Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20080219AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, February 19, 2008 4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Code amendment regarding public notice, PH - JT Resolution No. 07, continued from 2/5 B. Code Amendment regarding Non-conformities, PH - JL Resolution No. 10 C. Aspen Club, Conceptual Specially Planned Area and associated requests, PH - JG Resolution No. 09 VL BOARD REPORTS VII. ADJOURN Roll Call Minutes Public Comments not related to agenda items Commissioner Comments Disclosure of conflicts Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) Staff presentation Applicant presentation Board questions and clarifications Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed Applicant rebuttal (comments) Motion ` P19 t Tit2 din' 4[EEspen u@~ RttarnsY'~ ¢f€€ce 'I'~: ASF'~P~1 Y2'~.~I~INF~I~?Fs ANF3 Z~I~~Nl~a C®P/Fll~SS1DI`*T FE€Q-I°dA: ,~areues ~. Trrue DATA; F'eEnrarary b4, 20OR C®~Ce AEnen€lrceent ~egaccIlang Sectne~n 26.304.060 Df The Asq~en ~gurnucnpa- C®~fle Regarduazg ~€evae~v tBf A Deve&eaprraeDAt Agg~dncati®n 1~y Decesi©m-I~'fa~ang B®claes, Saabsecte®n E.,1~ax6d~e 15~®tice. At the last meetnzg, we discussed various proposed changes to the Public Notice section of the code. The discussion ultimately led to questions regarding two particulaz changes that were proposed by staff. First, with regard to contact information, there was debate as to what information should be provided on the notices that are created. Presently the code calls for all notices to provide the name and address of the applicant. A physical address can be meai>ingless if no mail is received there. The attorneys' office suggested that more information should Ue provided to allow interested parties to contact an applicant or its representative. However, there was concerned express by various members of the P&Z, as well as the Community Development Department, that this may create privacy issues. The language has been red~aftcontact infocrmation.r Thus, the alternative for the applicant that would provide some meaning notice can provide either a mailing address or a telephone number or email address of the applicant or the applicant's representative. The other issue concerned the notice that is posted on the property. There was consensus that all notices should state that the initial hearing maybe continued from time to time. However, with regazd to the posted notice, there is a question as to how long the notice should remain on the property. Currently, there is no requirement that the notice stay up after the initial hearing. There seemed to be consensus to require the posted notice to remain on the property through the process but only through "best efforts". However, there was some strong argument that this should be mandatory. If it is made mandatory, then Section 26.304.060 C.S., may also need to be modified. That section addresses continuances and states that upon a continuance, "no second or P20 new notice is required". It is my opinion that a requirement to keep the posted notice up is not a "second or new notice". However, this may warrant some further thought and discussion. Counsel will be present at the public hearing to answer any questions you might have on the proposed resolution. The code requires that amendments to the Land Use Code be reviewed by Planning and Zoning for a recommendation. Your position with regard to the proposed changes is entirely within your discretion. ACTION REQUESTED: A Motion to approve Resolution No. ~' ~, Series of 2008. cc: Community Development Director z P21 1~ESCIA,UTYQ~IVT loo. _` (Series of 2008) A 1~SC~g.LTTf®I~T blF' THE iP'LA1~Fd~ ~4.I~1) ZQ~I~ CtyI~SSF4~l`d t1F' TIC CYT¢a' ~1~ ASP1FFd, C~I,~ELAH®, RECt51~)QE~I~f~~ THAT C%T~' C~IUCTL ~fDE'T AMEI~l~'~IdTS T® SECTAtSPd 26.3Qb4.0En® Ck' THE ASPEN IF~UlVECfPAL CEDE l~.E~ARTbY1FdG RENEW ~)H A ffiEVEI,~1~1VfENT A~Pg.I~CATf~Id R~ 3~ECLSgf1~I~d-MAlLFId~ ?$®1~tES, SUI~SECT1fbPd L., d~U&LIE' ~~lEEBEAS, Section 26.208.060 sets forth general provisions regarding the review of a development application bydecision-making bodies under Title 26; and tiT~iE)P.EAS, Subsection B., of Section 26.208.060 sets forth general provisions regarding public notice that is provided by the City and applicants for land use actions; and W1~EL~AS, certain provisions of the code are either outdated or have potential of creating some confusion within the public as to the time and date of the consideration of an application; uid WHEREAS, the City Attorney's Office and the Commuuty Development Director reconunend approval of the proposed additions and amendments to Section 26.208 ofthe Mu- nicipal Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: ,e e..,.v... wae.~ • Text being removed is bold and strikethrough. 'F' * "' ~ a tl€i§: • Text being added is bold and underline. Text being added looks like this. • Text wluch is not highlighted is not affected; and R'HEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Standazds of Re- view set forth in Section 26.310.040; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to con- sider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter and Section on February 5, 2008, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Community Development Director and recommended, by a _-_vote, that City Comicil adopt the pro- posed amendments to the land use code by amending the text of the above note Chapters and Sections of the Land Use Code, as described herein. P22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING CONINIISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Aspen City Council that it amend Sec- tion 26.304.060 E. Public Notice to read as follows: Sec. 26.304.060 E. Public Notice. 2. Content of notice. Every notice shall include the name aad-mess of the applicant and ei- ther a mailineaddress ofthe applicant or a phone number or email address of the applicant or its representative, the type of development application sought, date, time and place of the hear- ing, astatement that the hearing may be continued from time to time the address and legal de- scription ofthe subj ect property if applicable, a summary of the development application un- der consideration and identification of the decision-making body conducting the hearing and such other information as may be required to fully apprise the public of the nature of the appli- cation. b. Posting of notice. Posting of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a copy of the form from the Community Development Department. The notice shall be posted at least fifteen (15) days prior tothe init- ial public hearing before the apnlicable review body, by post- ing asign in a conspicuous place on the property subject to the development application. The sign shall be made of suitable, waterproof materials, shall be not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high and shall be composed of letters not less than one (1) inch in height. Notwithstandine the lang_uaQe of Section 26.304.060 C 5 the applicant shall maintain this notice on the nropertv throuehout the process to the best of the applicant's ability. c. Mailing of notice. Mailing of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department. The mailing shall contain that information described in Paragraph E.2 above. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be sent by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail or hand delivered, to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax re- cords of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public heating or those provided by the GIS Department of the City of Aspen. Section 2: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. P23 ~eegnlrn 3, llxisting Litigation. This ordinance shall i7ot have atiy effect on existing litigation and sha11 not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pendi2g under or by virtue cf the orduiances amended as herein provided, azid the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. I1~TTE~®%1DBJC~~2, ~ ~~ ~E~I~~~ID by the Cormnission duruig a public hearing on 2008. l~d..4A1PdFIQiG E4.1~HD ~~I~E~d~ C~11~'Il@'ATtSSE~IeT: Dylan .d®~P-CS, Chalir ~'Tt'T'~S'Y ,la~elsle Lotlalan, E-epuky Cflty Clerl~ James $, True, Speefial Counsel P24 ~o TG. Aspen Pflanee6ucg auud Zaaeumg Counuucnssnon )FI~SI~Tvfl: ,fescue Lasser, Specna9 Pr®~ee4s Planner 'b'EiRflJ: Jeue®nfer PI•ee9an, C®naueeaausety flbevel®p~ent l~epanty flPuu•eetm~' }~ 1@~LE'1rFNG DA'1('~: FeRaruarg~ 19, 2®~8 R~: Code AuneuuduneueQs to See4adm 26.3fl2.030 (C) - Intone©ue€orueanuzg Struucteares -flies®@oatfioue I~1®. ~© Series 2®®S - Paa9rfluc FEearnn~ ~SUM1'IMARY: Alice Davis, on behalf of the Lauder family, has submitted a number of text amendments with regard to the nonconformities chapter of the Land Use Code as it relates to a code amendment submitted on behalf of the Lauders in 2004 (Ord. No. 35). The City sponsorship allows the Amendment to be processed outside of the biannual dates typically required. Staff has worked with the applicant to clarify the language of the original Ordinance. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVYEW PROCEDURES: The City is requesting the following from the Planning and Zoning Commission: Determination if a lication to amend code text meets Standards of Review pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310.040 Standards of Review. A noticed public hearing on a text amendment is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission so that a recommendation can be provided by the Commission to the City Council. Final decision is by the City Council. APPLICANT: Alice Davis, Davis Horn Inc. and Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner and Chris and Lynn Seeman, ADU occupants. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed an amendment to the non-conformities chapter of the Land Use Code in 2004 and recommended denial at a public heazing on October 5, 2004. The City Council approved Ordinance #35, Series of 2004, on November 22, 2004, allowing for amendments to the Non-conformities chapter of the Land Use Code. The amendment allowed a property that was legally establiched and non-conforming with regard to floor area (over maximum allowable0 to add up to 500 square feet of floor area to an ADU. P25 Page 1 of 3 P26 BACKGROUND: The Lauder residence and ADU were built in compliance with the City's Floor Area code, which has since been amended. The former code granted two floor azea bonuses for Accessory Dwelling Units. Fifty percent of an ADU's floor azea was exempt if the ADU structure was detached from the primary residence and another 50% was exempt if the ADU was deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. Together, a 100% exemption was available for an ADU that was both detached and mandatory occupancy. The Lauder ADU qualified for this 100 exemption and the primary house was developed to the maximum size considering the bonus. During the period of this mandatory occupancy floor azea bonus, three ADU's were developed with a mandatory occupancy restriction. The City experienced significant difficulty in administering the mandatory occupancy and, in 2001, decided to remove this option from the code altogether. The ADU code was amended to require ADUs be detached to gain a growth management exemption for the primary residence and the floor azea exemption was retooled to provide a 100% exemption only if the ADU was condominiumized and sold to a local working resident through the Housing Authority's Guidelines. The program allows the property owner to choose the first purchaser, as long as that person qualifies through the Housing Guidelines. At the same time as eliminating the mandatory occupancy bonus, the City amended the code to provide a process of removing the mandatory occupancy restriction from an existing ADU through a landowner provision of either anoff--site deed restricted unit or a cash-in-lieu payment equal to the mazket value of the bonus azea. This was done in response to a landowner with a mandatory occupancy ADU. The City's code amendment in 2001 made the Lauder property a "legally created non- conformity." Specifically, the Lauder ADU no longer qualified for a floor azea exemption and the property contained too much floor area. The City's non-conforming regulations allow legally created non-conformities to exist in perpetuity, but prohibit expansions of the non-conformity. (i.e. a house that is over it's floor azea cannot be added on to.) The Lauder ADU is a one-floor unit developed over a storage basement that was also exempt from the calculation of floor azea. The storage azea was purposely developed asnon-inhabitable space (no window wells) to maintain its being exempt from floor azea. Basement levels count towazds floor area proportionately to the extent they are exposed. Window wells increase the exposure and require more of the basement level to count towazds the property's total Floor Area allowance. Prior to the initial Code Amendment request in 2004, a building permit to install window wells in the ADU structure was submitted to the Building Department and denied due to a lack of floor azea. The improvements were built without a permit and the construction was "red tagged" by the Building Department. The improvements were then removed and the property returned to its previous condition. An application to amend the Non-conformities chapter of the Land Use Code was submitted in 2004 requesting modifications to the nonconforming structures section with regazd to extensions and ADUs and Carriage Houses. Public hearings followed at both Planning and Zoning and City Council. As a result, Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 2004) was passed. Page 2 of 3 P27 In March 2007, tl~e City ~~,~as appreached by Alice Davis and Gideon Kaufman to discuss the possibility of acting upon the approved lay awage of Ord. #35, Series of 2004. Staff and the applicant representatives have ~R~orked to clarify the language which is applicable to only one mandatory occupancy unit (Lauder ADU). STAFF COMMENTS: .n ~,_,,,,T~~„ Staff has enclosed a Resolution that demonstrates code text amendments using ~ m red for removed text and underlined blue shadin ~ to denote new text. Each change, or set of related changes, is accompanied by a numbered red box in the left column. To understand the various code text amendments, it may be easiest to look through the Resolution identified as Exhibit B to see the exact code language changes -- while consulting the explanatory text below, which offers a rationale for each code text amendment, using the red boxes. SUMMARY OF TIDE IDROFOSED RESOLUTGON: The general allowances for non-conforming structures is now rolled in Section C, the exceptions to "C" are now formatted as a subsection of "C". Clarifies the current text by following a more logical format -that the increase in floor area is only available for ADUs with mandatory occupancy and then breaks the procedure and review standards into subsections. To increase floor area on a property, the application is reviewed as a special review application (requiring notice and hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission). Additionally, the application must meet the design review standards for an ADU or carriage house and meet additional review standazds in the non- conforming section. Most important is mitigating for the additional floor area via extinguishment of a TDR or un-built floor area from another property. Combines standazds 1 and 2, eliminates standard 5 (no vaziance from setbacks can be required), clarifies the standard for TDR extinguishment, and the final standazd language has been modified to omit a squaze footage number from transfer from non-historic properties. RECOMMENDATHON: Staff recommends approval of this application for various code text amendments to Section 26.312.030 (C), Extensions RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITFVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2008, finding that the application for code text amendments meets the applicable Standards of Review." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A -Review Criteria and Staff findings ExiiISiT C -Color coded Resolution with proposed text amendments EXHIBIT B - 2004 Minutes - P+Z (Sept. 7, Oct 5), City Council (Nov. 22) Page 3 of 3 P28 RESOLUTION No. (Series of 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER AND SECTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: 26.312.030 - NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES -MEET APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW. WHEREAS, previous amendments to Section 26.312.030 submitted by the Lauders were adopted in Ordinance 35, Series of 2004, but were not codified; and, WHEREAS, after meeting with the Lauder representatives, the Community Development Director requested that the representatives submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to Chapter 26.208, to clarify the adopted language; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030 C., Extensions, of the Land Use Code and would permit additional floor azea on properties with a mandatory occupancy accessory dwelling unit and which aze legally established nonconformities with respect to floor azea; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public heazing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Nonconforming Structures, as described herein, by a vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the amendments meet, or exceed all applicable standazds pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1: Section 26.312.030-Nonconforming Structures, shall read as follows: Sec. 26.312.030.Nonconforming structures. A. Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the zone district in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. B. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance to nonconforming structures may be performed without affecting the authorization to continue as a nonconforming structure. P29 C. Extensions. A nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. A nonconforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the nonconformity. 1. Historic structures. The first exception to this requirement shall be for a structure listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Such structures may be extended into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, may be extended into the minimum distance between buildings on a lot and may be enlarged, provided, however, such enlargement does not exceed the allowable floor azea of the existing structure by more than five hundred (500) square feet, complies with all other requirements of this Title and receives development review approval as required by Chapter 26.415. 