Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20181113 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2018 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. River Park Condominiums Planned Development Alternative Top of Slope Determination, Stream Margin Review, Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development, Variance B. 222 S Cleveland St - Special Review - Variation to the ADU Design Standards VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2018 Chairperson Skippy Mesirow called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm Commissioners in attendance: Teraissa McGovern, Skippy Mesirow, Jimmy Marcus, Ryan Walterscheid, Spencer McKnight, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Rally Dupps. Absent: Scott Marcoux, Ruth Carver. Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Ben Anderson, Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Kevin Dunnett, Parks Planning & Construction Manager Trish Aragon, City Engineer COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that ballots will be the in mail this week and that voters can use Pitkin County BallotTrax to track their ballots. They can find that information on the Pitkin County website. Mr. Mesirow encouraged everyone to vote. STAFF COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS Toni Kronberg encouraged people to vote for Option A on the Rio Grande Plaza question and discussed the benefits of that option over Option B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McGovern stated that there is a section in the minutes from October 2nd that incorrectly states that the City of Aspen is the property owner on Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus. Mr. Anderson clarified that it should state that the City of Aspen is one of the property owners of the properties on the Lift One Corridor Project. The final copy of the minutes will reflect that change. Mr. McKnight motioned to approve the minutes from October 2nd. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Resolution No. 5, Series of 2018 Lift One Lodge Subdivision / Planned Development Major Amendment to a Planned Development Continuation from the October 2, 2018 meeting P1 IV. Mr. Mesisrow noted that this meeting may need to be continued to a special meeting if the commissioners feel that they need more time to review the application. Mr. Anderson introduced himself and noted that the commissioners have received many public comments emailed to them. He submitted them as exhibits to the packet and they will ultimately forwarded to City Council when the project comes before them. Mr. Brown stated that the applicants have been in ongoing conversations with the Cascade Townhomes and Aspen Mountain Townhomes who have objections regarding the east building profile and massing and include view line issues. Because they are already in collaboration with the applicants, they are not raising their concerns at this point, but have not waived their right to comment publicly on this project. Mr. Anderson stated that staff will give their presentation first and then the applicant team. He stated that this project is a part of the Lift One Corridor Project and that representatives from all parts of the project are present at the meeting. He stated that the applicant on this project is Lift One Lodge. Previous approvals include Ordinance 28 of 2011, a significant but minor amendment in 2016, and a series of vested rights extensions from City Council that extend through 2021. The primary review is planned development, major amendment with a series of sub-reviews. He stated that there are elements of this project that remain similar to original approvals from 2011 and 2016, but that some things with this proposal, which will be the focus of the meeting. He gave a summary of the proposed changes to the project from existing approvals for the benefit of those who were not at the previous meeting. Mr. Anderson stated that both staff and applicant presentations intend to address the questions and concerns that the commissioners raised at the previous meeting. He stated that the staff presentation is grouped by categories. Mr. Anderson introduced the materials required from the applicant prior to the second reading of City Council. He listed areas of concern as the vertical circulation elements, re-study of material form, relocation of elevator and stair towers to the interior of the building, a visual analysis of the height and massing from the Wheeler view plane, evidence that the subgrade garage allows for movement of trash and recycling vehicles, a visual depiction of pedestrian amenity for lot one. Staff feel that they need to collaborate with the applicants on a confirmed dimensional table for the project. Staff would also like to see detailed floor plans to confirm allocations of floor area to proposed uses to ensure that it is being allocated appropriately. Mr. Anderson then introduced issues that the commissioners raised that staff felt could be worked out in final review. Those things include engineering requirements, the final design for the subgrade garage, the potential for public access to the rooftop amenity, energy and water efficiency outcomes, and free market residential unit sizes. He noted that staff concern about the size of the free market residences has been reduced as it has been clarified that they are approximately the same size as original approvals, though they still are above what is currently allowed in the lodge zone district. Mr. Anderson introduced the issues raised by neighbors in public comments. Those include the cul-de- sac and traffic conditions on Gilbert Street and the extension of building mass on the former Gilbert Street right-of-way. He noted that staff have considered these issues and Community Development and Engineering staff are supportive of the proposed cul-de-sac. Mr. Anderson also mentioned the concerns from the Southpoint development across the street from Willoughby Park which include Dean Street. Most of the concern is related to the relocated access point P2 IV. to the garage on Dean Street and the related traffic impacts, the movement of Skier’s Chalet Lodge closer to Dean Street, the inclusion of pedestrian and bike facilities on Dean Street, impacts from the new sidewalk to the north side of Dean Street and the required relocation of the Southpoint trash dumpster. He stated that, while staff respect the neighbors’ concerns, staff have worked hard on the details of the proposed design and are in support. He introduced Kevin Dunnett from the Parks Department to speak to updates to the site. Mr. Dunnett showed some of the redesign that has been done since the previous Planning and Zoning meeting. He gave the measurements of Dean Street and the proposed bike lane. He showed a slide of the redesign of the staircase, which was done in response to the Historical Preservation Commission’s concerns from their previous meeting. He described some of the amenities in the design and stated that the grading meets ADA requirements. He noted that the design has changed slightly to remove some retaining walls and provide more of a park feel. Mr. Anderson stated that there are three issues that need further discussion before P&Z recommendation. The first is concerns about parking in the neighborhood. Staff have several recommendations to address this, which all meet code. One option is provision of the 75.1 onsite parking spaces. Another is provision of the 75.1 parking spaces using a definition of parking that would allow for tandem spaces, cars stacked back to back, or stacked spaces, which would be accessed by valets. Lastly, up to 40% of parking can be provided by cash-in-lieu. Staff does not prefer this option. Mr. Anderson showed a slide of the design of the subgrade parking garage and described the layout. Mr. Anderson gave more details about growth management. He stated that most of the project has already received their allotments with the previous approvals of the project, which are still valid. There are an additional 20 lodge unit keys and one additional free market residence that need to be allocated to this, which staff is recommending. Mr. Anderson addressed affordable housing mitigation. He stated that the original project was a negotiated project and that many came together to result in final plan development. It utilized 2005 Land Use Code. As a result of the initial approval and in the amendment, the project was required at the time to provide mitigation for 90.96 FTEs at a category 4 rate, which was at a 100% mitigation rate. Under the proposed project, the 16 dorm style units from the original approvals are going away, though there is a proposal for one one-bedroom onsite unit that would account for 1.75 FTEs. The balance of mitigation would be offsite and buy down, affordable housing units, and the previously proposed cash- in-lieu. As a major amendment, this project is required to come into current code compliance regarding affordable housing mitigation. Under current code, staff estimates mitigation for 61.77 FTS at a category 4 rate. Mr. Anderson stated that the applicants met with APCHA on October 3rd. Their recommendation was that the ski museum remain as an Essential Public Facility and the Aspen Skiing Company services be considered net useable and calculated in that affordable housing mitigation estimate. APCHA was not supportive of cash-in-lieu as a method of meeting mitigation. He stated that staff does not have a preference for cash-in-lieu, but stated that it is allowed by the land use code and by APCHA guidelines. As a result, Community Development staff is recommending that cash-in-lieu continue to be considered. Mr. Anderson explained employee generation review. He stated that staff recommendation for affordable housing mitigation is to use generation and mitigation rates calculated using current land use code. The project mitigation may be evaluated using employee generation review and the free market P3 IV. mitigation may be waived due to the efficiencies of related free market lodge facilities. This is described by code and may be done at the discretion of Planning and Zoning and City Council. An audit would be required two years following the certificate of occupancy. He also stated that staff recommends that the ski museum remain categorized as an Essential Public Facility, which is established in existing approvals. And lastly, that mitigation may be provided using offsite units, onsite units, affordable housing credits, buy-down units, or cash-in-lieu. Mr. Anderson stated that total mitigation using 2018 code would be 61.77 FTEs according to staff estimates. Free market generation is 13.6 FTEs, and that number would be subtracted from the total mitigation. The numbers would be confirmed during building permit once staff fully understand the exact programming of the project. Mr. Anderson stated that Planning and Zoning had raised concerns about heights, floor area and massing, and how this proposal compares with the previous approvals. He explained that the measurements in the previous approvals were based off of interpolated grade, which is why the 2018 numbers are different. He compared the measurements from previous approvals with the current proposal and showed diagrams that illustrate that comparison. He stated that staff’s position is that both buildings are below the interpolated grade, though using the interpolated grade for height is an unusual condition for approval. He stated that staff is recommending support of the interpolated grade and 53 feet as they were previously approved but wanted to be transparent about height. He showed slides of the original building as it was approved in 2016 and read the measurements. He stated that, from finished grade, the tallest points on this building are given an additional ten feet from the approved height as part of previous approvals and part of land use code that allows additional height for vertical circulation elements. He stated that staff’s perspective is that there are points on this building that benefit about 5 feet from the role of interpolated grade. The building stays below the maximum height established in the approval, however, in terms of measurement from finished grade, there is some additional massing that has happened. Mr. Anderson addressed gross lot area and stated that staff and the applicants are on the same page. He stated that gross lot area for lots 1 and 2 is 44,800 feet. He stated that the floor area ratio in the lodge zone district is 2.5 to 1, which translates to an allowable floor area of 112,000 square feet. The proposed floor area for this project is 170,600 square feet. This compliance with the allowable floor area in the lodge zone district is one of the reasons why staff is recommending approval of the project. He stated his belief that P&Z was concerned about this project getting bigger from previous approvals, but that the gross floor area didn’t change. The parking was reduced by 22,000 square feet, which got reallocated to lodge, commercial, and residential use. He stated that staff’s view is that there is an increase in floor area in this project from original approval because of that change in programming from below grade to above grade. He stated that P&Z’s consideration of that is whether or not the change in programing justifies additional massing that’s come above grade. Mr. Anderson stated that staff’s recommendation is approval with conditions. Staff request discussion of the massing concerns, particularly on the vertical circulation elements. Staff have an estimate of 49.09 FTEs at a category 4. Staff would like the applicants to provide required parking mitigation onsite. Staff request that the applicants provide required additions to the application for Council review, and that they include specific project details in detailed or final review. Mr. Anderson turned the meeting over to the commissioners for comments and questions. P4 IV. Mr. Walterscheid thanked Mr. Anderson for his presentation. He asked for clarification on the measurements, asking if he is correct in the assumption that, due to interpolated grade, this building is 10 to 15 feet taller in some cases than a 53-foot elevation. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Walterscheid is correct if the interpolated grade and the approved vertical circulation elements are taken into account. Mr. Walterscheid stated that the 2011 ordinance ties the project to height and floor area. He asked what we measuring differently now, according to the current land use code, that was not measured that way before? Mr. Anderson replied that it was the use of the interpolated grade and the way that interacts with wall sections. He reiterated that the gross floor area is growing by approximately 22,000 from the square footage that is moving from below grade to above grade. He stated that staff is confident in the current calculation and the relationship to FAR, but that staff and the applicant can’t give a precise number in terms of floor area because of the difference in calculation methods. Mr. Walterscheid asked Mr. Anderson to clarify which elements of this project are subject to the old land use code and which are subject to the new land use code. Mr. Anderson stated that staff and the applicant have tried to find a balance of those things. He stated that the interpolated grade is part of existing approvals. Staff felt that it was fair to bring the employee mitigation number into compliance and bring the calculation of that into current code. Staff made some decisions about going with vested approvals in some circumstances, such as in the question of height. Ms. Garrow stated that there is a vested approval until November 2021. If the amendment isn’t approved or the vote fails, that building is going to be constructed without all of the other public benefits that are coming along with this amendment. In terms of height and floor area, they’re vested in that old code and, it could be argued, in the 100% mitigation rate. Staff are trying to pull this project into the current code as much as possible. At the end of the day, staff are going to be measuring height from the interpolated grade, but using today’s language. Floor area calculation will be done using current land use code. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the ratio between free market and lodge is not getting pulled in to current code. Mr. Anderson stated that that is correct. Ms. McGovern asked if the calculation of unit size was going to be done on today’s metrics even though they’re allowed to be over the 1,500 square feet. Ms. Garrow responded that that is correct. She stated that, because this is a vested approval and an amendment to a vested approval, the applicants do have to keep those original numbers. Mr. Waltersheid asked how the commissioners get to the discussion about height limit. Should 53 feet be the maximum or the average? He asked how that is determined for a revision to a planned building. P5 IV. Ms. Garrow stated that the actual lot lines are changing significantly to accommodate the ski corridor, so the building does not have the same footprint as the current approval. Mr. Walterscheid stated that consistency with previous approvals makes sense. He asked if the commissioners have leeway to say that they would feel more comfortable with an average height than with 53 feet and if that is enforceable. Ms. Garrow replied that that is within the Planning and Zoning Commission’s purview. She stated that the commission could make a recommendation to City Council related to massing or height changes as part of a whole package. She stated that she would encourage the commission to make a general recommendation rather than giving specific numbers. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the applicants are still striving to meet LEED Gold as was stated in the 2011 ordinance. Ms. Garrow responded yes, since that is part of the original approval. She stated that the 2016 amendment was about materials and the massing of the roof and all other commitments stayed the same. Mr. Mesirow asked if the commissioners should be interpreting the old and new standards with some level of fluidity. Ms. Garrow replied that that is correct. Mr. Mesirow asked what the free market size standard was at the time of the original approval. Mr. Anderson replied that there was not one during the original approval. He stated that, under today’s standard, it can be expanded to 2,000. Mr. Mesirow asked if the commissioners can make a requirement regarding cash-in-lieu. Mr. Anderson replied that the commissioners’ recommendation would be valuable to Council. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicants to further explain the employee generation review. Mr. Anderson explained that this is a change since the 2005 code. In the lodge district dimensions and in growth management, there is for smaller units. As the unit comes down, the mitigation rate for employee housing mitigation decreases. Ms. McGovern asked what lodge height was allowed under previous code. Ms. Garrow replied 40 feet. Ms. McGovern stated that this got approved above the lodge district height. Ms. Garrow responded that that is correct. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the mitigation rate is higher for free market or lodge. P6 IV. Mr. Anderson replied that the lodge unit size reduces the mitigation rate as the size of the lodge unit comes down. Ms. Garrow stated that there are more FTEs generated by the lodge development than the free market side and the commercial because it’s predominantly a lodge. The growth management staff findings and review criteria includes the language related to the employee generation review. Standards are related to whether there are unique employment characteristics of the operation, the extent to which employees of various uses overlap and serve multiple functions, and specific language for lodge projects only. As an incentive, that free market generation or mitigation requirement is absorbed into the lodge. Mr. Mesirow asked for more detail about the Essential Public Facility categorization of the ski museum. Mr. Anderson explained that Essential Public Facilities are public facilities. He stated that, if projects are declared as Essential Public Facilities, Council can waive any affordable housing mitigation that would be required. He stated that, for the ski museum, there would be a calculation rate based on square footage that would result in a generation rate. However, staff is recommending that that initial requirement be waived and, much like other Essential Public Facilities, that an audit be done down the road at increments that would update the mitigation rate. In the initial calculation, Council can waive that affordable housing mitigation requirement. Ms. Garrow noted that that’s also a request form the Aspen Historical Society. She stated that, in the existing approval, the ski museum is considered an Essential Public Facility, no mitigation is required now, and there is an audit at 5 and 10 years. Mr. Mesirow asked for staff to make the case that this ski museum is essential. Ms. Garrow replied that any nonprofit or government is considered an Essential Public Facility and automatically fall into that section of the land use code. She stated that there is a different growth management review for all Essential Public Facilities versus commercial spaces. