Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.264522400559, 273728300527~~~~ ~~~~.~,~$~.~ ~a~zr~~a~~€a~r c~rv~~~r~a ~L~ ~~ r~~ ~r~~~~~~~~~N ~~~~~~ ~~Le~~v ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~z ~u~n~ar,~ ~t~eet i€esoi~ti.on ~cr tFe i~~~~ an~[lor ~=~~ CArc3inanee €or the ~t3C~ am~$/©~r ~~~ ~beternuination ffor the wearing flfiZeer a~ccciuaistrative E~eterntxinataon ~taif 1~1'enno ,~ppiscation P~nbfiie 1~TOtice, ~eeeptamee Letter, Re£erra@(s) Letter Site Yflan R~Isscetlaneo~zs Plat(s) Parcel ID: 2737-28-3-00-527 Application Date: 8/6/09 Case No: P082-09 Description: Planner: Suzanne Wolff # Copies: 14 Allocated Hours: 5 Project Address: HWY 82, SNOWMASS, CO 81654 % Over Hours: 6 Property Owner: SKOKOS Address: 419 E HYMAN AVE Owner Phone: (970) 920-4623 Owner's REP: SUNNY VANN REP's Email: vannassociates@comcast.net Referrals: Comments Due Date: ASPEN, CO 81611 Address: 230 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 Other Referrals: REP's Phone: Meetings: 1st Meeting: 2nd Meeting: 3rd Meeting: Meeting Date: 09/15/2009 10/28/2009 11/04/2009 Review Body: p&z bocc bocc Public Hearing? no yes Notice Date: 09/20/2009 Meeting Notes: Approvals: BOCC Resolution #: P&Z Determination #: BOCC Ordinance #: 026-2009 #564654 HO Determination #: Admin Determination #: Other Information: VR Approval Date: Plat Recorded Date: VR Expires Date: Plat (Bk, PG): Remarks: No Vesting Application Type: Other ParcellD: 2645-22-4-00-559 Description: Application Date: 8/6/09 Skokos/Thomas A Bradtke Trust Land Use Code Text Amendment Project Address: HWY 82, SNOWMASS, CO 81654 Property Owner: SKOKOS Address: 419 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 Owner's REP: SUNNY VANN Address: 230 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 REP's Email: vannassociates@comcast.net Case No: P082-09 Planner: Suzanne Wolff # Copies: 14 Allocated Hours: 5 -Over Hours: 6 Owner Phone: (970) 920-4623 REP's Phone: Referrals: Other Referrals: ' Comments Due Date: Meetings: 1st Meeting: 2nd Meeting: 3rd Meeting: Meeting Date: 09/15/2009 10/28/2009 11/04/2009 'Review Body: p&z bocc bocc Public Hearing? no yes Notice Date: 09/20/2009 Meeting Notes: Approvals: BOCC Resolution # P&Z Determination #: BOCC Ordinance #: 026-2009 #564654 HO Determination #: Admin Determination #: Other Information: VR Approval Date: Plat Recorded Date: VR Expires Date: Plat (Bk, PG): Remarks: No Vesting Application Type: Other AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PTCKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, AMF,Nll1NG THE, FOLLOWING SF,CT[ON OF THE 2006 P[TK1N COUNTY LAND USE CODE, TITLE. 8 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE,: SF,C'fFON 6-56-20(c)(3), UEVELOPMF,N'1' BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY Ordinance Nu. jr1G-2009 RECITALS I. T'cd and Shannon Skokos and the Fr. "I homas Bradtke Trust ("Applicants") have applied w the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("13(X;C") to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the 2006 Land Use Code, which is the "Development Below Allowable Density" category in the residential gmwlh management scoring system. The intent of the category is to encourage a reduction in density when new subdivision lots or 35+ acre parcels are seeking development rights, but does not address the scenario of a legally created, nonwnforming size parcel that is seeking a new development right. 2, The Pitkin County Planning and -7.oning Commission considered the proposed code amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting on September 15. 2009, and recommended approval by a vote of 4-0. 3. T'hc BOCC considered the proposed code amendment at a duly noticed public hearing on first reading on October 28, 2009, and voted to approve the proposed amendment on second reading on November 4, 2009. 4. 'fhe BOCC finds that the proposed code amendment is consistent with t3tc applicable provisions of the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the BOCC that it hereby amends Title 8 of the Pitkin County Code, the Land Use Code, Iv amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) as follows in Attachment A. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING published in the Armen 1-imes_R'eekly on the 4"' day of October, 2009. 2009. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ AT A PUBLIC HF,ARING on [hc 28"' day of October, APPROVEll AND ADOPTF;D AFTER SECOND READING on [he 4"' day of November, 2009. PUBLISIIED AFTF,R ADOPTION in the Asnen Times Weekly on the ~f day of~1 ~l i'l~!/.Up; 2009. Tf lIS ORDINANCE SHALL Bl?COME. F..FFEC'f1VE 3U llAYS AFTF,R PUBLICA'I70N FOLLOWING FINAL ADOY'IION BY "f11E BOARll OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. RECEPTIONS: 564654. 11/1912009 at 12:29:54 PM, 1 OF 3, R 50.00 Doc Cade ORDINANCE Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO .r Ordinance :1'b. ;!{4-?009 !'axe 2 ArrP~ST: 1 T ~ Jeanette Jones, Clerk to th~l3(X.C 1 J AYYROVL D AS l'O FORM: _,~ , John Lily, County Attorney 1'082-09 HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PI'rK1N COUN'T'Y, COLORADO ,~ i I / r Patti K,ty-Clapper, air ,. Date __~~!_:• o . (2 l APPROVF,D AS TO CON'fL',NT: ,1 ~ndy~Ho ben Cummunih' Development Director ATTACHMENT A Section 6-50-20(cj(3j (3) DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY (ONLYAPPLIES TO DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE RflRAL AREA) Considering the extent to which the development proposed is less than the allowable density in terms of numbers of dwelling units (not including caretaker dwelling units, employee dwelling units, or deed restricted affordable dwelling units) permitted in the applicable zone district. No points shall be awarded where density is reduced subject to standards in Sec. 5-1Q-20 of the Land Use Code (Reduction in Density for Steep Slopes.) Points shall be awarded according to the following schedule: (a) Zero (0) means the applicant proposes development at a density of seventy-six (76) percent to one hundred (100) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (6J One (1) means the applicant commits to limit development to iffy-one (51) percent) to seventy-five (75) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (c) Two (2) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty (50) percent or less of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. 144aer}compet+ag-fan additional square-feetage only; an Ar_applicant shall receive a score of one if there is no opportunity to reduce density on a propeRy. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting -November 4, 2009 :~Ir ~t., ~ F~ THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner RE: Skokos/Bradtke Land Use Code Amendment, Second Reading BRIEF SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicants have proposed to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the 2006 Land Use Code Sections, which is the "Development Below Allowable Density" category in the residential growth management scoring system. The BOCC approved the proposed amendment on first reading on 10/28/09 by a vote of 3-l . Staff has attached [he model score sheet that the Applicants presented at the meeting, with one column added to show the maximum number of points that could be achieved. APPLICANTS: Ted & Shannon Skokos; Pr. Thomas Bradtke Trust REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the BOCC adopt a motion to approve an amendment to Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the Code on second reading, pursuant to the attached Ordinance. Attachments 1) Draft Score Shee[ Presented by Applicant 10/28/09, with revisions by staff o-t ~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF THE 2006 PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE, TITLE 8 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE: SECTION 6-50-20(c)(3), DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY Ordinance No. -2009 RECITALS 1. Ted and Shannon Skokos and the Fr. Thomas Bradtke Trust ("Applicants") have applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("BOCC") to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the 2006 Land Use Code, which is the "Development Below Allowable Density" category in the residential growth management scoring system. The intent of the category is to encourage a reduction in density when new subdivision lots or 35+ acre parcels are seeking development rights, but does not address the scenario of a legally created, nonconforming size parcel that is seeking a new development right. 2. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed code amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting on September 15, 2009, and recommended approval by a vote of 4-0. 3. The BOCC considered the proposed code amendment at a duly noticed public hearing on first reading on October 28, 2009, and voted to approve the proposed amendment on second reading on November 4, 2009. 4. The BOCC finds that the proposed code amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the BOCC that it hereby amends Title 8 of the Pitkin County Code, the Land Use Code, to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) as follows in Attachment A. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING published in the Aspen Times Weeklv on the 4th day of October, 2009. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ AT A PUBLIC HF,ARING on the 28'h day of October, 2009. APPROVED AND ADOPTED AFTER SECOND READING on the 4`h day of November, 2009. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION in the Aspen Times Weeklv on the day of , 2009. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION FOLLOWING FINAL ADOPTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. CX Ordinance No. _-2009 Page 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: Jeanette Jones, Clerk to the BOCC APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney P082-09 By Date Patti Kay-Clapper, Chair APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~ ~ ~~ indy Houben, Community Development Director 3 ATTACHMENT A Section 6-50-20(c)(3) (3) DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY (ONLY APPLIES TO DEVELOPMENTS W/TH/N THE RURAL AREA) Considering the extent to which the development proposed is less than the allowable density in terms of numbers of dwelling units (not including caretaker dwelling units, employee dwelling units, or deed restricted affordable dwelling units) permitted in the applicable zone district. No points shall be awarded where density is reduced subject to standards in Sec. 5-10-20 of the Land Use Code (Reduction in Density for Steep Slopes.) Points shall be awarded according to the following schedule: (a) Zero (0) means the applicant proposes development at a density of seventy-six (76) percent to one hundred (100) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (b) One (1) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty-one (51) percent) to seventy-five (75) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (c) Two (2) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty (50) percent or less of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. An applicant shall receive a score of one if there is no opportunity to reduce density on a property. LI RURAL SCORING Total Maximum Criteria Points Multiplier Score Score w/ Multiplier** A. Impacts on Public & Private Facilities 1. Fire Protection 1 1 1 2 2. Road System 1 1 1 2 3. Transit/Trails 1 1 1 2 Sub-Total 3 6 B. Effect on the Environment 1. Water Resources 1 2 2 4 2. Wildlife Habitat Protection * 2 2 4 4 Sub-Total 6 8 C. Achievement Community Goals 1. Open Space Preservation* 2 2 4 4 2. Hazard Avoidance 1 1 1 2 3. Development Below Allowable Density 0 2 0 4 4. Reduction of Visible Mass 4 1 4 6 Sub-Total 9 16 Grand Total 18 Threshold 22 30 * Default Categories: Property awarded automatic score of 2 if it contains no valued Wildlife Habitat or Open Space ** Column Added by Staff AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeti~ng~October 28, 2009 THRU: Cindy Hoube"n,~f'omm Wily Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner RE: SkokosBradtke Land Use Code Amendment, First Reading BRIEF SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicants have proposed to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the 2006 Land Use Code Sections, which is the "Development Below Allowable Density" category in the residential growth management scoring system. The Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 4-0. The staff memo to the Planning Commission and the meeting minutes are attached for reference. APPLICANTS: Ted & Shannon Skokos; Fr. Thomas Bradtke Trust ATIVE: Sunny Vann BACKGROUND: The Applicants each own legally created, non-conforming size parcels, for which they are competing for growth management allotments in the 2009 competition for new lots/parcels. The Skokos parcel is located east of Aspen and was created as a result of a recent federal land exchange (the "Ryan Exchange"), and contains approximately 8.2 acres in [he AR-10 zone district. The Bradtke parcel is located in Shield O Mesa and has been deemed legally created, but does not have a development right; the parcel contains approximately 11.8 acres in the RS-30 zone district. SUMMARY OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicant has proposed to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the Code to provide a score of 2 in this category if there is no opportunity to reduce density, whether applying for a new development right or additional floor area. The Code currently provides a score of 1 if there is no opportunity to reduce density, when applying for additional floor area only. Under the current scoring system, both Applicants' parcels would get a score of zero in this category because they are nonconforming in size. The Applicants assert that the inability of anon-conforming parcel to obtain any points in this category compromises their ability to meet the Code's minimum threshold to obtain an allotment for a new development right. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff agrees with the Applicants' that the Development Below Allowable Density scoring category was not written to address the scenario of a legally created, nonconforming size parcel that is seeking a new development right. The scoring is written to encourage a reduction in density when new subdivision lots or 35+ acre parcels are seeking development rights. The Code acknowledged that density reduction was not the focus of a request for additional floor area, so provides a score of one if there is no opportunity to reduce density. Staff supports providing a score of one for a legally created, non-conforming parcel that is competing for a new development right. Staff and the Planning Commission disagreed with the Applicant's argument that a score of 2 should be granted if there is no opportunity to reduce density, to be consistent with the scoring for the Open Space Preservation OQOJO:? ~ ~ I and Wildlife Habitat Protection categories, where a score of two is automatically awarded for projects seeking a new development right, if the lot/parcel does not contain valued open space or known wildlife habitat. Staff asserted that the value to the community is greater when development is proposed on a property with no wildlife habitat or valued open space, than on a property that has no opportunity to reduce density, and that that value should be reflected in a higher score in the growth management competition. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the BOCC adopt a motion to approve an amendment to Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the Code on first reading and set for second reading on November 4, 2009, pursuant to the attached Ordinance., Attachments 1) PZ Minutes 9/15/09 2) Staff Memo to PZ 9/15/09 l~~~~~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF THE 2006 PITHIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE, TITLE 8 OF THE PITHIN COUNTY CODE: SECTION 6-50-20(c)(3), DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY Ordinance No. -2009 RECITALS 1. Ted and Shannon Skokos and the Fr. Thomas Bradtke Trust ("Applicants") have applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("BOCC") to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of [he 2006 Land Use Code, which is the "Development Below Allowable Density" category in the residential growth management scoring system. The intent of the category is to encourage a reduction in density when new subdivision lots or 35+ acre parcels are seeking development rights, but does not address the scenario of a legally created, nonconforming size parcel that is seeking a new development right. 2. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed code amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting on September 15, 2009, and recommended approval by a vote of 4-0. 3. The BOCC considered the proposed code amendment at a duly noticed public hearing on first reading on October 28, 2009, and voted to approve the proposed amendment on second reading on November 4, 2009. 4. The BOCC finds that the proposed code amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the BOCC that it hereby amends Title 8 of the Pitkin County Code, the Land Use Code, to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) as follows in Attachment A. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING published in the Aspen Times Weekly on the 4`" day of October, 2009. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ AT A PUBLIC HEARING on the 28'h day of October, 2009. APPROVED AND ADOPTED AFTER SECOND READING on the 4`s day of November, 2009. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION in the Aspen Times Weekly on the day of , 2009. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTNE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION FOLLOWING FINAL ADOPTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 0 ;003 Ordinance No. Page 2 ATTEST: -2009 Jeanette Jones, Clerk to the BOCC APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney P082-09 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO By Date Patti Kay-Clapper, Chair APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director ATTACHMENT A Section 6-SO-20(c)(3) (3) DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY (ONLY APPLIES TO DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE RURAL AREA) Considering the extent to which the development proposed is less than the allowable density in terms of numbers of dwelling units (not including caretaker dwelling units, employee dwelling units, or deed restricted affordable dwelling units) permitted in the applicable zone district. No points shall be awarded where density is reduced subject to standards in Sec. 5-10-20 of the Land Use Code (Reduction in Density for Steep Slopes.) Points shall be awarded according to the following schedule: (a) Zero (0) means the applicant proposes development at a density of seventy-six (76) percent to one hundred (100) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (b) One (1) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty-one (51) percent) to seventy-five (75) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (c) Two (2) means the applicant commits to limit development to ffty (50) percent or less of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. An applicant shall receive a score of one if there is no opportunity to reduce density on a property. OQ0~O5 COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 PLAZA ONE MEETING ROOM Commissioners Present: Staff Present: John Howard, Acting Chairman Suzanne Wolff Michael Augello Lance Clarke Mirte Mallory Bonnie Waechtler Jay Murphy I. CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chairman John Howard called the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. II. COMMENTS: A. COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Mallory questioned the road work on Smuggler Road adjacent to the Loud residence. Suzanne Wolff explained that it was City property that would be re-vegetated. Commissioner Murphy if the County had any say in the bear problems and when they are to be put down. Mr. Clarke said it was the Colorado Division of Wildlife jurisdiction. B. PLANNING STAFF: Mr. Clarke informed the commissioners of the Affordable Housing and Road Impact Fees New Land Use Code Amendments that were approved at first reading. C. PUBLIC: None III. OLD BUSINESS: 1. ROARING FORK RIVER DEVELOPMENT LLC LAND USE CODE STAFF PERSON: MIKE KRAEMER The ROARING FORK RIVER DEVELOPMENT LLC was continued to a date indeTnite. IV. NEW BUSINESS: 2. SKOKOS/THOMAS A. BRADTKE TRUST LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT STAFF PERSON: SUZANNE WOLFF ~L~~~~~ - Applicant: Ted & Shannon Skokos and the Fr. Thomas Bradtke Trust - Applicant's Representatives: Sunny Vann - Summary of Request: The Applicants have proposed to amend Section 6-50-20(c) (3) of the 2006 Land Use Code Sections, which is the "Development Below Allowable Density" category in the residential growth management scoring system. Mrs. Wolff