HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.1987-1
-
f~ .
1"""'1
~
~
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO_
6-fI
'J) is/;-/cl
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: (} r e 0.01 ion f:) -F f? /._5 13 2017 e.
Project Address:
APPLICANT: (?if.y of" A ytlJ;
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: C-, \ e. Y\ t'\ \-\D( y'\
Representative Address/Phone:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Cj~e
PAID: YES e AMOUNT:
1 STEP APPLICATION:
A-1"Y'\.I<..rJrYlen r
P&Z MEETING DATE:
.. PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
2 STEP APPLICATION:
CC
MEETING DATE:
'PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
."
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
REFERRALS :
City Attorney
city Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir. Hlth.
Aspen Consolo
S.D.
Mtn. Bell
Paries Dept.
Ho1y Cross
Fire Marshall
Fire Chief
Roaring Fork
Transit
School District
ROCky Mtn Nat Gas
state Hwy Dept(GW)
state Hwy Dept(GJ)
Bldg:Zon/Inspect
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
Other
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED: CI~."5 -xr INITIAL~U ../
city Atty
City Engineer
Bldg. Dept.
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:,6;(~c..t~rfcf(
_'t"
,f
~,
,~
~
Caseload disposition sheet for the Creation of the R-15B zone
District.
On July 13 1987 the city council approved an creating the R-15 B
Zone district. The zoning was subsequently applied to the Aspen
Groye/Eastwood/Knollwood annexation area. A cop[y of the new zone
district is in the file.
..'
^~
,)
,
,.-.,
(
, 1""'.
( ..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director ~
FROM:
THRU:
/!~,
Robert S. Anderson Jr., City Manager >(~ ;"-.
RE:
Creation of the R-15B Zone District and Initial Zoning
for the Aspen GrovejKnollwoodjEastwood Annexation Area
DATE:
July 13, 1987
================================================================
SUNMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Office recommends approval on second reading of
Ordinance 61'S (Series of 1987) and ordinance cQb (Series
of 1987) creating the R-15B zone district and zoning the Aspen
GrovejKnollwoodjEastwood annexation area R-15B.
BACKGROUND:
On June 16, 1987 the City Council approved on first reading an
ordinance creating the R-15B zone district and an ordinance
zoning the 'Aspen GrovejKnollwoodjEastwood annexation area R-15B.
Attached for your informatio~. is a copy of the June 16, 1987
memorandum which addresses in detail the issues associated with
these two ordinances.
The city Council directed the Staff to make two changes to the
ordinance creating the R-15B zone district. First, a change was
made to the ordinance which provides an interpretation of the
definition of a dwelling unit. The new interpretation makes it
clear that two level houses in the proposed R-15B zone district
will not be viewed as duplex dwelling units. Second, a provision
has been placed in the ordinance which exempts all existing
residences in the annexation area from the 8040 Greenline review
process.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
The council also requested that the Staff research the current
sizes or houses in the Meadowood and Aspen Highlands Subdivision
because these subdivisions will probably be zoned R-15B when they
are annexed by the City. The purpose of the research was to
determine if the Floor Area Ratio proposed in the R-15B zone
district would accommodate the houses in Meadowood and Aspen
Highlands Subdivision. Our research has showed that the lots in
Meadowood and the Aspen Highlands Subdivisions vary between
15,000 and 17,000 square feet and the existing houses vary in
t"'"
(
.-..
(
size between 2,400 and 3,400 square feet in size.
few house which are larger than 3,400 square feet.
Given the proposed Floor Area Ratio in the R-15B zone district, a
3,150 square foot house could be constructed on a 15,000 square
foot lot, a 3,192 square foot house on 16,000 square foot lot and
a 3,234 square foot house on a 17,000 square foot lot. Based
upon these findings the city council may wish to consider
increasing the proposed Floor Area Ratio for the R-15B zone
district slightly to .71 or .72 of the sliding scale.
There are a
Table 1 demonstrates a comparison of, various Floor Area Ratios
for your consideration:
TABLE 1
FLOOR AREA RATIO COMPARISON
.7x
sliding
scale
FAR Options (s. f.)
.71x .72x
sliding sliding
scale scale
.73x
sliding
scale
Lot Area (s. f.)
15,000
16,000
17,000
3,150
3,192
3,234
3,195
3,237
3,280
3,240
3,283
3,326
3,285
3,328
3,372
Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, July 1987
RECOMMENDATION:
~... ,,'
/11'
The Planning Office recommends approval on second reading of
Ordinance 025' (series of 1987) creating the R-15B zone district
and Ordinance ~Co (Series of 1987) zoning the Aspen Grove/
Knollwood/Eastwood annexation area R-15B.
PROPOSED MOTION:
"I move to ru.J nl approve on second reading Ordinances .;l.s and
~ (Series of 1987}.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
.J-
~;~-C.'v..~-'C""...f'
o.,.P-t.2'\.._,.,"'~E:.
v,/
r15b71387
2,
-
~';~:;Yo(':-;'
".(.,
..tt~~t
".;.,.;-:'.;
~:f:~~!:
,I
i
I
I
o
o
o
3:
-1
-1
o
2
~
I
02
00
0-
3:!:t
t-X
(J)lJJ
<l:Z
lJJZ
1<1:
lJJ
>
~
a:
<.:l
z
w
a..
