HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080312ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGUALR MEETING
March 12, 2008
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON -
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - February 13 and 27, 2008.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
A. Holden Marolt Mining Museum (15 min.)
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #5)
VIH. OLD BUSINESS
A. NONE
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 202 North Monarch Street -Major Development
Conceptual, Variances and Residential Design Standards -
open and continue to March 26`"
B. 707 North Third Street -Major Development Conceptual,
Relocation and Variances - lhr.)
X. WORK SESSIONS
A. None
IX. ADJOURN 7:20 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
THRU: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 707 N. Third Street- Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, Variances,
Special Review -Public Hearing
DATE: March 12, 2008
SUMMARY: 707 North Third Street is a circa
1890 miner's cabin situated in its original location
on the corner of Gillespie Street and North Third
Street in Aspen's West End neighborhood. The
residence has been altered over time including the
addition of a wrap around porch and a dormer on
the south elevation that obscures the original
hipped roof form. A few small scale additions
were added to the north, west and the south sides
of the resource. The image above right depicts the
resource before many of the alterations illustrated
below.
The applicant proposes to relocate the residence
east on the property toward North Third Street atop
a full basement. Existing non-historic additions at
the north and south of the residence are proposed
to be reduced and the wrap around porch will be
removed and replaced with a more modest simple
porch. The applicant proposes to enlarge the
existing one story addition at the rear of the
residence (west elevation). The majority of square
footage improvements are proposed subgrade to
mitigate an adverse impact on the historic
resource.
The applicant requests a variance for a subgrade accessory dwelling unit (ADU) through Special
Review and variances for both south and north side yard setbacks.
Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for further restudy of the project.
1
APPLICANT: Carol Craig, 707 N. Third Street, Aspen, CO represented by AI Bayer Design Inc.
410 N. Mill Street, Aspen, CO.
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-09-004.
ADDRESS: 707 North Third Street, Lot 6 and Yz of Lot 7, Block 100, Hallam's Addition, City
of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope ojthe structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the
appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be
the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project
(note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time):
1. Why is the property significant? This structure represents a typical residence for an
average family or individual during Aspen's Silver Mining Era. The construction
techniques, materials and form of the building contribute to Aspen's inventory of Mining
Era residences throughout the West End neighborhood.
2. What are the key features of the property? The hipped roof, scalloped shingles and
gable end are characteristic features of this property. The design of the structure is less
typical than the cross-gabled miner's cottages that are more numerous in town.
2
3. What is the character of the context? How sensitive is the context to changes? The
map below illustrates historic resources (hatched) in the neighborhood. The an•ow
indicates the subject property. Many of these landmarks have somewhat recent additions.
4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? The
historic resource is in its original location; therefore relocating the cabin will adversely
affect the integrity score. The proposed subgrade terrace and window well will also
reduce the integrity score. The applicant proposes to remove the wraparound porch along
the east and north elevation and reduce two of the additions that were added sometime in
1980/90, which will slightly increase the integrity score.
5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the
property? About 700 square feet of allowable FAR will remain on the property;
furthermore this property has never applied for the 500 square foot FAR bonus.
Staff Response: Conceptual review for this project focuses on the height, scale, massing and
proportions of the proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is
attached as "Exhibit A."
Site planning:
Staff is concerned with the interaction between the subgrade spaces and the historic resource. The
large walkout terrace proposed for the south elevation erodes the building's relationship to grade
and creates a moat around the historic residence that jeopardizes its architectural integrity. The
window well positioned beneath the front porch with an egress hatch in the porch floor further
compromises the authenticity and integrity of this landmark. HPC has allowed lattice and other
transparent features beneath a front porch and the proposal is an innovative solution to a lightwell,
however Staff is concerned that the front porch will be glowing from light in the subgrade space
during the night. The window well may be more appropriate if it was not on the primary facade
and beneath a character defining front porch. Often subgrade spaces alleviate above grade mass,
but there is an appropriate balance between above and below grade development that does not
impinge on the reading of the historic resource. Staff finds that Guideline 9.7 below is not met.