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked what the mechanism is for that. Ms. Garrow responded that it’s simply an audit. At the time of building permit and certificate of occupancy, the nonprofit or governmental body provides information about the number of employees that they have. At the five year audit mark, they do an additional analysis and, if those numbers are different, there would be a review with City Council and a recommendation from the APCHA board. Ms. McGovern asked who would be on the hook for the mitigation in that case. Ms. Garrow replied that the way that the current ordinance is written, that would be a conversation that happens with the Historical Society. She stated that there is a lot of continuing discussion related to development agreements and cost sharing, so it’s not yet fully been identified at this point, but it would be by the time Council was voting on this. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked what APCHA thinks about the mitigation number. P7 IV. Ms. Garrow stated that APCHA recommended in favor of the Essential Public Facility with a zero mitigation rate now and an audit later. She stated that they did not make a recommendation on the generation numbers since that is something in the land use code. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the Gorsuch Haus project has onsite parking. Mr. Anderson replied that they do and that it is also subgrade. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the mitigation is including anything related to loss of parking in the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Anderson replied that the 50 spaces in the public part of the garage is a response to the loss of parking in the neighborhood. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if Dean street is narrowing at all for the ski museum. Trish Aragon, City Engineer, commented from the public seating that the width is what is happening now with the exception of the drop off area, which is a larger cross section than what we see now. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they had any more questions for staff. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to the applicant team for their presentation. Stan Clauson introduced himself as a representative of the applicant. He introduced Scott Glass and Michael Brown. He commented that he has never seen as cooperative a public-private partnership project. He stated that this project will provide substantial public benefits to the city of Aspen. He described the revitalization that will return to this area as a result of this development. Mr. Brown agreed with Mr. Clauson’s statement regarding collaboration and community benefit. He stated that, if the community does not see value in this project, then it isn’t going to happen. Mr. Clauson stated that the presentation is organized mostly around the staff memo, to address the questions and concerns. He turned the presentation over to Scott Glass to talk about massing and circulation. Mr. Glass stated that, in the last meeting, the applicants were challenged with addressing the bulk and mass of some of the stair cores. After looking at different options, the applicants settled on bringing some of the programing into the building to lessen the width of the cores and using thinner elements. He stated that the applicants have looked at the same thing for the eastern building. The applicants would prefer to keep the elements in a similar location. Mr. Glass addressed the Wheeler view plane. He showed a slide with the view from the Wheeler Opera House. He stated that the highest point that you can see from the steps of the Wheeler Opera House is 8,122 and the highest point of Lift One is at 8,045. He stated that it cannot be seen from the Wheeler view plane as there are other buildings in the way. Mr. Clauson stated that the proposed building does not materially alter the observer’s ability to see the preserved view from the reference point, as stated in the code. P8 IV. Ms. Garrow stated that staff would agree that it meets that criteria. Mr. Glass addressed the interface of the Lift One building to the museum. He stated that, while the interiors of the museum have not been fully planned, the applicants have had extensive conversations with Charles Cunniffe’s office, the Historical Society, and Aspen Skiing Company about where the general program lies. He stated that the applicants have accommodated both entry access to the building, circulation through the building, and freight and art loading into the building. He described the layout of the building, stating that the museum and Skier’s Services share a vestibule. Mr. Glass showed a slide that depicts the upstairs. Mr. Glass stated that the original approval had 14-foot clear access from street to trash and recycling, which accommodates the height, width access, and turning ratios for garbage trucks with 530 square feet. He stated that the Environmental Health department has recommended a minimum of 400 square feet in a hotel of this size. Mr. Clauson addressed the garage entry on Dean Street. He showed slides with the renderings of their plans for Dean Street and pointed out the planned amenities. He pointed out that their plan for an attached sidewalk is to accommodate the Southpoint condominiums and not impact their existing landscaping or grading down to the garden level apartments. Mr. Brown stated that the entrance into the garage is formerly where the loading dock was for the Aspen Historical Society. Mr. Clauson showed on the renderings where there is sidewalk currently. He showed how the cross section relates to the façade of the Southpoint Condominium building. He stated that this plan maximizes the retention of the natural landscape while also providing for good pedestrian connectivity. Mr. Brown stated that there is no sinking of grade and the condition will be dramatically improved from the condition today. Mr. Clauson stated that this street currently has a cross slope that’s well in excess of what it should be, which will be remedied. Mr. Brown stated that it will go from 17% grade to ADA accessible between three and five percent grades through the width on Dean Street. Mr. Clauson stated that a lot of attention has been given to ADA accessibility with the elevator and other mechanisms to allow for access to the lift. Mr. Brown stated that the placement of the Steakhouse building was influenced by also having ADA access off of Juan Street. Mr. Clauson stated that the garage entry has a walkway that goes subgrade. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if they are accomplishing the grade by bringing the grade up on the north side of the street or by bringing it down on the south side. Mr. Clauson replied that it’s a little bit of both but largely by bringing it down on the South side. P9 IV. Mr. Clauson discussed the traffic study. He stated that the City implemented a transportation impact analysis program, which the applicants provided as part of the application. The intention was that that would obviate the need for further traffic studies. However, since questions have been raised about this particular part of the project, the applicants hired Felsburg Holt and Ullevig to look at some of the issues that might be generated by moving the entry to the garage from South Aspen Street down to Dean Street. He stated that the report has not been fully vetted by Community Development and Engineering staff. He stated that the firm concluded that the intersections have enough capacity to accommodate the projected increase in traffic associated with Lift One Lodge development and that, on average skiing days, queuing will not block the garage access. They stated that, on peak days, garage access may be blocked for a short period of time but would not extend into the Dean or Monarch intersection. He showed a slide with the rendered plan from the original approval and used it to discuss alternative access points. Mr. Glass stated that a continually facing public edge is very important to the success of this proposal. The applicants did a lot of studying and determined that the Dean Street location was the best place to give the most open access to the project. Mr. Brown stated that this plan also reduces several months of construction and requires fewer trucks hauling soil through town. Mr. Glass stated that the Dean Street entrance is by far the easiest access for a public parking garage as well as project loading and services and has the least public impact. He stated that it also addresses some safety and ease of access concerns that were raised during previous approvals. He listed alternative garage entrances that the applicants explored and gave the reasons why they were not as viable as the Dean Street entrance. He reiterated that the applicants believe that the Dean Street entrance is the best option in terms of ease of use, safety, efficiency, construction duration, and public openness. Mr. Clauson stated that the traffic consultant endorsed the Dean Street entrance over the entrance from the original approvals and stated that the entrance location combined with the one-way patterns, will have a beneficial effect on traffic patterns and will result in reduction of any potential congestion. Mr. Clauson stated that the applicants have quantified the onsite and offsite pedestrian amenities including the areas around the Skier’s Chalet, areas both on a lower and upper patio level in the west building, and an area adjacent to the east building. He stated that, because the applicants are providing substantial financial support for the amenities, the code provides that it can be counted as part of the overall amenity package. Based on lot size, they would be required to have 11,000 square feet of public amenity. On site, there is 6,381. Mr. Glass addressed parking. He stated that the proposal fully provides the ADA and the 50 public parking spots. He stated that the valet system allows the applicants to right-size the parking and use strategies to reduce the overall footprint of the building. He stated that the applicants believe that that the number of spaces allowed in the proposal would accommodate the lodge and the free market functions. These spaces include tandem and stackable spaces to meet the code. He stated that one of the benefits of not expanding the footprint of the garage is a reduction in excavation. P10 IV. Mr. Brown stated that the idea is that people don’t bring their, but if they do, they leave them in the garage. Mr. Clauson addressed dimensional comparison. He stated that the previous approval used an alternative method of floor area calculation, which stated that, for any story that is partially above or partially below interpolated natural grade, only the floor space above the point at which interpolated natural grade crosses the subfloor elevation of that story shall be counted towards floor area. That is different from the code today and was also different from the code at the time it was approved. This led to a large amount of non-unit space that was not apportioned, as it normally would be under the land use code. He stated that the total floor area has been restated in terms of the current code and represents an 11,000 square foot increase, which is within the 2.5 floor area ratio of the land use code in the lodge zone district. Mr. Glass addressed building heights. He stated that the approval that came in 2016 adhered to a map of a previous building. When the applicants tried to shoehorn the 2016 approval into the 2011 approval, they ended up with a lot of strange conditions that made for an inefficient and awkward layout on the upper floors of the building. Instead, the applicants tried to find a maximum from the previous approval and work to stay below that, keeping a similar relationship between the building and the mountain. He showed on the slide how the building matches the maximum height in one place and is below it everywhere else. Mr. Glass stated that the situation for the east building is similar. Mr. Clauson addressed growth management. He stated that the applicants are requesting employee generation review with free market staff shared with lodge use. They are requesting offside affordable housing credits and cash-in-lieu to meet the affordable housing requirement. They would use credits if possible, but they may not be available in a timely way. He stated that staff see a staff supported generation of 43.47 FTEs excusive of the Aspen Skiing Company commercial space. He stated that the number Mr. Anderson gave, 48.09 FTEs, was inclusive of the Skiing Company, which is not on the Lift One Lodge property but part of the overall development. There will need to be a little bit of negotiating regarding who is responsible for the Skiing Company services part of the employee generation. He stated that there are growth management allotments required for one free market unit and 20 lodge keys. Other allotments for the overall project have already occurred. Mr. Brown stated that staff had showed the 2016 amendment of approximately 90 FTEs. The 2011 affordable housing requirement for the project at its 100% mitigation rate was 35.12 FTEs. The number has decreased by a reduction of commercial space from what was proposed to Planning and Zoning in 2016, creating a number between 43 and 47. He stated that the notion of being able to provide for that number in cash-in-lieu is not preferred by the applicants or the community. However, if the certificates aren’t available the entire community is waiting for the lift to go until they become available. Mr. Clauson turned the meeting over to the Aspen Skiing Company’s presentation. Mr. Mesirow called for a five-minute break. He stated that the public would have a chance to comment and stated that the hearing will likely be continued to another meeting. Mr. Mesirow restarted the meeting at 6:44 without Ms. McGovern and Mr. Dupps present. Mr. Mesirow motioned to extend the meeting to as late as 8 pm. Mr. McKnight seconded. All approved, motion carried. P11 IV. David Corbin introduced himself as the vice president of planning and development for Aspen Skiing Company. He stated that his purpose was to make a presentation regarding the ski corridor. Ms. McGovern rejoined the meeting at 6:44 pm. Mr. Corbin stated that his purpose is to demonstrate that the 60-foot width is not an arbitrary number. He stated that Aspen Skiing Company wanted to keep at least 3 Sno-Cat widths, which would be 20 feet each, to sufficiently function as a ski portal. From Dean Street to top of South Aspen is a 15% slope on novice to low intermediate terrain, requiring that 60-foot width. He showed some slides of comparable slopes with wide and narrow trails to further demonstrate why a 60-foot width is desirable. Mr. Dupps returned to the meeting at 6:57 pm. Mr. Clauson stated that that concludes the applicants’ presentation and that the applicants look forward to working with neighbors on their issues and concerns. Mr. Mesirow opened the meeting for questions from the commissioners. Mr. Walterscheid asked about the slide that showed the measurements for the elevation, as it is different than the measurements in the commissioners’ meeting packet. Mr. Glass stated that he would walk the commissioners through the elevations, stating that things have evolved. He stated that the difference in the elevation that Mr. Walterscheid is asking about is related to changes related to efforts to make the building look lighter. Mr. Mesirow asked for clarification on the subgrade garage entrance on Dean Street. He stated that most alternatives presented by the applicants have significant impact on the programming except the spiral option. He asked if that option is suboptimal because of the inconvenience to the driver and greater excavation. Mr. Glass replied that that Mr. Mesirow’s statement was incorrect. The spiral option did have significant impact on the programming, the worst impact of all alternative. He stated that some lodge area would be lost and 22,000 square feet would need to be relocated elsewhere. Also, it is difficult for driving and for trash and recycling pickup. Mr. Mesirow asked which of the other options would be Mr. Glass’s second choice. Mr. Glass stated that he is not sure, since every plan has a problem that changes the public interface. Mr. Brown stated that the alternative garage entrances were meant to show the exhaustive study that was done, not necessarily that there are other viable options. Ms. Garrow asked if it would be helpful for the Engineering department to weigh in on the question. Trish Aragon introduced herself as the City Engineer. She stated that the Engineering department is concerned about having the garage entrance on Aspen Street due to the slope. They are in favor of the Dean Street access. P12 IV. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. Aragon if she agrees with the traffic study that the applicants commissioned. Ms. Aragon stated that she just got report and has not had time to process it. Mr. Clauson stated that the traffic study supported the Engineering department’s conclusion that Dean Street is the best option. Ms. Aragon brought up the part of the study that stated that the the drop-off area might be backed up during peak times, like Christmas. She stated that it is not a good idea to design the drop-area for those one or two peak times a year and she stated that the high usage once or twice a year does not concern her. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they had any further questions for the applicants. Seeing none, he thanked public for being patient and turned the meeting over to public comment. Mr. Mesirow stated that comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC COMMENT Marissa Lasky introduced herself as a neighbor at the Southpoint Condominiums. She thanked Michael Brown for his open communication. She stated that her neighbors feel disenfranchised, but that she wants to try to make this work. She and her neighbors would like to have the building moved back, stating that it got taller and moved forward. There is a 19% grade from Durant to Dean. The walk out apartments will feel very garden level up to second floor if the building comes forward. Cars queuing up for parking will produce a lot more exhaust and motor noise. Mr. Brown clarified that Ms. Lasky is referring to the Skier’s Chalet and museum building. Ms. Lasky stated that Mr. Brown promised to work on it, which she is pleased to hear. She stated that parking needs to be mitigated as best as possible for noise and congestion. She agreed with the HOA president who stated at the last meeting that the bike lane doesn’t go anywhere. She expressed concern that the 50 parking spots that are being placed underground are not 1:1 with what’s being lost. She stated that the spots being lost would be more like 75 to 90. She would like to see more public parking in the garage. She stated that, regarding cash-in-lieu, $38,000 is not equivalent to what those parking spaces are from her personal experience. She stated that she does not want to see parking eliminated and pointed out that, since the parking is below-grade, they have one chance to get it right.. Mr. Mesirow thanked Ms. Lasky and stated for the record that Planning and Zoning received 14 letters of public comment. Of those letters that were supportive, many gave the Dean Street garage entrance or the placement of the ski museum as reasons for their support. Casey Martin introduced himself and stated that he is representing the Aspen Mountain Townhomes and the Cascade Condominiums. He stated his comments also represent the opinions of Marley Hodgson from the Aspen Mountain Townhomes HOA, Robert Scheer who owns the Cascade Condominiums. Mr. Martin showed a PowerPoint presentation. He showed the proposed site plan and expressed concern about Gilbert Street. He quoted from the City Engineering standards, stating that dead-end P13 IV. streets are prohibited unless they’re going to connect to a future street, but that two-way traffic requires at least eleven feet of width for each lane. He stated that the new proposal addresses the dead-end street issue by making it a cul-de-sac. However, he stated that the street is still too narrow for two-way traffic, which will cause safety issues. He stated that the street is 15 feet total width. He expressed concern that the street will turn into a secret drop off and pickup spot for skiers, and that the proposed signage will not be enough to stop people. He showed slides to demonstrated that the street is too narrow. He stated that they’re asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the application with conditions related to vehicular access to the east building along Gilbert Street. He expressed concern about the ability of emergency response vehicles and public services to access the street. He proposed that access to the street be limited to Gilbert Street residents using retractable bollards or a gate. Mr. Hodgson commented that the residents are very much in favor of the overall project, but that they are very concerned about their safety. Mr. Mesirow asked if there was further public comment. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to commissioner questions. Ms. McGovern asked Ms. Aragon to respond to Mr. Martin’s requests for a gate of bollards at Gilbert Street. Ms. Garrow stated that staff want to respond to comments about both the bike lane and Gilbert Street. Ms. Aragon stated that the purpose of the bike lane is to allow people to go against the flow of traffic on a one-way street. It also allows for fire access. Ms. Garrow stated that adding the contra bike lane here allows cyclists to ride from Lift One to Gondola Plaza, creating a new bike connection that isn’t formalized today. Ms. Aragon stated that the current approvals widen Dean Street to allow for two-way traffic, which would impede on the park, pedestrian area, and on the Southpoint Condominiums. She stated that the one way goes from west to east to allow for drop off and circulation from that direction. She addressed Mr. Martin’s concerns regarding Gilbert Street, stating that the current right-of-way for Gilbert Street is 30-feet wide and that the buildings are encroaching into the right-of-way, making the lane width narrow. Gilbert Street could be widened, but staff are not proposing to remove the encroachments that are in that right-of-way. She stated that the cul-de-sac facilitates the turn around and that putting bollards in would prohibit that as well as maintenance and fire access. She stated that putting the cul- de-sac on the end of Gilbert street improves the street from an Engineering perspective. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Aragon how the traffic pattern is supposed to work if the street is not widened. Ms. Aragon replied that there is the opportunity to widen Gilbert Street a little to make it a little better, though staff are not proposing that at this point. She also stated that having the cul-de-sac allows for traffic to wait. Mr. Mesirow asked if Ms. Aragon believes that it can operate in a reasonable way as is. P14 IV. Ms. Aragon stated that the current approvals for Gilbert Street would create a dead-end without a cul- de-sac, which is not a good situation. She stated that the plan in the current proposal is an improvement on that. Mr. Clauson stated that the applicants understand the concerns of the neighbors and don’t want that street to become a skier drop-off. He stated that he is not sure that that would happen on a large scale, but the applicants would be working with the neighbors in any way possible to ensure that the street is strictly for residents, visitors, and emergency services. Mr. Mesirow asked if the commissioners had any further questions. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to commissioner deliberation. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he appreciates the diagrams showing the elevations. He stated that he was very happy to see the updated elevation where the horizontal element had been thinned. He liked the linear horizontal nature of the 2016 amendments with the stepped back upper level and he is happy to see that replicated. He stated that he is in favor of this project and acknowledged the amount of community support. He looks forward to the effort moving forward and that he would rather see room for drop-off instead of the bike lane. He is curious about where loading and unloading for services where those would be, but he stated that he is aware that the applicants will go through more development. He stated that he supports the project and he will vote to approve it. Mr. Mesirow asked if any of the commissioners have anything they would like to see as a condition or planned discussion. Ms. McGovern stated that she would like to see the project stay at the higher employee mitigation level as Aspen is lacking in employee housing, especially categories three and four. She stated that she is not in favor of cash-in-lieu and does not want this project to take all the credits available, which would put residential development at a standstill. Mr. Mesirow stated that, in his opinion, using the current method for calculating for employees is appropriate. He does not see how eliminating the 13 FTEs for essential use makes sense in this scenario. Ms. McGovern corrected Mr. Mesirow, stating that the elimination of FTES was for the “cap-and-trade” method of calculating lodge rooms. Ms. Garrow clarified that they are referring to the employee generation review section of growth management. She explained that any project can take advantage of this section of the code, though there is some specific language related to lodge projects that, as an incentive to assist lodge projects and when there are duplicative services, there can be a reduction of the free market FTEs. Mr. Mesirow stated that his understanding was that there were two considerations. One was if the commissioners think that this project rises to the level to take advantage of the employee generation review. His opinion is that it does not. Separately, there is the calculation related to the museum being categorized as an Essential Public Facility. Ms. Garrow replied that the Essential Public Faculty is separate from the lodge development and the request. Staff and APCHA’s recommendation is to carry forward the existing approval which is zero mitigation now with an audit in five years. P15 IV. Mr. Mesirow stated he thinks the applicants should be required to mitigate, but he would accept the current standard for getting to that number. Mr. Brown stated that the 90 to 47 was not an apples to apples comparison. It was 35 to 47, an increase because the applicants reduced their commercial space. Ms. Garrow stated that one of the pieces that further complicates this approval is that there was a 2011 approval and a 2016 amendment. The 2016 amendment converted accessory lodge space, which was floor area, but did not create FTEs. That got converted to commercial space, which then increased the number of FTEs generated by about 60. That’s where that 90 number came from. This amendment is closer to the 2011 approvals in terms of the commercial space, with an increase for the lodge. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked what the audit process would be like and expressed concern that the Historical Society could potentially be on the hook for millions of dollars for mitigation after the audit in five years. Ms. Garrow stated that every single nonprofit that has done a building expansion in this community has gone through this process. She said that sometimes the organizations have stated that their expansion would increase FTEs and require mitigation and sometimes not. Since this is early in the process, it is not clear how many employees the ski museum will have. That’s the reason staff and APCHA are recommending carrying that condition forward. Mr. Brown stated that the applicants will have a discussion with the Aspen Historical Society and have an agreement beforehand. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the result of an audit has ever required an organization to mitigate for more employees. Ms. Garrow replied that yes, it recently happened to the Aspen Institute. They did an amendment based on the length of their construction and wanted to make sure their base number was correctly updated. It was approved after a discussion with City Council. Mr. Dupps stated that he is less concerned with the affordable housing as he looks at this project as a giant public amenity, which offsets a lot of the affordable housing sacrifice. Ms. McGovern with Mr. Dupps that it will be a great public amenity but stated that the impacts need to be balanced. Mr. Mesirow stated that there is not anything in the guidelines that says you can waive affordable housing if you like the public amenity. Mr. Walterscheid asked Ms. McGovern what her initial question was. Ms. McGovern stated that her question got answered. She does not want to see any buy-down or any of the mitigation be waived with the lodge incentive because she does not feel this is the appropriate use of that. P16 IV. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the applicants will be tied to current cash-in-lieu costs. Ms. Garrow stated that she believes that, in a site-specific approval like this, it is tied to the rate at the time of application, but that she would need to check that. Ms. NcNicholas Kury asked if the commissioners can suggest that City Council consider that. Ms. Garrow replied that they could. Mr. Mesirow asked how many commissioners would support mitigation that does not allow the reduction but uses the new calculation for FTEs versus how many would support the reduction. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked him to clarify if he was referring to the Essential Public Facility mitigation when he used the word “reduction.” Mr. Mesirow replied yes. Mr. Marcus asked if Mr. Mesirow also was referring to the other piece, related to the lodge incentive. Mr. Mesirow replied yes. Mr. Marcus stated that he is in support of that based on staff’s recommendation. Mr. Dupps stated that he is also supportive of that. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he is not supportive of it. Mr. Mesirow stated that he and Ms. McGovern are not supportive of it. Mr. McKnight stated that it is in support of it. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she agrees with what the code provides for. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they had any other points or conditions to convey. Mr. Marcus stated that he appreciated the traffic study and would like to see it be completely vetted by staff. The study conveyed to him that there are a number of concerns that are overexaggerated. He also found the study of alternative parking garage entrances to be very helpful. He stated that, while he can understand the neighbors’ frustrations, the presentation made it clear that the Durant Street entrance is the best option and it resolved a lot of his concerns. He stated that he appreciated Aspen Skiing Company’s presentation. He feels that the concerns that he raised were addressed and he would feel comfortable supporting this project. Mr. Mesirow asked if anyone shared his concerns about the Dean Street entrance. He stated that he sees the opportunity to extend the amenities out to the street as a pedestrian experience, but that the Dean Street entrance prevents that from happening. He would like the applicants to vet other options and would like to pass that along to Council. P17 IV. Mr. McKnight stated that he strongly agrees with Mr. Mesirow and believes that the Dean Street entrance is the worst part of the project, which he supports overall. He agrees with Mr. Mesirow about passing that recommendation along to Council. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she does not agree with concerns about the Dean Street entrance. She stated that the alternative of going up to Aspen Street does not achieve any of the same flow for pedestrians and vehicles. Ms. McGovern stated that she agrees with Ms. McNicholas Kury after walking the property at the site visit. Moving it to Dean Street addresses some of her concerns about safety. She regretted that it needs to be in front of residential buildings. Mr. Mesirow stated that that is not his primary point of contention. He stated that there is a huge potential for the community to utilize that space. Ms. McNicholas Kury commented that streets can be blocked off for festivals and events. Mr. Mesirow stated that, with the hotel and lift, this street will never be blocked off. Ms. McGovern stated that, from a safety perspective, it is a much better entrance to the building than South Aspen Street. Mr. Dupps stated that he agrees with Ms. McGovern and Ms. McNicholas Kury. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the finished height of 56 feet is inclusive of the ten feet above for mechanical. Mr. Anderson stated that this goes back to the interpolated grade discussion. He stated that the 53 feet that was the maximum height from the 2016 approval had been used to establish the maximum height for this building. Staff is proposing to use that interpolated grade and 53 feet as the maximum height. Above that, the applicants are allowed exceptions to height which include the circulation elements which can extend ten feet above the 53 feet. Mr. Clauson stated that the applicants have not shown the full ten feet above. Ms. McGovern stated that the diagram showed that, above finished grade, the maximum height is something like 68 feet. She stated that the interpolated grade is hard to envision because the building will not be 53 feet tall, it will be almost 70 feet tall. Mr. Mesirow asked if the commissioners had consensus around moving the project forward as staff has put forth. Mr. Walterscheid stated that it sounds like the commissioners were all in favor of the project, but that they should clarify some of the recommendations. Mr. Mesirow asked if any of the commissioners were not in favor of the project. He stated that he will vote yes with significant concern about under-mitigating for affordable housing and not taking full advantage of Dean Street. P18 IV. Mr. McKnight agreed with Mr. Mesirow’s approval and recommendations. Mr. Anderson stated that there was a list of 18 conditions that responded to the things presented in the staff memo. He recommended that Planning and Zoning specifically address their concerns about mitigation and employee generation review in their recommendation to Council. Mr. Mesirow asked if staff is asking for the commissioners’ feedback. Ms. Garrow asked if the commissioners want something more specific than condition 15, which just says that the mitigation is going to be calculated using the methods in the current code. Mr. Mesirow stated that he does not agree with condition 15. He stated that the majority of the Commission, but not all, agree with it. Ms. Garrow asked what type of language the commissioners would like in their recommendation. She asked if they would like it to say: the majority recommend using this code section to reduce mitigation. Mr. Walterscheid stated that, since they are split four to three, something of that nature would be appropriate. Mr. Anderson stated that the only other comment that has not been addressed is further analysis of the traffic study for Council’s second reading. Mr. Mesirow stated that the size of the free market units was not addressed. He stated that he would like to give feedback regarding that and believes that the community would do better with a smaller footprint of those units. Mr. Dupps stated that he had no problem with the size of the units. Mr. Waltersheid asked if the size of the units was 1,500 square feet. Ms. McGovern stated that 1,500 is the maximum and they are at 2,040. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that the code was changed precisely because the community is better off with smaller lodge units. The commissioners are just recognizing what was included in the vested approval. Ms. McGovern stated that the commissioners are also recognizing that the units are smaller than the 2011 approvals. She is not sure if that language needs to be included in the conditions. Mr. Anderson stated that staff can include a statement about the commissioners’ support of units that are smaller than the previous proposals. Mr. Mesirow asked staff if the commissioners have missed anything. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the resolution is only asking for representation of the pedestrian amenity on lot one. P19 IV. Mr. Anderson stated that staff felt similarly to the applicant that lot three was offsite and that there was a contribution from the applicant’s project to that. Because there is a discussion about onsite versus offsite in the commercial design review, it was important to understand exactly how much was being proposed onsite so that there could be an identification of that area for comparison. Ms. Garrow stated that it could say lot one and lot two, in order to recognize both. Mr. Anderson stated that there was some inclusion from the diagram. Mr. Walterscheid commented that he would like to see the decreasing of the horizontal massing continue to get carried through this project. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she agrees with that. Mr. Anderson asked if it would be acceptable to include that in condition number one. Ms. McGovern responded yes. Mr. Anderson asked for help in wording that part of that condition. Mr. Walterscheid suggested: continued refinement of decrease in mass related to both vertical circulation and horizontal fenestration. Mr. Glass clarified that the applicants are just changing the fenestration in different locations to minimize the appearance of height. Ms. McGovern made a motion to extend the meeting to 8:15. Mr. McKnight seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Garrow to read back all conditions Ms. Garrow read the conditions and asked the commissioners if she had captured everything. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Ms. Garrow to add the recommendation about the rate of cash-in-lieu that should be used. Ms. Garrow stated that she did not hear a consensus from the commissioners on the rate and asked what number they would like to recommend. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for a recommendation on what is allowable. Ms. Garrow stated that the commissioners can make any recommendation. Ms. McGovern stated that the commissioners should recommend the rate at the time of permit issuance since that is when the credits will be due. Mr. Walterscheid asked Ms. McGovern to clarify. P20 IV. Ms. McGovern explained that applicants using credits need to submit their certificate when they pick up their permit. The cash-in-lieu rate being based on that date would be consistent with that. Ms. Garrow stated that it’s typically at the date of permit submission. Several commissioners voiced approval for the date of submission being recommended. Mr. McKnight stated that it does not seem like something that requires P&Z recommendation if that is what is typically done. Ms. Garrow asked if the commissioners want cash-in-lieu to be an option. Mr. Mesirow asked about including language that it should be a last resort option. Mr. Anderson stated that that is consistent with code. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if that rate should be calculated as of September 2018 or as of a future date. Mr. Brown asked what the code says now. Mr. Anderson stated that the mitigation is part of the vested approvals and the land use code at the time. He stated that he commissioners could make that recommendation. He expressed concern that it has not been cleared with the City Attorney. Ms. Bryan stated that her gut reaction is that the rate would have to be tied to the time of the application and that it probably cannot be changed. Mr. Dupps stated that City Council would be the final vote. Mr. Anderson stated that the land use code says it’s at the time of application. Ms. Garrow suggested that resolution not include language specific to a cash-in-lieu number. Instead, staff can convey in their presentation to City Council that this was as an important issue to the Planning and Zoning Commission in wanting to make sure that as much mitigation was provided as possible. Ms. McNicholas Kury made a motion to approve Resolution 5 of 2018. Ms. Stickle read the roll. All commissioners present voted to approve the resolution. ADJOURN Mr. Mesirow motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 pm. All in favor. Motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager P21 IV. RESOLUTION NO.___ (SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TOP OF SLOPE DETERMINATION, A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, AN INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND A VARIANCE FOR A PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS RIVER PARK IN ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS COMMONLY KNOWN AS 100-154 NORTH SPRING STREET. Parcel No. 2737-073-26-013 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the River Park Condominium Homeowner Association c/o Romero Group, PO Box 4100, Basalt, CO 81612, requesting Special Review approval for an alternative Top of Slope Determination, Stream Margin Review, an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development and a variance for the property at 100-154 North Spring Street; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Engineering Department provided consultation to the applicant and approved the proposed alternative Top of Slope; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Special Review for an alternative Top of Slope, Stream Margin Review, the Insubstantial Planned Development Amendment and the Variance; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on November 13, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, P22 VI.A. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution _, Series of 2018, by a ___ to ____ (_ - _) vote, granting approval of Special Review, Stream Margin, Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development and the Variance as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Special Review for Top of Slope Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves an alternative top of slope determination via Special Review as identified in the attached Exhibit A. The applicant shall submit a Site Improvement Survey/Plat depicting the approved Top of Slope to the City for recordation purposes within 180 days of this approval. Section 2: Stream Margin Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a Stream Margin Review with the following conditions of approval: A. Engineering Conditions of Approval 1. All vegetation below the 15’ top of slope setback must be replaced with native vegetation. 2. Any excavation below the 15’ top of slope setback must be performed by hand. 3. All stormwater runoff must be captured and treated outside of the 15’ Top of Slope setback. 