984; or the tract of land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided since the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; (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 further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor 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 City Council at a public hearing held pursuant to the standards of Sections 24-12.5(c)(1) and (2). ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By C. Welton And rson, Chairman ATT EST : 2 . , Rim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk SB.01 LAW OFFICES _ ^ GIDEON-1. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN September 10, 1985 ,ONE DAVID G. EISENSTEIN _ 303 8166 William L. Stirling, Mayor (vt" City of Aspen P 130 South Galena Street (} Aspen, Colorado 81611 j/ ` T Dear Bill: i I write this letter to you and the City Courc'1 to request a City Council sponsored code amendment. Over the last few years, an inequity in the City Land �•r Use Code has been vividly brought to my attention. Currently, the lot split regulation of Section 24-11(2d) requires a pre-existing dwelling on a parcel of land before i 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 well as pre-existing City lots are treated the same. This unfortunate .require;«ent forces people to build a house on their property even if the house is not desired. This regulation, therefore, encourages unwanted development. It - is important to note that if you cannot build a house to accomplish the lot split it forces you to compete in the Growth Management Flan for additional development and density. I can understand the City's desires to examine 'properties through the subdivision process. however, I do not understand why the City would require people to develop their land in order to subdivide it. 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't want to build. I look forward to discussing this matter with the Council and hope that you will agree that this item should be changed. Thank you for your help and cooperation. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a P o -(s�i ._Corporation By GK/bw idegn Kaufman MEMORANDU M TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office 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 the 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 24-13.6(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. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Municipal 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 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 to constitute a major development 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 City was particularly interested in not encouraging speculative development. 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" f rom 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 • • 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 GNP 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 GNP and subdivision process to better address development impacts. SB.33 Vy'1nWPVd I4 4L"dl 40 • S 24-11.2 ASPEN CODE # 24-11.2 or duplex units may verify the number of units to be de- molished 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. (d) The construction of one single-family residence on a lot 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; " ',^ M `- (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 for these lots nor 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 city council at a public hearing held pursuant to the standards of sec- tions 24-12.5(cXl) 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 a¢ hot )WA )Ildt 0) -b� A C-t1f�1n PUBLIC NOTICE RE: City of Aspen Municipal Code Amendment: Section 24-11.2 (d) , GMP Exemptions 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, 130 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 single- family dwelling unit. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext . 223. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on December 5, 1985. City of Aspen Account. • u Real estate transfers Pamela Elsner Gassman tc Michael Robert Gassman, quit claim deed. James H Glanville to Doreen Anderson, warranty deed. Edwin C Glickman to Gilbert Waters, warranty deed. Jeffrey Hayden etal to Sol Ro- gers etal, warranty deed. Benn James Jacobson to Milton Zale Trustee etal, warranty deed. Northridge Partnrs to Edward L Moses Jr, special warranty deed. Northridge Partnrs to Douglas L McKinna, special warranty deed. Northridge Partnrs to Kenneth Loep, special warranty deed. Kenneth Petki eta] to Dale G Rands, special warranty deed. Red Roof Inns Inc to Aspen Ldge Ltd Ptrshp, warranty deed. Resort Development Corp to Ernest Hank Abernethy, warran- Sharon Louise Scott to Lawr- ence B Scott Jr, warranty deed. Shadow Mountain Equities to Russell Yarbrough etal, warranty deed. Shadow Mountain Equities to H Stanley Wood, warranty deed. Shadow Mountain Equities to Paul Foster etal, warranty deed. Shadow Mountain Equities to Stephen O Dean, warranty deed. Shadow Mountain Equities to Cort W Farmer etal, warranty deed. Sirianni Enterprises to Thomas F Frist, special warranty deed. Brian Scott Sledge to Tom Wol- ters etal, quit claim deed. Joel P Smith to Kathleen D Smith, quit claim deed. Southshore Development Co to Parry Thomas etal, warranty public notice ORDINANCE NO 8 (Series of 1986) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 24-11.2(d) TO CHANGE THE ELIGI- BILITY REgUIREMENTS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EXEMPTION FOR LOT SPLITS WHEREAS, the CRX Council ofAspen, Colorado (hereinafter "Council ) deems it to be inthe best interests of the City of Aspen to amend Section 24-11.2(d)(1) ofthe Municipal Code to allow for a growth management plan exemption for the pur. Pose of lot splits of undeveloped combinations of townsites lots but to exclude approved subdivisions from eligibility for this growth management plan exemption; and WHEREAS, Council has made the following findings with regard to said Code amendment: 1. The splitting of merged lots in the original townsite and subsequent additions has minimal growth and development impacts. Permitting a GMP exemption for this activity provides a press- ure relief valve from the merger provisions of the Code. However, requiring a pre-existing unit on the lot before it can be split may cause speculative development simply to aintheeligibilitytocreate the second lot and is therefore undesirable. 2. In -filling of existing residential neighbor- hoods that may result from this Code amendment is generally desirable from the standpoints of available service, efficient land utilization, and property taxation. 3. The number of potential lot splits in newer subdivisions is greater than the potential in the older part of the City and could entail significant growth and development impacts. 4. Neighbors should be able to rely on the assumption that large subdivision lots zoned for more than one unit will not be resubdivided with- out undergoing the full GMP and subdivision pro- cess to better address development impacts. WHEREAS, having received and considered the recommendations of the Aapen Planning and Zon- ing Commission (hereinafter "Commission"), Council desires to amend Section 2441.21d)Q); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Section 24-11.2(d) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, be repealed and re- enacted to read as follows: (d( The construction of one single-family resi- dence on a lot formed by a lot split granted subse- quent to November 14, 1977, where the following conditions are met: (1) The tract of land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County Commis- sioners or City Council; or the tract of land is de- scribed as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regguulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. Any tract of land granted a subdivision ex- empplion by the City Council afterJanuary 1, 1984, ehal I be eligible fora lot split GMP exemption if al I other applicable Code provisions are satisfied; deed. Southshore Development Co to Wayne Connell etal, warranty .4-4 — (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 ex- emption under the provisions of this section or a "lot split" exception or exemption pursuant to Sec- tion 20-19. 14) A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded by the applicant after City approval indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor additional units be built without receippt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chap- ter 20 and an allocation pursuant to Section 24- 11.1. (5) The application was reviewed by the City Council at a nublic hearing held pursuant to the standards of Sections 24-12.5(c)(iJ and (2). Section 2 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 3 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of March, 1986, at 5:00 PM in the Community Center, at Lone Pine and Red Moun- tain Roads, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED pub- lished as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the loth day of February, 1986. William L Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk Published in the Aspen Times on February 13, 1986.