2. 1\9andatory occupancy Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The second exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House ("ADU") having a mandatory occupancy requirement. Such a detached ADU may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU and also provided that the ADU does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or carriage house. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title and shall receive development review approval as required herein. a) Procedure. The procedure for increasing the maximum floor area of a property for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU requires the submission of a development application. The development application shall be processed under Chapter 26.430, Special Review. b) Review Standards. An application for increasing the floor area of a property for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU shall meet the standards in Section 26.520.050, Design Standards, unless otherwise approved pursuant to Section 26.520.080Special Review, as well as the following additional review standards: (1) Newly established floor azea may increase the ADU up to a cumulative maximum of 500 sq. ft. of floor area artd is required to be mitigated by either of the following two options. (a) Extinguishment of Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"). A property owner may increase the ADU by extinguishment of a maximum of two certificates with a transfer ratio of 250 sq. fr. of floor area per each certificate. Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing certificates. (b) Extinguishment of unused floor area from another property. A property owner may increase the maximum floor area of a property for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU by extinguishment of a maximum of 500 square feet of available unbuilt floor area from one property to the ADU. (2) The additional floor azea is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable. or the additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. P30 (3) The additional floor area creates a unit which is more suitable for caretaker families. (4) The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADU. (5) The azea and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. (6) For the transfer of allowable floor area through the use of Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates, the certificates shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.535, Transferable Development Rights. (7) For the transfer of allowable floor area from a nonhistorically designated property to an ADU deed-restricted as a mandatory occupancy unit, the applicant shall record an instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney removing floor area from the sending property to the mandatory occupancy ADU. D. Relocation. A nonconforming structure shall not be moved unless it thereafter conforms to the standards and requirements of the zone district in which it is located. E. Unsafe structure. Any portion of a nonconforming structure which becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance and which is declared unsafe or unlawful by a duly authorized city official, but which an owner wishes to restore, repair or rebuild shall only be restored, repaired or rebuilt in conformity with the provisions of this Title. F. Ability to restore. 1. Nonpurposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure which is demolished or destroyed by an act of nature or through any manner not purposefully accomplished by the owner, may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty-four (24) months of the date of demolition or destruction. 2. Purposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure which is purposefully demolished or destroyed may be replaced with a different structure only if the replacement structure is in conformance with the current provisions of this Title or unless replacement of the nonconformity is approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Any structure which is nonconforming in regards to the permitted density. of the underlying zone district may maintain that specific nonconformity only if a building permit for the replacement structure is issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition or destruction.* *A duplex or two single-family residences on a substandard parcel in a zone district permitting such use is a nonconforming structure and subject to nonconforming structure replacement provisions. Density on a substandard parcel is permitted to be maintained but the structure must comply with the dimensional requirements of the Code including single-family floor area requirements. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 6 [part]; Ord. No. 9-2002, § 5; Ord. No. 35-2004, § 1) Section 2: A public hearing on the Resolution shall be held on the 19th day of February, 2008, at 4:30 p.m. in the Sister Cities Room, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a P31 public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation withi~l the City of Aspen. ~ee4i®n 3: This Resolution shall not effect/affect any existing litigation and shall not operate a an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein recommended, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. ~g1~gy~D BI' the Planning and Zoning Conmussion of the City of Aspen on this _ day of 2008. AE'PI~~V)EFS AS'Y'® &'®)~.1C~E: P~AI~I~1FPdG ~tD ~~T~ifiI~l~ C~R~19~II~~IIQ~I~I: ~urraTrr~e, .~ssestan@ Caty Afltmrney A'Y"E')JS'f: EDyEan .)1®hrns, C9canr daekee d~®Ehlaae, IAegsu4y C14y Clerk P32 EXEEIIBTT A Chapter 26.310 AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICL~I, ZONE DISTRICT MAP Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Findings The proposed code amendments clarify the language, procedure and standards of the nonconforming structures section of the Land Use Code. The proposed changes eliminate confusing language disallowing variances for properties with bonus floor area, which created an inconsistency with the Variance Chapter of the Land Use Code. Stafff:nds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Allowing for additional area in an Accessory Dwelling Unit to accommodate a family currently residing in the ADU is consistent with the AACP's goal to provide affordable housing. Staff f nds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Findings There were originally only two approved ADU's/Carriage Houses approved as a mandatory occupancy unit in the short period of time the legislation was in effect. One of these two ADU's has had it's restriction removed and the Seeman's live in the one mandatory occupancy unit remaining. The applicability of the legislation is quite narrow, therefore Stafff:nds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Findings: The amendment will only affect one unit and family. Staff does not find this criterion to be applicable. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. P33 StarfFirrdings: The amendment will only affect one unit and family. Staff does not fmd this criterion to be applicable. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in sia ificantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Findings: The amendment will only affect one uazit arzd family. Staff does riot find this criterion to be applicable. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Findings: The expansion of an existing ADU is consistent with the community character. A~iass and scale can be reviewed through the development application process. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Findings: The expansiwz of the caretaker family (by one) has affected the subject parcel, requiring additional square footage for the changed condition. Staff finds tTzis criterion to be met. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: Because of the tzarrow scope of applicability for this amendment, and that the intent is to allow an existing family to remain in Aspen, Staff finds that the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose mzd intent of the Land Use Code. Stafffirzds this criterion to be met. P34 EXIIIBIT B RESOLUTION No. (Series of 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER AND SECTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: 26.312.030 - NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES -MEET APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW. WHEREAS, previous amendments to Section 26.312.030 submitted by the Lauders were adopted in Ordinance 35, Series of 2004, but were not codified; and, WHEREAS, after meeting with the Lauder representatives, the Community Development Director requested that the representatives submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to Chapter 26.208, to clarify the adopted language; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26312.030 C., Extensions, of the Land Use Code and would permit additional floor azea on properties with a mandatory occupancy accessory dwelling unit and which aze legally established nonconformities with respect to floor azea; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Nonconforming Structures, as described herein, by a vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code aze delineated as follows: Text being removed is strikethrough and red. T°,;: 'uc? :° -°--•°•~°a ' ' ''' '•' Text s ....., . _.. -.ov~~ =mss being added is underlined and blue. Text being added looks like this. Text which is not highlighted is not affected; and, Page 1 of 5 P35 1V CJ~WYq YY.1L1~`EL~l 4.i'm "y N3 £'. EP ~~'. m.