(J)
<:l:
:""Iii'! _,,/, 1,~.,
! ~_ _, .._ ~., f.... ",'il :{&,'
_j.. ;1-:11): ! ! !?; =i .1 ~J \h
Ii:L i_JI1.!j ." 0 ~i:tlll'"
& ~:, ~ !; ~,..:'! ;. 1 ali :& ~';;.':;:
o ~_i ,_Jodi . & &,1 ~I- or 0';;".
l~f;:i; f~;!~"I~i! i i pi t i;l!t'l,i
.1~ 0 "r, t.i . . .'J/' - I.::: .s~..
::;:H if I: ;i ; 1 II! :! .;itf!;i
!J':~ !:~::.i;: :.,; ~o~i 111M!:' I
'j!..o:.:I:'; :::;: t..- ; U.l:(;\
I.:! i;Ii j:1 :!::: ~:':!: .:'!.:h
liiH' i!!: :;. E.~' :~I. :1 10:h:1Ir
~': I" < i $:.I! :.;';.. 10 .i.. .t..1
i' Pi!; ,!i!~:I' _ .:1 .;i li~ ~ ;,,1 I:.!i:ji!j
'f'P ..;:~;lh::::! ;:.:!!l'.i:t ~'::o"::':
"l;ri tli,'. il:::l~lo:r I"'.:; ~cfl.i.1t'l
): ... i i. ~ ~~. ':.1. 'I. .,.1 I I"IA
i:~jH J.:!J'Jfl:i:.!:~j::h, ;il: hr. 'Iii:
, I I', .:}I.~H{'i~_i:.,;_o.n-:(! ,/" l.t11
: }~;~: ~~;'~:f~iH;f!fi!Hi;~iI ~iflh;/!::
! !!;ii n!h~if!iif:il:;i~:i~;::f~\~lHf~~:
.... _ :_!HHaijJrI,',',' ',;h.
! . . ~ -;!. n;!
" '~ki: \)
. - : l' '::: ~
:~ . -! .
~ ~ q~:; i ,
Attachment
1
.~
i ;4_
rt ,0:
J_ i!:I'
"'.1 :.
~; 'i;~
,I. I-I"
't'/- ;"
! .....!
,if :'~:t
:~] ;;i~
;;! "fl!~
,:-:;:.,,,,,,,.I!l: !!,"
._:.,w._.., ,'-i
,~m;~;~;;1 ~ ,:f:
.-..r::""::!loi:
;~~i!~H~i~~i[[iiti
.:hhh~i:h- .,,11
'l':~.' ....;f.": ~i~
! HiBiiH,,'iHr!
.. . _ul!!
(
:!i!
id~
":;1It~
If!
ImJ
U!f
l!'ll
1'1
II.!
~!.L
;)1'
"
I',
Si
i~I
ft.
-:1
1-
';Il'
;' 11\
I.Il
I'.
ll!li
,i
"
I.
II
..
,I
"
.,
h
I"
'I>!
I'
> "
lit
I"
'I."
.I~!f
JIil!_
"!-"
~i ~~i
l'i!!}f'
in I
'11'->7n
llili;!.'..~ '-';,
I!'!:" '.
;i~I_!'i -- "
!l:l;I ,
liIi:~' J
I.d"'" _l
~___ 1~~
:.
.f
(
~
1"""\
(
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Aspen city council
Robert S. Anderson, Jr., city Manager ~'
Glenn Horn, Planning Office ~()
steve Burstein, Planning Office ~~
TO:
THRU:
RE:
creation of R-1SB Zone District and Zoning of Annexed
Areas: Aspen Grove, Eastwood, Starodoj and Knollwood
DATE:
June 16, 1987
================================================================
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that the city Council approve on first reading Ordi-
nance ...25 (Series of 1987) creating the R-15B zone district and
Ordinance .~r_ (Series of 1987) zoning the Aspen Grove/Knoll-
wood/Eastwood annexation area R-15B. There are minor differences
between the Planning and Zoning commission (P&Z) recommendation
and the Staff recommendation which are addressed in this memoran-
dum.
BACKGROUND: The Aspen city Council has initiated annexation
proceedings to annex the ASpeln Grove, Starodoj and Knollwood
Subdivisions (see Map 1). Althoug'h City Council has sole author-
ity for annexation, the Aspen P&Z is required by the Municipal
Code to recommend zoning of the annexed area. The P&Z held a
pUblic hearing on June 2, 1987 to consider initial zoning for the
annexation area.
Prior to the P&Z public hearing, a public meeting was held on May
19, 1987 to discuss proposed zoning. The objectives for zoning
the area, based on pOlicies presented to City Council are:
1) To not sUbstantially change development rights (either to
increase or decrease) from that allowed under the current
County zoning regulations;
2) To avoid creating non-conforming uses or structures through
the change in jurisdiction and the jurisdiction I s regula-
tions;
3) To arrive at zoning that satisfies the residents regard-
ing problems that were not addressed under County regula-
tions, such as through removal of certain non-conformities;
4) To create a zone which may be applicable to other annexa-
(
r-,
(
I"""'>,
tion areas; and
5) To insure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
DESCRIPTION OF AREA: The annexation area consists of approxi-
mately 79.3 acres, directly east of Aspen's city limits. Most of
the area is north of Highway 82 on the rolling mountainous
terrain of the south side of Smuggler Mountain, between 8,000'
and 8,400' elevation. Block 4 of the Knollwood Subdivision is
south of Highway 82 and borders the Roaring Fork River.