4. Additional, specialized construction techniques may be required within the vicinity of the Top of Slope and 15’ setback during building permit review. B. Parks Conditions of Approval 1. No machinery, storage of material, foot or vehicle traffic allowed below 15’ top of slope setback. Section 3: Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development (Chapter 26.445) to allow for the proposed scope of work to take place on site inclusive of repair of the parking garage’s roof, hardscape and land scape changes. Section 4: Variance Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby grants the request for a variance permitting the installation of a hot tub between the lot line adjacent to Main Street and the multi-family dwellings on the southeast side of the property (Chapter 26.314). P23 VI.A. Section 5: This approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning, building, or any other applicable code regulations within the City of Aspen’s Municipal Code. The applicant must submit a building permit application demonstrating compliance with all applicable codes prior to any development on site. Section 6: 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, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 7: 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 8: 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 separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on November 13, 2018. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ____________________________ ______________________________ Jim True, City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Jeanine Stickle, Records Manager Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved site plan identifying Alternative Top of Slope P24 VI.A. Exhibit A: Approved site plan identifying Alternative Top of Slope Exhibit A: Approved site plan identifying Alternative Top of Slope 15’ setback Exhibit A: Approved site plan identifying Alternative Top of Slope New Top of slope 100-year flood plane P25 VI.A. TO: Planning & Zoning FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: River Park Condominiums Review, Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development and Variance MEETING DATE: November 13, 2018 APPLICANT: River Park Condominiums Homeowner Association Group, PO Box 4100, Basalt, CO 81621 REPRESENTATIVE: David Rosenfeld, Charles Cunniffe Architects LOCATION: River Park Condominiums, 100-154 N. Spring Street CURRENT ZONING: Located in the Residential Multi Family (R/MF) zone district with a Planned Development (PD) SUMMARY: The applicant plans to make structural repairs to various components of an existing parking garage as well as secondary improvements to the property. In order to conduct this work, the applicant requests four reviews: (1) a determination from what is specified by the City of Aspen Stream Margin Map; (2) a concurrent stream margin review based on the newly established top of slope; (3) an insubstantial a Planned Development; and (4) variance between the lot line adjacent to Main Street and the condo dwellings on the south east side of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requests with conditions. be owed for the removal of the trees and vegetation to conduct maintenance on the green roof. Mitigation can be partially offset with the landscaping that is proposed. that impacts tree dripline will be addressed permit. For the work proposed within top of slope, additional conditions will be addressed as part of the building permit. These conditions may include restrictions on using machinery within the 15-foot top MEMORANDUM Planning & Zoning Commission Kevin Rayes, Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director River Park Condominiums, 100-154 N. Spring Street, Special Review Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development and Variance November 13, 2018 Homeowner Association c/o Romero Charles Cunniffe Architects 154 N. Spring Street Planned Development (PD) overlay. plans to make structural repairs to various parking garage as well as secondary improvements to the property. In order to conduct this work, the an alternative top of slope from what is specified by the City of Aspen Stream concurrent stream margin review based on the nsubstantial amendment to ariance to install a hot tub between the lot line adjacent to Main Street and the condo dwellings on the south east side of the property. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission Significant mitigation will be owed for the removal of the trees and vegetation to conduct maintenance on the green roof. Mitigation can be partially offset with the landscaping that is proposed. Any development that impacts tree dripline will be addressed as part of the tree within the 15-foot setback of the top of slope, additional conditions will be addressed as part of the building permit. These conditions may include restrictions foot top of slope setback. Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: River Park Condominiums Green Roof Page 1 of 6 Special Review, Stream Margin Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development and Variance Figure 1: Vicinity Map River Park Condominiums Green Roof P26 VI.A. Page 2 of 6 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: · Special Review (Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.040.E): An application requesting an appeal of the Stream Margin Map’s top of slope determination requires Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review body. · Stream Margin Review (Chapter 26.435.40): An application for development on a property within one-hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high-water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Flood Hazard Area requires a Stream Margin Review. Development in those areas are subject to heightened review because they are in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. An application for a Stream Margin review is typically reviewed administratively, but because the review is contingent on the top of slope determination, the applicant requested to include the review in a one-step review process by the Planning and Zoning Commission to simplify the process. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review body. · Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development (Chapter 26.445) An application for an insubstantial amendment to a Planned Development is typically reviewed administratively, however, staff has included the review within this process to simplify the review to authorize the repairs and improvements on site. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review body. · Variance (Chapter 26.314) An application requesting the installation of a hot tub between the lot line adjacent to a street and multi-family dwellings. An application for a dimensional variance is typically reviewed by the Board of Adjustment, but as other land use reviews are before the Commission, this request can be consolidated. BACKGROUND: The River Park Condominiums consists of 4 multi-family buildings, with 13 units located in the Residential Multi- Family (R/MF) zone district with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. The property is located along the bank of the Roaring Fork River and is located within the Stream Margin Review area (see Figure 3). The site contains a subgrade parking garage with an at-grade green roof in need of structural repairs. To repair the below-grade roof structure, landscaping on the green roof must be removed (see Figure 4). The applicant plans to re-landscape the green roof with new trees, a lawn and native vegetation (see Figure 5). The Park’s Department has concluded that significant mitigation will be owed for the removal of the trees and vegetation to conduct maintenance on the green roof. Mitigation can be partially offset with the new tree plantings and landscaping that is proposed. The applicant also plans to make secondary improvements to the site including repairing and replacing all onsite snowmelt, repairing storm drain systems, adding a hot tub and improving stormwater runoff quality (see Figure 3). P27 VI.A. As a Planned Development, proposed changes to the site an amendment to the Planned Development. Nearly half the property currently sits below the established consists of remodeling, some features are new and would not be permitted without an alternative top of slope determination. To redevelop the property, an alternative must be established through a Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission The hot tub that the applicant plans to install would be located between the lot li Street and the condo dwellings on the southeast side of the property. Land Use Code section 26.575.020.E.5, Allowed Projections into Setbacks prohibited between any lot line adjacent to a str Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan & New Top of Slope evelopment, proposed changes to the site-specific development must be approved as evelopment. Nearly half the property currently sits below the established top of slope. Although most of the work consists of remodeling, some features are new and would not be permitted without an alternative lope determination. To redevelop the property, an alternative top of slope must be established through a Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission The hot tub that the applicant plans to install would be located between the lot line adjacent to Main Street and the condo dwellings on the southeast side of the property. Land Use Code section 26.575.020.E.5, Allowed Projections into Setbacks, specifies that hot tubs, spas and pools are prohibited between any lot line adjacent to a street and any structure. The proposed location of the hot tub is subject to the granting of a variance. & New Top of Slope 15-ft. setback Page 3 of 6 must be approved as lope. Although most of the work consists of remodeling, some features are new and would not be permitted without an alternative lope determination must be established through a Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. ne adjacent to Main Street and the condo dwellings on the southeast side of the property. Land Use Code section specifies that hot tubs, spas and pools are eet and any structure. The proposed location of the hot tub is subject to the granting of a 100-year flood plane New Top of slope P28 VI.A. Figure 4: Green Roof Plant Protection & Removal Figure 5: Proposed Green Roof Landscaping REVIEWS: Staff Comment Protection & Removal Proposed Green Roof Landscaping Page 4 of 6 P29 VI.A. Stream Margin & Special Review: Section 26.435.040.E, Special Review, requires an application seeking an appeal of the Stream Margin Map’s top of slope designation be processed as a Special Review. The criteria for seeking a alternative top of slope is surveyed by a surveyor and then Department. Stream Margin Review applies to areas located measured horizontally, from the high or within the one-hundred-year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and i margin).” There are eleven (11) review criteria associated with Stream Margin Review, and two (2) associated with Special Review. Staff findings for the review criteria for the Stream Margin Revi in Exhibit A and the top of slope determination Special Review are included in Exhibit The top of slope determination was submitted by a licensed surveyor and referred to the City of Aspen Engineering and Parks Departments for review. The Engineering and Parks Departments have reviewed and approved the top of possible conditions that will be addressed as part of the building permit. These conditions may include restrictions on using machinery within the 15 methods to hand tools only. Other conditions may showing minimal disturbance to the bank during construction. Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development A Planned Development represents a site memorialized. Section 26.445.110.A, Insubstantial Amendments changes to a Planned Development Development. There are five (5) review criteria associated with an insubstantial amendment to a Planned Development. Staff findings for the review criteria are included in Exhibit C Figure 6: Progressive Height Section Section 26.435.040.E, Special Review, requires an application seeking an appeal of the Stream lope designation be processed as a Special Review. The criteria for seeking a lope is surveyed by a surveyor and then substantiated by the City Engineering Department. Stream Margin Review applies to areas located “within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high-water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within a Flood Hazard Area There are eleven (11) review criteria associated with Stream Margin Review, and two (2) associated Staff findings for the review criteria for the Stream Margin Review are included etermination Special Review are included in Exhibit B lope determination was submitted by a licensed surveyor and referred to the City of Aspen Engineering and Parks Departments for review. The Engineering and Parks Departments op of slope proposal submitted by the applicant possible conditions that will be addressed as part of the building permit. These conditions may include restrictions on using machinery within the 15-foot top of slope setback, limiting construction methods to hand tools only. Other conditions may require detailed grading and spot elevations showing minimal disturbance to the bank during construction. Saff finds that none of the proposed changes infringe on the 45-degree progressive height plane (see figure 6). Planned Development evelopment represents a site-specific approval. The changes proposed need to be Section 26.445.110.A, Insubstantial Amendments, requires an application seeking evelopment be processed as an insubstantial amendment to a There are five (5) review criteria associated with an insubstantial amendment to a Planned Development. Staff findings for the review criteria are included in Exhibit C. ion Page 5 of 6 Section 26.435.040.E, Special Review, requires an application seeking an appeal of the Stream lope designation be processed as a Special Review. The criteria for seeking an substantiated by the City Engineering ndred (100) feet, water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high- ts tributary streams, or within a Flood Hazard Area (stream There are eleven (11) review criteria associated with Stream Margin Review, and two (2) associated ew are included B. lope determination was submitted by a licensed surveyor and referred to the City of Aspen Engineering and Parks Departments for review. The Engineering and Parks Departments lope proposal submitted by the applicant with some possible conditions that will be addressed as part of the building permit. These conditions may foot top of slope setback, limiting construction require detailed grading and spot elevations aff finds that none of the proposed degree progressive height specific approval. The changes proposed need to be an application seeking mendment to a Planned There are five (5) review criteria associated with an insubstantial amendment to a P30 VI.A. Page 6 of 6 The scope and changes to the hardscape features, landscaping and repairs to the green roof meet the criteria for an insubstantial amendment. Variance of Dimensional Requirements Section 26.575.020.E.5, Allowed Projections into Setbacks specifies that hot tubs, spas, pools and water features are prohibited between any lot line adjacent to a street and any structure. An application that requests the addition of a hot tub between the lot line adjacent to a street and a structure is processed as a variance pursuant to the Land Use Code standards outlined in Exhibit D. A street facing swimming pool currently exists between the dwelling units on southeast side of the property and Main Street. A hot tub was originally proposed to be located to the east of the existing swimming pool. Herron Park extends between the southeast side of the existing pool area and Main Street. Due to the presence of the park in this area, staff did not consider the proposed location of the hot tub to be street facing and approved its proposed location. However, the Engineering Department denied the placement of the hot tub to the east of the existing swimming pool because it would encroach into the top of slope, 15-foot setback. The placement of the hot tub to the west of the existing pool would satisfy stream margin setback standards and would require the minimum variance necessary to make possible reasonable use of the hot tub. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for Stream Margin Review, Special Review, insubstantial amendment to a Planned Development and granting of the variance for the scope of improvements to the complex. PROPOSED MOTION: Motion 1. “I move to approve the Resolution, granting approval for Stream Margin Review, Special Review, insubstantial amendment to a Planned Development and a variance as depicted in Exhibits A-D to the Resolution. Attachments: Exhibit A- Stream Margin Review Criteria Exhibit B- Stream Margin Special Review- Top of Slope Determination Review Criteria Exhibit C- Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development Review Criteria Exhibit D- Variance Review Criteria Exhibit E- Application Exhibit F- Public Noticing Affidavit P31 VI.A. Exhibit A Stream Margin Review Criteria Section 26.435.040.C, Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. Staff findings: The development will occur outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area and will not increase the base flood elevation as no site work or development will occur in that area. The Special Flood Hazard Area is below the 15-foot top of slope setback that restricts grading and development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high-water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement." Staff findings: At this time no public use, access, or easements exist on the property. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1. Staff findings: The proposed work within the 15-foot top of slope setback is limited to maintenance of the existing pool deck. The applicant has indicated no vegetation will be removed or damaged, and no slope or grade changes are proposed within the top of slope setback. The Engineering Department has indicated that some possible conditions will be addressed as part of the building permit. These conditions may include restrictions on using machinery within the 15-foot top of slope setback, limiting construction methods to hand tools only. Other conditions may require detailed grading and spot elevations showing minimal disturbance to the bank during construction. Native vegetation may be used below the 15-foot top of slope setback if approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P32 VI.A. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope. Staff findings: The applicant has indicated that sedimentation that occurs during construction will be mitigated in accordance with an erosion control plan to be submitted for review as part of the building permit. Drainage from the development will be treated and detained in accordance with the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan. Pools and hot tubs will not be drained into storm water systems. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Staff findings: No alteration of the watercourse is proposed. Written notice to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Federal Emergency Management Agency are not required. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. Staff findings: The proposed development will not alter or relocate the existing water course. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100-year flood plain. Staff findings: Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department. Staff findings: The Applicant proposes a new top of slope. The proposed top of slope location has been approved by the City Engineering Department. The proposed work within the 15-foot top of slope setback is limited to maintenance of the existing pool deck. The applicant has indicated no vegetation will be removed or damaged, and no slope or grade changes are proposed within the top of slope setback. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P33 VI.A. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A." Staff findings: The existing and proposed structure does not project into the restricted height area as defined by this standard. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications. Staff findings: A lighting plan was submitted with the application. All exterior lighting will comply with the provisions Outdoor Lighting, Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff findings: The applicant has indicated, and no documentation has been found by staff that there are any wetlands or riparian zones located within the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P34 VI.A. Exhibit B Special Review Criteria Section 26.435.040, Stream margin review. E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regard to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department. Staff findings: The Applicant is proposing an alternative top of slope location and has submitted a survey from a licensed surveyor showing the proposed top of slope and 100-year flood plain. The Applicant has coordinated with the City of Aspen Engineering and Parks Departments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. Staff findings: The proposed development meets the review criteria of Section 26.435.040.C., Stream Margin Review, as outlined in exhibit A. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P35 VI.A. Exhibit C Review Criteria for an Insubstantial Amendment of a Planned Development Section 26.445.110, Amendments. A. Insubstantial Amendments. An insubstantial amendment requires an application seeking changes to a Planned Development be processed as an insubstantial amendment to a Planned Development. An insubstantial amendment must meet the following criteria: 1. The request does not change the use or character of the development. Staff findings: The River Park Condominiums functions as a residential multi-family property. The use of the site will not change as a result of the proposed maintenance work and the addition of the hot tub. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The request is consistent with the conditions and representations in the project’s original approval, or otherwise represent an insubstantial change. Staff findings: The use of the River Park Condominiums as a residential multi-family site will not change as a result of the proposed maintenance and addition of the hot tub. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The request does not require granting a variation from the project’s allowed use(s) and does not request an increase in the allowed height or floor area. Staff findings: No changes are proposed to the approved floor area. Conducting on- site maintenance and adding a hot tub does not require a variation from the project’s allowed uses. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Any proposed changes to the approved dimensional requirements are limited to a technical nature, respond to a design parameter that could not have been foreseen during the Project Review approval, are within dimensional tolerances stated in the Project Review, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change. Staff findings: The proposed maintenance is limited to existing infrastructure originally approved on site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P36 VI.A. Exhibit D Review Criteria for a dimensional variance Section 26.314, Variances. 26.314.040, Standards applicable to variances. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, to place the hot tub between the lot line adjacent to Main street and the condo dwellings on the southeast side of the property, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code. Staff findings: The purpose of the City’s land use code is very general. It does, however, speak to the legitimate rights and reasonable expectations of property owners. Staff believes a reasonable expectation is that zoning limitations are observed and enforced as uniformly as practical. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. Staff findings: The hot tub was originally proposed to be located to the east of the existing swimming pool. Herron Park extends between the southeast side of the existing pool area and Main Street. Due to the presence of the park in this area, staff did not consider the proposed location of the hot tub to be street facing and approved its proposed location. However, the Engineering Department denied the placement of the hot tub to the east of the existing swimming pool because it would encroach into the Top of Slope, 15-foot setback. The placement of the hot tub to the west of the existing pool would satisfy stream margin setback standards and would require the minimum variance necessary to make possible reasonable use of the hot tub. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or Staff findings: Due to the presence of Herron Park between the southeast side of the existing pool area and Main Street, placing the hot tub to the east of the existing pool would comply with the land use standards that prohibit the placement of a hot tub between any lot line adjacent to a street and a structure. However, the pool areas proximity to the top of slope 15-foot setback creates a special circumstance that is unique P37 VI.A. to the parcel and not applicable to other parcels or structures in the same zone district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Staff findings: Given the unique circumstances of this parcel, staff finds that placing the hot tub to the west of the existing pool will not confer any special privilege to the applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P38 VI.A. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL LAND USE PACKET Attached is an Application for review of Development that requires Land Use Review pursuant to The City of Aspen Land Use Code: Included in this package are the following attachments: 1.Development Application Fee Policy, Fee Schedule and Agreement to Pay Application Fees Form 2.Land Use Application Form 3.Dimensional Requirements Form (if required) 4.HOA Compliance Form 5.Development Review Procedure All Application are reviewed based on the criteria established in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code is available at the City Clerk’s Office on the second floor of City Hall and on the internet at www.cityofaspen.com, City Departments, City Clerk, Municipal Code, and search Title 26. We require all applicants to hold a Pre-Application Conference with a Planner in the Community Development Department so that the requirements for submitting a complete application can be fully described. This meeting can happen in person or by phone or e-mail. Also, depending upon the complexity of the development proposed, submitting one copy of the development application to the Case Planner to determine accuracy, inefficiencies, or redundancies can reduce the overall cost of materials and Staff time. Please recognize that review of these materials does not substitute for a complete review of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. While this application package attempts to summarize the key provisions of the Code as they apply to your type of development, it cannot possibly replicate the detail or the scope of the Code. If you have questions which are not answered by the materials in this package, we suggest that you contact the staff member assigned to your case, contact Planner of the Day, or consult the applicable sections of the Aspen Land Use Code. P39 VI.A. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 Land Use Review Fee Policy The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City Departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative – meaning an application with multiple flat fees must be pay the sum of those flat fee. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff time is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amount may be reduces if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant’s request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purpose of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final submission. Upon final approval all billing shall be again reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 days or more past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.7% per month. An unpaid invoice o f 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, and unpaid invoice of 90 days or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. P40 VI.A. 700 E. Main, Aspen CORiver Park HOAJim Korpela4550.00Stream Margin ReviewRomero Group, Attn: Jim Korpela. 208 Midland Ave, P.O. Box 4100, Basalt, CO 81621jkorpela@romero-group.com970.925.3475P41VI.A. November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name and Address:_________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) _____________________________ APPLICANT: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: ___________________________ email: __________________________________ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: _____________________________ email:___________________________________ Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: Administrative or Board Review Have you included the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage _________ Lodge Pillows______ Free Market dwelling units ______ Affordable Housing dwelling units_____ Essential Public Facility square footage ________ 700 E. Main, Aspen, CO 81611 273707326013 Jim Korpela (Romero Group) 208 Midland Ave, PO Box 4100, Basalt, CO 81621 970.925.3475 jkorpela@romero-group.com David Rosenfeld (CCA) 610 E. Hyman Ave, Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.5590 davidr@cunniffe.com Replace the existing green roof and walkways at the River Park town homes at 700 E. Main. Improvements will include removing an existing stair, redesigning an existing stair, adding a new spa and water feature. Administrative and P&Z Stream Margin X 4550.00 P42 VI.A. P43 VI.A. November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE 1.Attend pre-application conference. During this one-on-one meeting, staff will determine the review process which applies to your development proposal and will identify the materials necessary to review your application. 2.Submit Development Application. Based on your pre-application meeting, you should respond to the application package and submit the requested number of copies of the complete application and the application and the appropriate processing fee to the Community Development Department. 3.Determination of Completeness. Within five working days of the date of your submission, staff will review the application, and will notify you in writing whether the application is complete or if additional materials are required. Please be aware that the purpose of the completeness review is to determine whether or not the information you have submitted is adequate to review the request, and not whether the information is sufficient to obtain approval. 4.Staff Review of Development Application. Once your application is determined to be complete, it will be reviews by the staff for compliance with the applicable standards of the Code. During the staff review stage, the application will be referred to other agencies for comments. The Planner assigned to your case or the agency may contact you if additional information is needed or if problems are identified. A memo will be written by the staff member for signature by the Community Development Director. The memo will explain whether your application complies with the Code and will list any conditions which should apply if the application is to be approved. Final approval of any Development Application which amends a recorded document, such as a plat, agreement or deed restriction, will require the applicant to prepare an amended version of that document for review and approval by staff. Staff will provide the applicant with the applicable contents for the revised plat, while the City Attorney is normally in charge of the form for recorded agreements and deed restrictions. We suggest that you not go to the trouble or expense of preparing these documents until the staff has determined that your application is eligible for the requested amendment or exemption. 5.Board Review of Application. If a public hearing is required for the land use action that you are requesting, then the Planning Staff will schedule a hearing date for the application upon determination that the Application is complete. The hearing(s) will be scheduled before the appropriate reviewing board(s). The applicant will be required to nail notice (one copy provided by the Community Development Department) to property owners within 30 feet of the subject property and post notice (sign available at the Community Development Department) of the public hearing on the site at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date (please see Attachment 6 for instructions). The Planning Staff will publish notice of the hearing in the paper for land use requests that require publication. The Planning Staff will then formulate a recommendation on the land use request and draft a memo to the reviewing board(s). Staff will supply the Applicant with a copy of the Planning Staff’s memo approximately 5 days prior to the hearing. The public hearing(s) will take place before the appropriate review boards. Public Hearings include a presentation by the Planning Staff, a presentation by the Applicant (optional), consideration of public comment, and the reviewing board’s questions and decision. (Continued on next page) P44 VI.A. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 6.Issuance of Development Order. If the land use review is approved, then the Planning Staff will issue a Development Order which allows the Applicant to proceed into Building Permit Application. 7.Receipt of Building Permit. Once you have received a copy of the signed staff approval, you may proceed to building permit review. During this time, your project will be examined for its compliance with the Uniform Building Code. It will also be checked for compliance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations which were not reviewed in detail during the one step review (this might include a check of floor area ratios, setbacks, parking, open space and the like). Fees for water, sewer, parks and employee housing will be collected if due. Any document required to be recorded, such as a plat, deed restriction or agreement, will be reviewed and recorded before a Building Permit is submitted. P45 VI.A. P46 VI.A. P47 VI.A. P48 VI.A. P49VI.A. Site Alex Ewers, P.E. 53341 Project Engineer Not to Scale River Park Condominiums 700 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Sheet Index Project Address Scope of Work The civil engineering scope of this project includes grading, drainage and site design. Stream Margin Review Set August 17 , 2018 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com River Park HOA 700 E. Main, Aspen, CO 1-COVER - Cover Sheet G1 - General Notes V1 - Existing Conditions Map C1 - Demolition Plan C2 - Site Plan C3 - Dimension Plan C4 - Grading Plan C5 - Drainage Plan C6 - Erosion Control Plan C7 - Details C8 - Details (2) C9 - Details (3) Title: Cover SheetRevision#Dwg No.River Park HOA700 E. Main, Aspen, COJob No. Drawn by: Date: File: QC: 2017-147.002 JB 08.17.2018 AE RPark-Civil-Admin118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com DateBy:1-COVER 12Of : PE:DC Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone: Jim Korpela (970) 925-3475P50 VI.A. Title: General NotesRevision#Dwg No.River Park HOA700 E. Main, Aspen, COJob No. Drawn by: Date: File: QC: 2017-147.002 JB 08.17.2018 AE RPark-Civil-Admin118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com DateBy:G1 12Of : PE:DC Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:Linetypes Legend Symbols Hatching Abbreviations P51VI.A. P52 VI.A. ACACACACACACACACACACACACACAC ACACACACACACACACACACAC Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 20'0102040Title:Demolition PlanRevision#Dwg No.River Park HOA 700 E. Main, Aspen, COJob No.Drawn by:Date:File:PE:QC:2017-147.002JB08.17.2018AERPark-Civil-DemoDC118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Date By:C1 12Of :Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:P53VI.A. ACACACACACACACACACAC ACACACACACACACACACACAC ACACACACGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGraphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 20'0102040Title:Dimension PlanRevision#Dwg No.River Park HOA 700 E. Main, Aspen, COJob No.Drawn by:Date:File:PE:QC:2017-147.002JB08.17.2018AERPark-Civil-SiteDC118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Date By:C3 12Of :Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:P54VI.A. ACACACACACACACACACAC ACACACACACACACACACACAC ACACACACGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM ACACAC ACACACGraphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 20'0102040Title:Grading PlanRevision#Dwg No.River Park HOA 700 E. Main, Aspen, COJob No.Drawn by:Date:File:PE:QC:2017-147.002JB08.17.2018AERPark-Civil-GrdDrDC118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Date By:C4 12Of :Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:P55VI.A. ACACACACACACACACACAC ACACACACACACACACACACAC ACGMACACACGMGMGMGMGMGMGM Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 20'0102040Title:Drainage PlanRevision#Dwg No.River Park HOA 700 E. Main, Aspen, COJob No.Drawn by:Date:File:PE:QC:2017-147.002JB09.18.2018AERPark-Civil-GrdDrDC118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Date By:C5 12Of :Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:P56VI.A. ACACACACACACACACACAC ACACACACACACACACACACAC ACACACACGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGraphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 20'0102040Title:Erosion ControlPlanRevision#Dwg No.River Park HOA 700 E. Main, Aspen, COJob No.Drawn by:Date:File:PE:QC:2017-147.002JB08.17.2018AERPark-Civil-GrdDrDC118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Date By:C6 12Of :Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:P57VI.A. Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 5'03510Title:DetailsRevision#Dwg No.River Park HOA 700 E. Main, Aspen, COJob No.Drawn by:Date:File:PE:QC:2017-147.002JB08.17.2018AERPark-Civil-DetailsDC118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Date By:C7 12Of :Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:P58VI.A. Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 5'03510Title:Details (2)Revision#Dwg No.River Park HOA 700 E. Main, Aspen, COJob No.Drawn by:Date:File:PE:QC:2017-147.002JB08.17.2018AERPark-Civil-DetailsDC118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Date By:C8 12Of :Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:P59VI.A. Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = ##'0######Title:Details (3)Revision#Dwg No.River Park HOA 700 E. Main, Aspen, COJob No.Drawn by:Date:File:PE:QC:2017-147.002JB08.17.2018AERPark-Civil-DetailsDC118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Date By:C9 12Of :Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:P60VI.A. EE ACACACACACACACACACACACACACAC ACACACACACACACACACACAC 79057905040 6 0 60403 790 50607080706 7905047900 7895 7895 7900 7895 7890 7885 7895 7890 7900 7905791015 060605060505067905030707 7910090 8 1103790579050404030302040201 99 98 97 96 94 93 92 92 93 93 94 97 93121314 16#1#2#27#25#26#3#4#5#6#7#8#9#10#11#12#13#24#23#22#20#21#19#18#28#31#30#29#17#16#15#14NORTH0ORIGINAL SCALE:1020401"=20'-00"TREEPROTECTION &REMOVAL PLANL115.00'SETBACKTOP O F S L O P E TOTAL CALIPER INCHES TO BE REMOVED:100.00'FLOODPLAIN SETBACKMAIN STREETSPRING STREET ADDRESSC DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTIONISSUE DATE:SHEET NUMBERREVIEWED:PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN:1WORKSHOPREVISIONS5894234567ABCDERIVER PARKC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.F89123456789W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O MLandscape Architecture · Land PlanningUrban Design · Tourism PlanningFacsimile (970) 920-1387(970) 925-8354Aspen, CO 81611120 E. Main St. Asheville · Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver Houston · Lake Tahoe · Los AngelesAugust 16, 2018KSDCDOCUMENT TITLE TOWNHOMESNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONSTREAM MARGINREVIEWAPPLICATIONPROJECT SCOPE OF WORK, TYP10 0 Y E A R F L O O D L I N E RO A R I N G F O R K R I V E R DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVEDTREE PROTECTION FENCINGDECIDUOUS TREE TO REMAINPLANT PROTECTION & REMOVAL LEGENDCONIFEROUS TREE TO REMAINCONIFEROUS TREE TO BE REMOVEDAREA OVER BELOW-GRADESTRUCTURE. TREES TO BE REMOVEDIN ORDER TO REPAIR THEBELOW-GRADE ROOF STRUCTURE.PROPERTY LINE, TYP TREE REMOVAL LEGENDTree IDBotanical NameCommon NameCaliper (in)Notes1Picea pungensColorado Blue Spruce12Removed at entry2Picea pungensColorado Blue Spruce9Removed at entry3Tilia spp.Linden10Removed on roof deck4Populus deltoidesAspen7Removed on roof deck5Populus deltoidesAspen6Removed on roof deck6Tilia spp.Linden8Removed on roof deck7Tilia spp.Linden7Removed on roof deck8Populus deltoidesAspen6Removed on roof deck9Populus deltoidesAspen9Removed on roof deck10Populus deltoidesAspen6Removed on roof deck11Tilia spp.Linden10Removed on roof deck12Tilia spp.Linden10Removed on roof deck13Tilia spp.Linden7Removed on roof deck14Populus deltoidesAspen7Removed on roof deck15Populus deltoidesAspen7Removed on roof deck16Populus deltoidesAspen7Removed on roof deck17Populus deltoidesAspen7Removed on roof deck18Populus deltoidesAspen7Removed on roof deck19Populus deltoidesAspen7Removed on roof deck20Tilia spp.Linden9Removed on roof deck21Populus deltoidesAspen7Removed on roof deck22Tilia spp.Linden9Removed on roof deck23Tilia spp.Linden10Removed on roof deck24Tilia spp.Linden10Removed on roof deck25Tilia spp.Linden10Removed on roof deck26Tilia spp.Linden7Removed on roof deck27Populus deltoidesAspen7Removed on roof deck28Picea pungensColorado Blue Spruce17Removed on roof deck29Malus spp.Crabapple6Removed on roof deck30Populus deltoidesAspen10Removed on roof deck31Malus spp.Crabapple6Removed on roof deck257EXISTINGTOWNHOMESEXISTINGTOWNHOMESEXISTINGTOWNHOMESEXISTINGTOWNHOMESEXISTINGPOOL5' SETBACK, TYP EXISTINGSHORT-TERMDROP OFF11Existing deciduous tree to remain. Do not disturb. Protect in place.REFERENCE NOTES22Existing coniferous tree to remain. Do not disturb. Protect in place.33Existing deciduous tree to be removed including roots and stump.44Existing coniferous tree to be removed including roots and stump.PLANT PROTECTION AND REMOVAL55Trees to be removed to relocate emergency access stairwell to below garage structure.66Tree protection fence.5561234TYPTYPTYPTYPTYPP61VI.A. ACACACACACACACACACACCOCOACACACACACGMGMGMGMACACGMGMGMGM COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFEARCHITECTSCSHEET NO.RIVER PARK TOWNHOMES 700 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADOISSUE:DATE:DESIGN WORKSHOPW W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O MLandscape Architecture · Land PlanningUrban Design · Tourism PlanningFacsimile (970) 920-1387(970) 925-8354Aspen, CO 81611120 E. Main St. Asheville · Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver Houston · Lake Tahoe · Los Angeles1234567ABCDEF89123456789KEY MAPNTSNORTHPROJECT NUMBER:5894SITE KEYNOTES:DETAIL /SHEET1.0PAVEMENTS, RAMPS, CURBS1.1Concrete Paving