proceeded with her presentation as outlined in her memorandum to the Commissioners. Representative Sunny Vann introduced Lenny Oates, Representative Glenn Horn, Father Thomas Bradtke, and Paul Taddune. Mr. Horn handed out a mock rural scoring sheet to the commissioners, and proceeded with his presentation recommending a score of two rather than a one in this category. Mr. Vann, Mr. Taddune, and Mr. Oates expressed their views. The Commissioners discussed Caretaker Dwelling Unit impacts and if eliminating the potential for a CDU and thereby lowering the density should give an applicant an automatic point. Commissioner Augello felt that the scoring change should be one not two, and would like it to continue to be a challenge for applicants to obtain an allotment. Commissioner Mallory felt that attached or detached CDUs that are being used as guesthouses and not as true caretaker dwelling units should lower the score. Commissioner Murphy was in support of staff's recommendation. Commissioner Mallory moved that they recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the SKOKOS/THOMAS A. BRADTKE TRUST LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT with staff recommendation and the following recommendations: a) When competing for one single attached family residence the applicant shall receive a score of one, if there is no opportunity to reduce density on the property. Motion Failed for lack of second. Commissioner Howard moved that they recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the SKOKOS/THOMAS A. BRADTKE TRUST LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT with staff recommendation. Commissioner Murphy seconded, Chairman Howard called the question, and the motion passed 4 to 0. V. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 6:45 P.M. ~ui1J07 Respectfizlly submitted: Bonnie Waechtler. ~~~~0~ MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner/~~ RE: Skokos/Bradtke Land Use Code Amendment DATE: September 15, 2009 BRIEF SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicants have proposed to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the 2006 Land Use Code Sections, which is the "Development Below Allowable Density" category in the residential growth management scoring system. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with making a recommendation to the BOCC for this request. APPLICANTS: Ted & Shannon Skokos; Fr. Thomas Bradtke Trust REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann BACKGROUND: The Applicants each own legally created, non-conforming size parcels, for which they are competing for growth management allotments in the 2009 competition for new lots/parcels. The Skokos parcel is located east of Aspen and was created as a result of a recent federal land exchange (the "Ryan Exchange"), and contains approximately 8.2 acres in the AR-10 zone district. The Bradtke parcel is located in Shield O Mesa and has been deemed legally created, but does not have a development right; the parcel contains approximately 1 1.8 acres in the RS-30 zone district. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicant has proposed the following amendment to Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the Code: (3) DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY (ONLY APPLIES TO DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE RURAL AREA) Considering the extent to which the development proposed is less than the allowable density in terms of numbers of dwelling units (not including caretaker dwelling units, employee dwelling units, or deed restricted affordable dwelling units) permitted in the applicable zone district. No points shall be awarded where density is reduced subject to standards in Sec. 5-10-20 of the Land Use Code (Reduction in Density for Steep Slopes.) Points shall be awarded according to the following schedule: (a) Zero (0) means the applicant proposes development at a density of seventy-six (76) percent to one hundred (100) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (bJ One (1) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty-one (51) percent) to seventy- five (75) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (c) Two (2) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty (50) percent or less of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. When sompet+ng age-enly,-an-An applicant shall receive a score of one-two (2) in this category if there is no opportunity to reduce density on a property. uL0°J09 ~- As noted above, both parcels are non-conforming and legally created. Under the current scoring system, both parcels would get a score of zero in this category. The Applicants assert that the inability of anon-conforming parcel to obtain any points in this category compromises their ability to meet the Code's minimum threshold to obtain an allotment for a new development right. The Applicants note that the Code provides a score of one for applicants who are competing for additional floor area, if there is no opportunity to reduce density on a property, and asserts that a score of at (east one should also be available to applicants who are competing for a new development right, if there is no opportunity to reduce density. The Applicants note that there are other scoring categories (Open Space Preservation and Wildlife Habitat Protection) where a score of two is automatically awarded for projects seeking a new development right, if the lot/parcel does not contain valued open space or known wildlife habitat. The Applicants assert that it would be consistent to award a score of two to projects with no ability to reduce density. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff agrees with the Applicants' that the Development Below Allowable Density scoring category was not written to address the scenario of a legally created, nonconforming size parcel that is seeking a new development right. The scoring is written to encourage a reduction in density when new subdivision lots or 35+ acre parcels are seeking development rights. The Code acknowledged that density reduction was not the focus of a request for additional floor area, so provides a score of one if there is no opportunity to reduce density. Staff supports providing a score of one for a legally created, non-conforming parcel that is competing for a new development right. TWO-STEP REVIEW PROCEDURES (Sec. 2-30-40.i): A request for a Land Use Code Amendment shall be recommended for approval and shall be approved if it complies with (a) all applicable provisions of this Land Use Code; and (b) all applicable Land Use Policies listed in Sec. 1-60. Staff finds that the proposed amendment complies with all applicable provisions and policies of the Code. LAND USE CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS (2-40-10): In addition to the provisions of Sec. 2-30-40(i), the following shall apply to applications for Land Use Code Amendments: (A) Each Land Use Code text amendment shall be consistent with the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan; (B) Land Use Code text amendment shall be drafted in a form consistent with the organizational format and style of this Land Use Code; (C) Code text amendments shall repeal and reenact entire Code sections rather than just specific sentences orsub-sections. Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as it improves [he growth management provisions of the Code. The Applicant's proposed language is provided above. If the Code Amendment is approved, Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) will be repealed and reenacted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of an amendment to Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the Code as follows to provide a score of one in the Development Below Allowable Density scoring criteria for applicants for additional floor area or applicants for new development rights who have a legally created, non-conforming sized parcel. (3) DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY (ONLY APPLIES TO DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE RURAL AREA) Considering the extent to which the development proposed is less than the allowable density in terms of numbers of dwelling units (not including caretaker dwelling units, employee dwelling units, or deed restricted ~vu+J10 z .~ affordable dwelling units) permitted in the applicable zone district. No points shall be awarded where density is reduced subject to standards in Sec. 5-10-20 of the Land Use Code (Reduction in Density for Steep Slopes.) Points shall be awarded according to the following schedule: (aJ Zero (O) means the applicant proposes development at a density of seventy-six (76) percent to one hundred (100) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (b) One (1) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty-one (51) percent) to seventy- five (75) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (c) Two (2) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty (50) percent or less of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. An applicant shall receive a score of one if there is no opportunity to reduce density on a property. ~ i?v~~J11 MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner/s~ RE: Skokos/Bradtke Land Use Code Amendment DATE: September 15, 2009 BRIEF SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicants have proposed to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the 2006 Land Use Code Sections, which is the "Development Below Allowable Density" category in the residential growth management scoring system. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with making a recommendation to the BOCC for this request. APPLICANTS: Ted & Shannon Skokos; Fr. Thomas Bradtke Trust REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann BACKGROUND: The Applicants each own legally created, non-conforming size parcels, for which they are competing for growth management allotments in the 2009 competition for new lots/parcels. The Skokos parcel is located east of Aspen and was created as a result of a recent federal land exchange (the "Ryan Exchange"), and contains approximately 8.2 acres in the AR-10 zone district. The Bradtke parcel is located in Shield O Mesa and has been deemed legally created, but does not have a development right; the parcel contains approximately 1 1.8 acres in the RS-30 zone district. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicant has proposed the following amendment to Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the Code: (3) DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY (ONLY APPLIES TO DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE RURAL AREA) Considering the extent to which the development proposed is less than the allowable density in terms of numbers of dwelling units (not including caretaker dwelling units, employee dwelling units, or deed restricted affordable dwelling units) permitted in the applicable zone district. No points shall be awarded where density is reduced subject to standards in Sec. 5-10-20 of the Land Use Code (Reduction in Density for Steep Slopes.) Points shall be awarded according to the following schedule: (a) Zero (0) means the applicant proposes development at a density of seventy-six (76) percent to one hundred (100) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (b) One (1) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty-one (51) percent) to seventy- fve (75) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (c) Two (2) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty (50) percent or less of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. V+{Tien eompeting-fer--additiena4 square feetage-ea4y;aa-An applicant shall receive a score of one-two (2) in this cateoorv if there is no opportunity to reduce density on a property. I d~ 3 As noted above, both parcels are non-conforming and legally created. Under the current scoring system, both parcels would get a score of zero in this category. The Applicants assert that the inability of anon-conforming parcel to obtain any points in this category compromises their ability to meet the Code's minimum threshold to obtain an allotment for a new development right. The Applicants note that the Code provides a score of one for applicants who are competing for additional floor area, if there is no opportunity to reduce density on a property, and asserts that a score of at least one should also be available to applicants who are competing for a new development right, if there is no opportunity to reduce density. The Applicants note that there are other scoring categories (Open Space Preservation and Wildlife Habitat Protection) where a score of two is automatically awarded for projects seeking a new development right, if the IoUparcel does not contain valued open space or known wildlife habitat. The Applicants assert that it would be consistent to award a score of two to projects with no ability to reduce density. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff agrees with the Applicants' that the Development Below Allowable Density scoring category was not written to address the scenario of a legally created, nonconforming size parcel that is seeking a new development right. The scoring is written to encourage a reduction in density when new subdivision lots or 35+ acre parcels are seeking development rights. The Code acknowledged that density reduction was not the focus of a request for additional floor area, so provides a score of one if there is no opportunity to reduce density. Staff supports providing a score of one for a legally created, non-conforming parcel that is competing for a new development right. TWO-STEP REVIEW PROCEDURES (Sec. 2-30-40.i): A request for a Land Use Code Amendment shall be recommended for approval and shall be approved if it complies with (a) all applicable provisions of this Land Use Code; and (b) all applicable Land Use Policies listed in Sec. 1-60. Staff finds that the proposed amendment complies with all applicable provisions and policies of the Code. LAND USE CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS (2-40-101: In addition to the provisions of Sec. 2-30-40(i), the following shall apply to applications for Land Use Code Amendments: (A) Each Land Use Code text amendment shall be consistent with the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan; (B) Land Use Code text amendment shall be drafted in a form consistent with the organizational format and style of this Land Use Code; (C) Code text amendments shall repeal and reenact entire Code sections rather than just specific sentences orsub-sections. Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as it improves the growth management provisions of the Code. The Applicant's proposed language is provided above. If the Code Amendment is approved, Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) will be repealed and reenacted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of an amendment to Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the Code as follows to provide a score of one in the Development Below Allowable Density scoring criteria for applicants for additional floor area or applicants for new development rights who have a legally created, non-conforming sized parcel. (3) DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY (ONLY APPLIES TO DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE RURAL AREA) Considering the extent to which the development proposed is less than the allowable density in terms of numbers of dwelling units (not including caretaker dwelling units, employee dwelling units, or deed restricted Z affordable dwelling units) permitted in the applicable zone district. No points shall be awarded where density is reduced subject to standards in Sec. 5-10-20 of the Land Use Code (Reduction in Density for Steep Slopes.) Points shall be awarded according to the following schedule: (a) Zero (0) means the applicant proposes development at a density of seventy-six (76) percent to one hundred (100) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (b) One (1) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty-one (51) percent) to seventy- five (75) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (c) Two (2) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty (50) percent or less of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. An applicant shall receive a score of one if there is no opportunity to reduce density on a property. VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning Consultants August 3, 2009 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Skokos/Bradtke Code Amendment Application Dear Suzamme: Please consider this letter an application for an amendment to Section 6-5-20(c)(3) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code (the "Code"). The application is submitted pursuant to Section 2-40-10 of the Code by Theodore C. Skokos, Shannon B. Skokos, and the Father Thomas A. Bradtke Trust, hereinafter "Applicants" (see Exhibit 1, Pre-Application Conference Summary, attached hereto). Permission for Vann Associates, LLC and Davis Horn, Inc. to represent the Applicants is attached as Exhibit 2. An executed application fee agreement is attached as Exhibit 3. Background Ted and Shannon Skokos are under contract with the County to purchase the so-called "Wildwood" parcel which was the subject of a recent land swap between Pitkin County Open Space and Trails and the U.S. Forest Service. The Father Thomas A. Bradtke Trust is the owner of a parcel of land located on Old Pond Way in Shield O Mesa. Both parcels are located in the County's "Rural Area" for growth management purposes and are non-conforming with respect to the minimum lot area requirement of their respective underlying zone districts. The Skokos parcel is zoned AR-10 and contains approximately 8.2 acres. The Bradtke parcel is zoned RS-30 and contains approximately 11.8 acres. As neither parcel is entitled to an exempt development right, both Applicants will be submitting applications on September 1, 2009 for consideration in the annual growth management quota system ("GMQS") competition for new lots and parcels. Applications for a GMQS allotment are scored by the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion in several categories including "Impacts on Public and Private Facilities ", "Effect 230 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen.Colorado 81611 970/925-6958 Fax 970/920-9310 U ~vl/Jl Ms. Suzanne Wolff August 3, 2009 Page 2 on the Environment" and "Achievement of Community Goals ". In general, an initial score of zero (0), one (1) or two (2) may be obtained in the various scoring catego- ries. A series of weighted multipliers are then applied in each category to obtain an application's total score. For applications seeking a development right in the Rural Area, a minunum threshold of 22 points is required to obtain an allocation. Proposed Code Amendment In the category "Achievement of Community Goals ", Section 6-50-20(c)(3), Develop- ment Below Allowable Density, zero points are awarded if an application proposes development at a density of 76 to 100 percent of that which is allowed in the underly- ing zone district. In other words, unless an application results in a minimum reduc- tion in density of 25 percent, no points can be obtained in this scoring category. This requirement effectively ensures that a legally created, non-conforming pazcel will receive a score of zero as no ability exists to reduce density below the one dwelling unit that is permitted on such parcels. Given the multiplier that is used to calculate an application's total score in this category (i.e., a 2), the ability of non-conforming parcels to meet the Code's mini- mum threshold requirement is severely compromised. The competitive disadvantage imposed by this density reduction requirement is further exacerbated by the fact that transferable development rights cannot be used in the Rural Area to obtain a new development right. The GMQS process, therefore, is the only avenue by which such parcels may obtain the right to develop. This issue is presently addressed in Section 6-50-20(c)(3) for applicants who are simply competing for additional squaze footage (i.e., those applicants who have a development right and wish only to expand their allowable floor area). The Code clearly states that such applicants be given a score of one if there is no opportunity to reduce density on their property. In discussing this provision with Alan Richman, who assisted in the drafting of the GMQS scoring criteria, he indicated that this provision was added to provide properties with no ability to reduce density a reason- able opportunity to obtain a floor area allocation. The application of this provision to projects seeking a new development right, however, was appazently overlooked, as the potential existence of legally created, nonconforming parcels with no development right was not considered. To address [his issue, the Applicants propose to amend Section 6-50-20(c)(3) to also permit a minhnum score of at least one for projects seeking a new