Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse.code amendment.R15Azone.1979 1""'\ ...-" 41- GA ~.15A- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Karen Smith, Planning Office Adoption of R-15A Zone District June 15, 1979 A public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 19, 1979, to consider the adoption of an amendment to the text of the Aspen Zoning Code. The amendment is one necessitated by the prospect of major annexations on the periphery of the City of Aspen, where there is a substantial amount of R-15 zoning. Most immediately, is the recently annexed Smuggler Trailer Park area which is now currently zoned R-15. This is one of a series of amendments that we expect will be necessary to coordinate the zoning of the City and the County and to maintain the limitations on buildout provided for in that zoning tOday. What we are striving for is zoning similar so that we do not either increase the allowable densities, drastically change the nature of permitted uses, or create unnecessary non-conformities of use or area and bulk requirements. The major difference between the R-15 zone district in the City and the County is that within the County duplexes are not allowed while in the City duplexes are allowed on a minimum lot of 15,000 square feet (if subdivided prior to the adoption of the zoning code) or at 10,000 square feet per unit if on a more recently subdivided lot. Therefore we recommend that Section 24-3.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code be amended by the addition of another row in the chart to be placed just below Residential R-15. This would be labeled Residential R-15A. The intention would remain the same. Permitted uses would remain ~he same reference with the addition of the following language: "Except that two family dwell ings shall be prohibited." Conditional uses shall remain the same. ,- , We recommend that Secti on 24-3.4, Area and Bill k Requi rements, be amended only to reflect that the R-15 and R-15A zones will have the same area and bulk requirements. To that end the chart would simply add R-15A below R-15. We think this is appropriate because the area and bulk requirements of the County's R-15 zone do remain substantially the same as the City's R-15 zone currently is. The only differences are:' 1. That all buildings except dwellings and accessory buildings must have a 20' setback in the City ,instead of the across the board 10' rear yard setback in the County. We think that in very few cases .will this more restrictive requirement in the City occur, because we are talking about substantially developed areas devoted to residential uses. 2. The maximum height in the County is now 28' for principle uses while it is only 25' in the City. Here again, we do not expect this to be a major problem. 3. The FAR requirement being proposed for the City is less restrictive than the. 16 that now pertains to the R-15 zone district in the County. There are some differences in the use provisions for the R-15 zones in both jurisdictions. However, these seem to be limited to some peculiar uses . that would apply more in rural areas of the County, for example, the County does allow by special review Forest Service special use permit uses, junkyards, outdoor amusement facilities, guest ranches,' water diversion structures, farm buildings and community center which was specifically designed to accommodate the conmunitycenter use at the old hospital site. \ :-_.~ ""~' , ....."'... ~'rJ ^ Memo Re: R-15A Zone District~ June 15, 1979 Page Two ,~ The alternative to this solution would be simply to zone all County R-15 lands which are annexed to the City's R-30 zone. This alternative seems undersirab1e because the minimum lot area is 30,000 square feet although the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet. We would envision the creation of a number of substandard size lots in that event. Another alternative would be to create a R-15 zone that simply prohibited duplexes on 15,000 square foot lots no matter when subdivided. Thjs would hav~ the effect of allowing duplexes on 20,000 square foot lots only and would constitute potentially a 30% increase in density. We would prefer avoiding any increases in density. We recommend the proposal before you. ,~ " ...~,~ ~"'''~~'-c.:'' .~.,':'... ,~_ ''','-' ~:;