HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.special.20120402 ... _
........J1
THE CITY OF ASPEN
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, April 2, 2012
5:00 pm
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READINGS
a. Ordinance #11, Series of 2012 - Amending the Process for changing
the Land use Code and the Official Zone District Map
b. Ordinance #12, Series of 2012 — Amendments to the CC and C-IZone
District
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance 11, 2012, Amending the process for changing the
Land Use Code and the Official Zone District Map
MEETING DATE: April 2, 2012
SUMMARY:
City Council approved the Aspen Area Community Plan on February 27, 2012. Following the
adoption, they provided direction on implementation priorities, including requesting staff to
process a code amendment that would update and streamline the process for amending the Land
Use Code and the Official Zone District Map. The memo summarizes the code amendment,
with the specific language included in the attached Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendments.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the process of amending the Official Zone District
Map and the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the
final review authority following a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission.
The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended in favor of the proposed
amendments.
BACKGROUND& OVERVIEW:
As part of the implementation of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), City Council has
directed Community Development staff to process an amendment to the way the Land Use Code
is amended. This is part of the same chapter outlining the process to update the Official Zone
District Map. Staff is proposing changes to both portions of the chapter n an effort to provide
additional clarity to both processes.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Based on feedback from City Council, staff is proposing a number of changes to the process for
amending the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map. A copy of specific proposed
language is attached in Exhibit B, and outlined below:
• Clarify the process to amend the Official Zone District Map (also known as Rezoning)
o Add language stating that initial zoning designations for annexed property is done
through the process outlined in the chapter.
o Update the review criteria to eliminate duplicative criteria.
Page 1 of 3
o Provide more detail on the purpose, process, and noticing requirements for the
review.
• Change the process to amend the Land Use Code
o Update how a code amendment can be initiated. City Council must "endorse" any
amendment initiated by a private party, the Planning & Zoning Commission, the
Historic Preservation Commission, or the Community Development Director.
o Add a public engagement requirement to the process. The first step of any code
amendment is to get feedback from interested parties, including HPC, P&Z, and
possible outside entities, on the general concept of the amendment. That feedback
is then used by City Council when they determine if a code amendment should be
"endorsed."
o Add an official "endorsement" of the concept. City Council must pass a
Resolution on the concept of the code amendment at a public hearing prior to
specific language being drafted. If a concept is "endorsed," staff would move
forward with working on specific language to implement the concept.
o Specific language is reviewed and approved by City Council by Ordinance.
AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP: Staff is proposing minor amendments
to clarify the process to zone or re-zone a property. Currently, there is no language stating that
this chapter governs the review of providing initial zoning to a property annexed into the city.
Staff proposes adding language to clearly state that all zonings and rezonings are done in
accordance with the chapter. Staff is also proposing to provide greater clarity to the purpose of
the P&Z and City Council reviews of zonings and rezonings. Finally, staff proposes to
eliminate duplicative review criteria.
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE: City Council requested staff examine a way to
streamline the code amendment process. In the past, some code amendments have extended over
a period of months and years because the general concept is not supported by one of the groups
reviewing the amendment. Rather than beginning the process with specific language, there
would be a discussion about the general concept. This will enable P&Z, HPC, and the public to
comment on the idea of a code amendment rather than language. Staff believes this will speed
the process by enabling Council to vote early on in the process on whether or not to pursue a
concept.
Staff proposes to amend the initiation process to require City Council to endorse, through official
adoption of a Resolution at a public hearing, any amendment proposed by staff or P&Z.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposal at their March 20, 2012 regular
meeting. Their minutes are attached as Exhibit D and their final Resolution is attached as
Exhibit C. The P&Z unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendments. They
had some formatting suggestions and recommended that the Historic Preservation Commission
be added to the list of entities who may recommend a code amendment to City Council. This has
been incorporated into the Ordinance.
Page 2 of 3
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendments.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions are worded in the affirmative)
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2012, amending the process for amending the
land use code and amending the Official Zone District Map."
ATTACHMENTS: (NOTE THAT ONLY THE ATTACHMENTS IN BOLD ARE INCLUDED IN THIS
PACKET)
EXHIBIT A—Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B— Draft P&Z Resolution (provided 3/26/2012)
EXHIBIT C— Final P&Z Resolution, Resolution 7, Series 2012
EXHIBIT D— Draft P&Z minutes from March 20, 2012
•
Page 3 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 11
SERIES OF 2011
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO,
AMENDING THE PROCESS OF AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE AND THE
OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP: 26.310,AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE
AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP,TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN,COLORADO.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City of Aspen City Council initiated amendments to the Land Use Code
related to the process of amending the Land Use Code and the Official Zone District Map;
and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310,applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or
denial by the Community Development Director and then 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, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the
Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map;and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 20,2012, the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Section
26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, as described herein,
by a six—zero(6-0)vote;and,
WHEREAS,during a duly noticed public hearing on April 2,2012,the City Council
took public testimony,considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development
Director,and the Planning and Zoning Commission,and considered the proposal under the
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and voted - ( - )to
approve the code changes;and,
WHEREAS,the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all the applicable standards and that the approval of the Code Amendments are consistent with the
goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan;and,.
WHEREAS,the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: Text
unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text being removed is red with
strikcthrough and looks like this. Text being added to the code is careen yith underline and looks
like this.;and,
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health,safety,and welfare.
Ordinance 11,Series 2012,Code Amendment Process
Page 1 of 11
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN,COLORADO,AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map
26.310) —Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map,shall be amended
as follows:
Chapter 26.310
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
(Rezoning)
Sec.26.310.010 Purpose
Sec.26.310.020 Amendments to the Land Use Code-Procedure for amendment
Sec.26.310.030 Amendments to the Land Use Code—Application contents
Sec.26.310.040 Amendments to the Land Use Code Sstandards of review far
• - - - • . - . - .• —Initiation
Sec.26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review—Adoption
Sec.26.310.060 Rezoning-Procedure for amendment
Sec.26.310.070 Initial Zoning for Annexed Properties
Sec.26.310.080 Rezoning—Application contents
Sec.26.310.0930 Rezoning—Standards of review .. : .. . - e .
District Map
Sec.26.310.049100 Notation of Planning and Zoning Commission resolution on Official
Zone District Map
Sec.26.310.0;0110 Recordation of designation
Sec.26.310.080120 Placement on City's Official Zone District Map
Sec.26.310.085130 Disputes about zoning of a property
Sec.26.310.098140 Time limitations
See-26.310.010.Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide a means for amending the text of this Title (the Land
Use Code)and the Official Zone District Mmap. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships
or confer special privileges or rights on any person or property.
See—,26.310.020. Amendments to the Land Use Code—Procedure for amendment.
A. General. An application for amendments to the Land Use Code . - e . _ -- .
Map may be initiated by the persons and decision making bodies identified in Section
26.304.040 below City Council and shall be processed in accordance with the common
development review procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review
Procedures,and the steps identified in Section 26.310.020(B)—(C).
Ordinance 11,Series 2012,Code Amendment Process
Page 2 of 11
I. City Council may authorize a private party to submit a code amendment application. In
such case, the City Council shall determine the extent to which Step One is required
(Steps Two and Three are mandatory) and shall determine if the applicant shall pay
review fees.
2. The Planning and Zoning Commission may initiate an amendment to the Land Use Code,
as provided for in Chapter 26.212, Planning and Zoning Commission. Initiation shall
require the adoption of a Resolution by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
Resolution shall be forwarded to City Council for authorization to proceed through the
process outlined herein. City Council shall determine the extent to which Step One is
required(Steps Two and Three are mandatory).
3. The Historic Preservation Commission may initiate an amendment to the Land Use Code.
Initiation shall require the adoption of a Resolution by the Historic Preservation
Commission. The Resolution shall'be forwarded to City Council for authorization to
proceed through the process outlined herein. City Council shall determine the extent to
which Step One is required(Steps Two and Three are mandatory).
4. The Community Development Director may initiate an amendment to the Land Use
Code, as provided for in Chapter 26.210. Community Development Department. City
Council shall determine the extent to which Step One is required (Steps Two and Three
are mandatory).
B. Steps Rcequired: Unless initiated by the City Council in accordance with Subsection C
below, or unless additional steps are requested by City Council,the review of a proposed text
amendment shall require three steps. .. _ .
I. Step One—Community Input.
a. Purpose: To gather ideas, suggestions, comments, opinions, and recommendations
from a wide range of participants to determine if an amendment to the text of the -
Land Use Code should be pursued by the City Council.
b. Process:The Community Development Director shall seek input from a wide range of
community members through a variety of methods,which may include focus groups,
structured facilitated sessions, surveys, or other methods. The Director shall solicit
input from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation
Commission,or other Boards of the City,as applicable. Depending on the nature of
the potential amendment, the Director may solicit input from business owners,
lodging operators, local architects and planners, organizations that may have an
interest in the topic,and the general public. The Director shall develop a summary of
the input methods used and comments received during this step.
c. Notice requirements:None.
Ordinance 11,Series 2012,Code Amendment Process
•
Page 3 of 11
--2.Step One Two—Public hearing before - -; -: - ':-City Council.
a. Purpose: To determine if •- ... • . ' -- . _. _ . - _ - - - _ ,•
'• .-- ! •• ::an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code should
he pursued.
b. Process: The Community Development Director shall present City Council with a
summary of comments received during Step One and a recommendation on whether
and how to amend the Land Use Code. The recommendation shall include proposed
objectives to be accomplished but need not include specific code sections or proposed
text. The recommendation shall include an analysis of the public policies of the City
to be advanced including, but not limited to. those stated in the Aspen Area
Community Plan. The Director may recommend options for consideration. The City
Council may request additional community engagement prior to a decision.
c. Standards of review: Section 26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code
standards of review-Initiation
d. Form of decision: City Council shall decide to pursue an amendment to the Land Use
Code by resolution after considering the recommendation of the Community
Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed
public hearing. The resolution shall include the objective to be accomplished by the
code amendment but need not cite specific code sections or proposed text. The City
Council may elect to not amend the Land Use Code. which shall not require adoption
of a resolution.