3
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
^ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards).
^ The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
^ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded
by a simple fence or rail.
PazkinQ: Currently, the property owner pazks in the City Right of Way. Unless there is an
encroachment license, Staff recommends that the applicant meet City requirements by pazking
within property boundaries. The R-6 zone district requires two parking spaces for the primary unit
and one parking space for the ADU. HPC has the authority to waive parking requirements.
Mass/Scale:
The modest one story mass and scale of the rear bedroom addition is significantly set back from the
historic resource and the gable end roof form proposed for this space is appropriate. A one story
connector piece is proposed between the historic residence and the bedroom addition that meet
Design Guideline 10.8 and is successful in breaking up the development.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and chazacter to
remain prominent.
^ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
^ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
Staff is concerned with the additions to the historic resource on the south and north elevations. The
applicant proposes to reduce the existing additions, but the reduced size still obstructs the form and
scale of the historic resource. Reducing the existing additions and changing materials will improve
the landmark and bring the existing conditions into closer compliance with the Design Guidelines.
There may be an opportunity, given the major development proposed, to remove the existing
additions to restore the form of the historic resource and incorporate the square footage into the
new addition. Guideline 10.3 below states "an addition that covers historically significant features
is inappropriate" and Guideline 10.8 emphasizes the importance of original proportions and
character of the historic home remaining prominent.
4
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
RELOCATION
The following standards apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of
the Municipal Code:
C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it
meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered anon-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation
will not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic
district or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move
will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was
originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of
adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally for approval to relocate all of the followine criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair
and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to shift the building twenty-three feet (23') east to the
front yard setback and two feet (2') to the south. Relocating a historic resource often requires a
delicate balance within a preservation project. The historic resource is currently in its original
location and the front yard setback along Third Street is somewhat aligned with the adjacent
historic landmark to the south, as illustrated in the GIS map on the following page.
5
- i ,: ~-- v -. ... ..
Criterion 4 requires that 1~ _ - ?
relocation demonstrate "an
acceptable preservation method 4 ~ I
given the chazacter and integrity
of the building." Staff finds that ~
the proposal does not meet the ~/~
Design Guidelines and therefore L [~ ~
cannot support relocation as an a
acceptable preservation method ~~ ~ _ 1~ ~
based on the design before LLL
HPC. The historic resource is
sited in the center of the ~`,~/,~---_ ~_
property, which limits new rr``~ 7~/"x,`-~ ~~continue
development. Staff recommends that the applicant to analyze the proposed development
and the relationship of 707 North Third with the adjacent landmark to find an appropriate proposal
that iustifies relocation.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
^ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in
a historic district.
^ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
^ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
^ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a
new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
^ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
^ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN STANDARDS
26.520.OSO.D. Special Review. An application requesting a vaziance from the ADU and Carriage
House design standards, or an appeal of a determination made by the Community
Development Director, shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the
Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review
shall be considered at a public heazing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant
to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a)(b and c).
Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark,
on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and
the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic
Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review.
A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
6
1. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in a manner which promotes the
purpose of the ADU and Carriage House program, promotes the purpose of the zone
district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability.
2. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed to be compatible with, and
subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site
configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property.
3. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in a manner which is compatible
with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density,
designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking,
availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational
26.520.050. Design Standards. All ADUs and carriage houses shall conform to the following
design standards unless otherwise approved, pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special
Review. The proposal requires the variances from the following Design Standards:
3. One (1) parking space for the ADU or carriage house shall be provided on-site and shall
remain available for the benefit of the ADU or carriage house resident. The pazking space shall
not be stacked with a space for the primary residence.
4. The finished floor heights of the ADU or carriage house shall be entirely above the natural or
finished grade, whichever is higher, on all sides of the structure.
