Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20080916AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, September 16, 2008 4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Aspen Institute, SPA Amendment B. Lauder Residence, Special Review C. Lift One COWOP Master Plan VL OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM ~A . TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Planning Deputy Director V~1y1ji/O ~ J'Q FROM: Jason Lasser, Special Projects Planner I RE: The Aspen Institute -Paepcke AuditorJium -Consolidated SPA Amendment and GMQS Review, -Resolution No.~, Series of 2008 MEMO DATE: July 18, 2008 MEETING DATE: September 16, 2008 APPLICANT/OWNER: The Aspen Institute REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis, Curtis and Associates LOCATION: Paepcke Auditorium -Lot 1-B of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision, commonly known as The Aspen Institute, 1000 N. 3`d Street, Aspen CURRENT ZONING: A/SPA (Academic) zone district with a Specially Planned Area (SPA)Overlay SUMMARY: The Applicant requests consolidated SPA approval in order to expand the existing auditorium. The applicants are requesting approvals for a conceptual and final SPA amendment and for Growth management Quota System (GMQS) Review at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval for the expansion and remodeling of Paepcke Auditorium to City Council. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission n THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Planning Deputy Director ~ ~ ~ ~~ FROM: Jason Lasser, Special Projects Planner I RE: The Aspen Institute -Paepcke Auditorium -Consolidated SPA Amendment and GMQS Review, -Resolution No.~, Series of 2008 MEMO DATE: July 18, 2008 MEETING DATE: September 16, 2008 APPLICANT /OWNER: The Aspen Institute REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis, Curtis and Associates LOCATION: Paepcke Auditorium -Lot 1-B of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision, commonly known as The Aspen Institute, 1000 N. 3`d Street, Aspen CURRENT ZONING: A/SPA (Academic) zone district with a Specially Planned Area (SPA)Overlay SUMMARY: The Applicant requests consolidated SPA approval in order to expand the existing auditorium. The applicants are requesting approvals for a conceptual and final SPA amendment and for Growth management Quota System (GMQS) Review at this time. ,,.,.. ,,y~!: ;~,~... Photo: The .. ~~}l~)ti~: ~ h~ ..~~~~ ~. ;~,~,.. ~"- ~~i., t . ; ,~_~. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval for the expansion and remodeling of Paepcke Auditorium to City Council. REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Planning and Zoning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council for the following land use approvals to renovate the existing Auditorium building on the site: The review of a specially planned area is (in most cases) a four step review process. Step one is conceptual review before the Planning and Zoning Commission, step two is conceptual review before City Council, step three is final review before P&Z, and step four is final review before Council The applicant has requested a consolidated review (The Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council may, during review, determine that the application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review), therefore in addition to consolidated conceptual and final SPA Amendment Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council for Growth Management Quota System approvals: • Specially Planned Area (SPA) -Consolidated Review (Section 26.440.040 B) to allow for an addition to Paepcke Auditorium. • A Growth Management Review (Section 26.470.050 B6, General Requirements). • A Growth Management Review (Section 26.470.090.4, City Council Applications Essential Public Facilities) to determine the primary use and/or structure to be an Essential Public Facility, and to assess, waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation requirements. BACKGROUND: The Paepcke Auditorium was constructed in the early 1960's, designed by Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict. The Aspen Institute is one component in the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area (SPA) approved through Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991. In addition, Zoning map amendments to create several zones including Academic (A) and Open Space (OS) Zones, and Subdivision to create 10 separate lots at the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA. The Aspen Institute was originally located on Lot 1 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision, but in 1992, the First Amended Plat was approved to reconfigure the subdivision and created Lot 1-B, for the Aspen Institute. Lot 1-B is approximately 13.160 acres and has three existing buildings; the Bechter Building (on Gillespie), The Seminar Facility, and the Paepcke Auditorium building. The Aspen Meadows SPA Development and Subdivision Agreement defines dimensional requirements (shown on the plat), off-street parking, site improvements, trails, financial assurances, and employee housing for each individual parcel (see pages 16 -18 for the Aspen Institute). The .1995 Lot 1-B Second Amendment to the plat shows dimensions, setbacks, and adds a site plan reflecting the addition and modifications to the existing Seminar Building. The amended plat states that "the Aspen Institute shall share continued responsibility to comply with the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan." The existing Paepcke Auditorium Building is approximately 17,805 square feet, contains a 346 seat auditorium, a public gallery, library, and administrative offices. The Aspen Institute calculates that is has 3,885 square feet of "Floor Area" of un-built square footage remaining from the 1991 SPA Plan. 2 PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to amend the SPA in order to increase seating capacity from 346 to 406 seats by adding approximately 614 square feet (leaving 3,271 sq. ft. from 3,885) in an addition and renovation of the existing auditorium. The applicant is requesting to consolidate its remaining un-built square footage from the 1991 SPA Plan in this SPA amendment. The renovation will include upgrades to the energy envelope of the building, improvements to the HVAC, electrical, and plumbing systems. Bringing the building into ADA compliance for access to the restrooms, lobby, backstage, administrative offices, and for seating in the auditorium is proposed. An interior reconfiguration of the lobby and audio/visual projection room and skylight is proposed. Also shown in the July 14~' supplement, but will be reviewed with the Greenwald Tent application due to anon-finalized proposal is a geo-thermal pond and associated landscape modifications. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with the Engineering and Transportation Departments to establish a pedestrian, transportation plan that will be presented during the public hearing for the Institute's application for the Greenwald Pavilion (permanent summer-only tent), and shall be reviewed and recommended for approval prior to City Council Review. In addition, the applicant is requesting that the Aspen Institute (and MMA) continue to be an Essential Public Facility, including the Paepcke Building, as determined in the 1991 SPA Plan. The applicant is also requesting that the City Council waive the affordable housing mitigation requirements as it is not proposing to generate new employees (see attached employee analysis from the applicant). The application is not proposing additional parking, but states; "as currently done, Paepcke events are scheduled to minimize overlap with the MMA Music Tent events and people are encouraged to park in the MMA main parking lot or walk or bicycle to Paepcke events." STAFF COMMENTS: SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA-CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: A Specially Planned Area (SPA) is a process in which a site specific development plan is created which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of land and promotes objectives outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan by allowing the variation of the underlying zone district's land uses and dimensional re uirements for the