~Y@J'~L~~'L 13E IIh~;. 'L' ~gT% ~~ AJL L^1~Y IIL.`L`1Cl~Tg1`l45 AFdl`9 ~Q,Ng7~t~ ~®gSsg~1VT as follows: Sestinon b: Section 26.312.030 -Nonconforming Structures, shall read as follows: dec. 26.31.63®.I~eum~ea¢ffartnraro sgt'~c~res. A. Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the zone district in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. B. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance to nonconforming structures may be performed without affecting the authorization to continue as a nonconforming st~~ucture. C. Extensions. '.--~ '4'• A nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an enlazgement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. A nonconforming structure ,,.__ _` may be extended or altered in a manner that does not chuige or that decreases the nonconformity. ?- .. Historic structures. The ~:'.;' `~fii_sr exception to this requirement shall be for a sU-ucture listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures. Such structures may be extended into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, may be extended into the minimum distance between buildings on a lot and may be enlarged, provided, however, such enlargement does not exceed the allowable floor azea of the existing structure by more than five hundred (500) square feet, complies with all other requirements of this Title and receives development review approval as required by Chapter 26.415. ;~ T _. p~ha;,;aro~••,, ec:u"z!.c•,~ !_ccessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The second e~~ exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached _ Accessory Dwelling Unit F°~-'d3 or Carriage House (`,ADU"1 havi~ta a nma~mdatory occupancy requirement. Such a detached ADU ~ a -~e~ e s`•m'u~-may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) squaze feet of floor azea, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU ~ ..=~- '•===~ and also provided that the ADU ~° ''~'~ does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or carriage house. The enlazgement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title and shall receive development review approval as required herein. ,..., _ _ _ - ..' a ... W n i .,« «,, r~Q- - YY r 1 a .,. .. .. . . a . , ... .. ~ c .. .. ... D ~ ~ . . . . .. ., c ., .. .. ..~ . . . '.i'i-~'-g3~9~ : ., c .. .. ._ u . u~ ., .. u v .. Pale 2 of 5 P36 rEi'iE ed-ia tG :.`rcii:ocist ~i-FS~3F.,, TF3"itfEF3td~-~°Ve}B~fFte t :cie xtS-pT3'a'c~ii-`.E-v¢;tp`c~i ...a_^a ~cnn ^ ~^h ' ^ .^_,. T.. ^.I,J:a: ,,., h., hL^ ^l.as . a,... :.ti_~ 7J:,.h..«.. T_......F......1.1.. Tl... ^t^_ ~ m^_ D' 1 ! 1 h ilT i J D I 3 ~ , ~cc6n~> m~ ~........... ^ ....... .. . ae. ..hcr .. .....,..h^... _ _ ree~}' __ J l1._1. "-';~ ~e a tn~ ..a.,h.. ^l...ll 4^ 'iinunr e€€s~e-htaad-~d (39e}s~sr° o„^h F ,. I ,.' „ ~S+ 3~tE~- ~6 E4'~ -that~33 1^I.t„ n,.,._ ,._^^ .,. «^ .^_h h ,. 3 f3€~iE B t ' , p p ~ j & f fk d8 a} Procedure. The procedure for increasing the maximum floor area of a oropertv foI the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU reouires the submission of a development application. The develo mp ent application shall be processed under Chapter 26.430• Special Revie`al b) Review Standards An application for increasing th° m~ximum floor area of a ~operty for the pumose of increasing the size of an ADU shall meet the ~n Odd; :^.. «„ hL^ ^..^^•^, _^..:^.. EFi~eFia standards in Section 26.520.050• Design Standards, unless otherwise app°oved pursuant to Section ~6 5~0 080 Special Review. flee~aFEa ;3en~ .. "f~ny~~Ey~;F~a ~ as weld as the following additional review sriter-ie standards: (1)Newly established floor area may increase the ADU uo to a cumulative maximm-t of 500 sa ft of floor ~rea and is required to be miti aied by either of the following two options (a)Extineuishment of Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"l. A property owner may increase the ADU by extinguishment of a maximum of two certificates with a transfer ratio of X50 so ft. of floor area per each certificate Refer to Chapter ~6 535 for the procedures for extineuishin~ certificates. ~b)Extineuishment of unused floor area from another property A propel owner available unbuilt floor area from one property to the ADU (-1-j(2) The additional floor azea is a conversion of existing squaze footage which was not previously counted in floor azea. (Example: storage space made habitable.) '''~`-Tr or the additional floor azea creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. (~ ~ The additional floor azea creates a unit which is more suitable for cazetaker families. (-0~ ~ The increased impacts from the lazger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a lazger, more desirable ADU. C~7 , -__ rr -.__a.. _.... ..__...,.. .,....~ ......_. Page 3 of 5 P37 (~~ i ~ ;The area and bulk of t1;e ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible v~~ith surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. i,5}'C[ SIT' ti a:~etpr ,j '.. l '-hie P I _i~a ill ~~„} _,~e -i 4e i i.J'4C rISL., ?.h~, ~'..: c,0(i jF t '. ic_I L Cam! <<~=iES, `: e Ge't': LCateS _°ria~l be = `".,~S~~E.'~ ie lla : Sri i:eiit ~t: PiaS. DLCS!-G?`L LO L;h.a~aet' SO.~ ~, T~-ll STc~fi~ -~ el _ . 1"yR r?~zr~z~;~~j-r._...._~ ...., ,...:'ice ,. £=} (c? For the transfer of allowable `loor area s s=s~--o- =r-=~~ •~-~ ~;q'~~ ~~~~~-- `~-~ from a nonhistorically designated property to an ADU deed- restricted as a mandatory occupancy unit, the applicant shall record an instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney removing floor area from the sending property to the mandatory occupancy ADU. D. Relocation. A nonconforming structure shall not be moved unless it thereafter corrfornis to the standards and requirements of the zone district in which it is located. E. Unsafe structure. Any portion of a nonconforming structure which becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance and which is declared unsafe or unlawful by a duly authorized city official, but which an owner wishes to restore, repair or rebuild shall only be restored, repaired or rebuilt in conformity with the provisions of this Title. Ability to restore. 1. Nonpurposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure which is demolished or destroyed by an act of nature or through any manner not purposefully accomplished by the owner, may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconsh~uction is issued within twenty-four (24) months of the date of demolition or destruction. 2. Purposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure which is purposefully demolished or destroyed may be replaced with a different structure only if the replacement structure is in conformance with the current provisions of this Title or unless replacement of the nonconformity is approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Any structure which is nonconforming in regards to the permitted density of the underlying zone district may maintain that specific nonconformity only if a building permit for the replacement structure is issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition or destruction.* *A duplex or two single-family residences on a substandard pazcel in a zone district permitting such use is a nonconforming structure and subject to nonconforming structure replacement provisions. Density on a substandard parcel is permitted to be maintained but the structure must comply with the dimensional requirements of the Code including single- family floor area requirements. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 6 [part]; Ord. No. 9-2002, § 5; Ord. No. 35-2004, § 1) Section Z: A public hearing on the Resolution shall be held on the 19th day of February, 2008, at 4:30 p.m. in the Sister Cities Room, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Page 4 of 5 P38 Section 3• This Resolution shall not effect/affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein recommended, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this day of , 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: JimTrue, Assistant City Attorney Dylan Johns, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 5 of 5 _,... ,__ ~~~EF~E~ ~ P39 oil and grease interceptor in the multi purpose room/katchen, .23..,7?pe,~ppllcant shall join any f atur'e improvement districts that are formed to complete future City approved improvements to the adjoining/ surrounding right-of--ways. 24. All exterior lighting shall meet the-City of Aspen Lighting code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, as may be amended~5•om time to lime. 25. All design, installation, and maintenance of the pool and spa n¢usi comply with the State of Colorado's "Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations "Pool rva;er shall ~e droned dtrectly into the sanitary sewer and shall not be drained into the storm se5ve, The Applicant must have the tispen Consolidated Sanitation District approve the drain sue for the swtmming pool and spa before installing them. 26. Each owner of an estate shall have an undivided interest in the common recregtional areas within the facility. 