5. The ADU or carriage house shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or carriage
house located above a detached garage or storage azea shall qualify as a detached ADU or
carriage house. No other connections to the primary residence or portions thereof, shall qualify
the ADU or carriage house as detached.
6. An ADU or carriage house shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the Zone
District in which the property is located.
7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU or
carriage house. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing snow and ice
from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided.
Staff Response: The applicant is not required to have an ADU on site, and the project is not
benefitting from any of the floor area bonuses associated with ADUs. Variances from the Design
Standards listed above (numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) aze required for this project. HPC is
authorized to grant a variance from this Standard by finding conformance with criteria 1 thru 3
listed in the box above.
Design Standard 4/Subgrade space for the ADU:
Criterion 1: Staff finds that a Subgrade unit does not promote the purpose of the ADU program
or the unit's livability; and therefore criterion 1 is not met. The ADU program purpose statement
7
(Exhibit B) emphasizes "viable and livable housing opportunities to local working residents." In
Staff s opinion a subgrade space does not meet the intent of the ADU program.
Criterion 2: Staff finds that the entrance to the ADU, in the form of a large walkout subgrade
terrace, negatively impacts the historic resource by eroding the site. Criterion 2 is not met.
Criterion 3: The proposed subgrade space is compatible with the neighborhood because it does
not greatly impact density, viewplanes, or any of the other items listed above.
Staff finds that the subgrade space does not meet the criteria to grant a variance.
Design Standards 3, 5, 6 and 7:
Staff recommends that parking for the ADU be included onsite. The West End already has
inadequate parking and there does not appeaz to be a site constraint on this lot. Staff is less
concerned with the attachment of the ADU to the primary residence (Standard 5), as long as the
door between the ADU and the lower level of the free market unit is removed. Design Standazd
6 relates to the requested setback variances addressed in this memo, and Design Standard 7
requires a roof or similar element over the stairway that accesses the ADU entrance. Staff is
opposed to a roof over the stairway because it will likely be visible from the street and distract
from the historic resource.
Staff commends the applicant for voluntarily proposing an ADU, unfortunately the criteria to grant
design standard variances for the ADU aze not met. Staff recommends that HPC deny the variance
requests. The 5,000 square foot lot is too small to contain a duplex; therefore the subgrade kitchen
must be removed if the ADU is not approved by HPC.
SETBACK VARIANCES
The criteria for granting setback vaziances, per Section 26.415.110.B of the Municipal Code are
as follows:
In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Response: The applicant requests two setback variances for this project: three Feet (3')
north side yard setback for the addition where six feet eight inches (6' 8") aze required, and three
feet (3') south side yard setback for the subgrade terrace and retaining wall where five feet (5')
are required. Staff finds that the requested setback variances do not mitigate an adverse impact
to the historic resource. Both the north elevation addition and the large subgrade terrace do not
meet the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Staff finds that the criteria are not met and
recommends that the applicant restudy the proposal to comply with the Design Guidelines and
enhance the original form and character of the historic resource.
8
DECISION MAHING OPTIONS:
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for restudy.
Exhibits:
A. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
B. Land Use Code Section 26.520 Affordable Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses
C. Application
Exhibit A • Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for 707 North Third Street,
Ma%or Development Conceptual Review
5.4 The use of a porch on a residential building in asingle-family context is strongly
encouraged.
^ This also applies to large, multifamily structures. There should be at least one primary
entrance and should be identified with a porch or entry element.
5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and
detail.
^ Use materials that appear similar to the original.
^ While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted
appropriately, alternative materials may be considered.
^ Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be
considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep the
style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have
been used on the house or others like it.
^ When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building.
^ The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork.
^ The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used
historically as well.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
^ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in
a historic district.
^ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
^ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
^ A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a
new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
^ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
^ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
^ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the
lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
^ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
^ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building
in front of it.
9.5 Anew foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
^ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation
on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of character.
^ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement
should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic elevation
above grade.
^ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
^ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it
enhances the resource.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
^ In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential Design
Standards).