benefit of the public. The pazcel currently exists with an SPA overlay. Based upon the new proposal the site specific development must be amended to allow the additional development. The underlying zone district dimensional standazds show that the site can accommodate additional development; however, allowing for additional density on Lot 1-B should be considered in the context of the entire development. The conceptual development plan should consider whether the proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Strong attention to the relationship between the surrounding structures, pedestrian and vehicular site circulation, pedestrian amenities, significant view planes and enviromnental impacts should also be considered. In the DRC comments, the City of Aspen Engineering Department "at this time is unable to determine if there aze adequate public facilities... in particular pedestrian walkway/bikeway connections from town to events and adequate public transportation facilities. A neighborhood safety/pedestrian study may need to be completed." Although Engineering has concerns, the DRC 3 comments were not separated for the Paepcke Auditorium and the Greenwald tent application. Although the addition of 60 seats increases capacity, Staff recommends that the Commission review the transportation options during the review for the Greenwald Tent application. The Transportation and Parking Department has requested additional information on the scheduling of events, alternative transportation options, transportation and parking impact, and for information to be posted on the Aspen Institute website regarding transit options. The applicant has been responsive to the Transportation comments, and is currently working to satisfy the requests. Staff recommends that the Commission review the transportation options during the review for the Greenwald Tent application. Parks has requested a detailed tree protection plan, an approved tree permit; proper tree protection fencing must be in place and inspected by the City Forester, drip lines of all trees must be free of any construction, excavation materials, and foot and vehicle traffic. All new plantings will need to be imgated and the landscape plan reviewed by the Park Department. APCHA Staff would recommend that an employee audit be completed prior to building permit and two yeazs after CO, if approved and completed. An analysis of the employees for the Institute was requested from Staff to clazify the application, as it does not propose to add any employees; please see Exhibit C for the supplemental information. The Land use Code states; "the dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and conditlonal uses in the Academic (A) zone district shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual development plan and final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.440, specially planned area. Staff finds that the proposal meets the requirements of the underlying Academic (A) zone district. The Engineering and Transportation departments have requested additional information for the tragic, pedestrian, and parking impacts to the site. The addition of 60 seats to the existing auditorium does increase capacity, but is minor in nature. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with the Engineering and Transportation Departments to establish a pedestrian, transportation plan that will be presented during the public hearing for the Institute's application for the Greenwald Pavilion (permanent summer-only tent), and shall be reviewed and recommended for approval prior to City Council Review.. Staff recommends approval for the requested expansion and renovation of the Paepcke Auditorium. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM: The proposed development is an Academic Zone District with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay. The Academic zone district dimensional requirements "shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual development plan and final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.440, specially planned area". The consolidated GMQS review general requirements address the following; if there aze allotments available, consistency with the AACP, conformance with the zone district requirements, HPC consistency and approvals, Employee and Affordable Housing mitigation, demands on infrastructure. The initial SPA approvals from 1991 and amendments in 1992, and 1995 establish the development dimensions. The City Council application requesting to be determined "an essential public facility, upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission" has two criteria; that the Community Development Director has determined "the primary use and/or structure" is an essential public facility, and upon his recommendation, "the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive 4 affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purposes of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals". Staff Ends that the proposal meets the requirements of "a facility which serves an essential public purpose is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the need of the community". Staff recommends approval as an essential public facility, and based on the information provided, recommends affordable housing mitigation requirements to be waived. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Zoning Officer, Parks Department, Fire Mazshal, Aspen Sanitation District, Building Department, Housing Department, Historic Preservation Officer, Utilities, Transportation, and Parking Departments have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the consolidated plan with conditions, specifically staff recommends the applicant: 1. Provide an employee audit is completed prior to building permit and two yeazs after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Provide a neighborhood safety study, work with Engineering to provide pedestrian walkway/bikeway connections from town to events, and to provide options for adequate public transportation facilites RECOMMENDED MOTION ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRNIITIVE~: "I move to approve Resolution #~, Series 2008, recommending consolidated approval with conditions of the Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment to the Paepcke Auditorium." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -SPA Amendment, GMQS Staff Findings Exhibit B -Applicant Supplemental Information -SPA, GMQS criteria -letter dated 6/30/2008 EXHIBIT C -Applicant Supplemental Information -Employee Analysis -letter dated 8/18/08 EXHIBIT D -Applicant Supplemental Information -Traffic & Parking Memo -email dated 8/19/08 EXHIBIT E -Applicant Supplemental Information -Floor Area Existing/New -email dated 8/8/08 EXHIBIT F -Applicant Supplemental Information - ADA seating studies -email dated 7/30/08 EXHIBIT G - DRC Comments - APCHA, Pazks, Transportation & Pazking, Engineering, and Zoning EXHIBIT H -Historic Preservation Commission Minutes - 5/28/08 (continued) and 7/23/08 (approved with conditions) EXHIBIT I -Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991 -Final Approval of the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area (SPA) EXHIBIT J -The Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area Development & Subdivision Agreement EXHIBIT K -Letters from neighbors/citizens Exhibit L -Applicant Supplemental Infonnation -Paepcke Auditorium renovation Revised Design -packet dated 7/14/08 Exhibit M -Application -Paepcke Auditorium Renovation -packet dated 4/2/08 6 RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A CONSOLIDATED SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) AMENDMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF THE PAEPCKE AUDITORIUM, LOT 1-B OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ASPEN INSTITUTE, 1000 NORTH THIRD STREET PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-809 WHEREAS, the property commonly known and referred to as the "Aspen Meadows" has previously been designated a specially planned area (SPA) on the City of Aspen Official Zone District Map; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991 of the City Council of the City of Aspen, granting final approval of the Aspen Meadows specially planned area (SPA) final development plan, subdivision approval, rezoning and zoning map amendments, residential growth management allotment, excess growth management allotment, growth management exemption for essential public facilities, condominiumization, and vesting of development rights was approved; and WHEREAS, in 1992, the First Amended Plat was approved to reconfigure the subdivision to create Lot 1-B, a parcel that is 13.160 acres and has three existing buildings; the Bechter Building, The Seminar Facility, and the Paepcke Auditorium building. WHEREAS, in 1995, the Second Amended Plat was approved, allowing modifications to the Seminar Building, defining dimensions and setbacks with a supplemental site plan. WHEREAS, the applicant, The Aspen Institute, represented by Jim Curtis, Planner, has requested Major Development (Consolidated) for the remodeling and renovation of the Paepcke Auditorium, located at 1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute, Aspen Meadows, Lot 1B, City and Townsite Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. 