There are approximately 114 parcels within the four subdivisions.
Approximately 27 lots are undeveloped. Buildout of the area
consists of some 84 single-family houses and three duplexes. The
subdivisions were approved by the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners between 1963 and 1971.
The Roaring Fork East Neighborhood Master Plan of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of the entire
annexation area "Low Density Residential" (LDR), described as
follows: "A designation recommended for existing residential
subdivisions which may be suitable for additional development
based upon an analysis of land use characteristics and the
ability of the community to provide services. Principal uses
include clustered single-family dwellings. The density of Low
Density Residential development will vary from three units per
acre to one unit per two acres depending upon the land's unique
site characteristics and compatibility with surrounding areas."
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The current Pitkin County zoning of the
entire area is R-15 Resident~al. When the City staff originally
met with residents in the annexation area, the Planning Office
staff mentioned that the preliminary zoning recommendation was R-
15A. within the R-15A zone district, duplex structures are
permitted. By comparison, duplex structures are prohibited in
the County. Residents at the meeting indicated they were
strongly opposed to zoning which would enable new duplex units to
be built because the area is a single-family neighborhood and the
addition of duplexes would change the character of the area.
Other differences between the City and County R-15 zone districts
include: floor area ratio calculations, setbacks, height, parking
requirements and conditional uses (see Table 1). Dwelling units
and basement FAR are defined differently in the City and County
Codes. In addition, the 8040 Greenline would apply to some
properties in the area in a different way than does the 1041
county environmental hazard review.
2
.,-....
(
Table 1
1"""'>,
(
A comparison of Area & Bulk Requirements in Pitkin County's
R-15 Zone with the City of Aspen's R-15A Zone
Area & Bulk Requirements
Minimum Lot size
City of Aspen
R-15A Zone
Pitkin County
R-15 Zone
Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling
Minimum Lot width
Minimum Front Yard
Dwellings
Accessory Buildings
All Buildings Except Dwellings
and Accessory Buildings
Minimum Side Yard
Dwellings & Accessory Buildings
All Buildings Except Dwellings
and Accessory Buildings
Minimum Rear Yard
Dwellings
Accessory Buildings
All Buildings Except Dw~;q.ings
and Accessory Buildings:.
Maximum Height
Minimum Distance Between Principal
Building & Accessory Building
15,000
15,000
10,000
15,000
75'
75'
25'
30'
30'
30'
30'
30'
5'
5'
10'
5'
10'
5'
10'
5'
20'
10'
25'
28'
10'
No Requirement
No Requirement No Requirement
Percent of Open Space for
Building site
External Floor Area Ratio
sliding Scale .16
Internal Floor Area Ratio
NO Requirement No Requirement
Off-Street Parking
Residential Uses
One per bedroom 2
other Uses
Conditional Special Review
Use Review
Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May 1987
3
(
,1""\
(
,--
Based upon comments from residents, staff proposes enactment of a
new zone district entitled R-15B. As you begin to address the
issues analyzed in this memorandum it will become evident to you
as it has become evident to the Staff that the city Council needs
to provide the Staff and property owners in annexation areas some
basic policy direction regarding the following questions.
o To what extent should the city of Aspen create zoning
changes which are custom made for individual annexation
areas? '
o Should code amendments which are designed to address
specific problems of annexation areas be initiated now
are addressed as part of the City code rewrite?
Based upon our work session last week, it. is the staff recom-
mendation that you utilize the following guidelines relating to
"Development Potential within Existing, Subdivided, Generally,
Built Out Areas" to assist you during the zoning process.
1) Guideline
Apply zoning to annexed area~ which generally maitains
the same development rights within the city as within
unincorporated areas.
2) Guideline
strive to avoid zon~ng designations which make conform-
ing land ukses and structures non-conforming.
3) Guideline
Consider, when appropriate, creating new land use zone
districts or special code amendments which may also be
applied on a city-wide bases to addresss specific
problems but, avoid creating custom land use legislation
to address isolated, special interest prOblems.
4) Guideline
When creating new land use legislation for annexation
areas, the city should consider the effects of the new
legislation on the remainder of the City of Aspen.
with these overriding policy considerations in mind,
issues relating to the differences between the county
district and the proposed R-15B zone district are
below.
specific
R-15 zone
addressed
4
,'"'"
(
~
(
1. Floor Area Ratio Calculations: Maximum FAR in the County R-
15 zone districts is .16, while the City uses a sliding
scale. For the purpose of comparison, a house on a 15,000
square foot lot may not exceed 2,400 square feet in the
County. In the City a house on a 15,000 square foot lot may
not exceed 4,500 square feet. Numerous residents expressed
concern that the City FAR allowance is too great for this
mountainous suburban area, and the character of the area
would be negatively affected if the City FAR limitations
were used.
Residents have suggested several options, including to use:
(a) County .16 FAR, (b) .20 FAR, (c)' .21 FAR, (d) .21 FAR
for lots up to 17,000 square feet and the sliding scale for
lot area above 17,000 sq. ft. and (e) .7 of the sliding
scale.
Table 1 presents FAR's using suggested methods of calculati-
on:
Table 2
Floor Area Ratio Comparison
-" .,'
,>
Lot Area(s.f.)