Map: Publication. mailing and posting(see Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a., b. and
Notice requirements . • -•- . • _ - ..: Publication pursuant•
to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3.a.Publication of notice.
2-3.Step T-4.4.-orThree—Public Hearing before City Council.
a. Purpose: To determine if application meets standards for amendment to eerie-the text
of the Land Use Codcor Official Zone District Map.
b. Process: The Community Development Director shall provide City Council with a
recommendation to amend the Land Use Code with proposed text to chapters and
sections.
Ordinance 11,Series 2012,Code Amendment Process
Page 4 of 11
c. Standards of review: Section 26.310.050, Amendments to the Land Use Code
standards of review-Adoption
d. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by ordinance after considerins the
recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and
testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing. The ordinance shall
include the amended text of the Land Use Code by chapter and section.
Map: Publication, mailing and posting (see subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a., b. and
Notice requiremen - . - - - - -• -. - : : Publication pursuant to
Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a.. Publication of notice, in addition to the requisite
notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council.
I B.C. Emergency amendments to Land Use Code by City Council. Notwithstanding the
procedures for review set forth above and consistent with the authority of the City Council to
adopt emergency ordinances pursuant to Section 4.11 of the City Charter, for the preservation of
public property, health, peace‘or safety, the City Council may amend this Title in accordance
with the procedures set forth at Section 4.11 of the City Charter(Emergency ordinances). (Ord.
No.27-2002,§6;Ord.No. 12,2007,§14)
See.26.310.030.Amendments to the Land Use Code—Application contents.
A formal application is required prior to initiating Step Three of the code amendment process.
outlined above in Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three — Public Hearing before City Council.
The application shall include: -- . . .-• . '. . --• • . .
Title or amendment to the Official Zone District lap shall include:
A. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030,Application and Fees.
B. A copy of the City Council resolution requesting the amendment and a brief summary of how
the proposed text meets the stated objectives of the amendment.
A-.-C. A copy of the comments received during the Public Input phase.
&D. ' - _. - . - • •• - , The precise wording of
any-the proposed amendment.
Ordinance 11,Series 2012,Code Amendment Process
Page 5 of 11
•
1. •I•he present Zone District classifieation and existing land uses of the real property
fraction thereof
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review-Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(13)(2). Step Two - Public Hearing before City Council. the City Council shall
consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy,
community goal,or objective of the City including, but not limited to,those stated in
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
See-26.310.0540. Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review-
Adoption- . . . . . . . . .• . . • • , . . . . . .. •.
In reviewing an amendment to an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(BK3), Step Three - Public blearing before City Council. the City Council awe
. - - ' •.- shall consider:
&A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
€ B. Whether the proposed amendment furthers an adoptedachieves the policy, community
goal, or objective cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy
objectives.
DX. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and
whether it is compatible with the community character of the City and is in harmony with the
public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title.
See. 26.310.0620. RezoninE-Procedure for amendment.
A. General. An application for amendments to the Land Use Code or the Official Zone District
Map may be initiated by the City Council.the Community Development Director.or a person or
persons owning more than fifty(50) percent of the area of land subject to the amendmente
- - • . _ . .-_•.. •,•- - _ - - ^t•.t and shall be
Ordinance 11,Series 2012,Code Amendment Process
Page 6 of 11
processed in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth at Chapter
26.304.
B. Steps required: - •• .. - . . .. •
beloik,The review of an application to amend the Official Zone District Map shall require two
(2)steps • - • . -• - • -• • . -• . - • . .
1. Step One—Public hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission.
a. Purpose: To determine if the application meets standards for amendment to
code text or to the Official Zone District Map and to provide a
recommendation to City Council.
b. Process: The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning
and Zoning Commission with a recommendation regarding the specific
request to amend the Official Zone District Map.
a:c.Standards of Review: Section 26.310.090. Amendments to the Official Zone
District Map—Standards of Review
bd. Notice requirements for a privately initiated amendment to the
Official Zone District Map: Publication, mailing and posting (see
Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a., b. and c.)._Notice requirements fFor an
amendment to the Official Zone District Map initiated by the City:
Publication. . notice shall also include mailing to property owners of property
that ar: subject to the rezoning application at least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing.
pursttarnt-te-Sbsection 26.301.060.E.3.a.
2. Step Two—Public Hearing before City Council,
a. Purpose: To determine if application meets standards for amendment to code
tem-et--the Official Zone District Map.
b. Process: The Community Development Director shall forward the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and shall provide
the City Council with a recommendation to amend the Official Zone District
Map,
c. Standards of review: Section 26.310.090. Amendments to the Official Zone
District Map—Standards of Review
Ordinance 11,Series 2012,Code Amendment Process
Page 7 of 11
•
1d.Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance after
considering the recommendations of the Community Development Director,
the Planning and Zoning Commission. and comments and testimony from the
public at a duly noticed public hearing.
e. Notice requirements . . - . . . _ -- e ' • . --
District Map: Publication, mailing and posting (see as provided for in
subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a., b. and c., Public Notice - Publication of
notice. Posting of notice. and Mailing of notice, in addition to the requisite
notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council3.
Notice requirements tFor an amendment to the Official Zone District Map
initiated by the City: Publication. • notice shall also include mailing to
property owners that are of property subject to the rezoning application at
least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, in addition to the requisite
notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council.
Notice requirements for an amendment to the Land Use Code: Publication
requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council.
procedures for revie set forth above and consistent with the authority of the City Council to
public property, health, peace or safety, the City Council may amend this Title in accordance
with the procedures set forth at Section 4.11 of the City Charter(Emergency ordinances). (Ord.
No.27 2002,§6;Ord.No. 12,2007.§11)
26.310.070. Initial Zoning for Annexed Properties.
An application to establish the initial zoning for annexed property shall be reviewed according to
the standards and procedures of this Chapter.
:See:-26.310.0830. Rezoning-Application Contents.
The development application for amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the
Official Zone District Map shall include:
A. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030,Application and
Fees.
13. If the application requests an amendment to the text of this Title, the precise wording of any
e-.13. The present Zone District classification and existing land uses of the real property
proposed to be amended.
Ordinance 11,Series 2012,Code Amendment Process
Page 8 of 11
f:C_The area of the property proposed to be amended, stated in square feet or acres or a
g-D_An accurate survey map of the real property proposed for amendment.
See.26.310.0950.Rezoning-Standards of review.
In reviewing 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 compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses,considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
C. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and rood safety.
D B. 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.
15:C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RD. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title.
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Sec.26.310.068100. Notation ofPlan►i3►g-andZening-Commission Official
Zone District Map.
- Upon acceptance of an application for an
amendment to the Official Zone District Map,the Community Development Director shall make
a notation on the Official Zone District Map to show the pending amendment.
See:26.310.0-70110. Recordation of designation.
Upon the effective date of an act by the City Council approving a development application for an
amendment to the Official Zone District Map,the Community Development Director shall notify
Ordinance 11,Series 2012,Code Amendment Process
Page 9 of 11
the City Clerk of the designation,who shall record among the real estate records of the clerk and
recorder of the county, a certified copy of the ordinance. The ordinance shall include a legal
description of the property whose Zone District designation is changed by the amendment.
I See.26.310.088120. Placement on City's Official Zone District Map.
Upon the effective date of an act by the City Council approving a development application for an
amendment to the Official Zone District Map,the Community Development Director shall place
the amendment on the City's Official Zone District Map, which is kept in the Community
Development Department.
See.26.310.085130. Disputes about zoning of a property.
In cases where there is a dispute as to the correct zoning of a property, the ordinance approving
or establishing the zoning shall be the final authority and not the Official Zone District Map.
(Ord.No. 52-2003, §4)
See.26.310.090140. Time limitations.
Unless otherwise waived by City Council, the City shall not accept an application to amend the
Official Zone District Map (Rezoning). nor shall the City accept or initiate an application to
amend the text of the Land Use Code, which has been denied for a period of two years from the
date of denial. • - • - • . . .. ' . ._ •-. . . .. -- ... • . -
amendment to the text of this Title or to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the
C. The time limitation of this Subsection may be waived by the majeci y of e City
Council wh.:n such action is deemed necessary to present injustice or facilitate—the—proper
Section 2: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not 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 provided,and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3: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.
Ordinance 11,Series 2012,Code Amendment Process
Page 10 of 11
Section 4: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty(30)days following final passage.
Section 5: Notice of Public Hearing.
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 2nd day of April, 2012, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,Aspen City Hall, 130
S. Galena St.,Aspen,Colorado,a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of
the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of
March.2012.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S.Koch,City Clerk Michael C.Ireland,Mayor
FINALLY,adopted,passed and approved this_day of ,20_
ATTEST:
Kathryn S.Koch,City Clerk Michael C.Ireland,Mayor
Approved as to form:
James R True,City Attorney
Ordinance 11,Series 2012,Code Amendment Process
Page 11 of 11
Exhibit A: Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review for amendments to the land use code.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, 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 Finding: This proposed amendment is consistent with the Land Use Code. It does not
amend any of the powers and duties of the City Council, P&Z, or the Community Development
Director, as outlined in Chapter 200. P&Z recommended that HPC be given the authority to
initiate amendments to the Land Use Code. They currently have the ability to recommend code
amendments to P&Z, so this is a slight change in their authority. Staff is supportive of this
addition. The proposed changes do not create a conflict with any other provision of the Land
Use Code. Staff finds this criterion is met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment fUrthers an adopted policy, community goal, or objective.
Staff Finding: In conjunction with the adoption of the 2012 AACP, City Council has
established a set of goals for implementation of that guiding document. Those include updating
and streamlining the process of amending the Land Use Code. The proposed amendments are
consistent with that direction. In addition, staff believes this updated process will provide greater
public awareness and interaction on amendments to the land use code which supports the City's
goal of increasing predictability and transparency in the land use review process.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
C. 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 Finding: Staff believes this amendment is consistent with the public interest and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion is met.