27. The Applicant shall pay the applicable school land dedication fees as determined by the City of Aspen Zoning O~cer prior to building permit issuance. 28. All, unsold timeshare units fhat are_no_ t. „_ ,. used .by the Applicant for exchange, marketing or promotional purposes shall be made available for short-term rent until purchased. This conditi.on.shall be included in the PUD/Subdivision Agreement to be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's D~~ce. 29. Nothing in the timeshare documents shall prohibit short-term rentals or occupancy. It is the intent of this condition that the non-deed restricted units shall be available for short-term rental purposes when not occupied by the purchaser or its guests or utilized for exchange programs. The Applicant shall submit timeshare documents to the City Attorney for review and approval prior to recording them at the o~~ice of the Fitldn County Clerk and Recorder. 30. The Applicant shall maintain the optioQrl n'~org nests heclaZng in and checking out.clf adjacent to the Innsbruck Inn as short term drop-offp gf, $?~ the Applicant chooses to sign up to two (2) on-street parking spaces as short-term drop-offparpking, they may sign the spaces either on Main Street or South Second. Street. ,S'eCOnded, by Dyl[Iri /Oj171S. Roll call vole: Skadroaa, yes; Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, no; Tygre yes. APPROVED 4-1 PUBLIC HEARING: - i r~c rug ~r ~Y.nr,b....,... - _ -.:_ . ~~ ~ ... Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the'1'llx Loae tirnenutucu~, „~u~~ was provided. Joyce Allgaier explained that Gideon Kaufman presented this code amendment on behalf of the Lauder family. City Council requested per Gideon Kaufinan this code amendment and after.th~ P&Z,review it will go to Council. Allgaier stated the former code granted floor area bonuses for 50% for detached. ADUs and another 50% for deed-restricted.ADUs so m this.situarionithe ADU was 100% exempt from the floor area charge. The Lauder's built the main residence to the maximum floor area, Allgaier said after this was built there was_a code change that required ADUs to be detached and the floor area. exemprion was revoked unless it were condominiumized and sold to a working resident, That was what made this property non-conforming; the Laudei property was a legally created non- conforming ADU. The applicant's wanted to convert the basement .'into livable, space. Staff identified 2 options that could exist where the Landers decreased the size of their house in order to add to the floor area,of the ADU oT deed-restrict and sell the ADU and neither oprion was being sought by the applicant at this time. P40 ASPEN PLANNING 8c ZONING COMMISSION - Mfinutes September 07, 2004 Staff did not recommend approval because it was unclear if the proposal was to allow only enough floor area to acconunodate the expansion or that the TDR purchase would make up for the deficit. The proposal was for a by right system and staff felt it should be a special review to weigh in on each case-by-case scenario. Allgaier said there was the possibility of a number of applications but were not sure how many and would like to see the fledgling HPC TDRs get under way before adopting another TDR program. Gideon Kaufrnan, represents the proponent of this code amendment, said that a detached and deed-restricted ADU created floor area exemptions for the residence; the code changes created the non-conformity. Kaufman said when the ADU was built there was a kitchen, bath, bedroom and living area and below grade there was an existing office, storage, mechanical and a full bathroom. Because it didn't have the required ventilation and light it didn't count in FAR Kaufinan said it was probably the best ADU built in Aspen but they have tried to figure out how to accommodate the growing needs of a family. If 2 window wells were added for the required light and ventilation then the FAR counts and you cannot add FAR because it was non-conforming. Kaufman said that was why they came forward with the proposed code amendment to help these detached and mandatory rented ADU units; he distributed an amendment to the code amendment adding special review. These TDRs from free-market housing can only be transferred to an ADU and would only count for the amount of squaze footage added. Kaufrnan illustrated through photos and drawings the placement of the window wells. Kaufrnan restated the floor azea would be utilized from free-market to enhance Affordable Housing Program; it would be positive for the community. Jasmine Tygre inquired about the number of ADUs that would be affected by the code amendment. Kaufrnan said the size of the ADU has also increased and at special review P&Z would make the decision. Johns asked why the TDR part of this speak to the free-market and not tie into the Historic TDR program. Kaufman replied the Historic TDR program means that a TDR can only come from a Historic structure; those TDRs are worth $100,000.00 to $150,000.00 per TDR, which makes sense because it is free-mazket value but if you increase an employee unit they don't want to pay those TDR prices. Tygre asked where these TDRs would come from that would be so much cheaper. Kaufman replied that there were a few properties and the. TDR would include deed-restrictions but Historic TDRs could not be used for this program. io P41 ~S~~T31°'~~I~TI+~T~ ~ ~~1~~~ ~~I~~~L~IN - Mutes SetrternHner• ~ 7g ~OH@4 Steve Skadron asked hove the Tl?R receiving praperry would be able to accept the TDR if it was built to what vvas at ttae time the maximum and novv why would it be acceptable. Allgaier replied that was one of issues. I~'aufman responded it vvas only for the affordable housing program and would not exceed what the code allowed for the ADU to be expanded asp to. Tygre asked what the criteria would be cited. Kaufman replied the code f®r special review, compatibility with the neighborhood, impacts on water and sewer. Tygre stated that everything was in pieces and it vvas nat clear what P&Z was to vote on; those criteria were not included. Kaufman answered it was referenced in the code. Tygre said she wanted all the pieces in frant at the same time and hove many properties were involved in this type of situation. Skadron asked the size of an ADU. Johns replied the size ranged from 300 to 900 square feet net livable. The commissianers voiced concern for the incomplete information on the number of units that could be affected; the specific criteria for the special review; specific and detailed restrictions on the sending parry, site specificity; the addition of dimensional requirements regarding the detached ADU and enforcement. The commissianers were concerned about the TDR program. MOTION. Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for the TDR Code Amendment to September 21, 2004; seconded by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED S-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ckie Lothi ,Deputy City Clerk 11 P42 ASPEN PLANNJNG & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes -October O5, 2004 Ruth Kruger opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners Brandon Marion, Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson, John Rowland and Steve Skadron were present. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Chris Lee, James Lindt, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Ruth Kruger hoped this meeting would adjourn by 6:45 p.m. Kruger inquired about the new windows in the Elli's building and asked if they were historic or went through a historic review process. James Lindt will follow up on Ellis. MINUTES MOTION.• Jack Johnson rnoved to approve the minutes from July 27, August 03'd, I1 `h and 17`x, September 7`~ and 21 s` 2004; seconded by Steve Skadron. Rowland, Johnson and Skadron approved the minutes, Motion Carried. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/21/04): CODE AMENDMENT-TDR'S Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on the Code Amendment; Chris Bendon noted this was a continued hearing from 9/21`. There were 5 members present for this hearing. Gideon Kaufrnan addressed the 2 items that concerned P&Z and placed suitable review by Planning & Zoning and staff. Kaufman raised questions regarding staff's interpretation that the only way to accomplish this was through the Historic TDR Program. Chris Bendon stated there was concern that this would take away from the Historic TDR Program, which has not yet been proven. Kaufman said this code amendment was for this particular unit because of code changes, which has made this anon-conforming unit so they cannot add 2 window wells to make the downstairs legally 2 bedrooms. Kaufman said their TDR code amendment was only used for employee housing; their TDR program enhances only affordable housing and doesn't have the same mazk-up as the Historic TDR Program so they are not taking from that existing Historic TDR Program but they are creating a market from the surplus of free-market housing and converting it for the community. Kaufman said that each special review would go through P&Z for approval for each particular situation, which accomplishes a valuable community goal. Kaufman provided the criteria for P&Z to follow. 