FAR Calculations (s.f.)
17,000
city
Sliding
.16. .20 .21 .21* Scale
2,400 3,000 3,150 3,150 4,500
2,,720 3,400 3,570 3,570 4,620
3,200 4,000 4,200 3,975 4,800
6,400 8,000 8,400 4,950 6,000
.7x
City
Sliding
Scale
15,000
3,150
3,234
20,000
3,360
40,000
4,200
* .21 FAR up to 17,000 sq.ft., 6 sq. ft. of
floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft.
in lot area
Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May 1987
5
(
r-,
('
,'-'
It has been noted that the current .16 FAR may be too
restrictive because some houses built prior to County bulk
regulations are non-conforming and it may be desirable to
remove their non-conforming status. In addition, owners may
wish to add on to their small conforming structures slightly
exceeding the current FAR limitation.
As you can see, there is a minor difference between the
maximum floor area under .20 FAR and .21 FAR when building
on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. Both allow for a moderate sized
expansion from the existing .16 FAR (600 to 750 square feet)
while under the city's sliding scale a much larger structure
can be built. The residents and P&Z should determine
whether .20 or .21 FAR is better suited for the area.
The concept of a sliding scale calculation for lots over
17,000 sq. ft. in area seems to have merit, as it would
preclude the building of houses much greater in size than
existing houses in the neighborhood which would be conse-
quently be out of scale. We note that most sUbdivision lots
are around 17,000 sq. ft., however, there are a few unsub-
divided parcels, very large lots and contiguous undeveloped
lots where much larger houses could be built. The FAR
established by multiplying .7 by the City sliding scale
accomplishes a similar calculation as alternative (d). It
may be easier to administer. Staff supports the .7 multi-
plier sliding scale measurement. The P&Z also supported
this approach, but felt that perhaps a .72 or a .73 multi-
plier might be more acceptable to the property owners in the
annexation area.
- 6 ~,
/.,
2. Allowance of Duplexes: A key concept of the R-15B zone
district is to allow for the continuation of the single-
family nature of the neighborhoods annexed into the city and
to prohibit duplexes. This concept has received strong
support from residents because it is believed that the
character of the area would be threatened by added density,
including the serviceability of narrow roads winding up the
hill.
At the May 19th meeting, it was pointed out that there are
three (3) duplexes in Eastwood that were legally built prior
to county regulations. These duplexes are fairly small
structures located on lots 6, 9 and 10. Under the County R-
15 zoning, these uses are non-conforming and cannot be
expanded. If made non-conforming uses in the city, these
structures can still not be expanded without receiving
variances. options of dealing with these properties
include:
1)
Create a special provision in the non-conforming
section of the Code "grandfathering" in these struct-
6
.,~
(
."-"
(
ures to allow for expansion without need of a variance;
2)
Zone the 3 properties R-15A, which would allow for them
to be made conforming duplexes1;
continue the single-family restriction.
3)
<>
opti~n. 1 entails creation of another detailed special
prOV1S10n in the non-conformities section of the Code,
already generally acknowledged to be the most convolu-
ted and confusing part of our zoning code. Certainly, the
interest of code simplification is not served. This option
is more attractive than Option 2 from the point of view that
it would relieve the owners of the duplexes form their non-
conforming status, while not giving them FAR allowances
above their neighbors under the proposed R-15B zoning.
However, it is questionable if further modification of the
non-conformities section of the Code is in the general
interest of the neighborhood or the City. staff can prepare
an amendment to section 24-13.4, Non-Conforming Uses,
accomplishing this exemption if the P&Z and/or City Council
desire to pursue this alternative.
Zoning the duplexes R-15A would constitute "spot zoning" of
three separate parcels. Problems 'with this approach include
creating a discrepancy in development rights from neighbor-
ing properties otherwise similar in character and exposure
to legal challenge. Please note that the city initially
considered zoning the entire area R-15A, making these
properties conforming while adding development rights to
many single-family resid'ElOces.. However, when neighbors
requested continuation of the single-family character of the
area, it was agreed that such limitation is desirable. The
Planning Office and City Attorney's Office recommend against
this approach.
Option 3 would not improve nor worsen the status of duplex
use currently under the County Code. To expand, the owner
of a duplex would have the burden of demonstrating hardship
to the Board of Adjustment to receive a variance. It should
be noted that the City has no abatement policy regarding
non-conforming uses or structures. Furthermore, in the case
of removal or destruction, a duplex can be repaired or
replaced within two years of the loss. Perhaps the main
advantage of non-conforming duplex status in the City over
the County is the ready ability to condominiumize the units.
1
Within the R-15A legally created duplexes constructed
prior to the application of R-15A zoning may remain as
free market duplexes.
7
(
,,~
,..-"
(
The Planning Office and the majority of the P&Z favors
option 3 because an increased burden is not added to the
duplex properties, and R-15B zoning appears to be the most
desirable and reasonable for the general area. The other
options open the city to legal challenge for spot zoning, or
entail further complication of a Code section that we want
to simplify.