Exhibit A Page 1 of 1
Etta*,en.
RESOLUTION No. 7
(Series of 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
ASPEN,COLORADO,RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT CODE
AMENDMNETS RELATED TO AMENDNENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND
OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP: 26.310,AMENDNENTS TO THE LAND USE
CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the City of Aspen City Council initiated amendments to the
Land Use Code related to the process of amending the Land Use Code and the Official
Zone District Map; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then 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, the Community Development Director has recommended approval
of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.310,
Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 20, 2012, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments
to the text of Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District
Map,as described herein, by a six—zero (6-0) 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,
WHEREAS,the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Amending the Official Zone District Map
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve an amendment
to clarify the process to amend the Official Zone District Map (also known as Rezoning),
including eliminating duplicative review criteria, outlining a process for establishing
initial zoning for annexed properties, and more clearly outlining the purpose, process, and
noticing requirements.
Planning& Zoning Commission Reso #7 of 2012
Amendments to the Official Zone District Map and the Land Use Code
Page 1 of 2
Section 2: Amending the Land Use Code
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve an amendment
to amend the process for amending the Land Use Code as follows:
• Update how a code amendment can be initiated. City Council must "endorse" any
amendment initiated by a private party, the Planning & Zoning Commission, the
Historic Preservation Commission, or the Community Development Director.
• Add a public engagement requirement to the process. The first step of any code
amendment is to get feedback from interested parties, including HPC, P&Z, and
possible outside entities, on the general concept of the amendment. That feedback is
then used by City Council when they determine if a code amendment should be
"endorsed."
• Add an official "endorsement" of the concept. City Council must pass a Resolution
on the concept of the code amendment at a public hearing prior to specific language
being drafted. If a concept is"endorsed," staff would move forward with working on
specific language to implement the concept.
• Specific language is reviewed and approved by City Council by Ordinance.
FINALLY,adopted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission this 20th day of
March,2012.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNI AND ZONING
CO tir I'. t N:
•
James R.True,City Attorney
spamer, P& Chairman
ATTEST:
;ale Lothian,Deputy Cs
ity Clerk
Planning& Zoning Commission Reso#7 of 2012
Amendments to the Official Zone District Map and the Land
Page 2 o 2
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
Comments 2
Minuets 3
Conflicts of Interest 3
Code Amendment— Downtown Zoning 3
The Code Amendment Process 6
1
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Stan Gibbs,
Bert Myrin, Keith Goode, Jim DeFrancia, Jasmine Tygre and LJ Erspamer. Cliff
Weiss was not in attendance. Staff in attendance were: Jim True, City Attorney;
Chris Bendon and Jessica Garrow, Community Development; and Jackie Lothian,
Deputy City Clerk.
Comments
Jim True said that commission members are not excused but they are absent.
Bert Myrin said that when the P&Z suggests something to Council and they change
it was there some sort of system that would let P&Z know that we are handing off
the wrong things or what are we doing that is so off base. Bert said that he
supported the change in affordable work force housing. Bert said what is more
important is the process and the process changed. Bert said that he was looking for
a process that came back to P&Z to give a heads up not change things. LJ
Erspamer said that staff may repeat what was said at P&Z but the interpretation
might not be the same however LJ didn't know a system in the process other than
one of the P&Z members attending the Council meeting but he didn't want to over
burden the process. Jasmine Tygre said that she thought it was good but she didn't
have a solution for it but maybe we can come up with some suggestions on instant
feedback. Bert said the common link is com dev. Jessica Garrow asked if what
Bert was looking for was at the beginning of a meeting staff telling this is what is
happening with a certain project and where it was going. Bert replied just an
update of where we are at but not something that will take more staff time;just a
minute or two at the beginning of a meeting. Jessica said that she would bring it
up with staff and she will get back to P&Z. Stan Gibbs asked what was it that he
was trying to accomplish. Stan said that this is informative and you are trying to
make it so in the future we can temper our decisions on what Council is going to
want to do. Bert replied maybe not temper them or change them but we at least
would be aware of what is going on.
Jasmine said the building on the northeast corner of Cooper and Original seems to
have mushroomed; it was a 2 unit building with a row of Evergreens and it looks
gigantic and about 5 feet taller. Jim True said that submitted building permits and
complied with zoning and those 4 units and were not created recently; they have
existed for a long time. Jasmine said if this is what is allowed in RMF she would
like P&Z to take another look at RMF dimensions sooner rather than later.
2
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
Emzy Veazy III, public, said the thing that you were discussing earlier that you do
have a problem with City Council; City Council should respect P&Z much more
than it does. Emzy said P&Z might want to do is look at what other City Councils
do outside of the system and see what their relationship is with their governing
body in that way. Emzy said to put flexibility into your zoning and you won't be
stagnant.
Minutes:
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes of January 31s` seconded by
Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes of February 7, 2012
seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
Public Hearing:
Code Amendment— Downtown Zoning
U Erspamer opened the public hearing for the Downtown Zoning and asked for
notice. Jessica Garrow provided the notice.
Jessica said this was a public hearing for changes to the Commercial Core (CC)
and C-1 zone districts; there was a lot of discussion during the AACP regarding
mass and scale throughout town. Council had raised a lot of concerns with things
that they adopted in the AACP; Council wanted to look at lower heights and looks
at floor areas in free market residential. Jessica said that the code amendments in
front of you deal with floor area for free market uses as well as heights. Right now
those zone districts allow a 28 foot height limit for 2 story elements and employee
housing to look at the same. Staff is proposing a 4 foot decrease in the max height
for 3 story elements in CC and C-1 zone districts. In the CC zone it would go from
42 feet down to a maximum of 38 feet and in C-1 it would go from the current 40
feet to a max of 36 feet. Staff is still purposing to have a range of heights because
that is important in the commercial design standards. Jessica utilized a power
point zoning map of the CC and C-1. Jessica said the code amendment proposes to
incorporate minimum floor to floor heights into the zone district so the commercial
design standards talk about a minimum floor to floor height on the first floor of 13
to 15 feet so that would include all the mechanical in the ceiling. Chris Bendon
said the CC is from Main Street to Durant; the west side is Monarch and the east
side is Hunter. C-1 is the one block between Hunter and Spring, Concept 600
3
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
Building through Mezzaluna and just prior to the Aspen Square Building. Jessica
said they were proposing to go down to an 11 to 13 foot floor to floor in the C-1
Zone District and that is currently what is called for in the mixed zone district
within the commercial design. Staff is proposing a minimum 10 foot floor to floor
on the upper floors with a 9 foot floor to ceiling. Since there were these 2
calculations staff thought that it makes sense to go to just a floor to floor
calculation.
Jessica said the other change with height was roof top mechanical equipment so
right now any elevators or stairs are required to be setback 15 feet; we are
requiring a 20 foot setback from any street facing facade for any roof top
mechanical equipment; solar, floor panels, duct work, fire exists, and elevator
overruns. That will help decrease the mass of buildings as you perceive it as a
pedestrian; that will help it to recede into the background.
Jessica said in terms of the floor area change is treated a little different in historic
and non-historic properties; right now in both zone districts you have a by right 25
to 1 for free market uses and you can go up to a .75 to 1 if you provide equal
amounts of affordable housing. Staff is proposing that historic buildings maintain
the existing by right 5 to 1 floor area with no ability to increase to .75. For non-
historic properties you would be able to do a .5 to 1 floor area for free market only
if you provide equal amounts of affordable housing; this is different than growth
management but it increases your affordable housing mitigation by more than 3
times.
Jessica stated that they held a focus group with some architects and planners to get
some of their feedback and were concerned about the lowering of heights to fit all
the systems in but it will become a challenge for them. Jessica said that they
suggested not including a floor to floor for upper floors and let the designers figure
that out and there were some concerns on the floor area changes because it
increases the amount of affordable housing that is going to go on parcels it might
push out office uses on that second floor so that is a trade-off that you have to
consider. Jessica stated that you could do a combination of on and off site
affordable housing. Chris said the space that is required between one level of the
floor and ceiling with pop ups on the ceiling.
Jessica distributed a color drawing of the heights downtown right now; there are a
lot of 2 story buildings on the malls with a lot of vegetation. Stan Gibbs asked if
the floors were sunken it really doesn't give you the perspective of a historic
4
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes March 20, 2012
building. Jessica replied that was addressed in the commercial design standards
and you are not allowed to do sunken buildings. Stan said you only see the first
floor of historic buildings with higher ceilings on the first floor and this was an
important feature that we want to maintain. Stan said that floor pitch was a lot
easier to specify; floor to floor.
Bert mentioned the 28 foot 2 story buildings and asked if anyone have built these
lately. Jessica replied not recently but we do see 2 story modules as part of some
of the buildings that come forward. Bert asked where the 10 foot floor to floor
came from. Jessica responded that Council directed staff to look at heights and
floor area; it constrains what can happen in a building and it created a conflict with
the commercial design standards. Bert said the overall reduction of height to
Council was lower. Chris said one of your goals to make a recommendation to
Council and that is your recommendation not based on where you predict Council
is going.
Jasmine asked on the roof top equipment if there is a limit on the amount of roof
top equipment that is allowed or the size of it; is there a limit on how big the
housing can be for an elevator. Chris replied there is a minimum of space needed
for the elevator. Jessica said the building department reviews the elevator.
Jasmine asked if we want the roof tops to be turned into recreational areas. Jessica
answered right now you are allowed to use your roof for mechanical equipment
and a roof deck but are required to have railings that have to meet the code in terms
of height; it has to have building code requirements. Chris said there were a lot of
considerations in the commercial design standards as for the look and feel as well
as height.
Bert said on the roof top section of the memo on page 7 does that include the roof
top railings like around Sandy's at the edge of the building and even though it is &
clear railing they push stuff up against it and you can see it from so the clear railing
doesn't matter.