^ The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
^ A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be surrounded
by a simple fence or rail.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the
primary building is maintained.
^ Anew addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the
primary building is inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is
inappropriate.
^ An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic
style should be avoided.
^ An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
^ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
^ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material
or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from old to new construction.
10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic
alignments that may exist on the street.
^ Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at
approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these
relationships would be altered or obscured.
10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
^ An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back
substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic
building.
^ A 1-story connector is preferred.
^ The connector should be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary
building.
^ The connector also should be proportional to the primary building.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the
visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to
remain prominent.
^ Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
^ Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
^ Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is
recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
^ Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
^ Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped
roofs.
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
^ For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be
avoided.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic
materials of the primary building.
^ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
11
Exhibit B• Land Use Code Section 26.520 "Affordable Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses"
26. 520.010 Purpose
The purpose of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Carriage House Program is to promote
the long-standing community goal of socially, economically, and enviromnentally responsible
development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values
balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between working residents and part-time
residents. ADUs and Carriage Houses represent viable housing opportunities for working
residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing
being easily identifiable as "employee housing." ADUs and Carriage Houses also help to address
the affects of existing homes, which have provided workforce housing, being significantly
redeveloped, often as second homes.
ADUs and Carriage Houses support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base
within the town and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's
character. ADUs and Carriage Houses allow second homeowners the opportunity to hire an on-
site cazetaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing
opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an environmentally
preferred land use pattern, which reduces automobile reliance.
Detached ADUs and Carriage Houses emulate a historic development pattern and maximize the
privacy and livability of both the ADU or Carriage Houses and the primary unit. Detached ADUs
and Carriage Houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a
corn-munity goal of housing the workforce.
To the extent Aspen desires detached ADUs and Carriage Houses which provide viable and
livable housing opportunities to local working residents, detached ADUs and Carnage Houses
qualify ex-fisting vacant lots of record and significant redevelopment of existing homes for an
exemption from the Growth Management Quota System. In addition, detached ADUs and
Carriage Houses deed restricted as "For Sale" units, according to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guide-lines, as amended, and sold according to the procedures established in
the Guidelines provide for certain Floor Area incentives.
26. 520.050 Design Standards
All ADUs and Carriage Houses shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise
approved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review:
1. An ADU must contain between 300 and 800 net livable squaze feet, 10% of which
must be a closet or storage area. An Carriage House must contain between 800 and 1,200
net livable square feet, ] 0% of which must be closet or storage area.
2. An ADU or Carriage House must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This
includes the following:
a) An ADU or Carriage House must be separately accessible from the exterior. An
interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved, pursuant to Special Review;
b) An ADU or Carriage House must have separately accessible utilities. This does not
preclude shared services;
12
c) An ADU or Carriage House shall contain a kitchen containing, at a minimum, an oven,
a stove with two burners, a sink, and a refrigerator with a minimum of 6 cubic feet of
capacity and a freezer; and,
d) An ADU or Carriage House shall contain a bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink,
a toilet, and a shower.
3. One parking space for the ADU or Carriage House shall be provided on-site and shall
remain available for the benefit of the ADU or Carriage House resident. The parking
space shall not be stacked with a space for the primary residence.
4. The finished floor height(s) of the ADU or Carriage House shall be entirely above the
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, on all sides of the structure.
5. The ADU or Carriage House shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or
Carriage House located above a detached gazage or storage area shall qualify as a
detached ADU or Carriage House. No other connections to the primary residence, or
portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or Cazriage House as detached.
6. An ADU or Carriage House shall be located within the dimensional requirements of
the zone district in which the property is located.
7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU
or Carriage House. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing
snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided.
8. ADUs and Carriage Houses shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of
this title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not
limited to, the Uniform Building Code requirements related to adequate natural light,
ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression, and sound attenuation between living units. This
standazd may not be varied.
9. All ADUs and Carriage Houses shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the
property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070 Deed
Restrictions. This standard may not be varied.
13