3. Setbacks, Height, and Off-Street Parking Requirements: The
general concept of the R-15B area and bulk requirements is
to establish parameters consistent with the County require-
ments, as are acceptable to residents. Some residents have
said they prefer the County R-15 30' front yard setback for
dwellings (Ci ty front-yard setbacks is 25'), 5' side yard
setback for dwelling (City side yard setbacks is 10') and
maximum height of 28' (City height is 25'). Staff supports
continuing the county area standards in the R-15B zone
district, thereby not making structures non~conforming.
However, we cannot support maintaining the County 28' height
limit and instead propose a 25' height limit. The city
limitation was a major consideration in the development of
the City's Floor Area Ratios. A different height limit for
the R-15B would be inconsistent with all City residential
zone districts and previous city. policy. In the case of
front yard setbacks, the 30' minimum requirement would not
allow new structures or additions to be built out of sync
with neighboring homes. Off-street parking requirements in
the county are two spaces; we propose for the R-15B zone, 1
space/bedroom or 2 spaces, whichever is less.
The P&Z supported the'/staff's recommendation regarding
dimensional requirements with the exception of the proposed
height limitation. The P&Z recommends a height limit of 28
feet rather than 25 feet.
4. Conditional Uses:, Conditional uses in all City residen-
tial zone districts are: open use recreation site; public
school; church; hospital; public administration building;
day care center; museum and satellite dish antennae. The
County R-15 zone districts treat these uses in a variety of
ways: Church (on at least 2 acres with 30' setbacks),
hospital, day care center, and satellite dish antennae are
special reviews. A public school is allowed by right (on at
least Ie[ acres with 30' setbacks). Private schools, public
administration building, and museum are prohibited. In
addition, the county allows junk yards, guest ranch,
community center and farm buildings by special review.
Residents questioned if any of the conditional uses are
appropriate in the subject annexation area. Allowing no
conditional uses in the R-15B zone district is an option
8
,~~
.~
(
(
that should be considered.
Staff notes that there are similarities between the city
conditional uses and the County special review uses both of
which are allowed only after P&Z reviews impacts and grants
approval. The entire purpose of the respective reviews is
to ensure that a conditional use is appropriate in the
requested location, determined on a case-by-case basis.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the City's annexation
policy is to pursue annexing other County sUbdivisions on
the periphery of the city. The R-15B zone district may be
appropriate for other annexed lands: and, for the sake of
simplicity, we should try to keep the list of additional
zone districts no longer than it needs to be. Staff
supports maintaining the current city conditional uses in
the R-15B zone district. We question whether the special
reviews allowed by the County R-15 have been problem-
atic in the annexation area and we suggest. that the city
conditional uses will be no more troublesome for these
neighborhoods.
5. Dwelling unit Definition: A resident attorney expressed fear
that the dwelling unit definition in the Municipal Code
could be interpreted so that some. multi-level houses in the
annexed area are considered dupiexes. section 24-3.1 (g)
defines a dwelling unit as "one or more rooms, in addition
to a kitchen and/or bath facilities, intended or designed
for occupancy by a family or guests independent of other
families or guests." For example, a finished basement
containing a bedroom, bathroom, and sliding glass door might
be considered a separa1!e "dwelling unit". The County
definition does not contain the inclusion of a bath.
The Planning Office, Zoning Officials, and Code Simplifica-
tion Task Force have identified the dwelling unit definition
to be a difficult issue of interpretation, given the breadth
of design options of a residence. It is also generally
recognized that this definition has broad implications for
the entire city. Staff believes that the only appropriate
way to deal with the issue is through the Code Simplifica-
tion process. This process is a major effort on the part of
the City and interested citizens to come to grips with some
long-term problems with the Code: and it is anticipated to
be completed in the fall, 198?
The P&Z does not concur with the timing associated with the
Staff recollU1lendation. The P&Z recollU1lends that the dwelling
unit definition be addressed now rather than as part of the
code simplification/rewrite.
6. Basement FAR: "subgrade" space 100% below existing grade is
presently excluded from the city's FAR calculation, as
9
""""
~
(
(
defined in section 24-3.1 (ee) . In the County Code, all
subgrade space is included in FAR. Consequently, a house
with an FAR excluding subgrade space may be larger than a
house with the same FAR that includes the subgrade area.
Residents of this annexation area have stated they want to
limit the size of houses to only allo~ minor expansions over
the present FAR. An option for consideration is to set FAR
at .16, and then through the change in definition of
subgrade space those structures with 100% below grade areas
would then have added floor area available. However, we
expect that because of the hillside terrain, the great
majority of structures do not have basements 100% below
grade; rather, most are split levels opening up to a lower
level down the hill. Therefore, this change in definition
would effect few residents; and it is most appropriate to
establish the FAR that works for the majority of homeowners,
as discussed above.
The city is working on changes to our complicated FAR
definition as part of the code simplification effort. Staff
anticipates that a definition more similar to the County's,
including all habitable space ~ithin the structure, will be
considered. If such a definition. is adopted next fall, the
confusion for annexed areas will be eliminated.
7. 8040 Greenline Review: The 8040 elevation line runs through
the bottom part of the sUbj ect annexation area. As a
result, the entire area north of Highway 82 appears to be
subject to the 8040 Greenline Review. since Greenline
Review applies to deveiopment within fifty (50) yards of the
8040 elevation, it is quite certain that the whole area is
subject to this review. At the neighborhood meeting,
residents expressed conCern that the 8040 Greenline Review
may be largely inappropriate for this area. The following
issues arose:
1) The area is an old subdivision and largely built out.