LJ Erspamer asked if this would change the value of a property. Chris said it
wasn't P&Z's job to review that. U asked if HPC weighed in on this. Jessica
replied that they worked with Sara. U asked if this applied to lodges. Jessica
answered this was just for the CC and C-1 Districts.
5
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
Stan asked if there were max floor heights, what if somebody wanted to build a 40
floor first floor. Jessica responded that it was covered in the commercial design
standards but we are clarifying in the 13 to 15 foot range 15 foot is a maximum.
Public Comments:
1. Emzy Veazy III, public, stated that he didn't hear anything about the ADA,
America Disability Act, this city is delinquent on this for ADA. Emzy said
there could be building down 2 stories and that would allow the architects
have more leeway.
LJ closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Bert said the resolution started on page 6 and he agreed with the maximum heights
on the ground floor. Stan said if there is the 10 foot limit and a 13 foot minimum
on the first floor that means that you can't build a 4 story building, which is a
change because right now with 9 feet you could get 4 stories with the 40 foot
height limit. Jessica said the 9 foot is a floor to ceiling. IA said maybe we should
do what the architectural group said and just define the bottom floor and let them
design the rest of the building to a maximum height of 38 feet. Chris said there is a
big difference between a 71/2 foot ceiling and a 9 foot ceiling. Stan said we are
trying to have some diversity in height. Jessica suggested taking their suggestion
eliminating this discussion on the upper floors and the minimum of 13 feet on the
first story. The upper floors would have a minimum height limit of 9 feet floor to
ceiling.
Bert suggested a setback for railings at the height of the railing; move the railing 5
feet. Keith said why have a clear railing if you can't see through it. Jessica said
that right now the code requires a 50% transparency and it can be up to 42 inches.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution #006, series of 2012
recommending City Council amend the height and free market residential FAR in
the CC and C-1 zone district with conditions. Seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll
call vote: Stan Gibbs, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Jasmine Tygre,
yes; Bert Myrin, yes and LJErspamer. All in favor, APPROVED 6-0.
Public Hearing:
The Code Amendment Process
6
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for The Code Amendment Process. Chris
Bendon stated this is a code amendment to amend the way we do code
amendments and they way that it is done now is not working.
Chris said the detail language was that solved the problem that we never talked
about and struggle through that and there are recommendations from City Council
with very precise language, there is a recommendation from P&Z and it is in an
Ordinance format and that is when the public finds out at the first reading; the first
opportunity for the community to hear the concept and we are sitting there with
detailed language in front of everyone. Chris said instead of that we want to
reverse the whole thing; we want to have all those concept discussions as much as
we can with the public prior to initiating the code amendment; prior to getting into
the details. Chris said the question to council is do you want to pursue this code
amendment; it is less of a threat to the community. Chris said it includes some
things that staff does now that isn't codified; a private party can initiate a code
amendment but the Council needs to authorize that somehow; Council needs to
sponsor it. It maintains the authority for P&Z to initiate the Community
Development Director to initiate. Some things may not require a community input
phase; code clean up.
Stan Gibbs said from the perspective of P&Z they just change and don't review the
actual proposal for the code amendment. Chris replied that was the biggest change
that you are not involved as a Scribner but you are involved in providing policy
direction. Stan asked how other communities handle code amendments. Chris
responded that in some communities P&Z is not involved in code amendments
only Council. Stan said that Planning & Zoning was not about changing the rules
but enforcing the rules.
IA asked if a citizen could bring it to petition and bring it to election. Chris said it
was in the Charter. LJ asked if this was a discretionary referral from Council.
Stan said if the last line was taken out of the memo on Exhibit B page 6; P&Z
voted that there would be a public process. Stan said that HPC should be included
with P&Z on the public process.
No public comments were stated.
LJ closed the public comments portion of the public hearing.
7
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
Jasmine said there was confusion in the steps outlined below and it should be steps
out lined in b.
Chris said the standards here address either amending the zone district map or they
have always been in the same chapter and have the same standards. Standards
either address a change in code or rezoning; we are separating the standards.
When the city annexes properties the city has 90 days to final rezoning or leave it
unzoned.
Jasmine said rezonings are being called amendment to the zone district map, which
is what it is but she wanted to call it zoning. Chris agreed.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #7, series 2012
recommending City Council amend the process in the land use code and amend the
official zone district map with all of the amendments discussed, seconded by
Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Keith Goode, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Bert Myrin,
yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
The commissioners thanked Chris for the presentation.
Adjourned at 6:55 pm.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance 12, 2012, Amendments to the CC and C-1 Zone Districts
MEETING DATE: April 2, 2012
SUMMARY:
City Council approved the Aspen Area Community Plan on February 27, 2012. Following the adoption,
they provided direction on implementation priorities, including requesting staff to process code
amendments related to downtown building heights. The attached ordinance lowers heights and lowers
the floor area ratio (FAR) related to free-market residential uses in the Commercial Core (CC) and
Commercial (C-1) zone districts. The memo summarizes the code amendment, with the specific
language included in the attached Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendments.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zone
districts. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority
following a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning
Commission unanimously recommended in favor of the amendments.
BACKGROUND& OVERVIEW:
As part of the implementation of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), City Council has directed
Community Development staff to amend the height allowances and free-market floor area allowances in
the CC and C-1 zone districts.
The AACP calls for an examination of building heights, and includes a policy stating, "Establish lower
maximum building heights to maintain Aspen's small town character." (Managing Growth for
Community & Economic Sustainability Policy L6) It also calls for an examination of commercial zone
districts: "Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in (commercial) development that reflects our
architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity of heights..."
(Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability Policy V.3) In addition, the AACP
discusses the importance of maintaining commercial uses in the commercial zones.
QUESTIONS FROM FIRST READING:
There were a number of questions at First Reading related to the minimum height needed for a three-
story building. There are a number of ways to reduce heights and still allow three-story buildings.
Page 1 of 12
Some solutions, in Staff's opinion, are more consistent with our small town character and historic built
pattern than others, but staff wanted to outline a range of options for Council to discuss and consider.
Definitions: Staff uses a few terms in this memo, which are defined here:
Floor-to-Floor height: The measurement from the floor of the level you are measuring to the floor of
the level above. This measurement includes the ceiling height, as well as any structure or mechanical
systems located above the ceiling. The measurement is in red in Graphic 1, below
Floor-to-Ceiling height: The measurement from the floor to the ceiling of the level you are measuring.
This measurement only includes the ceiling height. It reflects the usable interior space, and does not
include any structure or mechanical. The measurement is in green in Graphic 1, below
Staff recommends maintaining the Commercial Design Standard of a 9 foot minimum floor-to-ceiling
standard for all building levels. Staff believes this is an important standard to ensure that the second
floor, where office and affordable housing uses are typically located, is not "squished" to enable taller
third floors. In addition, it ensures all uses are treated consistently and fairly within the building.
Structure & Mechanical Area: The area which contains all the systems required for the building to
function. These include plumbing, electricity, mechanical, structure, etc. This is typically between 2
and 4 feet in height and located between the ceiling and floor above. The measurement is in blue in
Graphic 1,below
Below, Graphic 1 illustrates the different calculations related to these height measurements.
Graphic 1
Structure and
Mechanical
Area
Floor-to-Ceiling
Height
Structure and Ff. ♦
Mechanical
Area
Floor-to-Ceiling
Height
Structure and
Mechanical
Area
Floor-to-Floor
Height
� J
Page 2 of 12
1. The Absolute Minimum
a. The Building Code requires a minimum ceiling height of 7 feet 6 inches. With a
minimum amount of structure and mechanical equipment between floors of 2 feet', the
absolute minimum a building could be is 28 feet 6 inches2.
Staff cannot recommend in favor of this option, as it will result in buildings that are
entirely unrelated to Aspen's built environment, historic pattern, pedestrian scale, and the
reality of ceiling heights needed to conduct commercial operations. This standard will
result in buildings that appear "compressed" and will not relate well to the existing
development pattern.
If City Council is interested in limiting development to 28 feet, staff recommends
eliminating the third floor option as it is almost impossible to achieve a well-designed
three-story building in 28 feet.
2. Eliminate the allowances for a larger 1"floor
a. The Commercial Design Standards currently call for a floor-to-floor height on the first
floor which is larger than upper floors. This could be eliminated, and the requirement
could be changed to a standard 9 foot floor-to-ceiling standard for all levels. With a
minimum amount of structure and mechanical equipment between floors of 3 feet, this
scenario would result in a building of 36 feet.'
The larger first level floor-to-floor height is currently included in the Commercial Design
Standards for all the commercial zone districts, not just CC and C-1. This is done to
"maintain the stature of traditional street level retail frontage." The CC and C-1 zones
have the highest minimum first level floor-to-floor standard at 13- 15 feet, while the other
zone districts have lower requirements at 11 feet. All the zones have a minimum 9 foot
floor-to-ceiling standard. In addition, the Commercial Design Standards call for smaller
upper floor heights in order to maintain a human scale and respect the historic
development pattern.
Staff does not recommend in favor of this option. Staff believes the hierarchy of the first
floor is an important element to Aspen's historic built environment that should be
1 In Staffs experience the space needed for structure mechanical between different building levels is between 2 feet and 4
feet. For the Absolute Minimum option, staff uses the 2 foot standard. For all other options staff uses a 3 foot standard.
2 7 '/z foot ceiling height* 3floors=22'A feet
+2 foot mechanical/structure * 3 floors=6 feet
=28 feet 6 inches
3 9 foot ceiling height* 3floors=27 feet
T 3 foot mechanical/structure * 3 floors=9 feet
=36 feet
Page 3ofl2
maintained. It provides visual interest by enabling large display windows, and ensures
that new development relates to historic development. It also promotes an increased
pedestrian scale.
3. Reduce the allowances for a larger 1St floor
a. The Commercial Design Standards currently call for a floor-to-floor height on the first
level which is larger than upper floors. The standard could remain in effect, but it could
be reduced to an 11 — 13 foot floor-to-floor standard.