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; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 23`d (after the hearing was noticed, opened, and continued from May 28, 2008), the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0. WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend the proposal to better comply with the requirements of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) and the Commercial Design Standazds; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public heazing on September 16, 2008, upon further public testimony, discussion and consideration, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution No. ,Series of 2008 by a _to (___-~ vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standazds and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: The consolidated SPA application shall address comments in the following sections: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of a Consolidated Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment and Growth Management Quota System Review for an essential public facility. Section 2: Building The Applicant shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Accessible routes to any public right-of--way and accessible parking spaces will be required. The proposed project will be subject to the newly adopted Use Tax on building materials. The proposed project may be required to comply with a newly developed Efficient Building Program for Commercial projects. Section 3: Engineerine The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standazds published by the Engineering Department. The proposal shall comply with the DRC comments from the Engineering Department regazding transportation, drainage, pedestrian improvements, construction management, traffic studies, utilities and sight distances prior to issuance of a building permit. Section 4: Affordable Housine Section 26.470.100 lists the employee generation rates based on zone districts. If the employee mitigation requirement is to be waived, the APCHA Staff would recommend that an employee audit be completed prior to building permit and two years after CO. Section 5: Fire Mitieation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 6: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standazds, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that cleaz water connections are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. ACSD will not approve service to food processing establishments retrofitted for this use at a later date. Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all food processing establishment. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells, elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements aze prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of an excavation/foundation or access/infrastructure permit. Section 8: Environmental Healtb The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs. Section 9: Exterior Li¢bting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 10: Dimensional Standards The dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Academic (A) zone district shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual development plan and final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.440, specially planned area. Section 11: Parks An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set. Pazks requests alternate plans for proposed on-site mitigation. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities aze to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. All new plantings will need to be irrigated and the landscape plan reviewed by Parks Department Section 12: Transportation Transportation requests that the Institute meet with Staff prior to each summer season to discuss their schedule of events and associated transportation/parking impacts as well as mitigation such as increased shuttle service, etc. Transportation requests that the Institute communicate with event staff/attendees about alternative transportation options prior to large events. Section 13: Zonine The Zoning Officer requests clarification on the "floating" F.A.R. Zoning requests that the applicant verify the height and review the elevations with Staff prior to building permit submittal, showing all proposed mechanical to be located on the roof. Section 14: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 15: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement oI 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 16: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 16th day of September, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk SPA EXHIBIT A Sec. 26.440.050. Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). A. General. In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Finding: The proposed development does not change the existing land use, but there will be modifications to the height of the Paepcke Auditorium, with the addition of a mechanical chase and associated roof assembly, but will not increase the overall height of 21 '- 4 to top of wall. The landscape and open space proposal will be reviewed with the Greenwald tent application. Stafffands this criterion to be met. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Finding: The addition of sixty (60) seats will increase capacity. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with the Engineering and Transportation Departments to establish a pedestrian, transportation plan that will be presented during the public hearing for the Institute's application for the Greenwald Pavilion (permanent summer-only tent), and shall be reviewed and recommended for approval prior to City Council Review. Stafffinds this criterion to be met for the Paepcke Auditorium. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Sta Finding: The proposed Paepcke Auditorium Building expansion parcel is suitable for the addition. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Staff Finding: The proposed addition and renovation to the Paepcke Auditorium will upgrade the building to comply with current energy code, ADA, and fire protection requirements, therefore minimizing the current deficits in user access, environmental impacts and safety. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with the Engineering and Transportation Departments to establish a pedestrian, transportation plan that will be presented during the public hearing for the Institute's application for the Greenwald Pavilion (permanent summer-only tent), and shall be reviewed and recommended for approval prior to City Council Review. Stafffinds this criterion to be met for the Paepcke Auditorium Buildtng only. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: From the AACP; "Walter Paepcke helped found Aspen as a unique community...in which arts, culture and education provide cornerstones of our lifestyle, character, and economy. "The Institute and the Auditorium provide a venue to facilitate many of the goals ofAACP, specifically Arts, Culture, Education, Design Quality, and Historic Preservation. Staff finds this criterlon to be met. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Finding: The proposal does not require public funds to provide public facilities for the proposed parcel. Staffftnds this criterlon to be met. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2. Staff Finding: There are no slopes in excess of twenty percent on the proposed Lot. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Staff Finding: Not applicable if continued to be determined an essential public facility. B. Variations permitted. The final development plan shall comply with the requirements of the underlying zone district; provided, however, that variations from those requirements may be allowed based on the standards of this Section. Variations may be allowed for the following requirements: open space, minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area ratio, number of off-street parking spaces and uses and design standards of Chapter 26.410 for streets and related improvements. Any variations allowed shall be specified in the SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan. Sta Finding: Staff does not find that there are any requests for a variation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. GMQS Sec. 26.470.050. General requirements. A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and meet. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific Type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Finding: If determined to be an essential public facility, the additional 614 square feet will not be applicable. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: See SPA criterion 5. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Finding: The Land use Code states; "the dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Academic (A) zone district shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual development plan and final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.440, specially planned area. The Academic (A) zone district requirements are set by the SPA, no variations from the requirements and limitations are requested or necessary. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. Staff Finding: Currently, the application has received conceptual approval, as required in the Historic Preservation Commission Resolution to proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please refer to the HPC minutes from May 28, 2008 and July 23, 2008 in the packet. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Staff Finding.• The applicant is requesting to be determined an essential public facility (as approved in 1991), and to have the affordable housing mitigation requirement waived. The proposal for the Auditorium expansion does not include additional employees (see attachment from applicant). /f determined to be an essential public facility, Staffftnds this criterion to be met. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. Staff Finding: Not Applicable. Stafffinds this criterion to be met 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. (Ord. No. 14, 2007, § 1) Staff Finding: The application is not proposing additional parking, but states; "as currently done, Paepcke events are scheduled to minimize overlap with the MMA Music Tent events and people are encouraged to parkin the MMA main parking lot or walk or bicycle to Paepcke events. " 97 parking spaces were approved in the 1991 SPA, prior to the construction of the parking structure under the tennis courts. The application is notproposing additional parking, but states; "as currently done, Paepcke events are scheduled to minimize overlap with the MMA Music Tent events and people are encouraged to park in the MMA main parking lot or walk or bicycle to Paepcke events. " Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with the Engineering and Transportation Departments to establish a pedestrian, transportation plan that will be presented during the public hearing for the Institute's application for the Greenwald Pavilion (permanent summer-only tent), and shall be reviewed and recommended for approval prior to City Council Review.. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Sec. 26.470.090. City Council applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, all City Council growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments and development ceiling levels. 4. Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. Staf(Finding: The applicant is requesting that the Aspen Institute (and MMA) continue to be an Essential Public Facility, including the Paepcke Building, as determined in the 1991 SPA Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. StaflFinding: In addition to the request that the Aspen Institute continue to be an Essential Public Facility as determined in the 1991 SPA Plan, the applicant is also requesting that the City Council waive the affordable housing mitigation requirements as it is not proposing to generate new employees. Please see Exhibit C for the employee analysis provided by the applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met for the Paepcke Auditorium addition and renovation. ya. MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planuing and Zoning Commission FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director'd l DATE OF MEMO: September 11, 2008 MEETING DATE: September 16, 2008 RE: 860 Roaring Fork Road -Special Review APPLICANT /OWNER: Laura and Gary Lauder REPRESENTATIVE: Alice Davis, Davis Horn Incorporated LOCATION: Address - 860 Roaring Fork Road; Legal Description - Lot 6 & 7, Second Aspen Company; Parcel Identification Number - 2735-121-04- 013 CURRENT ZONING B: USE Located in the Moderate Density Residential (R-15) zone district, containing a single family home and a carriage house. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting permission to expand the Carriage House by 379 square feet of floor area and to construct a portion of the addition sub-grade. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this request to expand the carriage house by 379 square feet of floor area and construct a portion of the addition sub grade. SUMMARY: The applicant has requested Special Review approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for an addition to a mandatory occunancv Carriage House. Photo of the Revised 9/9/2008 Page 1 of 11 jY . L Figure 1: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to expand the existing Cazriage House on the property located at 860 Roaring Fork Road. To receive approval they aze required to undergo Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission because a portion of the proposed addition is sub-grade and for increasing the net livable floor area on a mandatory occupancy, non-conforming carriage house over the net livable size permitted by the design standards in the Land Use Code Section 26.520.050. The proposed addition of 379 squaze feet of floor area satisfies Code requirements as it meets the maximum size for a Carriage House of 1,200 square feet of floor azea, yet net livable space ' City of Aspen Land Use Code Definitions Section 26.104.090 Both accessory dwelling units and carriage houses aze deed restricted dwelling units and share the same definition. Carriage House - A deed restricted dwelling unit attached to or detached from a principal residence situated on the same lot or parcel, and which meets the occupancy, dimensional and other requirements set forth in Section 26.520 of this Title, and set forth in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. The Code specifies the same defmition for accessory dwelling units. The only d~erence between the two is outlined in Section 26.520.050 -Design Standards refer to size and requires that an ADU must contain between 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of which must be a close[ or storage area. A Carriage House must contain between 800 and 1,200 net livable square feet, 10% of which must be closet or storage area. Revised 9/9/2008 Page 2 of 11 exceeds the net livable design standrsd for Carriage Houses by 431 squaze feet of net livable area. The proposed addition will therefore consist of: Existing Proposed Total Floor Area 820 sq fr 379 sq fr 1,199 sq fr Net Livable Area 1,287 sq fr 431 sq fr 1,718 sq fr The addition will increase the carriage house from 1,287 of net livable area square feet by 431 square feet for a total of 1,718 net livable area. The maximum net livable area is defined in a different manner than floor area.Z The total proposed floor azea of the carriage house is 1,200 square feet as calculated by Section 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements in the Land Use Code. There are some exemptions when calculating floor area that do not pertain to net livable area. When the lot was originally developed it was constructed as conforming. Since then, there have been changes to the Land Use Code. There is now more floor area on the lot than allowed, creating the non-conformity with respect to floor area. The applicant would like to add to the carriage house to better accommodate a local family. The carriage house is occupied by the applicant's long term cazetaker family, the Seeman family, who has worked for the applicant for more than ten years. The addition will permit a third bedroom, a second bathroom, an eating area and a new family room. In 2008, Ordinance No. 7 of Series 2008 was adopted, initiated by the Lauder family. This ordinance allows by Special Review, non-conforming ADU's or Carriage Houses to be enlarged by up to 500 square feet of floor area with some provisions. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to expand and renovate a carriage house: ~ecial Review as pursuant to Section 26.520.080 (D) of the Land Use Code. The applicant is requesting two variances from the design standards governing the development of accessory dwelling units and carriage houses. This requires the request be processed under Special Review as pursuant to Chapter 26.430.050, Design Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, for building a portion of the carriage z City of Aspen Land Use Code Definitions Section 26.104.090 Net Livable Area -The area available within a building for habitation and human activity measure from interior wall to interior wall, including the interior partitions and inclusive of, but not limited to, habitable basements and interior storage areas, closets and laundry areas; but excluding uninhabitable basements, mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages (attached or unattached), patios, decks and porches. Floor Area -The sum total of the gross horizontal areas of each story of the building measured from the exterior walls or from the centerline of the party walls. (See Supplementary Regulations -Section 26.575.020, Calculations and Measurements). Revised 9/9/2008 Page 3 of 11 house sub grade and to increase the permitted net livable area of a Carriage House. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing before the Plannin¢ and Zoning Commission who may approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposal. • Special Review as pursuant to Section 26.312.030, Nonconforming Structures of the Land Use Code for increasing anon-conforming carriage house. This application involves increasing the permitted floor azea by 379 square feet pursuant to the review standazds in Ordinance No. 7 of Series 2008. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal. STAFF COMMENTS Variances from the design standards When an accessory dwelling unit or carriage house is built, it is required to meet certain design standazds as required by the Land Use Code. Some of these standazds refer to minimum and maximum sizes, kitchen appliances, bathroom facilities, parking stalls, access, snow shedding, and deed restrictions. The applicant is requesting a variance from two of the standards listed under the requirements for design standazds for Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses as pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.520.050. In review standazd (1), the size of a carriage house is limited to a size of net livable azea between 800 and 1200 squaze feet. The proposed addition would result in a carriage house that has 1,718 square feet of net livable area. This is larger than the 1200 square feet permitted. The increase in net livable space will make this a more desirable unit for a caretaker family; however; our department regulates land use not residents. These are fundamentally different. Community Development staff support the application. Staff does not see any issues with the current use or the proposed use of the carriage house but has concerns over future use. There is some enforcement available to ensure that the carriage house is occupied by a employee working in Pitkin County approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). To ensure compliance, the Commission may wish to add anon-compliance clause to the resolution stating that if the carriage house does not fit the standards of APCHA for a mandatory occupancy unit, the improvements will be required to be removed. The Community Development staff also recommends creating a Building Permit file For the sending property that is currently a vacant lot that will alert the staff to check the plat for deductions made to allowable floor area. The sending property will also have the reductions recorded on the plat by a document that is approved by the City Attorney. Revised 9/9/2008 Page 4 of I 1 5 North Rear View Figure 2: Proposed addition: the portion that is slightly shaded Review standard (4) requires that the finished floor height of an ADU or carriage house to be entirely above grade. In this application there is a portion of the proposed addition to be constructed sub grade. The lower level of the addition is partially garden level and partially sub- grade (see Figure 2 above). The new bedroom has two windows to create desirable living area and the new family room is entirely above grade. The proposed floor plans are included in the application. Please refer to Exhibit C. The small addition to the can•iage house creates a much improved living situation and staff supports the request. Increasing_Non-conforming_Structures The property is non-conforming because the amount of floor area exceeds the allowable amount. At the time of construction, the development was conforming; however the Land Use Code has since changed and created the non-conformity. It is not possible to add on to the principal dwelling. The carriage house is only eligible because it is deed restricted as a mandatory occupancy unit under APCHA. Ordinance No. 7 of Series 2008, initiated by the Applicant, allows for some exceptions to increase the size of non-conforming structures. This ordinance amended Section 26.312.030 of the Land Use Code -Non-conforming structures. Under the new ordinance, mandatory occupancy Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses may be eligible to apply for expansion with the extinguishment of unused floor area from a sending property to a maximum of 500 square feet. The carriage house currently has 820 square feet of floor area. The proposed addition will add 379 square feet of floor area for a total of 1,199 square feet. The maximum size for a carriage house is 1,200 square feet of net livable area. The subject carriage house currently has 1,287 square feet of net livable area. The applicant would like to increase the unit by an additional 431 square feet of net livable area. The addition is concentrated to the rear of the building and is partially sub grade. The increase to the bulk and Revised 9/9/2008 Page 5 of 11 mass of the building is quite minimal and is not predicted to have any adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE: When the application was originally submitted the deck was located partially into the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewer easement. The applicant has submitted revised plans that have remedied this situation. The revised plans are included in Exhibit C. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve of the three Special Reviews for the carriage house located at 860 Roaring Fork Road. The predicted impacts are quite minimal and the addition will not result in a structure that exceeds the permitted size for carriage houses. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. ~(~ Series of 2008, to approve the Special Review Procedures for the variance from the residential design standards for sub grade area and net livable area shown as submitted and the increase in permitted floor area for non-conforming structures for the carriage house located at 860 Roaring Fork Road." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Staff findings Exhibit B -Ordinance No. 7 of Series 2008 Exhibit C -Application and Supplement to the Application Revised 9!912008 Page 6 of 11 RESOLUTION N0. ~_© (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THREE SPECIAL REVIEWS FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LOTS 6 AND 7, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 860 ROARING FORK ROAD. Parcel No. 2735-121-04-013 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Gary and Lauder represented by Alice Davis of Davis Horn, Inc., requesting approval of Special Review for the expansion of carriage house on Lot 6 &7, Second Aspen Company, City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 1.49 acres and is located in the Moderate Density Residential R-15 Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the carriage house is considered anon-conforming structure and is subject to Special Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.312.030, Non-conforming structures; and, WHEREAS, Land Use Code Section 26.312.030 was amended by Ordinance No. 7 of Series 2008, to permit additional floor area on properties with a mandatory occupancy accessory dwelling unit and which are legally established nonconformities with respect to floor area; and, WHEREAS, the carriage house expansion will be constructed partially sub grade and the net livable area will be increased to 1,718. These variances are subject to Special Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.520.050, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses -Design Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve or deny a variance to the Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses Residential Standards in conformance with the review criteria established in Land Use Code Section 26.520.050, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, Design Standards; and 26.430.040 Review Standards for Special Review and 26.520.080 Special Review Procedures for Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve or deny an expansion of anon-conforming Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House when floor area from a sending property is extinguished and transferred to a mandatory occupancy Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House to a maximum of 500 square feet. The application must be in conformance with the review criteria established in Land Use Code Section 26.312.030, Non-Conforming Structures, Ordinance No. 7 of Series 2008 (amending that Code Section) and 26.430.040 Review Standards for Special Review; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with the three requests for Special Review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 16, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions, by a - vote, the land use request; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Plarming and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the 860 Roaring Fork Road Special Review to expand the mandatory occupancy Carriage House on Lots 6 & 7, Second Aspen Company, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The expansion to the carriage house shall be no greater than 379 square feet of floor area. The total floor area of the carriage house shall not exceed 1,200 squaze feet of floor azea and not more than 1,718 square feet of net livable area. 2. No further development shall occur on Lot 6 & 7, Second Aspen Company other than what is approved by Resolution No. ,Series of 2008. 3. An approved tree permit from the Parks Department will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. The tree permit must be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or adjacent to the site. Any excavation under the drip line permit will need to be approved along with the tree permit. 4. The building permit application shall include the following: a) A copy of the final Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution. b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c) An Excavation Stabilization Plan that will show the extent of the excavation, the location of constriction fences azound the excavation, erosion control measures, spot elevations at the top and bottom of cuts, and site-specific construction drawings of the excavation and stabilization measures. The Excavation Stabilization Plan must be stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. For all excavation, the Contractor must comply with neighbor notification requirements stated in Section 3307 of the 2003 International Building Code. d) A Site Grading Plan stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer, to ensure that the grading plan agrees with the drainage plan. Plans must demonstrate positive drainage away from structures as required by the Building Code (IRC - R401.3 and IBC - 1805.3.4). e) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. On-site drainage is to be designed in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Design and Construction Standards. IBC Section 3307.1 requires that provisions be made to control erosion. The City requires a plan that shows the location of erosion control measures, drainage patterns, and details of erosion control structures. The plan must include notes that describe how erosion control measures will be regularly maintained. The erosion control plan must show the location of mud racks, the location of water for washing tires and the retention of the wash water. f) A soils and foundation report shall be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer with the Building Permit. g) A construction management plan that details the proposed method and means by which the site will be accessed with excavation and grading equipment during construction. This plan shall also detail the proposed construction parking, which shall demonstrate that except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. The management of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association shall be consulted in the prepazation of the Construction Management Plan. h) The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday. i) Documentation evidencing the transfer of floor area from the sending site Lot lA, Second Aspen Company, allowing the expansion to the Carriage House on Lot 6&7, Second Aspen Company. 5. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. Section 2: If the carriage house does not comply with the standards of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for a mandatory occupancy unit and is found to be non- compliant, the improvements will be required to be removed. Section 3• The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessazy to obtain a development order as set forth in this resolution, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lot 6 & 7, Second Aspen Company, by Resolution No._, Series of 2008, of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: This resolution 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 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 16th day of September, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jim True, Special Counsel PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: L J Erspamer, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A -Approved Drawing Attached Exhibit A SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA: PROCEDURE FOR SPECIAL REVIEW REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS As pursuant to Section 26.520.080 Procedures for Special Review of the City Land Use Code, an applicant can apply to vary the design standards of an Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. Standards of Review. i. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU or Carriage House program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability: Staff Findi~ The addition will create a much improved living situation for the caretaker family. As long as this unit functions as a mandatory occupancy employee housing unit, this is a great addition to the unit. Currently the occupant has three children sleeping in one bedroom. The addition of a third bedroom and a second bathroom will be an asset for the occupants. Staff have suggested to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the applicant should be required to follow the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requirements for this unit or the addition will be required to be removed. The addition will not adversely affect the zone district or the neighboring properties. Staff frnds this criterion to be met. 