development right but with no ability to reduce their density. It should be noted, however, that in two other scoring categories (i.e., "Open Space Preservation" and "Wildlife Habitat ~~lrjn03 Ms. Suzanne Wolff August 3, 2009 Page 3 Protection "), a score of two is automatically awarded for projects seeking a new development right if the parcel does not contain valued open space or known wildlife habitat. Again, these provisions were apparently included to provide projects with no ability to address the relevant scoring criteria a reasonable opportunity to obtain an allocation. To ensure consistency, it can be argued that projects with no ability to reduce density should also be awarded a two. The proposed code amendment language is as follows. Section 6-50-20(c)(3): Development Below Allowable Density (Only Applies to Developments Within the Rural Area) Considering the extent to which the development proposed is less than the allowable density in terms of numbers of dwelling units (not including caretaker dwelling units, employee dwelling units, or deed restricted affordable dwelling units) permitted in the applicable zone district. No points shall be awarded where density is reduced subject to standards in Section 5-10-20 of the Land Use Code (reduction in Density for Steep Slopes). Points shall be awarded according to the following schedule: (a) Zero (0) means the applicant proposes development at a density of seventy-six (76) percent to one hundred (100) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (b) One (1) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty-one (51) percent to seventy-five (75) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (c) Two (2) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty (50) percent or less of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. An applicant shall receive a score of two (2) in this cateeorv if there is no opportunity to reduce density on a property. Given the adverse effect of the current code language in this scoring category on our clients' forthcoming GMQS applications, your prompt scheduling of our application for review and consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the County Commissioners would be sincerely appreciated. ~Qf)~'~ Ms. Suzanne Wolff August 3, 2009 Page 4 Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. ,LC and, DAMS HORN, INC. Glenn Horn, AICP SV:cwv Attachments cc: Lenoard Oates, Esq. Theodore C. and Shannon B. Skokos Father Thomas A. Bradtke d: \oldc\bus\county. app\app54209. amd flQU'?OS Yours truly, PITKIN COUNTY PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY EXHIBIT PLANNER: Suzanne Wolff PHONE: (970) 920-5093 LOCATIONS: "Wildwood Parcel"/Difficult Lane Old Pond Way/Shield O Mesa 5 PARCEL ID #s: 273728300527 & 264522400®59 DATE: 7/23/09 E-MAIL: suzannewla~co.pitkin.co.us ZONE/LOT SIZE: AR-1018.2 acres ZONE/LOT SIZE: RS-30/11.8 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: Theodore/Shannon Skokos and Fr. Thomas A. Bradtke Trust REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann EMAIL: vannassociates@comcast.net Type of Application: Land Use Code Text Amendment Description of Project/Development: Applicants propose to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the Land Use Code to allow an applicant for a new development right for a new lot parcel to obtain points in the "Development Below Allowable Density" if there is no opportunity to reduce density on a property. Land Use Code Sections to be addressed in letter of request (applicationl: • Sec. 2-40-10: Land Use Code Text Amendments Review by: P&Z and BOCC (2 readings) Public Hearing: Yes, at BOCC. FEES: $1,701 (make check payable to "Pitkin County Treasurer") • $1,247 Planning Office flat fee (non-refundable; based on 5 hours of staff time; if staff review time exceeds 6 hours, the Applicant will be charged for additional time above 5 hours at a rate of $249/hour) • $375 Clerk • $54 Publication Fee • $25 Web Technology Fee To apply, submit 14 copies of the following information, unless noted otherwise: 1. Summary letter explaining the request and existing conditions, and addressing compliance with the Code sections listed above. 2. Application requirements as designated in Section 2.3.3 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual; 3. Total fee for review of the application; 4. Executed Pitkin County Community Development Agreement for Payment of Land Use Application Fees form (1 copy); 5. Copy of this preapp form (1 copy) NOTES: - PLEASE SUBMIT ONE UNBOUND AND ONE-SIDED COPY OF YOUR COMPLETE APPLICATION. PLEASE SUBMITTWO-SIDED COPIES OF ALL REMAINING COPIES OF YOUR APPLICATION (IF POSSIBLE). THE PARCEL IDs SHOULD BE INCLUDED ON ALL DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN YOUR APPLICATION. - ALL MAPS SHALL BE FOLDED. - This pre-application conference summary is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The information provided in this summary is based on current zoning standards and staff's interpretations based upon representations of the applicant. Additional information maybe required upon a complete review of the application. - The Land Use Code is available on-line at http://www.aspenpitkin.com/depts/71/ - The Land Use Application manual is available on-line at htfp;//www.aspenpitkin.com/pdfs/depts/7/Land Use Application Manual.pdf - Applicant will be responsible for mailed and posted notice. Public Notice requirements are described in Section 2-20-100 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. A signed, notarized copy of the affidavit confirming notice must be received from Applicant prior to approval. EXHIBIT s Z 9 August 3, 2009 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent Dear Ms. Wolff: Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC, Planning Consultants, to represent us in the processing of our application for a code amendment. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, ~_ ~5 Theodore Skokos 1 k~°-- Sha n S ko c: \oldc\bus\county.ltr\1td4209 sw 1 **4lli2Cti suE PM. F'nG[M~: rFas TJ: i_~ 8_fr9 F9GE: JCS JF 00? f~3 C'~au€eh' Rtead 3?~ t:;leu~~~see3 5[Srin{;«, [Y} 81{~tli "s~Gaa ~ r~ ':) c ia?r~ .ti:; ~ Chi -1;s,:er;tat T?rnsst<nr::i :CF ~ , .t ~ {sal :at Si;ttt. a: S[:ok~x1$raclta:c C:c,St,imentSmeni <lgap€sc3tiarn r, ti ie~r:;cttaaa~;tss i7;at iti €ien: laKUt~aar.:tesi s:aµ y`sa,ia u ~ :!~a,r.i,~~ct. 1.€_C t~> j?,`~;,rtrc i. icde snt<rnrt late :ase app3i~~tattin t}n nrV helwll_ 3'h~ ~nE.itctivn yes io ~aeaati trazalr~-?€sic;s'+1~~thr?aski:~toti+ar~-l.an41 ~eC;ui T':=4' fpTl.faf:i P.H': iEC. 4Fief a ~<i> if F'Ulf ~`L if11~' (]1i~CtiUitft?. ".~3.i} 'H'i'~i. afilarr `Pom [trndtke ~~;:r v U X09 EXHIBIT PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND USE APPLICATION FEES PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and ~~i~ ~/~,~ (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: has submitted to COUNTY an application for ~~ ~~~+~~- (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinance No. 008-2008 establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. The fee structure is based on the County's policy that development shall pay, in full, the cost of development review in Pitkin County. Fees have been set to be consistent and fair to the public and to reflect the expense incurred in providing such services to the public. 