Taking the 11-13 foot first level floor-to-floor standard with a minimum amount of
structure and mechanical equipment between the upper floors of 3 feet, this scenario
would result in a building of 35 - 37 feet.4
Staff recommends reducing the standard to 11 — 13 feet for the C-1 zone, but maintaining
the 13 — 15 foot standard in the CC zone. The 13 — 15 foot standard, with 3 feet for
structure and mechanical, would result in a building of 37 - 39 feet? Staff is
recommending a 38 foot maximum height in the CC Zone District, which means that
some of the structure and mechanical area would need to be less than 3 feet.
4. Restrict Third Floor Uses
a. Another option is to restrict the kinds of uses allowed on the third floor. For instance,
only allow a third floor if it is to be used for lodging or affordable housing uses. While
this doesn't lower the absolute maximum height, these types of uses are not typically
proposed for the third floor, so it could have the effect of slowing the development of
third floors.
Staff needs some additional direction from Council for this option. What types of uses
would you like to discourage/encourage? Are there any "performance standards" that
should be added to the code to allow buildings to achieve a third floor?
Staff believes this is an important option to explore, and the proposed changes to free-
market floor area start to address his option. The proposal to allow free-market FAR only
if equal amounts of affordable housing are developed on-site essentially increases the
mitigation requirements for free-market residential to 100%in these zone districts.
4 1 I - 13 foot first level floor-to-floor
+9 foot ceiling height *2 floors= 18 feet
+3 foot mechanical/structure * 2 floors=6 feet
=35 -37 feet
s 13— 15 foot first level floor-to-floor
+9 foot ceiling height*2 floors= 18 feet
+3 foot mechanical/structure *2 floors=6 feet
=37-39 feet
Page 4 of 12
5. Other considerations
a. One basic planning and zoning concept to keep in mind when discussing the proposed
changes, is that typically the largest building with the most intensive uses are located in
the core of a city or town, with the mass and scale and intensity of uses dissipating as one
gets further from the core. The current heights in Aspen and all of Aspen's commercial
zone districts follow this pattern. Depending on the direction Council wants to go, the
amendments could change this historic pattern. For examples, decreasing the CC and C-
1 Zone Districts to be the same as or less then the SCI zone district may cause an
appearance of a larger, sprawling downtown. It could also place additional development
pressures on the other commercial Zone Districts. Table 1, below outlines the different
heights in Aspen's Commercial Zones:
Table 1: Current Heights by Commercial Zone District
Zone District Allowed Height
Commercial Core (CC) 38 - 42 feet
Commercial (C-1) 36 - 40 feet
Neighborhood Commercial 28 - 32 feet
(NC)
Mixed-Use (MU) 28 - 32 feet
Service/Commercial/Industrial 35 feet
(SCI)
Commercial Lodge (CL) 36 - 40 feet
STAFF COMMENTS:
Based on feedback from City Council and the P&Z, staff is proposing a number of changes to the CC
and C-1 zones. A copy of the proposed language is done in track changes in the attached Ordinance,
and outlined below:
• Reducing the maximum height in the CC and C-1 zones by four (4) feet
o CC Zone: from 42 feet to 38 feet
o C-1 Zone: from 40 feet to 36 feet
• Incorporating minimum first floor floor-to-floor heights into the zone districts
o CC Zone: First Floor 13 feet to 15 feet
o C-1 Zone: First Floor 11 feet to 13 feet
• Reducing the allowed amount of Free-Market Residential floor area for non-historic properties
from .75:1 to .5:1 in both zones, and only if equal amounts of Affordable Housing is provided on
the same parcel. Maintain a .5:1 Free-Market Residential FAR by right for Historic Properties.
Page 5of12
• Increasing the required setback for all rooftop equipment, except railings, to 20 feet from any
street-facing facade.
• Require a setback for railings equal to the height of the railing.
• Maintain the existing language for renewable energy systems that are 5 feet in height or less.
Increase the required setback for any renewable energy systems that are over 5 feet in height to
be setback at least 20 feet.
The same information is also outlined in Table 2 on the next page:
Page 6 of 12
Table 2: Existing and Proposed CC and C-1 Dimensional Requirements
Existing CC Proposed CC Existing C-1 Proposed C-1
Two-Story Two-Story Two-Story Two-Story
Buildings: 28 feet Buildings: 28 feet Buildings: 28 feet Buildings: 28 feet
Maximum Three-Story Three-Story Three-Story Three-Story
Height Buildings: 38 - 42 Buildings: 34 - 38 Buildings: 36 - 40 Buildings: 32 - 36
feet (through feet for three-story feet for three-story feet for three-story
commercial design buildings (through buildings (through buildings (through
review)
commercial design commercial design commercial design
review) review) review)
All mechanical set
All mechanical set back a minimum of
back a minimum of 20 feet from street.
20 feet from street.
elevators and stairs elevators and stairs All railings and
Roof-top set back 15 feet All railings setback set back 15 feet renewable energy
equipment from street equal to the height from street systems setback
of the railing. equal to the height
of the device.
Minimize footprint
of equipment. Minimize footprint
of equipment.
First Floor: First Floor: Thirteen First Floor: Thirteen First Floor: Eleven
Thirteen (13) feet to (13) feet to fifteen (13) feet to fifteen (11) feet to a
Minimum fifteen (15) feet (15) feet floor to (15) feet floor to maximum of
floor to floor to floor floor floor thirteen (13) feet
floor
heights Upper Floors: Nine Upper Floors: Nine Upper Floors: Nine Upper Floors: Nine
(9) feet floor to (9) feet floor to (9) feet floor to (9) feet floor to
ceiling ceiling ceiling ceiling
Historic Properties: Historic Properties:
0.5:1, which may be 'S 1 0.5:1, which may be .5:1
increased to 0.75:1 Non-historic increased to 0.75:1 Non-historic
if affordable if affordable
Free- housing equal to Properties: 5:1 only housing equal to one Properties: 5:1 only
if affordable if affordable
Market one hundred hundred percent
Residential percent (100%) of housing equal to one (100%) of the free- housing equal to one
FAR the free-market hundred percent market residential hundred percent
residential floor (100%) of the free- floor area is (100%) of the free-
area is developed market residential developed on the market residential
on the same parcel. floor area is same parcel. floor area is
developed on the developed on the
same parcel. same parcel.
Page 7 of 12
MAXIMUM HEIGHTS: Staff is proposing to maintain the current 28 foot height limit for two-story
building elements in the CC and C-1 zone districts. This height relates well to Aspen's historic built
pattern and creates some flexibility for applicants as they design their buildings. The CC and C-1 zones
currently allow a range of heights for three-story building elements: 38 —42 feet in CC and 36 —40 feet
in C-1. Staff is recommending to maintain a range of heights, but to lower it by four (4) feet so that the
current low of the range end becomes the maximum allowed height: 34 — 38 feet in CC and 32 — 36 in
C-1. Staff recommends maintaining the range because it ensures a diversity of heights in Aspen's
commercial zones, which is consistent with the historic development pattern. It also ensures that new
buildings will not all be the same height, and that there will be some visual relief to the built
environment.
Staff also recommends adding language indicating that reaching the maximum height is not achievable
in all situations. This language is currently included in the FAR section, and staff believes it is
important to add it to the maximum height section to provide greater clarity on the intention of the
height ranges.
MINIMUM FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHTS: The CC and C-1 zone districts do not currently include
requirements for floor to floor or floor to ceiling heights — those are included in the Commercial,
Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. Because the maximum building
heights are proposed to be lowered, staff recommends codifying minimum first floor floor-to-floor
heights to avoid any conflicts with the Design Guidelines. The Guidelines currently state that the
minimum floor-to-floor heights in CC and C-1 should be 13 to 15 feet on the first floor, and that
minimum floor-to-ceiling heights on upper floors in CC and C-1 should be 9 feet. Staff recommends
maintaining the current 9 foot floor-to-ceiling requirements for all upper floors, as outlined in the
Commercial Design Guidelines. Staff recommends maintaining the 13 — 15 foot first floor floor-to-floor
height in the CC zone, and recommends decreasing it to 11 — 13 feet in the C-1 zone.
Aspen's historic development pattern includes generous first floor heights. This also provides flexibility
in the different commercial uses that can occur in a building. Typically, the focus of 19th century
architecture was on the first floor where the commercial spaces were located. Offices and living spaces
were on upper floors with a shorter plate height and simpler architecture. The first floor was more
commonly transparent, so goods could be displayed, while the second story had smaller windows and
was usually reserved for a residential or office space. The design guidelines encourage consistency with
this historic pattern.
Typical storefronts in the core span up to between 13 feet and 15 feet to the top of the transom to permit
the maximum amount of sunlight into the shop. Two examples are below: The Andres Building (left)
storefront is 14 feet 2 inches to top and the Red Onion (right) storefront is 13 feet to the top.
Page 8 of 12
f p f f
-. a, <=
-
1' r. *. i ���; - II 1 11 1
f' O.
-•fit S. .-% '
More recent construction includes similar first floor heights. Below are examples from the spaces
housing Wolf Camera, Peaches, and the Gap:
Kandycom Building
u . t r -1-
t ' i •
`_
r -. �-•
s - { ,
it
The Kandycom Building, with Wolf Camera, has an estimated height of 14 to 15 feet floor to ceiling.
Page 9 of 12
--
nil '
The Peaches Building iL _
_, It-:: 7` g
r 11111111 .
3e I.
ir-___________:________. - a'.
4111' ' err 4 i
,`
gi -. -_I _!` 1
The Peaches building is approximately 12 feet to the top of the first floor ceiling (and an estimated 13 -
14 feet floor to floor).
The Gap Building
------111.: - :
ii
fr
6
The Gap building is approximately 12 to 13 feet to top of transom and interior ceiling.
Staff is recommending to maintain the current floor to floor requirements for the first floor in the CC
zone district, but to lower the floor to floor requirements for the first floor in the C-1 zone district to 11
Page 10 of 12
feet to 13 feet. This maintains the historic pattern in the historic commercial core, and reflects the fact
that the C-1 zone tends to attract different uses that may not need the large first floor heights.