Few environmental issues are likely to be associated
with new development activities.
2)
One of the key issues prompting 8040 review was the
elevation of the water tank so to assure reliable
service to residents. This is not applicable because
the water tank serving this area is' above the 8300'
elevation.
3)
The one-step (P&Z) review process may be an unnecessary
hassle for minor additions.
4)
Development activities are currently only subject to
Planning Director approval through County 1041 regula-
10
r-"
r-,
(
tions.
A number of options are available to deal with this problem,
including:
1)
change the elevation for Greenline Review in this
subjecting only the top part of the Aspen
Subdivision to the review process (perhaps
elevation).
area,
Grove
8140
2)
Exempt all
subdivisions
date.
development from
annexed into the
Greenline
city after
Review in
a certain
3)
Restructure Greenline Review
Planning Director approval
activities.
procedures to allow for
of minor development
All of these options require amending section 24-6.2
pertaining to the 8040 Greenline Review. As part of the
Code simplification process, amendments are forthcoming that
would undoubtedly remedy this problem. The main question is
when new regulations will be in effect. The city's approach
to code amendments through code simplification is to
undertake one comprehensive rewrite and to avoid making
numerous minor amendments in the interim which may only
muddle the Code further. Therefore, we are not prepared to
amend section 24-6.2 as part of this annexation effort. We
note that the third option listed above, creating a Planning
Director minor development review procedure, is being
developed at this time- 't:6 address a more general problem.
within a few months it should be in effect. Staff recom-
mends that this approach be used to address the problem in
the Aspen Grove, Eastwood, Knollwood annexation area.
It is our intention to modify 8040 Gr,eenline Review similar
to the manner in which the County recently amended .the 1041
review. The basic concept will be to create a provision for
staff approval of 8040 applications with insignificant
impacts. Minor 1041 applications in the county now take
approximately one week to approve. We intend to establish
criteria to determine when a review can be just a staff
sign-off.
The P&Z recommendation differs from the Staff recommendat-
ion regarding this issue. The P&Z recommends that a higher
elevation line than the 8040 Greenline be utilized as the
basis for Greenline reviews on the east side of Aspen and
that the legislation to establish this new elevation line be
created now rather than as part of the code rewrite.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The P&Z recommends approval
11
r".
/-,
(
(
of tne ordinance creating tne R-15B zone on first reading and the
application of the zone to tne annexation area. However the P&Z
recommends that tne neight limit for tne zone be 28 feet and tnat
the fOllowing code amendments also be initiated immediately,
rather tnan as part of the code rewrite, to address the concerns
of the property owners
1. Revisions to the city definition of a dwelling unit.
2. Revisions to the code procedures regarding the 8040
Greenline review to establish a higher elevation line for
tne east side of Aspen.
The P&Z made tnis recommendatio.n regarding new code amendments
despite tne staff's advise that code amendments be incorporated
within the Code simplification/rewrite. The P&Z felt code
amendments were important enough tnat tney should be initiated
immediately.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION:
approval on first reading of :
The Planing Office recommends
1) Ordinance
zone district.
series of 1987 establishing tne R-15B
2) Ordinance series of 1987 zoning the Aspen Grove/Ea-
stwood/Knollwood annexation area R-15B.
PROPOSED MOTION:
"I move to read and appr9ve on first reading Ordinances
and Series of 1987"
CITY MANAGER'S
_:f >uJ!UI
e><W1 J: WO"lI.t.O
f.f. 1k 7/CYi.
RECOMMENDATION:
~, PW~ {toft:.
lflftke
-z..,'
( ,
y c-DtlfI.l4 tiJ /111"'11 f5lp/ NffjJJ#,/"
~
r<<
/.4: i t; If 1"
f~/;
/02<;cr/CfC ;7.r
.~
~
12
1"""-,
1"""-,
, .
(
(
Table 3
Moderate-Density Residential (R-15B)
Purpose, Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses
Purpose: The purpose of the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B)
Zone District is to provide areas for residential purposes with
customary accessory useS. Recreational and institutional uses
customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included
as conditional uses. Lands in the MOderate-Density Residential
(R-15B) Zone District are similarly situated to those in the
MOderate-Density Residential (R-I5) and (r-15A) Zone Districts
but are those in which single-family structures are a permitted
use and duplexes are prohibited.
Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in
the MOderate-Density Residential (R-I5B) Zone District.
1) Detached residential dwelling,
2) Farm and garden buildings and uses, provided that all
such buildings and storage areas are located at least
one hundred (lOa') feet from pre-existing dwellings on
other lots;
3) Home occupations;
4) Group homes; and
5) Accessory buildings and uses.
Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted as conditional
uses in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-I5B) Zone District,
subject to the standards al}q ,Procedures established in Art. 6,
Div. 3. ~
1) Open use recreation site;
2) Public school;
3) Church;
4) Hospital,
5) Public administration building;
6) Day care center,
7) Museum, and
8) Satellite dish antennae.
Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May, 1987.
13
1""". 1---'
( (
Table 4
Area and Bulk and Off-Street Parking Requirement
in the R-15B zone
Area and Bulk Requirements
City of Aspen
Proposed
R-15B Zone
Minimum Lot Size (sq.f.t)
15,000
Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit
(sq. ft.)