3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it may not be possible at the time of application to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. 4. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that fees charged for the processing of land use applications shall accumulate if an application includes more than one type of land use review. 5. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 6. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the COUNTY's waiver of its right to collect full feeggrigr to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay a base fee in the amount of ~ which is based on~hours of staff time, and if actual time spent by staff to process the application exceeds the average number of hours by more than 20%, then the COUNTY will bill the APPLICANT quarterly for the additional time spent. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. PITKIN COUNTY APPLICANT Cindy Houben Community Development Director Effective 4/9/08 G:county\admin\forms\agreement to pay P ' ame _o Signature Dater ~.>~ ~, ~ O U`t Mailing Address: ' ?~/ J~S'7 G7'fE~/'! ~7 /a4fG~K. ~' ?SZ/9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF THE 2006 PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE, TITLE 8 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE: SECTION 6-50-20(c)(3), DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY Ordinance No. -2009 RECITALS I. Ted and Shannon Skokos and the Fr. Thomas Bradtke Trust ("Applicants") have applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("BOCC") to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) of the 2006 Land Use Code, which is the "Development Below Allowable Density" category in the residential growth management scoring system. The intent of the category is to encourage a reduction in density when new subdivision lots or 35+ acre parcels are seeking development rights, but does not address the scenario of a legally created, nonconforming size parcel that is seeking a new development right. 2. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed code amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting on September 15, 2009, and recommended approval by a vote of 4-0. 3. The BOCC considered the proposed code amendment at a duly noticed public hearing on first reading on October 28, 2009, and voted to approve the proposed amendment on second reading on November 4, 2009. 4. The BOCC finds that the proposed code amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the BOCC that it hereby amends Title 8 of the Pitkin County Code, the Land Use Code, to amend Sec. 6-50-20(c)(3) as follows in Attachment A. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING published in the Aspen Times Weekly on the _ day of , 2009. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ AT A PUBLIC HEARING on the 28°i day of October, 2009. APPROVED AND ADOPTED AFTER SECOND READING on the 4'h day of November, 2009. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION in the Aspen Times Weekly on the _ day of 2009. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION FOLLOWING FINAL ADOPTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 1v~3 Ordinance No. Page 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: -2009 By Patti Kay-Clapper, Chair Date Jeanette Jones, Clerk to the BOCC APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney P082-09 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director Z ATTACHMENT A Section 6-50-20(c)(3) (3) DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY (ONLY APPLIES TO DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE RURAL AREA) Considering the extent to which the development proposed is less than the allowable density in terms of numbers of dwelling units (not including caretaker dwelling units, employee dwelling units, or deed restricted affordable dwelling units) permitted in the applicable zone district. No points shall be awarded where density is reduced subject to standards in Sec. 5-10-20 of the Land Use Code (Reduction in Density for Steep Slopes.) Points shall be awarded according to the following schedule: (a) Zero (0) means the applicant proposes development at a density of seventy-six (76) percent to one hundred (100) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (b) One (1) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty-one (51) percent) to seventy-five (75) percent of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. (c) Two (2) means the applicant commits to limit development to fifty (50) percent or less of the density allowed by the underlying zone district. An applicant shall receive a score of one if there is no opportunity to reduce density on a property. 3 PITHIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5526 FAX# (970) 920-5439 August 11, 2009 Sunny Vann 230 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Vannassociates car comcast.net Re: Skokos/Thomas A Bradtke Trust Land Use Code Text Amendment (PID# 2645-224-00-559; CASE# P082-09) Dear Mr. Vann: This application has been scheduled for review by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, Plaza One Conference Room, 530 E. Main St., Aspen on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Community Development Office. We have scheduled this application for review at a public hearing by the Boazd of County Commissioners, Plaza One Conference Room, 530 E. Main St., Aspen, on Wednesday, October 28, 2008 at a meeting to begin at 12:00 P.M. Should this date be inconvenient for you, please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. Please note that it is your responsibility to post a public notice sign on the property at least fifreen days prior to the hearing (and remove it within one week after) and to mail notice to all adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners at least 30 days prior to the hearing with the return address of the Community Development Department (copy of notice to be obtained from the Community Development Department). The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public heazing. Please submit the enclosed Affidavit of Notice by Posting & Mailing as proof of compliance with the Code at the hearing. If you have any questions, please call Suzanne Wolff, the planner assigned to your case, at 920- 5093. Sincerely, Bonnie Waechtler Administrative Assistant PITKIN ,,,JUNTY COMMUNITY DEVEL.,r'MENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00028075 Name: Ted C Skokos Date:8/6/2009 Project Address: NO ADDRESS ASSIGNED Type: check # 11935 Permit Number Fee Description Amount 0082. 2009. PLAN PP- Flat Fee 0082. 2009. PLAN PP-Clerk Fee 0082. 2009. PLAN PP-Clerk Tech Fee 0082. 2009. PLAN PP- Public Notice Fee Total: 1, 247.00 375.00 25.00 54.00 1.701.00