Staff is recommending a 10 foot floor to floor height for all upper floors in CC and C-1. This creates a
common standard for building levels and helps to make the standards more understandable, rather than
having two different calculations for first and upper floors.
ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT: The land use code currently requires that all elevators and stairway overruns be
setback from the street by at least 15 feet. Staff proposes to extend this to all rooftop equipment and
appurtenances and to increase the setback to 20 feet. This will ensure the equipment is not seen from
pedestrians on the street.
The P&Z recommended that all railings and renewable energy systems be setback from the street by an
amount equal to the height of the device (i.e. if the railing or a solar panel is 3 feet tall, it is setback by 3
feet). This standard for railings has been incorporated into the Ordinance.
FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL FAR: One of the changes to the Land Use Code during the 2006 — 2007
moratorium was to lower free-market FAR to .5:1 by right, with an ability to increase to .75:1 if equal
amounts of affordable housing are provided on the same parcel. Staff is proposing to amend this for
non-historic properties to .5:1 only if equal amounts of affordable housing is developed on the same
parcel. Staff believes that limiting the free-market residential allowances will help promote commercial
uses in Aspen's downtown commercial zones, which is consistent with the purpose of the districts.
Historic landmark properties would continue to have a 0.5:1 free-market floor area by right. Staff
believes it is important to maintain this floor area as a benefit for historic properties, and to ensure that it
does not conflict with the existing benefits outlined through the growth management quota system.
Staff believes that residential uses are appropriate for downtown, but the current zoning encourages
projects where free-market residential uses, not commercial uses, are the primary driver of projects in
the downtown. Staff believes the requirement to provide equal amounts of free-market and affordable
housing on-site will help promote vibrant, lights-on community.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposal at their March 20, 2012 regular meeting.
Their minutes are attached as Exhibit D and their final Resolution is attached as Exhibit C. The P&Z
unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendments. Because there is at least one Councilman
who will miss the April 2'd meeting, staff recommends the meeting be continued to April 9, 2012.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions are worded in the affirmative)
"I move to continue Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2012, to April 9, 2012."
Page 11 of 12
ALTERNATIVE MOTION: (all motions are worded in the affirmative)
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2012, amending the height and free-market residential
FAR in the CC and C-1 zone districts and amending the allowed exceptions to height limitations related
to rooftop mechanical equipment and other appertunances."
ATTACHMENTS: (NOTE THAT ONLY THE ATTACHMENTS IN BOLD ARE INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET)
EXHIBIT A—Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B— Draft P&Z Resolution (provided 3/26/2012)
EXHIBIT C— Final P&Z Resolution, Resolution 6, Series 2012
EXHIBIT D— Draft P&Z minutes from March 20, 2012
Page 12 of 12
ORDINANCE NO. 12
SERIES OF 2012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING THE HEIGHT AND FAR IN THE CC AND C-1 ZONE DISTRICTS:
26.710.140,COMMERCIAL CORE(CC)ZONE DISTRICT; 26.710.150,COMMERCIAL
(C-1)ZONE DISTRICT; AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER
26.575.020(F)(4), CALCULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS—ALLOWED EXCEPTIONS
TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHE REA S, in ac cordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the Ci ty of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City of Aspen City Council initiated amendments to the Land Use Code
related to the allowed heights and free-market FAR in the CC and C-1 zone districts; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or
denial by the Community Development Director and then 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, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.710.140, Commercial
Core(CC)Zone District;26.710.150,Commercial (C-1)Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 20, 2012, the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve the proposed amendments by a six
—zero (6-0)vote; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 2, 2012,the City Council
took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development
Director, and the Planning and Zoning Commission,and considered the proposal under the
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and voted_-_L-J to
approve the code changes; and,
WHEREAS,the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all the applicable standards and that the approval of the Code Amendments are consistent with the
goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS,the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: Text
unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text being removed is red with
strikethrough and looks like this. Text being added to the code is green with underline and looks
like this.; and,
Ordinance 12,Series 2012,Zoning Amendments—CC and C-1
Page 1 of 8
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety,and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN,COLORADO,AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Commercial Core(CC) Zone District
26.710.140(D) — Commercial Core (CC) Zone District — Dimensional Requirements, shall be
amended as follows:
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core(CC)Zone District:
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area(square feet): No requirement.
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit(square feet): No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width(feet): No requirement.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement.
5. Minimum side yard setback(feet): No requirement.
6. Minimum rear yard setback(feet): No requirement
7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060.
8. Maximum height (feet): twenty-eight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building.
Thirty-four (348) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be increased to
42thirty-eight (38) feet through commercial design review. See Chapter 26.412.
Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable design
standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional
standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not an entitlement and is not achievable
in all situations.
9. Minimum floor to floor heights:
a. First Floor: Thirteen(13) feet to a maximum of fifteen(15) feet
109. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot(feet): No requirement.
114.0. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
1244. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively
up to a total maximum FAR of 2.75:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject
to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity
requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly,the maximum FAR is not an
entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
a. Commercial uses: 2:1.
Ordinance 12,Series 2012,Zoning Amendments—CC and C-1
Page 2 of 8
b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care
center and similar uses: 2.75:1.
c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation.
d. Lodging: 0.5:1, which may be increased to 1.5:1 if the individual lodge units on the
parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be
comprised of lock-off units.
e. Free-market multi-family housing: For non-historic properties: 0.5:1, which ..,.a.. be
increased to 0.75:1 if affordable housing equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the
free-market residential floor area is developed on the same parcel. For Historic
Landmark Properties: 0.5:1.
1344. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet): two thousand
(2,000) square feet of net livable area.
a. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by extinguishing
historic transferable development right certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"),
subject to the following:
1. The transfer ratio is 500 square feet of net livable area for each certificate that is
extinguished.
2. The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units.
However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring
development rights is 2,500 square feet of net livable area(i.e., no more than five
hundred [500] additional square feet may be applied per unit).
3. This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development
rights does not allow an increase in the FAR of the lot.
Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing
certificates.
1413. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of
lock-off units,this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units.
144. Commercial/residential ratio: The total lodging and free-market residential net
livable area shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the
uses described in Subparagraphs 26.710.140.D.11.a. and b. combined on the same parcel.
Section 2: Commercial(C-1) Zone District
26.710.150(D) — Commercial Core (CC) Zone District — Dimensional Requirements, shall be
amended as follows:
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial (C-1)Zone District:
Ordinance 12,Series 2012,Zoning Amendments—CC and C-1
Page 3 of 8
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet):
a. Detached residential dwelling, two (2) detached residential dwellings, duplex
dwelling and bed and breakfast: 3,000.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet):
a. Detached residential dwelling, two (2) detached residential dwellings, duplex
dwelling and bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet):
a. Detached residential dwelling, two (2) detached residential dwellings, duplex
dwelling and bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet):
a. Detached residential dwelling, two (2) detached residential dwellings, duplex
dwelling and bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet):
a. Detached residential dwelling, two (2) detached residential dwellings, duplex
dwelling and bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet):
a. Detached residential dwelling, two (2) detached residential dwellings, duplex
dwelling and bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060.
8. Maximum height:
a. Detached residential dwelling, two (2) detached residential dwellings, duplex
dwelling and bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: twenty-eight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building. Thirty-
twosix (326) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be increased to
fert}ythirty-six (3649) feet through commercial design review. See Chapter 26.412.
Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable design
standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other
dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not an entitlement and is
not achievable in all situations.
9. Minimum floor to floor heights:
a. First Floor: Eleven (11) feet to a maximum of thirteen (13) feet
109. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet):
Ordinance 12, Series 2012, Zoning Amendments—CC and C-1
Page 4 of 8
a. Detached residential dwelling, two (2) detached residential dwellings, duplex
dwelling and bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
•
121-. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively
up to a total maximum FAR of 2.5:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject
to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity
requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly,the maximum FAR is not an
entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
a. Commercial uses: 1.5:1.
b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care
center and similar uses: 2.5:1.
c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation.
d. Lodging: .5:1, which may be increased to 1.5:1 if the individual lodge units on the
parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be
comprised of lock-off units.
e. Free-market multi-family housing: For non-historic properties: 0.5:1, which-may-be
increased to .75:1 if affordable housing equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the
free-market residential floor area is developed on the same parcel. For Historic
Landmark Properties: 0.5:1.
f. Detached residential dwellings, duplex dwellings and bed and breakfast (as the sole
use of parcel and not cumulative with other uses): Eighty percent (80%) of allowable
floor area of a same-sized lot located in the R-6 Zone District. (See R-6 Zone
District.) Extinguishment of historic TDRs shall not permit additional FAR for
single-family or duplex development.
134-2. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet): 2,000 square
feet of net livable area.
a. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by extinguishing
historic transferable development right certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"),
subject to the following:
1. The transfer ratio is five hundred (500) square feet of net livable area for each
certificate that is purchased.
2. The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units.
However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring
development rights is two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of net livable
area (i.e., no more than five hundred [500] additional square feet may be applied
per unit).
Ordinance 12,Series 2012,Zoning Amendments—CC and C-1
Page 5 of 8
3. This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development
rights does not allow an increase in the FAR of the lot.
Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing
certificates.
144. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of
lock-off units,this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units.
1544. Commercial/residential ratio: The total lodging and free-market residential net
livable area shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with
the uses described in Subparagraphs 26.710.150.D.11.a. and b. combined on the same
parcel.