15,000
Minimum Lot width
75'
Minimum Front Yard
Dwellings
Accessory Buildings
All buildings except dwellings
and accessory buildings
Minimum Side Yard
Dwellings & Accessory Buildings
All Buildings Except Dwellings
and accessory buildings
30'
30'
30'
5'
5'
Minimum Rear Yard
Dwellings
Accessory Buildings
All Buildings Except Dwellings
and Accessory Building-s'..>"
Maximum Height
10'
5'
10'
25'
Minimum Distance Between Principal
Building & Accessory Building
No Requirement
Percent of Open Space for
Building site
External Floor Area Ratio
No Requirement
.7 multiplier times
the city sliding
scale
Internal Floor Area Ratio
No Requirement
Off-Street parking
Residential Uses
One space per bedroom
or 2 spaces whichever
is less
SB.ANNEXATION
14
.^
^
(
(
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning commission
FROM:
Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director
steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE:
creation of R-15B Zone District and Zoning of, Annexed
Areas: Aspen Grove, Eastwood, Starodoj and Knollwood
DATE:
June 2, 1987
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The Aspen City Council has initiated annexation
proceedings to annex the Aspen Grove, Starodoj and Knollwood
Subdivisions (see Map 1). Although city Council has sole author-
ity for annexation discussion, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
commission is required by the Municipal Code to recommend zoning
of the annexed area.
A public meeting was held on May 19, 1987 to discuss proposed
zoning. The objectives for zoning the area are:
1)
To not substantially ch.a~ge development rights (either to
increase or decrease) f:fom that allowed under the current
County zoning regulations;
2) To avoid creating non.,..conforming uses or structures through
the change in jurisdiction and the jurisdiction's regula-
tions;
3) To arrive at zoning that, satisfies the residents regard-
ing problems that were not addressed under County regula-
tions, such as through removal of certain non-conformities;
4) To create a zone which may be applicable to other annexa-
tion areas; and
5) To insure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
DESCRIPTION OF AREA: This. annexation area consists of approxi-
mately 79.3. acres, directly east of Aspen's city limits. Most of
the area 1.S north, of Highway 82 on the rolling ,mountainous
terrain of the south side of Smuggler Mountain, between 8,000'
and 8,400' elevation. Block 4 of the Knollwood Subdivision is
south of Highway 82 and borders the Roaring Fork River.
/
(
,~
(
1"'\
There are approximately 114 parcels within the four subdivisions.
Approximately 27 lots are undeveloped. Buildout of the area
consists of some 84 single-family houses and three duplexes. The
subdivisions were approved by the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners between 1963 and 1971.
The Roaring Fork East Neighborhood Master Plan of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of the entire
annexation area "Low Density Residential" (LDR), described as
follows: "A designation recommended for existing residential
subdivisions which may be suitable for additional development
based upon an analysis of land use characteristics and the
ability of the community to provide services. Principal uses
include clustered single-family dwellings. The density of Low
Density Residential development will vary from three units per
acre to one unit per two acres depending upon the land's unique
site characteristics and compatibility with surrounding areas."
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The current Pitkin County zoning of the
entire area is R-15 Residential. When the City originally met
with residents in the annexation area, the Planning Office staff
mentioned that the prelilninaryzoning recommendation was R-15A.
Within the R-15A zone district, duplex structures are permitted.
By comparison, duplex structures are prohibited in the County.
Residents at the meeting indicated they were strongly opposed to
zoning which would enable new duplex units to be built because
the area is a single-family neighborhood and the addition of
duplexes would change the character of the area.
Other differences between the.C~ty and County R-15 zone districts
include: floor area ratio calcdlations, setbacks, height, parking
requirements and conditional uses (see Table 1). Dwelling units
and basement FAR are defined differently in the City and County
Codes. fn addition, the 8040 Greenline and stream Margin Review
would apply to some Properties in the area in a different way
than does the 1041 County environmental hazard review.
2
w,.."c:v.....
.-
"
.. I ,. o~'..
"'00"
. Oc.~ ...... '., ,,'
(
--....
'4'-00'.. "'~,;~__
"
..
-~
(8/<1;';>')4...
.
.
.
,"
"
,.'
,
-:"\.
"".. -. """;' =
-.., ..
.. -. '.
-'y-\ '~""",\
.". :
-4 '!', ".,. .. \
. , .
"I'. -"; '/
, .
"
,
. .
'. ..
.......
'''''
,
.
SOUTh
ro rHE:
ArvNf:Xt1.TION
CITy OF ASpeN
. """-
'~ V'90S"~
Sf: 1/4 HEI/4fLOT'J SEc... (K1M8ERL Y}
C4ll4H4N
P4RCE:l tvo 4~/YE:XJlTIO/Y
TO THE: c,j-y OF JlSPE:/Y
I
ClrrO,. .
--';~A~"ItO;'''L
rHls ..~.SPh GlfO~
COtlNCIL'ClhOF -(Asr.OOO""HOl.c.. '"
~"'.Sf:O rH( . . ......(N. "'T..,,, Woioo. .\atfllE'J(ATlO
----=- OAy 0, ~h. COlOltAl
*''''YO,. . ..' .____ 'II
-
CITr"CL.llt..
-I-
\\"'-e -1-_
..