2 - P43 r b _..., ...., .. ,. . h Sl~~l`d 1?J1~I~T~~ET~~ & ~@~I~1•I~T~ ~~I~II~~~~SI~IT~i~I~Ernutes flct~krcu° 0~, 2C1Q~4 Ruth Kruger asked where the TDR was coming from. Kaufinan replied that it was from afree-market hawse that did not want to use all of the FAR allowed. Kruger reiterated that Kaufman was creating a new program (code amendment) that would create sending sites that were nit historic and apening the market for a larger opportunity taking FAR from afree-market house to an ADU.' Bendon re- stated concern for the demand and the Historic Program could leverage the TDRs. Jack Johnson asked if the code had never been changed would there have been sufficient FAR on this property to amend this ADU. Bendon answered no. Johnson asked if the transferred floor area must accommodate the extent of the non-conformity plus the expansion or if only just the floor area has been resolved. Bendori replied that Joyce covered the first meeting on this and P&Z addressed that question by saying that you should only cover the amount that is necessary to accommodate the actual expansion and should have to first cover the overage. Johnson asked the overage. Bendon answered it was 750 square feet. Johnson stated that was only created because the bonuses were taken away, correct. Bendon explained that between 1999 and 2002 where there were 2 bonuses for ADUs; one for detached ADUs that provided 50% bonus and the other was for mandatory occupancy. Bendon said there were 3 mandatory occupancy ADUs created and this was the only one occupied. Bendon said in 2002 the bonuses were taken away and the only way to ensure the 100% bonus was if the ADU was sold - through the housing lottery system. Johnson asked by simply selling this ADU to the family that was living there was insufficient without a TDR. Bendori replied that was correct. Public Comments: Lynn and daughter, who live in this ADU, were present. Kaufman stated that when this unit was legally built it was mandatory rental. Kaufman stated that this code change would allow this ADU to expand and continue to house this family. Bob Staradoj, public, asked if there had ever been a case where an ADU on site has been sold. Bendon replied no; the community was looking,for the first one to be sold. Bendon added if the ADU were sold the property owner would gain a 100% of the FAR, which was exempt and the property owner gains an additional 50% FAR bonus. David Hoefer reiterated that the commission was not dealing with a specific case for this code amendment. Bert Myrin, public, stated that the code that Jack and Chris spoke about gave an incentive to the employee side and what was presented tonight was from the employee side not the owner side. Myrin reiterated what Chris stated for the bonuses. 3 P44 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes -October 05, 2004 John Rowland stated that he was in favor of this code change and the only negative aspect was administrative for staff; he said that staff could handle the. challenge. Steve Skadron shared John's thoughts considering the restrictions placed on the economics on the property and there was a viable argument for this but Skadron also shazed Jack's concern of getting this done under the.current code rather than actually changing the code: . Jack Johnson stated 3 issues: there were ways that this could be done for this family under the existing code; this code change was in the best interest for this applicant but not for the city and voiced concerned about the TDR sending and receiving sites. Brandon Marion mirrored Jack's no vote because of the far- reaching effect on the entire city. Ruth Kruger asked how long the historic TDR program has been in existence and the number of applications to date. Bendon replied it has been in place for about 7 months and there was one application pending. Kruger said that the vote on this code change wouldn't diminish a program that wasn't being utilized. Kruger did not see a problem with this application and P&Z would look at each application for these types of situations. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #30, 2004 recommending approval of a code amendment to permit expansion of non- conforming structures; seconded by Steve Skadron. Roll call vote. Rowland, yes; Skadron, no; Johnson, no; Marion, no; Kruger,, yes. DENIED 3-2. Bendon asked the commission if there was a particular element of this code amendment that if it were different then you would support it. Marion replied he liked the concept of giving FAR to affordable housing but wanted a more comprehensive plan than the one presented. Johnson said it would have to be a last resort otherwise more big houses were being created and Johnson wanted the Historic TDR Program to prove itself prior to creating another TDR program. Chris Bendon introduced Chris Lee the new planner. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT 1, ODEN LOT SPLIT STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Stream Margin Review for Lot of the Oden Lot Split. David Hoefer said that the notice was received and the requirements have been met; the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. James Lindt stated that the Stream Margin Review was to determine the top of slope; Lot 4 P45 F~e~ulae~ T~eetea~~ AsR~c~a Cety CeruencFl l~Tovea~her~ ~~. ~tVtP4 Council agreed to continue the list of design options to December 14`" ~R14Il~tA1~dC>/ #35, S~}~~~ Glr ~0&D~ -Code Amendment Non- conforming Structures .@ames Lindt, community development department, told Council this code amendment proposes a new TDR system to allow for transfer of allowable FAR in 540 square foot increments from properties that have excess FAR available to properties that have exceeded their a@lowable FAR but the TDRs would only be allowed for the expansion of ADUs or carriage houses. Lindt told Council staff does not support this code amendment. Staff feels this will take away from the demand side of the historic TDR system recently adopted by Council. Lindt noted this could be accomplished through the historic TDR system with some language changes, which language is presented in the staff memorandum. Council's options are to approve the ordinance as written with the creation ofnon-historic TDRs, or approve staffs recommended language using historic TDRs, or deny the code amendment. P&Z recommended denial of this code amendment. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told Council this code amendment would allow for a positive result for employee housing. Kaufman told Council this is about a caretaker unit approved and built. After the caretaker unit was built, there was a code amendment, which made the caretaker unit non-conforming as to FAR and eliminated any flexibility. The caretakers of this particular unit are a couple with two children. Kaufrnan showed pictures of the freestanding caretaker unit. Kaufman told Council in order to accommodate two bedrooms in the lower level, window wells are required. Installation of window wells changes the FAR. Kaufman said the TDR in this code amendment can only be used in an ADU; it cannot be used to expand a free market house. The staff's recommendation will not work as the existing historic TDR program is not allowed to expand ADUs. Historic TDRs are to be used to increase the size of free market units so the cost of historic TDRs will be higher. The proposed code amendment will help affordable housing in Aspen at no cost to the city. Kaufrnan told Council there were people here to testify in favor of this code amendment who had to leave before this public hearing. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. 14 P46 Regular Meetine Aspen Citv Council November 22 2004 Dwayne Romero urged Council to support this TDR program. Romero said the sales price for historic TDRs would overwhelm this type of program; the historic TDRs are not economically viable for increasing the size of ADUs. Toni Kronberg said this is a creative way to keep families in town. Lynn, asked for the opportunity to make Aspen their home. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Semrau asked about selling the ADU to the occupants. Kaufman said then the owner of the property would lose control of their caretaker unit. Kaufman told Council this code amendment will apply to mandatory occupancy ADUs only. Mayor Klanderud said the free market house with the ADU got the full benefit of the code in place at the time. Mayor Klanderud said she feels the historic TDR would solve the problem. Kaufman said it is an economic issue. Mayor Klanderud stated she supports the goal the applicant is trying to achieve. Kaufman reiterated this TDR program is only going to ADUs, not free market houses. Councilwoman Richards the goal of making the basement livable and keeping a family in town is laudable. This is one of the only mandatory ADUs where the owner has not tried to get rid of that condition. Councilwoman Richards said she feels the free market house sizes in Aspen are too large and she would favor ways to use up FAR for free market structures. Councilwoman Richards said she has no problem with this code amendment as long as it is to the benefit of families staying in town. Lindt noted if this is mandatory occupancy only, it would apply to 2 units in the city. Councilman Torre asked if there will be value added to this property by converting a two bedroom ADU to a three bedroom house. Kaufman said this mandatory ADU is right next to the main house and the benefit is having employees close and allowing that family to grow. This would allow community housing. Councilman Torre said the owners of the property will see an increase in the value of their structures. Mayor Klanderud said she supports the goal in this code amendment; however, she is concerned that this is an exception for 2 or 3 properties. Also this code amendment could have broad implications unknown at this time. Mayor Klanderud stated she could support staff's recommendation incorporating the historic TDRs. This would dilute the benefit of historic properties. i5 P47 }~effr~Rar 1'e~eetEn~ ~.st~em C-4~ Caur~ei!- Tv'ovem~&er 22, 2004 Councilwoman Richards moved to adapt Ordinance #35, Series of 2004, amending it allow mandatory occupancy only ADUs to take advantage of either a historic TDR or a transfer of PAR from a free market lot; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Councilwoman Richards said this is a very limited in scope and a subset type of growth in the city's code. 'This may make mare ADUs used and livable in the future. Councilwoman Richards noted the city eliminated mandatory occupancy of ADUs in the code because no one was building these units. Developers preferred payment-in-lieu. Councilwoman Richards stated it is worth rewarding someone who is not asking to get out from their mandatory occupancy ADU. Councilwoman Richards amended her motion to include to the maximum allowable PAR for an ADU or a maximum of 500 fee for a TDR; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; Paulson, yes; Richards, yes; Semrau, no; Mayor Klanderud, no. Motion carried. ORIDI1m1AIVCE X36 SERIES OF 2004 -Chart House GMQS Allocation James Lindt, community development department, told Council this ordinance grants a growth management allocation to the Chart House for 11 tourist accommodations. The applicants originally took the project to P&Z for growth management scoring before conceptual PUD. P&Z did not give it a passing score because it did not have conceptual PUD approval. After that review, P&Z restored the application and granted a passing score. Council may accept the score, amend the score or remand it back to P&Z. Lindt noted P&Z acted appropriately and scored this under the land use code. Staff reports there are enough tourist accommodation available. Staff recommends allocating 11 growth management quota contingent upon receiving final PUD approval. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, reminded Council they granted conceptual approval October 23'x. When P&Z reviewed this, they gave above threshold scores in all categories. Clauson stated this project will go back to P&Z and to Council for final review. 16 P48 P49 ~. I`tiT/hZQRAI~TII-UI~R ~~ `__,- c Tom; Aspen Plamung and Zoning Corrunission ~- )rRITI~I; Jessica Crarrow, Long Range Planner;, ~ti~ [fix 'l'HRfJ: Jeru~ifer Phelan, Ccmmunity Development Deputy Director RE: 14's® Crystal L,alce Rdad - Conceprtual S)PA, Couaeep~t~nal P><Jla, Ca~neeptnual T'um~sleare, aued Cencepataral Cae:mmea~efial lfesfgn Revuew Res®In$-6L! 1~®.~, Sea~Hes of ~®®~ I~EE'l'FFdG >(DA'F')E: February 19, 2008 Staff Pd®4e t® P&Z: Because there was no discussion at the February 5`n hearing, Staff is not providing a new memo for this. Application. Please bring your packet that was provided for the February 5, 2008 heazing. If you need a new copy of the Staff Memo, Findings, or the Application, please contact Jessica Csarrova. The Plarmin~ and Zoning Commission did request that a zoning map be provided for the February 19` hearing. Staff has created a map, attached as Exhibit A, which outlines the adjacent zoning. The Aspen Club parcel is currently zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a PUD overlay. This is because RR is the only zone district that permits a recreational use. The parcel to the east of the Club is zoned Academic (A) and Conservation (C) with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay. This is the Silver Lining Ranch parcel. The pazcel to the west is zoned Residential (RR) with a PUD and SPA overlay. This is the Benedict Commercial building. It is part of the same PUD as the Aspen Club (the Callahan Subdivision/PUD) and includes an SPA overlay to allow for the commercial uses. These aze outlined in more detail in the "History" section of the bound Application. Staff will also discuss the surrounding zoning at the public hearing. Also attached to this memo are three new citizen letters (Exhibit B) Staff has received. Attachments: Exhibit A -Aspen Club Area zoning map Exhibit B -Citizen Letters P50 6® ~y®~ •~ ~A Y~ ~^^ 3~i N Q N ~ O LL ~ O r m 0 m d O p r/> U = p d 4. pj d p d p p N J J ~- a~i O ~ d d a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m a ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N U ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co co ~ ~ o ~, C Q C ~ ¢ ¢ U U d inn ~ ~ ~ ~ K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v J QODO~~DOn~O~~~~~0~ Z o P52 vl~ y Y ~ ~~'v I I ~F i "`i L °P`53 GARY ~ SUSAN RAPPAPORT 1115 UTE AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1 PHONE (970) 925-4155 FAX (970) 920-1950 February 13, 2008 Dylan Johns, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Re: 1450 Crystal Lake Drive -conceptual PUD review Dear P&Z members, We have been winter residents of Aspen since 1981 and on Ute Avenue since 1987. We are extremely concerned about the levels of traffic that now exist on Ute avenue and are frankly horrified at the notion of increasing that traffic by what looks to us a factor of two or perhaps three on account of the subject project. We lost a cat to that zooming traffic in 1998 and now that we have small grandchildren who stay with us occasionally we are very very concerned. Understanding that the City has its processes to deal with new development proposals, we attended the February 5~h meeting of the P&Z Commission and listened intently to the presentation of Michael Fox owner and developer of the subject property. Subsequently we had two private meetings, one with Jessica Garrow of P&Z staff who graciously walked us through the documentation concerning the project, and the other with Michael Fox who wanted to hear our concerns and expressed his earnest intention to deal with them. We are grateful to both of them for their time and attention. Our comments fall into two categories, the first four regarding the framing and the nature of the presentation and remaining four regarding some of the planning criteria and staff's conclusions thereon. l . The address of the project is a lie in which the City is complicit, and it matters. This is a Ute Avenue project; there is almost no traffic that enters the proposed complex now via Crystal Lake Drive and there hasn't been since the City allowed former owner Dick Butera to provide parking on the Ute Avenue side of the river and abandon the substantial parking that existed for the Club facility across the foot bridge. The City bought into a soft-soap speech from that former owner who pleaded for the parking for the benefit of people who were temporarily or permanently disabled. Butera benefited greatly from the development of those parking spaces into private homes to the detriment of residents along Ute Avenue. The Ute Avenue entrance has become the main entrance and the parking P54 there is for anyone using the Club. But the City has made no effort to reverse these deleterious effects, and by considering permitting this project seems to willing to make them much worse. 2. According to the plan there will be 51,560 square feet of time share units being built. Time shares in the core of Aspen have been yielding gross sales prices of upwards of $5,000 per square foot. That would come to about $255 million, more or less. Given that the developer's incremental land cost is about zero, and the cost to build luxurious homes is less than $1,000 per foot (excluding land) the margin on this project may be about $200 million before the benefit of the employee housing. (Remember, with an incremental cost of zero for the land, even the employee housing can be reasonably profitable.) OK it's not up to us to count the other guys money, but as it stands now, the City has no ability to assure that all the benefits that are spoken of in the presentation as reasons that it's good for the City (upgrade of the Club facility, commencement of wellness programs etc. etc.) will exist beyond the date that the building permits are issued. Perhaps the City would consider requesting a $100 million trust fund to be posted by the developer and administered by an independent third party to assure that the present or future owner would not shut the club down and develop the land the Club sits on for high end housing too. 3. While the above suggestion of a trust fund is made a bit tongue-in-cheek, even that wouldn't make these petitioners happy because the project would nevertheless add dramatically to the traffic nightmare on Ute Avenue. A more realistic and long term solution to the traffic problem would be for the City to use it's right of eminent domain to acquire (with contribution from the developer) one or more houses along the Roaring Fork on the Crystal Lake Drive side and build a bridge over the river to provide both access and parking. This was the original design; it would provide relief to the resent Ute Avenue traffic problem; and would cost a lot less than the trust fund we propose. Moreover we think the City has a moral responsibility to help undo the damage done to Ute Avenue residents by its earlier permissiveness. 