Section 3: Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations
Section 26.575.020(F)(4)(a-e) of the Aspen Municipal Code, Measuring Building Heights —
Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations, which section describes the allowed exceptions to
building heights, is hereby amended to read as follows:
4. Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations
a. Chimneys, flues, and similar venting apparatus. Chimneys, flues, vents, and
similar venting apparatus may extend no more than ten (10) feet above the height of
the building at the point the device connects. For roofs with a pitch of 8:12 or
greater, these elements may not extend above the highest ridge of the structure by
more than required by adopted building codes or as otherwise approved by the Chief
Building Official to accommodate safe venting. To qualify for this exception, the
footprint of these features must be the minimum reasonably necessary for its function
the features must be combined to the greatest extent practical. Appurtenances such,as
hoods, caps, shields, coverings, spark arrestors, and similar functional devices or
ornamental do-dads shall be contained within the limitations of this height exception.
On structures other than a single-family or duplex residential building or an accessory
building, all Chimneys, flues, vents, and similar venting apparatus should be set back
from any Street facing facade of the building a minimum of twenty (20) feet and the
footprint should be minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable.
b. Communications Equipment. Antennas, satellite dishes, and similar communications
equipment and devices shall comply with the limitations of Section 26.575.130 —
Wireless Telecommunication Services Facilities and Equipment.
c. Elevator and Stair Enclosures. On structures other than a single-family or duplex
residential building or an accessory building, elevator overrun enclosures and stair
enclosures may extend up to five (5)feet above the specified maximum height limit.
Elevator and stair enclosures may extend up to ten 00) feet above the specified
maximum height limit if set back from any Street facing facade of the building a
Ordinance 12,Series 2012,Zoning Amendments—CC and C-1
Page6of8
minimum of fifteen (15) twenty (20) feet and the footprint of the elevators or stair
enclosures are minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable.
For single-family and duplex residential buildings and for accessory buildings,
elevator and stair enclosures are not allowed a height exception.
d. Rooftop Railings. On any structure other than a single-family or duplex residential
building, rooftop railings and similar safety devices permitting rooftop access may
extend up to five (5) feet above the height of the building at the point the railing
connects. To qualify for this exception, the railing must be the minimum reasonably
necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing
must be 50% or more transparent. All railings shall be set back from any Street
facing façade of the building by an amount equal to the height of the railing.
For single-family and duplex residential buildings, rooftop railings shall not be
allowed a height exception.
e. Mechanical Equipment. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and similar
mechanical equipment or utility apparatus located on top of a building may extend up
to five (5)feet above height of the building at the point the equipment is attached. On
structures other than a single-family or duplex residential building or an accessory
building, all mechanical equipment shall be set back from any Street facing facade of
the building a minimum of twenty (20) feet. Mechanical equipment shall be
combined and co-located to the greatest extent practicable.
f. Energy Efficiency or Renewable Energy Production Systems and Equipment. Energy
efficiency systems or renewable energy production systems and equipment including
solar panels, wind turbines, or similar systems and the system's associated
equipment which is located on top of a building may extend up to five (5) feet above
the height of the building at the point the equipment is attached.
On any structure other than a single-family or duplex residential building or an
accessory building, these systems may extend up to ten (10) feet above height of the
building at the point the equipment is attached if set back from any Street facing
facade of the building a minimum of fifteen twenty (4-520) feet and the footprint of
the equipment is minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable. Certain
additional restrictions may apply pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Review.
The height and placement of energy efficiency or production systems which are not
located on top of a building (located independent of a building) shall be established
by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the procedures and criteria of
Chapter 26.430 — Special Review. (Also see setback requirements for these systems
at sub-section E.5.)
Section 4: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
Ordinance 12, Series 2012,Zoning Amendments—CC and C-1
Page 7 of 8
This ordinance shall not 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 provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5: 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.
Section 6: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty(30)days following final passage.
Section 7: Notice of Public Hearing.
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 2nd day of April, 2012, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, 130
S. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of
the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of
March, 2012.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland,Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this_day of , 20_
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland,Mayor
Approved as to form:
James R True,City Attorney
Ordinance 12, Series 2012, Zoning Amendments—CC and C-1
Page 8 of 8
Exhibit A: Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review for amendments to the land use code.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, 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 Finding: This proposed amendment updates the allowed heights and free-market
residential FAR in the CC and C-1 zone districts. Updates to zoning are important to ensure the
built environment reflects community character and is consistent with our historic development
pattern. The proposed changes do not create a conflict with any other provision of the Land Use
Code. Staff finds this criterion is met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy, community goal, or objective.
Staff Finding: In conjunction with the adoption of the 2012 AACP, City Council has
established a set of goals for implementation of that guiding document. Those include updating
dimensional requirements in the CC and C-1 zone districts.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the AACP, which calls for an examination of
building heights, and includes a policy stating, "Establish lower maximum building heights to
maintain Aspen's small town character." (Managing Growth for Community & Economic
Sustainability Policy I.6) It also calls for an examination of commercial zone districts: "Ensure
that the City Land Use Code results in (commercial) development that reflects our architectural
heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity of heights..." (Managing
Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability Policy V.3) In addition, the AACP
discusses the important of maintaining commercial uses in the commercial zones.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
C. 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 Finding: Staff believes this amendment is consistent with the public interest and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. The zone district purpose
statements speak to the primary use as commercial, with secondary residential and lodging uses.
Staff finds that the amendments further this purpose. Staff finds this criterion is met.
Exhibit A Page 1 of 1
Cd
RESOLUTION No. 6
(Series of 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,ASPEN,
COLORADO,RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT CODE AMENDMNETS
RELATED TO THE HEIGHT AND FAR IN THE CC AND C-1 ZONE DISTRICTS:
26.710.140,COMMERCIAL CORE(CC)ZONE DISTRICT; 26.710.150,COMMERCIAL
(C-1)ZONE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City of Aspen City Council initiated amendments to the Land Use Code
related to the allowed heights and free-market FAR in the CC and C-1 zone districts; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or
denial by the Community Development Director and then 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, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.710.140, Commercial
Core(CC)Zone District;26.710.150, Commercial (C-1) Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 20, 2012, the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Sections
26.710.140, Commercial Core(CC) Zone District; 26.710.150, Commercial (C-1) Zone District, as
described herein, by a six—zero (6-0) 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,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Maximum Heights
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve an amendment to the
Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zone districts to lower heights by four (4) feet to
36—38 feet in the CC zone district and to 32— 34 feet in the C-1 zone district.
Section 2: Minimum Floor Heights
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve an amendment to the
Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zone districts to incorporate minimum floor to
floor heights for the first floor as follows:
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso#6 of 2012
CC and C-1 zone district amendments
Page 1 of 2
o CC Zone: First Floor 13 feet to 15 feet
o C-1 Zone: First Floor 11 feet to 13 feet
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve an amendment to the
Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zone districts to incorporate minimum floor to
ceiling heights for the upper floors as follows:
o CC Zone: Upper Floors 9 feet
o C-1 Zone: Upper Floors 9 feet
Section 3: Free-Market Residential FAR
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve an amendment to the
Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zone districts to reduce the allowed amount of
Free-Market Residential floor area for non-historic properties from .75:1 to .5:1 in both zones,
and only if equal amounts of Affordable Housing is provided on the same parcel. The Planning
and Zoning Commission further recommends City Council maintain a .5:1 allowed Free-Market
Residential floor area for historic properties.
Section 4: Rooftop equipment
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve an amendment to the
Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zone districts increasing the required setback for
all roof-top equipment, with the exception of renewable energy systems and railings, to 20 feet
from any street-facing facade.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve an amendment to the
Commercial Core(CC)and Commercial (C-1) zone districts requiring that railings on the roof be
limited to the minimum height required by the building code for life-safety, and that they be
setback from any street-facing facade in an amount equal to the height of the rail.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve an amendment to the
Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zone districts requiring that renewable energy
systems be setback from any street-facing facade in an amount equal to the height of the device.
FINALLY, adopted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission this 20th day of March,
2012.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
CO SS Q
T-�-' e
ames R.True, City Attorney pamer, P&Z ',airman
ATTEST: yn
Jackie Lothian, eputy City Clerk
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #6 of 2012
CC and C-1 zone district amendments
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes March 20, 2012
Comments 2
Minuets 3
Conflicts of Interest 3
Code Amendment — Downtown Zoning 3
The Code Amendment Process 6
1
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes March 20, 2012
LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Stan Gibbs,
Bert Myrin, Keith Goode, Jim DeFrancia, Jasmine Tygre and LJ Erspamer. Cliff
Weiss was not in attendance. Staff in attendance were: Jim True, City Attorney;
Chris Bendon and Jessica Garrow, Community Development; and Jackie Lothian,
Deputy City Clerk.
Comments
Jim True said that commission members are not excused but they are absent.
Bert Myrin said that when the P&Z suggests something to Council and they change
it was there some sort of system that would let P&Z know that we are handing off
the wrong things or what are we doing that is so off base. Bert said that he
supported the change in affordable work force housing. Bert said what is more
important is the process and the process changed. Bert said that he was looking for
a process that came back to P&Z to give a heads up not change things. LJ
Erspamer said that staff may repeat what was said at P&Z but the interpretation
might not be the same however LJ didn't know a system in the process other than
one of the P&Z members attending the Council meeting but he didn't want to over
burden the process. Jasmine Tygre said that she thought it was good but she didn't
have a solution for it but maybe we can come up with some suggestions on instant
feedback. Bert said the common link is com dev. Jessica Garrow asked if what
Bert was looking for was at the beginning of a meeting staff telling this is what is
happening with a certain project and where it was going. Bert replied just an
update of where we are at but not something that will take more staff time;just a
minute or two at the beginning of a meeting. Jessica said that she would bring it
up with staff and she will get back to P&Z. Stan Gibbs asked what was it that he
was trying to accomplish. Stan said that this is informative and you are trying to
make it so in the future we can temper our decisions on what Council is going to
want to do. Bert replied maybe not temper them or change them but we at least
would be aware of what is going on.
Jasmine said the building on the northeast corner of Cooper and Original seems to
have mushroomed; it was a 2 unit building with a row of Evergreens and it looks
gigantic and about 5 feet taller. Jim True said that submitted building permits and
complied with zoning and those 4 units and were not created recently; they have
existed for a long time. Jasmine said if this is what is allowed in RMF she would
like P&Z to take another look at RMF dimensions sooner rather than later.