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: Staff Finding The proposed addition to the Carriage House is compatible with the principal residence. The units share a driveway and are separated by a comfortable distance. The Carriage House is significantly smaller and located at a lower elevation than the principal residence. The building materials are similar and the landscaping is site appropriate. There is no historical significance on this property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities: Staff Finding Revised 9/8/2008 Page 7 of 11 The proposed addition to the Carriage House is compatible with the neighborhood. The addition is located to the rear of the unit and will not be visible from the street frontage. Roaring Fork Road is a low density area with a country theme. The addition to the carriage house is similar in nature to the rest of the surrounding area. The density will increase by one bedroom but the number of occupants will not change at this time. The addition is quite minimal and consists of a family room, a third bedroom and a bathroom. There is adequate on-site parking as well as on street parking to accommodate the expansion. This property consists of a split driveway. The main dwelling is located on the west side of the property and the ADU is accessed off a branch of the driveway to the east. The ADU has its own dedicated parking stall that is not stacked with any other parking stalls of the primary residence. The carriage house is located close to transit and is a short walk to downtown services, recreation and employment. There are no designated view planes restricting the property and it is not located in the Stream Margin Review area. Staff ftnds this criterion to be met. Revised 918!2008 Page 8 of 11 Exhibit A (Continued) ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES CONTAINING NON-CONFORMING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS In addition to Section 26.520.080 (C) of the City Land Use Code, legally estal~kished non- conforming ADU's and Carriage Houses that are applying to expand by up to 500 square feet via a TDR or transferred by anon-historic property shall conform to the following additional criteria. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: 1. Newly established floor area may increase the ADU up to a cumulative maximum of 500 square feet of floor area and is required to be mitigated by either of the following two options: a) Extinguishment of Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates. A property owner may increase the ADU by extinguishment of a maximum of two certificates with a transfer ratio of 250 square feet of floor area per each certificate. b) Extinguishment of unused floor area from another property. A property owner may increase the maximum floor area of another property for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU by extinguishment of a maximum of 500 square feet of available un-built floor area from one property to the ADU. Staff Finding The applicant will be using unused floor area from Lot IA, Second Aspen Company Subdivision, a vacant property, to increase the square footage of the ADU by 379 square feet. The sending property allocates floor area not net livable area. As a result, the carriage house will have 1,199 square feet of floor area. A Special Review is required to exceed the permitted amount of net livable area of the carriage house. Previously, 120 square feet were added to the permitted floor area of the ADU by the same process. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The additional floor area is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor area or the additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. Staff Finding As per the application, there will be some reconfguration of the existing floor area that is considered storage space where the stairs and closets are located. The amount is very small and mostly a result of the renovation and the addition. The net gain in square footage is 379 square feet. The addition will be located at the rear of the ADU and is not visible from the street. The applicant has been strategic in keeping the increase in massing to a minimum. A portion of the addition will be sub grade and the changes will not be noticeable from any of Revised 9/8/2008 Page 9 of 11 the surrounding properties. Please view the three dimensional drawings submitted with the application for details. The addition consists on a third bedroom, a second bathroom and a family room. The family residing in this unit currently has three children in one bedroom. The extra space will definitely be an asset for this unit and the caretaker family. The portion of the ADU that is adjacent to the sub grade walls are mostly comprised of closet space and stair wells. The new bedroom will have two windows and the family room will be located above grade. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. The additional floor area creates a unit which is more suitable for caretaker families. Staff Finding As mentioned in the previous criteria review, the ADU will be much better suited for a family with the extra space. The addition will consist of a family room, a third bedroom and a second bathroom for this family offive. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 4. The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADU. Staff Finding There will be few impacts from the increased size of the ADU. During construction there may be some disruption to the surrounding properties, however after the construction is complete, there are no other impacts predicted The visual impacts from the addition are quite minimal. The applicant has proposed additional screening to minimize potential impacts to the Rio Grande Trail located north of the property. Between the subject property and the trail there is a vacant lot that will also contribute to the screening of the addition when the vacant lot is developed. The additional space for the caretaker family will greatly improve their quality of life from its current cramped arrangement and outweigh any impacts that are created as a result of the addition. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 5. The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with the surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. StaffFindinQ After the addition to the ADU, the structure is still much smaller than the other homes in the neighborhood. The addition is quite small in nature and should not alter the current state of compatibility in the area. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 6. For the transfer of allowable floor area through the use of Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates, the certificates shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.535, -Transferable Development Rights. Staff Finding This ADU addition is receiving floor area allotments from anon-historic sending property. Staff recommends creating a building permit fle in addition to recording the transfer so that the information is easy for staff to use. Staff f nds this criterion to be met. Revised 9/8/2008 Page 10 of 11 8. For the transfer of allowable floor area from anon-historically designated property to an ADU deed-restricted as a mandatory occupancy unit, the applicant shall record an instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney removing floor area from the sending property to the mandatory occupancy ADU. Staff Finding The applicant will provide a copy of the appropriate document for review by the City Attorney. The document will be similar to the one used for the first transfer of floor area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Revised 9/8/2008 Page 11 of 11 ExutaiT Q ORDINANCE No. 7 (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER AND SECTION OF THE C1TY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: 26.312.030 - NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES - MEET APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW. WHEREAS, previous amendments to Section 26.312.030 submitted by Gazy and Laura Lauder, 850 Roaring Fork Road, Aspen, CO were adopted in Ordinance 35, Series of 2004, but were not codified; and, WHEREAS, after meeting with the Lauder representatives, the Community Development Director requested that the representatives submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to Chapter 26.208, to clarify the adopted language; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030 C., Extensions, of the Land Use Code and would permit additional floor area on properties with a mandatory occupancy accessory dwelling unit and which are legally established nonconfomtities with respect to floor area; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Nonconforming Structures, as described herein, by a vote of six to zero (6-0); and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 12, 2008, the Aspen City Council approved amendments to the text of Nonconforming Structures, as described herein, by a vote of five to zero (5-0); and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL as follows: Section 1: Section 26.312.030 -Nonconforming Structures, shall read as follows: Sec. 26.312.030. Nou-conforming structures. A. Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the zone district in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. B. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance to nonconforming structures may be performed without affecting the authorization to continue as a nonconforming structure. C. Extensions. A nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. A nonconforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the nonconformity. 1. Historic structures. The first exception to this requirement shall be for a structure listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Such structures may be extended into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, may be extended into the minimum distance between buildings on a lot and may be enlarged, provided, however, such enlargement does not exceed the allowable floor area of the existing structure by more than five hundred (500) square feet, complies with all other requirements of this Title and receives development review approval as required by Chapter 26.415. 2. Mandatory occupancy Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The second exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House ("ADU") having a mandatory occupancy requirement. Such a detached ADU may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor azea, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU and also provided that the ADU does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or carriage house. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title and shall receive development review approval as required herein. a) Procedure. The procedure For increasing the maximum floor area of a properly for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU requires the submission of a development application. The development application shall be processed under Chapter 26.430, Special Review. b) Review Standards. An application for increasing the floor area of a property for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU shall meet the standards in Section 26.520.050, Design Standards, unless otherwise approved pursuant to Section 26.520.OSOSpecial Review, as well as the following additional review standards: (1) Newly established floor area may increase the ADU up to a cumulative maximum of 500 sq. ft. of floor area and is required to be mitigated by either of the Following two options. (a) Extinguishment of Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"). A property owner may increase the ADU by extinguishment of a maximum of two certificates with a transfer ratio of 250 sq. ft, of floor area per each certificate. Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing certificates. (b) Extinguishment of unused floor area from another property. A property owner may increase the maximum floor area of a property for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU by extinguishment of a maximum of 500 square feet of available un-built floor area from one property to the ADU. (2) The additional Floor azea is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable. or the additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. (3) The additional floor area creates a unit which is more suitable for caretaker families. (4) The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADU. (5) The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. (6) For [he transfer of allowable floor area through the use of Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates, the certificates shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.535, Transferable Development Rights. (7) For the transfer of allowable floor area from anon-historically designated property to an ADU deed-restricted as a mandatory occupancy unit, the applicant shall record an instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney removing floor area from the sending property to the mandatory occupancy ADU. D. Relocation. A nonconforming structure shall not be moved unless it thereafter conforms to the standards and requirements of the zone district in which it is located. E. Unsafe structure. Any portion of a nonconforming structure which becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance and which is declared unsafe or unlawful by a duly authorized city official, but which an owner wishes to restore, repair or rebuild shall only be restored, repaired or rebuilt in conformity with the provisions of this Title. F. Ability to restore. 1. Non-purposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure which is demolished or destroyed by an act of nature or through any manner not purposefully accomplished by [he owner, may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty-four (24) months of the date of demolition or destruction. 2. Purposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure which is purposefully demolished or destroyed may be replaced with a different structure only if the replacement structure is in conformance with the current provisions of this Title or unless replacement of the nonconformity is approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Any structure which is nonconforming in regards to the permitted density of the underlying zone district may maintain that specific nonconformity only if a building permit for the replacement structure is issued within twelve (l2) months of the date of demolition or destruction.* *A duplex or two single-family residences on a substandard parcel in a zone district permitting such use is a nonconforming structure and subject to nonconforming structure replacement provisions. Density on a substandazd parcel is permitted to be maintained but the structure must comply with the dimensional requirements of the Code including single-family floor area requirements. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 6 [part]; Ord. No. 9-2002, § 5; Ord. No. 35-2004, § l) Section 2• 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 recommended, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: 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. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4• A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 12th day of May, 2008, at a meeting of the City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by ]aw, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24'" day of March, 2008. Attest: L ~Z S/ O J' Kathryn S. Ko , Cit Clerk Michael . Ir and, Mayo I'INALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 12th day of May, 2008. Attest: 'l!i L Kathryn S. K h, ty Clerk Approved as to form: Si a Mic ael C. r land, Mayor `Cray ttoroey ~ni ~0~'+~.ea~ '~1 1~ SO ~~ ~'°tiJ ~i~iitT~`Al°zON Worksession with Aspen City Council tieria ~eopie nit~ver Aspen to Butterm:~ Tramway consultant Chuck Peterson wi// ohswer 4~es~'~ peck out the proposed alignmer ~~ hs E-mail: powerof4.connectthe4C~_~muil.cor : _ ~:_ ~ Tani Kronberg 319-0771- Page 1 of 1 tell„rirlPVnnc~nla_cnm/telluride%20~ondola%20telluride%20web%20tv..ipg 9/14/2008 ~r~', ~. er .- c+;• 0 A~~ .r~~"~ aj:.~ ~..s .~:~ e ~~~ ~~ . -, a r +~ ~~ ~w ~~~~ ~yry b, (/ e~~ _ ,t~ r`R ~- Y~ • i '~~*~ ~ ea i 1 • i ~ t ' ~ .r~~~~~ 1 ~ ""ii l~ » •~~ a ~} ~, ~.~ ~. ?{~iy-. ~ .; ~~ ~. ~ ~ .y ~ ^e '. S } jj}Fy ~ ~ ~ e 0L -~y ~~ tti r '~~qa } e _ . . '~~f.~. _ ''yF ~` ar ~ l.#'T e i _' ~'f'sV.l ~' ~~ M 'e ~ 3 ~~ep~ l ~ j ~ e j ~. M y ; ~ t /f • .! ~ ~ a 4.d°.~ss.L~'~"3~ ~~~ ~~• tid .~~~ . I