4. The project is framed as being implemented by a local developer who has the long term interests of the community at heart. We'd point out that Mr. Fox acquired the Aspen Club property several years before moving here about two years ago and, if one didn't know him personally, it might be fair to presume that he had 200 million reasons for making the move. We don't mention this because we actually doubt his sincerity but to call attention to the fact many of the 'halo' items like traffic mitigation, green building techniques, wellness programs etc. are being taken on faith, and that the City should be sufficiently skeptical about these things to either P55 figure out how to put them into an enforceable agreement, with measurable parameters, or to deny the project. 5. In Exhibit B, #2, ~PUDj the staff has concluded that "The proposed development is consistent with the character of the area." We do not agree. On the entire length of Ute Avenue west of the Aspen Club there are 13 private homes and a group of 9 employee homes opposite the driveway to the Aspen Club. The higher density housing like the Gant and Clarendons are accessed from West End; the Black Swan neighborhood is accessed from a road near the very beginning of Ute, and the existing Aspen Club housing is accessed via Cooper - 82. This project will more than double that count, and all accessed on Ute Avenue, and all at the far end of it, and at far greater density than the average that now exists on Ute. Moreover, we are not convinced that the time share units will not be rented out to random people when not in use by owners, thereby Increasing the 'tourism' and decreasing 'resident' character of the neighborhood vastly. There are no other time share units in this neighborhood, and we do not believe that they "fit" into the existing character of this neighborhood. They will become much more like hotel units from the perspective of intensity of use. 6. In the whole area of traffic, parking etc. we find great discrepancies between the proposal and the actual reality of the issue. The traffic studies that were done are not only very old, but they are aimed at minimizing congestion at corners like Original and Durant, etc. They don't have any relevance to the issue of how much traffic there really is that is a nuisance to the residents on Ute. Nor how narrow Ute Avenue has become this winter, due to the large snowfall -it's almost a one lane road.) I just went out for a walk down Ute Avenue to count the homes for writing the above paragraph 5. On the way back, in the ten minutes it takes me to walkup the street from Original to the Ute Cemetery, across from which we live, I counted 14 cars coming down Ute Avenue from the Club or the Benedict building or etc. How, then, are we supposed to believe the old traffic study which is being used as a 'base line' that reflects a total of 33 cars in the whole a.m. period and 44 cars in the p.m. period going down the street. If my sample was random (9:15 a.m.,) and I don't have any special reason to believe it was not, the counts would be more like 84 six ten minute periods) per hour, and if the a.m. period is four hours, 654 all morning. My gut tells me it's not that high but that it's closer to 654 than 33. Similar discrepancies exist with the counts of vehicles going up the street, meaning that the whole of the traffic presentation in the appendix of the application book is nonsense. Anew independent study has to be done which reflects the actual number of cars trucks and vans comin and aoina up and down Ute Avenue all dav. P56 We have reviewed items suggested for traffic mitigation by the developer and we believe that none of them will make much difference, unless the 'process' could actually restrict traffic to regularly scheduled and authorized busses and vans that could force aggregation of visitors! Adding extra parking to the project is counterproductive. Except for the needs of new residents, and the existing parking may be enough for just them, parking should be reduced, not added in the project. Unscheduled vans from the hotels double the problem: they usually only have one or two of their guests inside and they make one trip to drop them off and one to pick them up. This would be true for additional vans that the Club might buy too unless the new vans were put on a regular publicized schedule through town, and coupled with prohibiting private parking for Club use off the Ute Avenue entrance. (i.e." take one of the frequent buses, walk or park off Crystal Lake Road!") Electric carts sound so nice, but they are also 'vehicles' from a traffic standpoint, and if the use of private cars is not prohibited on Club grounds, no one can really force anyone to use them. Promises of future mitigation of traffic problems are not acceptable because they are not enforceable. If the Commission or the City Council intends to permit this project, the solutions to the traffic issue need to be dealt with in advance and by enforceable agreements. 8. In the category of miscellaneous other issues, what about the extra trash and recycle pick-ups that will be necessary to service the additional housing? And what about the visual impact and location of those containers? Will fire trucks be able to get there and turn around? There are so many unresolved issues with promises of future resolution with which we are very uncomfortable. We had this before from Dick Butera, and there was no enforcement or recourse. We are really looking to our city officials to safeguard us in this PUD review, and if you can't gef that done, PLEASE TURN IT DOWN! Thank you very much. /~ Gary and Susan Rappaport P57 ~t~~so~a Ga~cC~esu ___ _ __ __ Eroao; Cary Nathanson [gnathanson@mao.com] 8,e;yt; Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:57 PM yo; Jessica Garrow Sesbject; Proposed Rspen Club Expansion We have been residents on Ute Avenue Avenue for the past 13 years, and are vehemently opposed the Clubs new expansion plans. Ashen Dick Buterra was granted permission to uatientsUonlAveTheahighway 821parkingulotswas to be for drop-off and for physical therapy p Y~ to remain the primary lot and entrance way. Days after Buterra received his approvals 1~9ichael Fox_'s group purchased the property, knowing that there were restrictions on the Utz access and what could be done about any further development of the property. Since then, not only has there been several homes built on the 62 side, restricting available parking there and forcing Club members to use the Ute parking. Therefor the traffic on Ute has increased dramatically, and parking lot is often so overcrowded and cars are sometimes parking on the street. I'm sure if a new traffic study were done today it would show that Ute Avenue is not adequate to support any additional development. I understand that the some of "fractional units" that are proposed can be split into two separate rental units, creating even more use and traffic. The impact of this redevelopment on the environment and tranquility of the area would be tremendous and is inconsistent with the zoning and growth plans of the city. Sincerely Yours, Gary Nathanson 1271 Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 1 P58 February 12, 2008 To the Members of the Aspen City Council, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, and City of Aspen Community Development, As residents of 971 Ute Avenue for the past ten years, we would like to express our strong disapproval of the proposal for the future development of the Aspen Club and Spa. Ever since the decision was made by City Council several yeazs ago to approve construction of a pazking lot for the Aspen Club off of Ute Avenue, we have seen the traffic on our corridor become constant, worrisome, noisy, and dangerous. What was once a quiet residential street has become a major access route to a busy enterprise. That decision had been made by Council despite vigorous neighborhood protest and without regazd for the residents along Ute Avenue and Ute Place. It is our genuine belief and cause for real concern that, if you grant approval for this proposed Aspen Club and Spa development project, it will create irrepazable damage to the chazacter and safety of our street and neighborhood, by increasing traffic even further. Sincerely Yours, Jill Chozen and Allen Chozen 971 Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611