2
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
Emzy Veazy III, public, said the thing that you were discussing earlier that you do
have a problem with City Council; City Council should respect P&Z much more
than it does. Emzy said P&Z might want to do is look at what other City Councils
do outside of the system and see what their relationship is with their governing
body in that way. Emzy said to put flexibility into your zoning and you won't be
stagnant.
Minutes:
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes of January 31s` seconded by
Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes of February 7, 2012
seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
Public Hearing:
Code Amendment — Downtown Zoning
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for the Downtown Zoning and asked for
notice. Jessica Garrow provided the notice.
Jessica said this was a public hearing for changes to the Commercial Core (CC)
and C-1 zone districts; there was a lot of discussion during the AACP regarding
mass and scale throughout town. Council had raised a lot of concerns with things
that they adopted in the AACP; Council wanted to look at lower heights and looks
at floor areas in free market residential. Jessica said that the code amendments in
front of you deal with floor area for free market uses as well as heights. Right now
those zone districts allow a 28 foot height limit for 2 story elements and employee
housing to look at the same. Staff is proposing a 4 foot decrease in the max height
for 3 story elements in CC and C-1 zone districts. In the CC zone it would go from
42 feet down to a maximum of 38 feet and in C-1 it would go from the current 40
feet to a max of 36 feet. Staff is still purposing to have a range of heights because
that is important in the commercial design standards. Jessica utilized a power
point zoning map of the CC and C-1. Jessica said the code amendment proposes to
incorporate minimum floor to floor heights into the zone district so the commercial
design standards talk about a minimum floor to floor height on the first floor of 13
to 15 feet so that would include all the mechanical in the ceiling. Chris Bendon
said the CC is from Main Street to Durant; the west side is Monarch and the east
side is Hunter. C-1 is the one block between Hunter and Spring, Concept 600
3
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
Building through Mezzaluna and just prior to the Aspen Square Building. Jessica
said they were proposing to go down to an 11 to 13 foot floor to floor in the C-1
Zone District and that is currently what is called for in the mixed zone district
within the commercial design. Staff is proposing a minimum 10 foot floor to floor
on the upper floors with a 9 foot floor to ceiling. Since there were these 2
calculations staff thought that it makes sense to go to just a floor to floor
calculation.
Jessica said the other change with height was roof top mechanical equipment so
right now any elevators or stairs are required to be setback 15 feet; we are
requiring a 20 foot setback from any street facing facade for any roof top
mechanical equipment; solar, floor panels, duct work, fire exists, and elevator
overruns. That will help decrease the mass of buildings as you perceive it as a
pedestrian; that will help it to recede into the background.
Jessica said in terms of the floor area change is treated a little different in historic
and non-historic properties; right now in both zone districts you have a by right 25
to 1 for free market uses and you can go up to a .75 to 1 if you provide equal
amounts of affordable housing. Staff is proposing that historic buildings maintain
the existing by right 5 to 1 floor area with no ability to increase to .75. For non-
historic properties you would be able to do a .5 to 1 floor area for free market only
if you provide equal amounts of affordable housing; this is different than growth
management but it increases your affordable housing mitigation by more than 3
times.
Jessica stated that they held a focus group with some architects and planners to get
some of their feedback and were concerned about the lowering of heights to fit all
the systems in but it will become a challenge for them. Jessica said that they
suggested not including a floor to floor for upper floors and let the designers figure
that out and there were some concerns on the floor area changes because it
increases the amount of affordable housing that is going to go on parcels it might
push out office uses on that second floor so that is a trade-off that you have to
consider. Jessica stated that you could do a combination of on and off site
affordable housing. Chris said the space that is required between one level of the
floor and ceiling with pop ups on the ceiling.
Jessica distributed a color drawing of the heights downtown right now; there are a
lot of 2 story buildings on the malls with a lot of vegetation. Stan Gibbs asked if
the floors were sunken it really doesn't give you the perspective of a historic
4
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
building. Jessica replied that was addressed in the commercial design standards
and you are not allowed to do sunken buildings. Stan said you only see the first
floor of historic buildings with higher ceilings on the first floor and this was an
important feature that we want to maintain. Stan said that floor pitch was a lot
easier to specify; floor to floor.
Bert mentioned the 28 foot 2 story buildings and asked if anyone have built these
lately. Jessica replied not recently but we do see 2 story modules as part of some
of the buildings that come forward. Bert asked where the 10 foot floor to floor
came from. Jessica responded that Council directed staff to look at heights and
floor area; it constrains what can happen in a building and it created a conflict with
the commercial design standards. Bert said the overall reduction of height to
Council was lower. Chris said one of your goals to make a recommendation to
Council and that is your recommendation not based on where you predict Council
is going.
Jasmine asked on the roof top equipment if there is a limit on the amount of roof
top equipment that is allowed or the size of it; is there a limit on how big the
housing can be for an elevator. Chris replied there is a minimum of space needed
for the elevator. Jessica said the building department reviews the elevator.
Jasmine asked if we want the roof tops to be turned into recreational areas. Jessica
answered right now you are allowed to use your roof for mechanical equipment
and a roof deck but are required to have railings that have to meet the code in terms
of height; it has to have building code requirements. Chris said there were a lot of
considerations in the commercial design standards as for the look and feel as well
as height.
Bert said on the roof top section of the memo on page 7 does that include the roof
top railings like around Sandy's at the edge of the building and even though it is a
clear railing they push stuff up against it and you can see it from so the clear railing
doesn't matter.
U Erspamer asked if this would change the value of a property. Chris said it
wasn't P&Z's job to review that. LJ asked if HPC weighed in on this. Jessica
replied that they worked with Sara. LJ asked if this applied to lodges. Jessica
answered this was just for the CC and C-1 Districts.
5
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
Stan asked if there were max floor heights, what if somebody wanted to build a 40
floor first floor. Jessica responded that it was covered in the commercial design
standards but we are clarifying in the 13 to 15 foot range 15 foot is a maximum.
Public Comments:
1. Emzy Veazy III, public, stated that he didn't hear anything about the ADA,
America Disability Act, this city is delinquent on this for ADA. Emzy said
there could be building down 2 stories and that would allow the architects
have more leeway.
LJ closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Bert said the resolution started on page 6 and he agreed with the maximum heights
on the ground floor. Stan said if there is the 10 foot limit and a 13 foot minimum
on the first floor that means that you can't build a 4 story building, which is a
change because right now with 9 feet you could get 4 stories with the 40 foot
height limit. Jessica said the 9 foot is a floor to ceiling. LJ said maybe we should
do what the architectural group said and just define the bottom floor and let them
design the rest of the building to a maximum height of 38 feet. Chris said there is a
big difference between a 71/2 foot ceiling and a 9 foot ceiling. Stan said we are
trying to have some diversity in height. Jessica suggested taking their suggestion
eliminating this discussion on the upper floors and the minimum of 13 feet on the
first story. The upper floors would have a minimum height limit of 9 feet floor to
ceiling.
Bert suggested a setback for railings at the height of the railing; move the railing 5
feet. Keith said why have a clear railing if you can't see through it. Jessica said
that right now the code requires a 50% transparency and it can be up to 42 inches.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution #006, series of 2012
recommending City Council amend the height and free market residential FAR in
the CC and C-1 zone district with conditions. Seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll
call vote: Stan Gibbs, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Jasmine Tygre,
yes; Bert Myrin, yes and LJErspamer. All in favor, APPROVED 6-0.
Public Hearing:
The Code Amendment Process
6
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for The Code Amendment Process. Chris
Bendon stated this is a code amendment to amend the way we do code
amendments and they way that it is done now is not working.
Chris said the detail language was that solved the problem that we never talked
about and struggle through that and there are recommendations from City Council
with very precise language, there is a recommendation from P&Z and it is in an
Ordinance format and that is when the public finds out at the first reading; the first
opportunity for the community to hear the concept and we are sitting there with
detailed language in front of everyone. Chris said instead of that we want to
reverse the whole thing; we want to have all those concept discussions as much as
we can with the public prior to initiating the code amendment; prior to getting into
the details. Chris said the question to council is do you want to pursue this code
amendment; it is less of a threat to the community. Chris said it includes some
things that staff does now that isn't codified; a private party can initiate a code
amendment but the Council needs to authorize that somehow; Council needs to
sponsor it. It maintains the authority for P&Z to initiate the Community
Development Director to initiate. Some things may not require a community input
phase; code clean up.
Stan Gibbs said from the perspective of P&Z they just change and don't review the
actual proposal for the code amendment. Chris replied that was the biggest change
that you are not involved as a Scribner but you are involved in providing policy
direction. Stan asked how other communities handle code amendments. Chris
responded that in some communities P&Z is not involved in code amendments
only Council. Stan said that Planning & Zoning was not about changing the rules
but enforcing the rules.
LJ asked if a citizen could bring it to petition and bring it to election. Chris said it
was in the Charter. LJ asked if this was a discretionary referral from Council.
Stan said if the last line was taken out of the memo on Exhibit B page 6; P&Z
voted that there would be a public process. Stan said that HPC should be included
with P&Z on the public process.
No public comments were stated.
LJ closed the public comments portion of the public hearing.
7
Exhibit D:
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
Jasmine said there was confusion in the steps outlined below and it should be steps
out lined in b.
Chris said the standards here address either amending the zone district map or they
have always been in the same chapter and have the same standards. Standards
either address a change in code or rezoning; we are separating the standards.
When the city annexes properties the city has 90 days to final rezoning or leave it
unzoned.
Jasmine said rezonings are being called amendment to the zone district map, which
is what it is but she wanted to call it zoning. Chris agreed.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #7, series 2012
recommending City Council amend the process in the land use code and amend the
official zone district map with all of the amendments discussed, seconded by
Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Keith Goode, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Bert Myrin,
yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
The commissioners thanked Chris for the presentation.
Adjourned at 6:55 pm.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
8