--
-
()
o
"}
,
,
",
^
"-"
( (
",:
ORDINANCE NO. .;l5
(Series of 1987)
.t
~
./'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AMENDING SECTIONS 24-2.1 and
24-3.2 AND 24 3.4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO CREATE THE
"MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-15B)" ZONE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the property owners of the Aspen Grove/East-
wood/Knollwood Subdivision (exclusive of Block 4) have petitioned
the City of Aspen to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has approved a resolution
indicating their intent to annex the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/
Knollwood Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office notified property
owners within the Aspen Grove/Eastwood Knollwood Annexation area
"of a public meeting on May 19, 1987, to discuss zoning fo.r the
area; and
WHEREAS, the property oWners have expressed a desire for the
-... ~,
creation of a new zone district~which precludes duplex residences
and is comparable as possible to County R-15 zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission held a
duly noticed public hearing on June 2, 1987 to consider the
creation of the R-15B Moderate Density Residential zoning
district recommended by staff; and
WHEREAS, the city council, having considered the recom-
mendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission pertaining to
sections 24-2.1,24-3.2 and 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code, council
desires to amend Sections 24-2.1, 24-3.2 and 24-3.4" so as to
create the moderate density residential (R-15B).
.
i
,
.
~
I
l
l'
~
,
.
i
.i
I
;
,
t
I
l.
,
f
')
i
I
I
I
,
I
I
-'
.""'-.
~
(
"...;\,
r-"
(
-oJ
NOW, 'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY -~OUNCIL OF THE
:.)
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
section 1
/..
,!,.
That subsection (a) of section 24-2.1 of the Municipal Code
of the city of Aspen, colorado be and the same is hereby amended
to add a Section "29", a new zone district entitled Moderate-
Density Residential (R-15B), said section to read as follows:
That the schedule of Permitted and Conditional Uses set forth in
section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is
hereby amended to establish regulations pertaining to the R-15B
Moderate Density Residential zone district, said amended schedule
to read as follows: "(29)" R-15B Moderate Density Residential"
section 2
")
-....:.....:l
INTENTION
The intent of the Moderate-
Density Residential (R-15B)
Zone bistrict is to provide
areas for residential
purposes with customary
accessory uses. Lands in
the Moderate-Density
Residential (R-15B) Zone
District are similarly
situated to those in the
Moderate-Oensity Residen~
tial (R-15) and R-15A) Zone
Districts but are those in
which single-family struc-
tures are a permitted use
and duplexes are prohi-
bited. In this zone
district, any structure or
part of a structure which
contains one or more rOoms
in addition to a kitchen
')
PERMITTED USES
CONDITIONAL USE
Detached residential
dwelling; Farm and garden
buildin~s and uses,
provided that all such
buildings and storage areas
are located at least one
hundred ,( 100 I ) feet from
pre-existing dwellings on
other lots; Home occupa,-
tions; Accessory buildings
and uses.
None
2
.
i
"
~.
i
i
.,
~
.
I
i
i
i
,
i
I
,
,
i
~
i
I
I
,
)
.'
r..
J
(
INTENTION
J
and a bath facility
intended and designed for
occupancy by family or
guests independent of other
families or guests shall be
deemed to be a dwelling
unit as set forth in
Section 24-3.1(g).
section 3
,-,
(
.~
.,t.,
../'
That schedule for Area, and Bulk Requirements set forth in section 24
Municipal Code district be amended and the same is h~reby amended by the
regulations pertaining to the R-15B Moderate Density Zone District, as foIl
Area and Bulk Reauirements
Minimum Lot
Minimum Lot
Size (sq.f.t)
Area Per Dwelling unit
(sq. ft.)
~)
Minimum Lot width
Minimum Front Yard
Dwellings
Accessory Buildings
All buildings except dwellings
and accessory buildings - './
Minimum Side Yard
Dwellings & Accessory Buildings
All BUildings Except Dwellings
and, accessory buildings
Minimum Rear Yard
Dwellings
Accessory Buildings
All Buildings Except Dwellings
and Accessory Buildings
Maximum Height
Minimum Distance Between Principal
Building & Accessory Building
Percent 'of Open Space for
BuUding site
External Floor Area Ratio
Internal Floor Area Ratio
Off-Street Parking
Residential Uses
. ,--~
C)
,.'
City of Aspen
'R-15B Zone
t
J
f
J
,
;
,
~
15,000
15,qoo
751
30'
30'
30'
5'
I
I
I
5'
10'
5'
1.
I
I
I
".l
10'
25'
No Requirement
No Requirement
See Exhibit A
No Requirement
One space per bedroom
or 2 spaces whichever
is less
3
_._____._____0.__. ...
. 1"'"\ ,-.;,
( (
section 4
.j
,~
)
That the city Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to re
in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
section 5
If any section, sUb-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
nance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by and court 0
juriSdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and
provision and such holding' shall not affect the validity of the remaini
thereof.
-,
fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be publis
the
City of Aspen on the 22nd ~ ~ J.'une,~~
~~. e:1. / ~
William L. . stirling I Mayor
i
,
I
i
f
City f
i
,
,
,
'J
-,
a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the
. .
I
I
, .
ATEST:
FINALLY,
?-~ Lr
City Clerk
adopted, passed and approved this /3
day of
l
,
)
j
"
, 1987.
~./~
William L. stirling, Mayor
ATT ST:
I'
Clerk
GH.AMC
)
'. I. \'
4
-" .~