Type 12.0JOINTING2.1Control Joint2.2Expansion Joint3.0STEPS3.1Stone Steps Type 14.0SITE WALLS/ EMBANKMENTS4.1Stone Wall Type 14.2Stone Wall Type 25.0SITE FURNITURE5.1Planter Type 16.0RAILINGS, BARRIERS, FENCING6.1Gate Type 16.2Gate Type 27.0SITE LIGHTING7.1Path Light8.0DRAINAGE10.0MISCELLANEOUS ELEMENTS10.1Water Feature10.2Spa1 / L7-014 / L7-025 / L7-022 / L7-031 / L7-042 / L7-040 / L0-010 / L0-010 / L0-011 / L7-061 / L7-071 / L7-08SPEC.SECTION000000000000000000000000044313.13044313.130000000000000000000000000000000000001.2Concrete Paving Type 2 - Snowmelt2 / L7-010000001.4Stone Paving Type 14 / L7-010963406.3Fence Type 10 / L0-010000007.2Column Light2 / L7-060000007.3Step Light3 / L7-060000004.3Stone Wall Type 33 / L7-04044313.131.5Stone Paving Type 25 / L7-010963401.6Pool coping2 / L7-020963403.2Stone Steps Type 23 / L7-030000001.7Spa coping3 / L7-030963401.3Permeable Pavers - Vehicular, Snowmelt3 / L7-01000000RELATEDDETAIL1 / L7-026 / L7-012.3Stone Joint - Type 12.4Stone Joint - Type 26 / L7-027 / L7-020000000000002.5Sand Set Joint8 / L7-020000007.4Spa Light4 / L7-060000002.6Stone Wall Joint1 / L7-030000008.1Hardscape Area Drain5 / L7-060000008.2Landscape Area Drain6 / L7-06000000111Existing fencing to remain in place.MATERIALS PLAN REFERENCE NOTES222Existing tree to remain in place. Do not disturb.Planting areasP.A.333444Existing stone column to remain.Existing AC units to remain in place. Do not disturb.Relocated AC units. See MEP dwgs.555Relocated gas meters. See MEP dwgs.666Existing wall to remain.777MATERIALSPLANMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L3-01LIMIT OF PROJECT SCOPE OF WORKL3-02NORTH0ORIGINAL SCALE:5102010"=1'-00"5L7-08 6L7-086.24.14.36.33.2MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L3-01EXISTING POOL TOREMAIN10.241TYP2TYP7TYP1.6TYPLIMIT OF PROJECTSCOPE OF WORK5TYP6TYP11.1TYP1.4dTYPTOP OF SLOPE S E T B A C K TOP OF SLOP E L I N EPROPERTY LINESIDE YARD SETBACK1.4aTYP1.7TYP1.3TYP6.4TYPP62VI.A. ACACACAC ACACACACACACACACACACAC Xref F:\PROJECTS_R-Z\5894-River Park Townhomes\D-CAD\00. History\180816 - Stream Margin Review\180326 - CCA backgrounds\CCA-5894-Arch.dwg ACACACACGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMNORTH0ORIGINAL SCALE:1020401"=20'-00"LIGHTING PLANL415.00'SETBACKTOP O F S L O P E 100.00'FLOODPLAIN SETBACKMAIN STREETSPRING STREETPROPERTY LINE, TYP ADDRESSC DESIGN DATE#DESCRIPTIONISSUE DATE:SHEET NUMBERREVIEWED:PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN:1WORKSHOPREVISIONS5894234567ABCDERIVER PARKC O P Y R I G H T D E S I G N W O R K S H O P, I N C.F89123456789W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O MLandscape Architecture · Land PlanningUrban Design · Tourism PlanningFacsimile (970) 920-1387(970) 925-8354Aspen, CO 81611120 E. Main St. Asheville · Aspen · Austin · Chicago · Denver Houston · Lake Tahoe · Los AngelesAugust 16, 2018KSDCDOCUMENT TITLE TOWNHOMESNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONSTREAM MARGINREVIEWAPPLICATIONPROJECT SCOPE OF WORK, TYPRECESSED COLUMN LIGHT, TYP100 Y E A R F L O O D L I N E RO A R I N G F O R K R I V E RSTEP LIGHT, TYPSPA LIGHTRECESSED WATER FEATURE LED LIGHT5' SETBACK, TYP BOLLARDLIGHT, TYPRECESSED WATER FEATURE LIGHTLIGHTING LEGENDRECESSED COLUMN LIGHTBOLLARD LIGHTSTEP LIGHTSPA LIGHTNOTE:ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING IS LOW AND FULLY SHIELDED AND COMPLIES WITHCITY ORDINANCE 26.575.150. NO LIGHT IS DIRECTED TOWARD THE ROARINGFORK RIVER.EXISTINGPOOLEXISTINGTOWNHOMESEXISTINGTOWNHOMESEXISTINGTOWNHOMESEXISTINGTOWNHOMESSTEP LIGHTSPA LIGHTBOLLARD LIGHTRECESSED COLUMN LIGHTRECESSED WATER FEATURE LED STRIP LIGHTP63VI.A. P64VI.A. P65VI.A. P66VI.A. P67VI.A. P68VI.A. P69VI.A. P70VI.A. P71VI.A. P72VI.A. P73VI.A. P74VI.A. P75VI.A. P76VI.A. P77VI.A. P78VI.A. P79VI.A. TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Garrett Larimer, Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: Special Review Series of 2018 MEETING DATE: November 13, 2018 APPLICANT: Brent and Debbie Sembler Central Ave., St. Petersburg, FL 33707 REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams, 300 S Spring St. #202, Aspen, CO 81611 LOCATION: 222 S. Cleveland St. CURRENT ZONING: Residential Multi (RMF) SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Design Standards to replace an ADU that was removed without the necessary approvals. The ADU was approved under a that allowed subgrade ADU’s. The applicant is interested in replacing the unit in the same location, but the current code does not allow for subgrade ADU’s. MEMORANDUM City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Garrett Larimer, Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Special Review – ADU Design Standards – 222 S Cleveland St. , 2018 Brent and Debbie Sembler, 5858 BendonAdams, 300 S Spring Residential Multi-Family The applicant is seeking Special Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Design Standards to replace an ADU he necessary was approved under a code that allowed subgrade ADU’s. The applicant is interested in replacing the unit in the same the current code does not allow for STAFF POSITION: Staff recommends either recognizing the circa 1996 ADU design allowances and approving the variations requested via Special Review or, in the alternative, recognizing that the replacement of the ADU should meet todays’ design standards or be vacated pursuant to the code. Page 1 of 4 222 S Cleveland St., Resolution No. __, recommends either recognizing the circa design allowances and approving the variations eview or, in the alternative, recognizing that the replacement of the ADU should meet todays’ design the code. P80 VI.B. Page 2 of 4 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: · Special Review – Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standard Variation The applicant is requesting approval for a variation to the ADU Design Standards related the replacement of an ADU in the basement of the residence and per section 26.520.080.D. The Code allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant special review approval for variations to the ADU Design Standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. LOCATION/BACKGROUND: The subject property, 222 S Cleveland St. is a single-family residence located on a lot in the RMF zone district in the Aspen Infill area. The property was developed in the mid-1990s and received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1996. The land use code at the time allowed for subgrade ADUs, and an ADU was constructed, out of a number of mitigation options, in the basement to mitigate for the affordable housing impact fees generated by the development. Although construction of an ADU is an acceptable form of mitigation, the land use code does not require rental of the unit. Since the property received its Certificate of Occupancy, elements of the ADU were removed without the necessary approval. A building permit was submitted and issued for the renovation of the residence and minor changes to the ADU, which still maintained minimum requirements to be considered an ADU. During an inspection of the property for the renovation, it was noted by City staff that the ADU did not have the required kitchen appliances. The specific design requirements have changed over time, but since the late-nineties there have been defined requirements for the minimum components needed to qualify as an ADU. The current code requires that an ADU contain a full kitchen including a 4-burner stove, a refrigerator, and a sink. The unit must also have storage, a bathroom, and access to the unit’s mechanical systems and electrical panel among other standards. A brief history of ADU requirements is attached as Exhibit D. Once it was discovered the ADU did not exist and was required, staff informed the applicant of their options: to replace the ADU meeting current code standards, to apply for special review to replace the ADU with variations from the current code requirements, or legally remove it. The applicant is interested in replacing the unit with variations from today’s standards. CURRENT REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Special Review approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to replace an ADU that was removed without approval. Special Review is required when the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards are not met. If the Planning and Zoning Commission feels it is appropriate for the unit to be replaced in the previously approved location, the following standards will need to be varied via Special Review: 1. ADU’s are required to have more than 50% of the finished floor level above grade and be detached from the primary residence. The proposed ADU would be attached to the primary residence and located entirely below grade. This is the original condition. 2. The amount of storage provided is below the minimum storage requirements of the code. The current code requires 10% of the unit’s square footage be provided for storage. Currently one closet is shown at approximately 4.3% of the units overall square footage. This appears to be the original condition. 3. The current code requires a full kitchen which includes a sink, dishwasher, 24 square feet of counter space, 15 cubic feet of cabinets, a 30inch wide oven with 4-burner stove top and 20 cubic foot refrigerator with a freezer. o The application does not include a dishwasher. o The refrigerator is shown at approximately 6 cubic feet. o An oven with two-burner stove is provided. P81 VI.B. Page 3 of 4 o Approximately 4.7 sq. ft. of counter top space is shown. Cabinet volume is not shown, but based on the counter surface area, is likely to be below the minimum requirement. 4. An interior connection between the primary residence and the ADU exists and is proposed to remain. This appears to be the original condition. In order to allow for an entry connection between the two units, current code requires special review and approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission is required. 5. The current code requires the ADU have separately accessible utility and mechanical systems. The primary residence and ADU share mechanical equipment, which is located in a mechanical room outside the interior connection between the ADU and primary residence. This appears to be the original condition. 6. The current code requires washer and dryer hookups, none are proposed. Staff and the applicant have discussed the applicability of older ADU regulations given the era the ADU was originally constructed. On November 8th, 1999, which is after the unit was built, the ADU Design Standards were amended and included more detail, especially for the kitchen requirements. Under the 1999 amended code requirements, the earliest available with specific standards, a number of items are also not met. The elements of the ADU that don’t comply with the 1999 Code include: 1. The storage provided must be 10% of the units net livable, the plan shows approximately 4.3%. 2. The interior connection must have been approved by the P&Z Commission. No approval was originally given, as it was not required at the time the ADU was initially built. It’s important to note that the kitchen complies with all requirements of the 1999 code. Issues for Discussion: The application is reviewed under the current code for replacement purposes but given the unique nature of this situation and the fact that existing infrastructure for an ADU exists, the unit could be replaced essentially in its original condition with certain variations from today’s standards. Staff also recognizes that the ADU was removed without any formal approval and there are other paths in the current code to reestablish or remove the unit. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff acknowledges approval was originally granted to place the unit in the basement, but the unit was removed illegally, and a land use application is required to bring the property back into compliance. All land use applications are subject to the current code in which they apply, however, this is a unique situation in that the larger house is already constructed and the ADU is proposed to be located where it was originally. At this time, staff does not recommend the unit be replaced, given the standards in the current code. Under the Purpose clause of the land use code for ADUs, the code notes anticipate that “ADUs and carriage houses represent viable housing opportunities for working residents,” and that the ADUs provide additional housing opportunities in the town. The purpose section also notes that “detached ADUs and carriage houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident and that “Aspen desires occupied ADUs and carriage houses”. The commission can choose to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Special Review request to vary the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards and allow the ADU to be replaced in the basement. If the Planning and Zoning commission finds replacing the ADU in the basement appropriate, it can choose to include variations for the other standards that have not been met or can require that the applicant comply with as many as of the standards as the commission feels appropriate. P82 VI.B. Page 4 of 4 If the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts the replacement of the ADU, staff recommends the following variations be granted, given the existing construction. 1. Allow for the 100% subgrade location of the ADU. 2. Since the mechanical systems of the primary residence and ADU are located in a shared mechanical room, the interior access requirement would need to be varied to allow for the access between the unit and primary residence to remain. 3. Meet 1999 kitchen standards including: an oven, a stove with two burners, a sink, a refrigerator with a minimum capacity of 6 cubic feet, and a freezer. 4. Reduce the minimum storage or closet space required to allow the proposed 4.3% of the units overall square footage. PROPOSED MOTION (WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): The Resolution as written grants approval of a Special Review request of the applicant allowing for a subgrade ADU with minimal kitchen facilities and an interior connection, among other items. If the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to approve the request the can use the following motion: “I move to approve Resolution No.___, Series of 2018 to vary the ADU Design Standards to allow for the ADU at 222 S Cleveland St. to be replaced in the originally approved location in the basement as shown in Exhibit A.” ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS: #1 If the Planning and Zoning Commission does not wish to grant the Special Review request, the Planning and Zoning Commission can make a motion to deny the Resolution and use the following motion: “I move to deny Resolution #___ series of 2018 to grant a variation to the ADU Design Standards via Special Review.” Attachments: Exhibit A – Proposed Drawing Exhibit B – ADU Design Standards - Review Criteria Exhibit C – Special Review – Review Criteria Exhibit D – Summary of ADU Code Requirements Exhibit E - Application P83 VI.B. RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A VARIATION TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DESIGN STANDARDS IN ORDER TO REPLACE AN ILLEGALLY REMOVED ADU IN THE ORIGINAL LOCATION IN THE BASEMENT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED LOT 1, FELLMAN LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED OCTOBER 31, 1994 IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT PAGE 67, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 222 S. CLEVELAND ST. Parcel No. 2737-182-040-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Chris Bendon at BendonAdams LLC, on behalf of Brent and Debbie Sembler, requesting Special Review approval for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards to replace an illegally removed ADU in the original location in the basement at the property at 222 S Cleveland St; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Special Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on November 13, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution #___, Series of 2018, by a _____ to _____ (___ - ___) vote, granting approval of Special Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Special Review for a Variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards P84 VI.B. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design standards via Special Review as identified in the attached Exhibit A, with the following conditions: 1. A 100% subgrade location of the ADU is permitted. 2. The mechanical systems of the primary residence and ADU are located in a shared mechanical room, the interior access requirement is varied to allow for the access between the unit and primary residence to remain. 3. The 1999 kitchen standards shall be met, including: an oven, a stove with two burners, a sink, a refrigerator with a minimum capacity of 6 cubic feet, and a freezer. 4. A reduction in the minimum storage or closet space required is granted to allow a minimum fifteen square foot closet. 5. The deed restriction shall be updated to comply with Section 26.520.070, which requires lease terms of no less than six months. Section 2: This approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning, building, or any other applicable code regulations within the City of Aspen’s Municipal Code. The applicant must submit a building permit application demonstrating compliance with all applicable codes prior to any development on site. Section 3: 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, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: 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 5: 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 separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on November 13, 2018. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ____________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair P85 VI.B. ATTEST: ____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Proposed Floor Plan of the ADU P86 VI.B. Exhibit 11 P87VI.B. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 1 of 6 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.520.050 MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY 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: 1. An ADU must contain between three hundred (300) and eight hundred (800) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be a closet or storage area. A carriage house must contain between eight hundred (800) and one thousand two hundred (1,200) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be closet or storage area. NOT MET 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; YES b. An ADU or carriage house must have separately accessible utility systems, controls and disconnect panels. This does not preclude shared services; YES Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards P88 VI.B. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 2 of 6 c. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a full-size kitchen containing at a minimum: i. Minimum 30-inch wide oven, 4-burner stovetop. ii. A sink, dishwasher, and a minimum 20 cubic foot refrigerator with freezer. iii. Minimum 24 square feet of counter space and a minimum of 15 cubic feet of cabinet space. iv. Kitchens may not be located in a closet. NOT MET d. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a ¾ or larger bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a toilet and a shower. YES e.    An ADU or carriage house shall contain washer/dryer hookups, with a dryer vent rough-in, to accommodate minimum 27-inch wide washer/dryer units. NOT MET 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 parking space shall not be located in tandem, or “stacked,” with a space for the primary residence. YES 4. The finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit’s net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. NOT MET 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 area or connected to the primary residence by an exterior breezeway or trellis shall still qualify as detached. No interior connections to th e primary residence, or portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or carriage house as detached. NOT MET P89 VI.B. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 3 of 6 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: 1. An ADU must contain between three hundred (300) and eight hundred (800) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be a closet or storage area. A carriage house must contain between eight hundred (800) and one thousand two hundred (1,200) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be closet or storage area. Staff Response: The ADU is shown at 355 sq./ft. which complies with the minimum size requirements of the current code and 1999 code (original approval granted under mid- 90’s Land Use Code). The closet measures approximately 15.3 sq./ft. which equates to approximately 4.3% of the overall unit square footage, which is below today’s standards and the 1999 standards. Since the proposed storage is below the minimum size 6.    An ADU or carriage house shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the property is located. DOES NOT APPLY 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. YES 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, building code requirements related to adequate natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression and sound attenuation between living units. This standard may not be varied. YES 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 and enforcement. This standard may not be varied. YES P90 VI.B. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 4 of 6 requirements, staff finds this criterion to be not met, and Special Review approval would be required. 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; Staff Response: An exterior stair provides access to the ADU. Interior access is also provided from the primary structure which, along with the subgrade location, requires Special Review and approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This standard has remained unchanged from the 1999 version, attached ADU’s with interior connections weren’t prohibited when the unit was originally approved. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. An ADU or carriage house must have separately accessible utility systems, controls and disconnect panels. This does not preclude shared services; Staff Response: The floor plan for the ADU shows an existing mechanical room accessible from the ADU through the interior access to the primary structure. Since shared services are allowed and the ADU has access to this mechanical room, staff finds this criterion to be met. c. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a full-size kitchen containing at a minimum: i. Minimum 30-inch wide oven, 4-burner stovetop. ii. A sink, dishwasher, and a minimum 20 cubic foot refrigerator with freezer. iii. Minimum 24 square feet of counter space and a minimum of 15 cubic feet of cabinet space. iv. Kitchens may not be located in a closet. Staff Response: The proposed kitchen is shown to meet the 1999 code requirements for a kitchen in an ADU. The house was built under a mid-1990’s code and the kitchen standards were silent. It’s been discussed between City Staff and the applicant that the 1999 standards, which adopted more clear guidelines for a kitchen in an ADU, may be used to provide guidance for the kitchen requirements. A two-burner stove top, sink, kitchen cabinets, refrigerator and freezer (minimum 6 cubic ft. capacity) are proposed, which would meet these earlier standards. The proposed kitchen does not meet the current code requirements. Under today’s code a four-burner stove would be required, a 20-cubic foot refrigerator, dishwasher, and 24 sq./ft. of counter top would be required under the current code. Since the proposed kitchen does not meet the current P91 VI.B. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 5 of 6 standards, staff finds this criterion to not be met, and Special Review approval would be required. d. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a ¾ or larger bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a toilet and a shower. Staff Response: The code requirements in 1999 are the same as todays requirements. The proposed ADU contains a shower with a tub, toilet, and sink. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e. An ADU or carriage house shall contain washer/dryer hookups, with a dryer vent rough-in, to accommodate minimum 27-inch wide washer/dryer units. Staff Response: The proposed ADU does not contain a washer and dryer and no hookups or venting rough-ins are shown. The 1999 code did not require washer or dryers or associated hook-ups. The applicant is requesting to replace the unit to the 1999 standards. Since the ADU does not meet the current code requirement, staff finds this criterion to be not met, and Special Review approval would be required. 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 parking space shall not be located in tandem, or “stacked,” with a space for the primary residence. Staff Response: At least one parking space is provided for use by the resident of the ADU, staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit’s net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Staff Response: ADU is entirely below grade. The code under which this property was approved and built did not prohibit subgrade ADU’s and was in conformance with the applicable code at the time. The applicant is requesting to replace the ADU in the same location, staff finds this criterion to be not met, and Special Review approval would be required. 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 area or connected to the primary residence by an exterior breezeway or trellis shall still qualify as detached. No interior connections to the primary residence, or portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or carriage house as detached. Staff Response: The code in which the property was originally built allowed attached ADU’s and did not prohibit interior connections. If the commission determines it’s appropriate to replace the ADU in the originally approved location, it’s impractical given the circumstances to require the applicant to comply with the requirements of this section since the illegal removal of the kitchen is all that triggered the replacement of the ADU process. That being said, the ADU does not comply with the requirements of this P92 VI.B. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 6 of 6 standard, and therefore, staff finds this criterion to not be met, and Special Review approval would be required. 6. An ADU or carriage house shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the property is located. Staff Response: Accessory dwelling units are an allowed use in the R/MF zone district. An analysis of height, floor area, and other dimensional requirements of this zone district are not included in this review. The applicable dimensional requirements of this zone district are legally established and are not subject to review as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 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 stairs are open to above but are snow melted, staff finds this criterion to be met. 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, building code requirements related to adequate natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression and sound attenuation between living units. This standard may not be varied. Staff Response: Light and ventilation is provided by windows between the unit and the stairwell, and the stairs provide emergency egress from the residence. The assemblies separating the ADU and primary residence are not being altered in this scope of work and are presumed to comply with the requirements of the code at the time the structure was built. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 and enforcement. This standard may not be varied. Staff Response: The property is deed restricted according to the deed restriction with Reception #383889. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P93 VI.B. Exhibit C Special Review – ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 1 of 3 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.520.080.D MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY D. Special Review. An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design standards shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted, mailed, and published pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within a Historic Overlay District, 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: 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. NOT 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. YES Special Reivew - Variation of Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards P94 VI.B. Exhibit C Special Review – ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 2 of 3 D. Special Review. An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design standards shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted, mailed, and published pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within a Historic Overlay District, 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: 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. Staff Response: The ADU was built according to the applicable code requirements of the mid-1990’s. In general staff feels the ADU is a livable unit but is concerned with the likelihood of the unit’s occupancy in the current location. The ADU is below grade but meets the minimum size requirements, provides natural light to the unit, has storage, an adequate bathroom, and serviceable kitchen, but would need variances to meet the minimum requirements for multiple items in the ADU. Overall the unit is livable, however, given the purpose statement listed below, staff does not find that the ADU promotes the purpose of the ADU and Carriage House Program. Because of this, staff finds this criterion to not be met. 26.520.010 Purpose The purpose of the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and carriage house program is to promote the longstanding community goal of socially, economically and environmentally responsible development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between local 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 support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base within the City 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 caretaker 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 P95 VI.B. Exhibit C Special Review – ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 3 of 3 more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a community goal of housing the workforce. Aspen desires occupied ADUs and carriage houses; therefore, detached ADUs and carriage houses which are deed restricted as "for sale" units, according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, and sold according to the procedures established in the guidelines, provide for certain floor area and affordable housing credit incentives. 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 Response: The ADU is subordinate to the primary residence in every way. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P96 VI.B. Exhibit D Summary of ADU Design Standards Page 1 of 2 Below is a summary of requirements from the mid-90’s, 1999, and current code: Mid-1990’s code (the original ADU was approved under this code): - Unit Size = 300-700 square feet of net livable - Deed restricted, limited to rental periods of no less than 6 months - One parking space - For attached units (different requirements for detached units) o Subject to dimensional requirements of the zone district 1999 code: - Unit size, between 300-700 square feet - Must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit o Must be separately accessible from the exterior, interior entrance must be approved by P&Z via special review. o Must have separately accessible utilities. o Must contain a kitchen containing at a minimum an over, a two-burner stove, a sink, a refrigerator with a minimum of 6 cu. ft. of capacity and a freezer. o A bathroom containing a minimum sink, toilet, and shower. - One parking space - Must comply with requirements of the zone district - Roof should prevent snow shed on the entrance, and if the entrance is accessed via stairs, a measure to reduce snow accumulation should be provided. - Shall be deed restricted and comply with the other requirements of the code, including building code requirements. Current Code (2015): - Unit size between 300-700 sq. ft., and 10% must be a closet or storage area. - Must function as a separate dwelling unit o Must be separately accessible from the exterior, interior connections must be approved by P&Z via special review. o Must have separate utility systems, does not preclude shared services. o Shall contain a full-sized kitchen including: § 30” over with four-burner stove § Sink, dishwasher, a minimum 20 cu. ft. refrigerator with freezer. § 24 Sq. ft. of counter space and 15 cu. ft. of cabinet space § Kitchens can’t be in closets o Must contain a ¾ or larger bathroom with at least a sink, toilet, and shower o Washer/dryer hookups with dryer vent rough-in to accommodate a minimum 27” wide washer/dryer unit. - One parking space - Must be 50% above grade - Must be detached from primary residence. Can be above a detached garage that’s connected to the primary residence by breezeway counts. No interior connections are allowed. - Must comply with the dimensional requirements of the zone district. P97 VI.B. Exhibit D Summary of ADU Design Standards Page 2 of 2 - Roof should prevent snow and ice shedding on the entrance of the ADU. If accessed via stairs snow and ice accumulation must be reduced. - Must comply with building code requirements. - Must be deed restricted and registered with APCHA. It is important to note, that today the code does not allow new ADUs to be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Existing ADUs are able to stay, and ADUs that have had alterations without a permit are able to request Special Review from P&Z to be restored. Additionally, owners who are interested in full removal of their ADUs are able to pay a cash-in-lieu and/or land a housing certificate to buy out of it. When considering the alternatives, it’s important to understand the cash in lieu option and why it’s provide in the code. The total mitigation required for a development is determined by first calculating the number of full time equivalent employees (FTE’s), or the number of employees housed or generated by the development. For new residential development the number of employees housed in a unit is used as a basis to establish the FTE for that development. For the removal of an ADU, the code requires mitigation for .38 FTE’s. This figure is based on the following methodology: the average ADU is a studio or one- bedroom unit that houses 1.5 FTE’s. ADU’s have an occupancy rate of approximately 25%, so 1.5 (FTEs)x.25=.375, which is rounded up to .38 FTE’s. Once you establish the number of FTE’s generated by a development activity, you multiply the FTE number by the cash-in-lieu rate. The cash-in-lieu rate is based on affordable housing category designation. The cash-in-lieu rate was established by City Council with help from city staff and consultants and is updated every 5 years. The most recent cash-in-lieu rate was updated via Ordinance 5, Series of 2018. The cash- in-lieu rate is established by subtracting the unit sales revenue per FTE from the total cost of development per FTE. The cost of development looked at “hard” and “soft” costs associated with the construction of units in Aspen. The development cost was an average of current construction costs and anticipated future costs of construction. The category designation required for each type of development is established by the land use code. The mitigation for the removal of an ADU requires .38 FTE’s at a Category 2 designation. The category 2 cash in lieu rate is $342,599.02, therefore, the total cash-in-lieu fee for the removal of the ADU is $130,187.63. - P98 VI.B. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM September 14, 2018 Mr. Ben Anderson Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Sembler ADU – 222 So. Cleveland Avenue M r. Anderson: Please accept this application for Special Review to reinstall an Accessory Dwelling Unit at the 222 South Cleveland Street property. The property was originally developed in the mid-1990s with a single- family home and an Accessory Dwelling Unit. During the course of various owners and use over the following 20+ years, the kitchen of the ADU was removed. The absent kitchen was noted by the City during a recent building code inspection for unrelated remodeling work and the City requested the property owner either reinstall the ADU (by installing a kitchen) or provide a fee-in-lieu payment mandated when an ADU is removed. This application proposes to reinstall the ADU by installing a kitchen. The City’s ADU standards have changed over the years. The Land Use Code section applicable to ADUs in the mid 1990’s, attached as Exhibit 2, provided minimal guidance. ADUs were encouraged to be attached to the primary unit, accessed from an alley if one existed, subtle in their character, and subordinate to the primary residence. The code allowed for subgrade units and internal connections. The code also provided minimal guidance on the minimum kitchen facilities needed for an ADU. The ADU in question was approved and built under this mid-1990s code. Exhibit E- Application P99 VI.B. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM The lack of specificity regarding a kitchen was addressed during a 2001 Code update. The revisions provided minimum sizing for kitchen elements among other changes to the ADU program. In discussing this issue with Community Development staff, it was decided to refer to the 2001 code amendment language for guidance regarding kitchen requirements. While the ADU is not subject to these standards, the update provided a much better description of a kitchen and an easier target to agree upon. Due to the ADU being developed under a previous code, the proposed re-installation does not comply with the current ADU standards. Without redeveloping the entire property, adherence to the current standards is physically impractical and an unreasonable request in light of a simple kitchen installation. For example, current standards require an ADU to be detached from the primary residence. Without a complete redevelopment of the property, compliance with this requirement is impractical. Recognizing the existing physical realities and retrofit aspect of re- installing the ADU necessitates a Special Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Special Review criteria are addressed in Exhibit 1. Plans for the ADU are attached along with pictures of existing conditions. We look forward to working with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me for a site visit or additional information that will aid your review. Kind Regards, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC Attachments: 1. Review Criteria 2. 1990s ADU Standards 2.1 2001 ADU Standards 3. Pre-Application Summary 4. Application form 5. Agreement to Pay form 6. HOA form 7. Authorization to represent 8. Proof of ownership 9. Vicinity Map 10. Photos of existing conditions 11. ADU Retrofit Plan P100 VI.B. Exhibit 1 Review Criteria 26.520.080.D. Special Review. An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design standards shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted, mailed, and published pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within a Historic Overlay District, 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: 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. Response – The unit continues the tradition of incorporating small-scale affordable housing opportunities into existing neighborhoods, allowing employees to live within the fabric of the existing community. The unit allows complete independent living for a resident having no caretaker relationship with the property owner. The unit also has the ability to house a caretaker or caregiver with a more direct relationship with the property owner. This flexibility increases the likelihood the unit will house a local working resident. The unit has high (9-foot) ceilings and all interior spaces are finished in a comparable manner as the main house. (the photo to the right shows the bathroom finishes.) The unit is provided with its own dedicated parking space and downtown is a 5-minute walk. The unit’s general livability is very high. The ADU is consistent with the purposes of the zone district. This property is zoned Residential Multi-Family. The purpose of the district is as follows: The purpose of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District is to provide for the use of land for intensive long-term residential purposes, short term vacation rentals, and customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District are typically those found in the Aspen infill area, within walking distance of the center of the City or lands on transit routes and other lands with existing concentrations of attached residential dwellings and mixed attached and detached residential dwellings. P101 VI.B. Exhibit 1 Review Criteria This property is developed with a single-family home (a permitted use) providing housing for long-term residential purposes and an Accessory Dwelling Unit (a permitted use accessory to a primary dwelling) also providing housing for long-term residential purposes. The property and this ADU are reflective of and supported by the purpose of the zone district. 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. Response – The Accessory Dwelling Unit is subordinate to the primary residence in every respect. The unit is smaller and is accessed from the alley-side of the property. The ADU has only one of the three parking spaces. The ADU enables either complete independent living or a living situation where internal access to the primary unit is desirable or necessary. This enables the unit to serve an employee with no operational or employment relationship to the primary unit or a caretaker or caregiver with direct access needs to the primary unit. While ADUs are not required to be rented or occupied, this flexibility provides a higher likelihood the unit will be used to house a local working resident. The unit’s access is located along the alley side of the property. The access is simple, providing a code compliant and appropriate front door to the unit while remaining compatible with the architecture and subordinate to the primary house. The primary entrance to the house continues to read as a single-family home. The property is landscaped with mature vegetation and the ADU is treated with the same level of landscape treatment. The property has no historical significance. P102 VI.B. Exhibit 21990s ADU RegsP103VI.B. P104VI.B. P105VI.B. P106VI.B. Exhibit 2.1P107VI.B. P108VI.B. P109VI.B. P110VI.B. P111VI.B. P112VI.B. P113VI.B. P114VI.B. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: August 28, 2018 PLANNER: Ben Anderson, 429.2765 PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 222. S. Cleveland PARCEL ID# 273718204004 REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, BendonAdams DESCRIPTION: (Existing and Proposed Conditions) The home at 222 S. Cleveland contains a deed restricted, “voluntary” Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). When approved with the original development of the property, the ADU was located in the basement. At some point, the kitchen facilities required of the ADU were removed. During a recent zoning inspection for a remodel of the home, the absence of the ADU kitchen was noted and a progressive enforcement process was initiated by Claude Salter, Zoning Enforcement Officer. While the Land Use Code provides a process for the removal of ADUs, the City can find no evidence that such a process has ever been initiated at 222 S. Cleveland. The owner of 222 S. Cleveland has two options to remedy this situation. The first path would pursue administrative approval of the removal of the ADU and associated deed restriction. To remove the deed restriction pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.520.090.C, the applicant shall provide mitigation for 0.38 Category 2 Full-time Equivalent employees in the form of Affordable Housing Certificates or fee-in-lieu. The current fee-in-lieu rate for Category 2 is $342,599.02, per FTE so mitigation by that method would be 0.38 x $342,599.02 = $130,187.62. An inspection to confirm that the space no longer qualifies as a dwelling unit shall be issued prior to the release of the deed restriction. The release shall be accepted by the City Attorney and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The second path would re-establish the physical requirements of the ADU in its previous location. This requires special review of the Planning and Zoning Commission; subject to 26.520.080.D. The requirement for the Board review stems from the fact that the current Land Use Code standards do not allow for subgrade units, and currently require kitchen features that are significantly different than those that were originally installed in this ADU. Staff would be supportive of this outcome with P&Z, but it is an outcome that is not able to be approved administratively. If this outcome were approved by P&Z, the deed restriction for the ADU remains in place. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.520 Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code Exhibit 3 P115 VI.B. REVIEW BY: • Staff for Complete Application Option 1 Community Development Director Option 2 • Planning and Zoning Commission REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): • Option 1 – Amendment of an ADU or Carriage House Development Order • Option 2 – Special Review – for a variation of an ADU design standard PUBLIC HEARING: • Option 1 – No • Option 2 - Yes. It is the responsibility of applicant to coordinate with Planning staff to meet the notice requirements for the public hearing. PLANNING FEES: Option 1 $975 deposit for 3 hours of staff time (Admin Review) Option 2 $3,250 deposit for 10 hours of staff time (P&Z Review) APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should first be submitted in a paper copy.  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application)  A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. Essential to this case is a floor plan and description of the lower level depicting the past, existing, and proposed conditions for the ADU.  Written responses to applicable review criteria. P116 VI.B. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  1 digital PDF copy of the complete application.  Total deposit for review of the application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P117 VI.B. Sembler ADU - 222 So. Cleveland Street 2737-182-04-004 Brent and Debbie Sembler 5858 Central Avenue; St Petersburg, FL 33707 727.384.6000 Brent.Sembler@Sembler.com BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St #202 970.925.2855 Chris@BendonAdams.com Re-Installation of an Accessory Dwelling Unit within an existing home. Home previously had an ADU in the proposed location. Replacement ADU is proposed to meet Land Use Code requirements applicable upon its previous installation. Special Review - Variation of ADU design standards n/a n/a 1 (existing) n/a n/a 3,250 Exhibit 4 P118 VI.B. CITY OF ASPEN CoMMuNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENJI Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”)and Please type or print in all capsAddressofProperty:222 So.Cleveland St.;Aspen Property Owner Name:Brent &Debbie Sembler Representative Name (if different from Property Owner)__BendonAdams Billing Name and Address -Send Bills to: Brent Semblec;5858 Central Avenue;St Petersburg,FL 33707 Contact info for billing:e-mail:Brent.Sembler@sembler.com Phone:727.384.6000 I understand that the City has adopted,via Ordinance No.30,Series of 2017,review fees for Land Use applications andpaymentofthesefeesisaconditionprecedenttodeterminingapplicationcompleteness.I understand that as the propertyownerthatIamresponsibleforpayingallfeesforthisdevelopmentapplication. For flat fees and referral fees:I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated.I understand that these flat fees arenon-refundable. $.flat fee for __________________. $.____________ __________________________________________________________ $._____________ _____________________________ For Deposit cases only:The City and I understand that because of the size,nature or scope of the proposed project,it is notpossibleatthistimetoknowthefullextentortotalcostsinvolvedinprocessingtheapplication.I understand that additionalcostsoverandabovethedepositmayaccrue.I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to completeprocessing,review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for projectconsideration,unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned totheCityshallbeconsideredbytheCityasbeingreceivedbyme.I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation ofaninvoicebytheCityforsuchservices. I have read,understood,and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment.I agree to paythefollowinginitialdepositamountsforthespecifiedhoursofstafftime.I understand that payment of a deposit does notrenderandapplicationcompleteorcompliantwithapprovalcriteria.If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit,IagreetopayadditionalmonthlybillingstotheCitytoreimbursetheCityfortheprocessingofmyapplicationatthehourlyrateshereinafterstated. $__3,250 depositfor 10 hoursofCommunityDevelc above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $_________________deposit for ______________ hours of Engineering deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: November 2017 City of Aspen I 130 5.Galena St.1(970)920 5090 $.___________flat fee for flat fee for flat fee for Additional time Signature: Jessica Garrow,AICP PRINT Name:Brent SemblerCommunityDevelopmentDirector Owner;222 So.Cleveland St;AspenCityUse: Title: ______________________________________________ Fees Due:$Received $_______ Case #_________________________ Exhibit 5 P119 VI.B. Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner ("I"): Name: Brent Sembler Email: Brent.Sembler@sembler.com Address of 222 So. Cleveland; Aspen, CO 81611 Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) Phone No.: 727.384.6000 @ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. D This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. D This property is subject to a horn owners association rivate covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use ap Ii proved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy an applicability, meaning or understand that this docu d the c· of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the 1 ate enants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I cument. Owner signature: Owner printed name: =B.;..re""'n"""t"""S:;..;e=m"""b"""l""'e.;...r _____ _ or, Attorney signature: ____________ date: ____ _ Attorney printed name: ___________ _ Exhibit 6 P120 VI.B. September 101 2018 Jessica Garrow,AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So.Galena St. Aspen,Colorado 81611 BendonAdams RE:222 So.Cleveland Street;Aspen,CO. Ms.Garrow: Please accept this letter authorizing and BendonAdams,LLC,to represent our ownership interests in 222 South Cleveland Street and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I contact me. can assist,please do not hesitate to Property —222 So.Cleveland Street;Aspen,CO 81611 300 SO SPRING ST I 202 I ASPEN,CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM Legal Description —Lot 1,Fellman Lot Split Parcel ID —7 -182-04-004 Debbie Sembler Br 5858 St.Petersburg,FJ3707 727.384.6000 Brent.Sembler@sembler.com Exhibit 7 P121 VI.B. MEMORANDUM OF OWNERSHIP-ACCOMMODATION NO LIABILITY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., A DULY LICENSED TITLE INSURANCE AGENT IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. BY EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DISCLOSES THE FOLLOWING: GRANTEE IN THE LAST INSTRUMENT OF CONVEYANCE BRENT SEMBLER and DEBBIE SEMBLER LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1, FELLMAN LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat thereof recorded October 31, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 67. DEED OF TRUST APPARENTLY UNRELEASED DEED OF TRUST FROM : BRENT W. SEMBLER and DEBBIE N. SEMBLER TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF THE COUNTY OF FOR THE USE OF : BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. TO SECURE : $3,500,000.00 DATED : DECEMBER 10, 2015 RECORDED : DECEMBER 23, 2015 RECEPTION NO. : 625823 LIENS AND JUDGMENTS (AGAINST LAST GRANTEE) APPARENTLY UNRELEASED NONE THIS INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR SOLE USE AND BENEFIT AND IS FURNISHED AS AN ACCOMMODATION. THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE PUBLIC RECORDS, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO, OR EXAMINATION OF, INSTRUMENTS WHICH PURPORTS TO AFFECT THE REAL PROPERTY. THE INFORMATION IS NEITHER GUARANTEED NOR CERTIFIED, AND IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, OPINION OF TITLE, NOR A GUARANTY OF TITLE, AND OUR LIABILITY IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT CHARGED FOR THIS REPORT. EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: Authorized Officer JOB NO: ACCOM2840 Exhibit 8 P122 VI.B. P123 VI.B. P124 VI.B. P125 VI.B. Exhibit 9 222 South Cleveland Street – Vicinity Map P126 VI.B. 222 South Clevelandvisuals of home and exisƟ ng conditionsaspen | colorado123Exhibit 10Site photos from northwest property corner and from southwest corner looking along alleyExisting access to ADUfrom alley side of propertyInterior pictures showing entry, bathroom, interior connection, kitchen locationP127 VI.B. Exhibit 11 P128VI.B. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1— EXHIBIT �Z� S• C�ec,,� �T � Aspen, CO D 1 l L SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: l\Jo V 1 � 0 ,,0 , 20 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, (name,please print) being or represAnting an Applicant to the CityMf Aspen, -Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public noiice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: t, Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section.of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. 'A copy of the publication is attached hereto. 'Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was* composed of letters not less than one inch in height:' Said notice-was posted at least fifteen(15)•days prior to the public hearing on the_day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which, contains the information described in Section 26:304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted•prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at-least thirty(3 0) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. Ata minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and.new Specially Planned Areas, are subject.to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. IL%—OL OIL-- Signature The fore oing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowle ged b re me this day ofg,� , 201y,by NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ' RE:222 S ClevelandSt. ��*7�7� HAND �77� ��77-� T Public Hearing:Tuesday,November 13,2018; WITNESS MY HAND AND OFMCUL SEAL 4:30 PM MeetingLocation:City Hall,Sister Cities Room 130S. alena St.,Aspen,C081611 Project Location:222 S Cleveland Street;Legally My commission expires: Described as LOT 1.FELLMAN LOT SPLIT,accord- ing to the Plat thereof recorded October 31,1994 in . Plat Book 35 at Page 67. Description:The subject property was originally ap- proved with a voluntary ADU in the basement.The - ADU has since been removed without the necessa- ry approvals.The applicant is interested in replacing Notary Public the ADU in the basement to bring the property back into compliance.Under the current code,sub-grade ADU's do not comply with the ADU design stand- ards.In order to replace the ADUinthis location,a KAREN REED PATTERSON variation from the ADU design standards is required and must be granted through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. NOTARY PUBLIC Lard Use Reviews Req: Special Review—ADU Design Standards STATE OF COLORADO Decision Making Body: Planning and Zoning ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: NOTARY ID#19964002767 Commission - Applicant: Brent and Debbie Sembler,5858 �ppOFTSEPiCTBLICATl•ON My Commission Expires February 15,2020 Central Ave.,St Petersburg,FL 33707 More Information: For further information related to the project,contact Garrett Larimer at the City of IOTOGRAPH OF TSE POSTED NOTICE(SIGA9 Aspen Community Development Department,130 S. Galena St.,Aspen'DO,970.429 aspen.com. 39' QST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED gemett.larimer®ciryotaspen.com. Published in the Aspen Times on October 18,2018. fT 71.f A TT 0000321858 i lYf[1LL LPPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF AMTRAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 CITY OF • MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 222 So. Cleveland St. , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 13, 2018 , 2018 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) i, Chris Bendon (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060(E)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official Paper or paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. V Posting of notice: By posting of notice,which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,waterproof Materials,which was not less than twenty two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) Inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15)days prior to the public hearing on the 25 day of October 2018 'to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice(sign)is attached hereto: Mailing of notice. By mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department,which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E) (2) of The Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S mail to all owners of property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty(60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,summarized and attached,was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) March, 2016 City of Apen 1130 S. Galena St.1(970)920 5050 CITY OF • MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, To affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) clays prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. the names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum,Subdivision,Spas or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Development,and new Specially Planned Areas,are subject to this notices requirement. Rezoning or te;rt amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to he changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title,to whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of new land use regulation,or otherwise,the requirement of an accurate survey map or other significant legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real estate property in the ears of the proposed change shall be waived. However,the proposed zoning during all business-bp rs for fifteen (15)days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. / Signature The foregoing"Affidavit Notice" was acknowledged before me this �' day of l��L j ��l�—° 20±E, by 6�tV 11—S t/ 0P" WITNE=SS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL TARA L. NELSON NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: STATE ID CCLORA fJ920014030017 U�i AE:1'1n#20014Q30000 17 ;:;;o,-i�ission Ex��res September 25,2021 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: ® COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICES (SIGN) a LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL o APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICED AS REQIURES BY C.R.S §24-65.5103.3 2016 City of Apen 1130 1920 O�fO Rr F'44r 14 ip r r t mwrjk Ro 'Jar rr1 • � , • • i•! k Alp IF ►r >ti .a F + - - • 6 sl 'c i` AiL ` I if OF A' I �a � L• 7 �fi+ .ti i - i =r rr �i•. r � E � � r ■ice, �;- M• n �' i •�' f�a��y Y" Y �- - � ,yam +•{.{ Y�� '���� ! ` { 's. - • - ' T. �'4 Ifj�IJ' -M1rIr.7•� .r al M i sF NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: 222 S. Cleveland St. Project Location: 222 S. Cleveland St.; Aspen Land Use Reviews: Special Review -ADU Design ` PE Standards Variation 130 S. Galena Street, Decision Making Body: Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen, CO 81611 Hearin Date: November 13, 2018, 4:30 p.m. p: (970) 920.5000 f: (970)920.5197 Hearing Location: City Hall, Sister Cities Room; 130 S. j www.aspenpitkin.com Galena St; Aspen, CO 81611 Project Description: The property was originally approved with a voluntary occupancy Accessory Dwelling Unit in the basement. The ADU has since been removed without the necessary approvals. The applicant is proposing to replace the ADU in the basement to bring the property back into compliance. A variation from the ADU design standards through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested. Legal Description: Lot 1, Fellman Lot Split according to the Plat thereof recorded October 31, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 67. Parcel ID: 2737-182-04-004 Applicant: Brent and Debbie Sembler, 5858 Central Ave., St Petersburg, FL 33707. Represented by BendonAdams. More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Garrett Larimer at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2739, garrett.iarimer@cityofaspen.com i BendonAdams 300 So Spring St 202 Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.285.5 bendonadams.com Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273718204004 on 10/11/2018 tirKIN COUNT' Instructions: This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. Disclaimer: Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com WEIGAND NESTOR R JR TROUSDALE JEAN VICK LVG TRUST WEISS BERNIE 150 N MARKET ST PO BOX 9983 625 E MAIN ST 102B #211 WICHITA,KS 67202 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 QUEEN VICTORIA CONDO ASSOC CUNNINGHAM P SMALL ERIC&CHRISTI COMMON AREA PO BOX 11717 50 OLD BARN LN 916 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 81612 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 ASPEN,CO 81611 TROUSDALE MARGARET OB HERMAN SHEILA GALLOP PARK LLC 7 ALEXANDER LN 104 W ANAPAMU ST#B 4696 BAYBERRY CIR GREENWOOD VILLAGE,CO 80121 SANTA BARBARA,CA 93101 ANN ARBOR,MI 48105 VINCENTI CONDO ASSOC LDRAM 2 LLC KALNITSKY LINDA BUDIN TRUST 1015 E HYMAN AVE 3900 E BETHANY HOME RD 1701 S FLAGLER DR#1601 ASPEN,CO 81611 PARADISE VALLEY,AZ 85253 WEST PALM BEACH,FL 33401 SMITH CHARLES C III&LYNN PHARR MARK R TIGER III&ALLYSON SCHULTZ BRIAN&ELIZABETH 6030 GARFIELD ST 101 BONNER DR 9301 MEADOWBROOK DR NEW ORLEANS,LA 70118-6039 LAFAYETTE,LA 70508 DALLAS,TX 75220 SEID MEL RAPIDS TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC TAAM MAXWELL 1104 DALE AVE COMMON AREA 962 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 BOYD RICHARD P HYMAN AVENUE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC TYCHER JACK 2012 IRREV TRUST PO BOX 10984 COMMON AREA 100 PASSAIC AVE#240 ASPEN,CO 81612 990 E HYMAN AVE FAIRFIELD,NJ 07004 ASPEN,CO 81611 PINOEER CONDO ASSOC SUNRISE CONDO ASSOC GOODROE SHIRLEY A COMMON AREA 1007 E HYMAN AVE 3503 MARGO RD 915 E HOPKINS AVE#3 ASPEN,CO 81611 CAMP HILL,PA 17011 ASPEN,CO 81611 WILSON BRIAN M&CATHY J REVOCABLE T CUNNINGHAM DAPHNE HOCH BAK HOLDINGS LLC 235 APPALOOSA TR 228 GREENWOOD 439 JODY LN HEALDSBURG,CA 95448 EVANSTON,IL 60201 BASALT,CO 81621 GIEFER PATRICK KELLY JESSIE M LTD PARTNERSHIP#1 GORMAN THOMAS&LINDSAY 950 S JOSEPHINE ST 6295 GREENWOD PLAZA BLVD 144 OLD GREEN BAY RD DENVER,CO 80209 GREENWOOD VILLAGE,CO 80111 WINNETKA,IL 60093 HRIVNAK THOMAS CITY OF ASPEN PORTER FRANK H JR 6 HEDGEWOOD DR 130 S GALENA ST 33970 MEADOW LN UNIONVILLE ONTARIO L3R6J3 CANADA, ASPEN,CO 81611 CHAGRIN FALLS,OH 44022 BROWN MARY JO REV TRUST GDL ENDEAVORS LTD RIVERVIEW CONDO 26 LLC 5651 OAKWOOD RD 483 ROSEMONT DR 1630 A 30TH ST PMB#387 SHAWNEE MISSION,KS 66208 DURHAM,NC 27713 BOULDER,CO 80301 NORTHROCK HOLDINGS LLC SPEARS NANCY M WITMONDT FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC UNIT 22 MIZZENTOP PO BOX 2630 100 PASSAIC AVE#240 MIZZENTOP DR ASPEN,CO 81612 FAIRFIELD,NJ 07004 WARWICK WK O6 BERMUDA, KENNEDY WILLIAM W FAMILY TRST ASPEN EAST CONDO ASSOC KANIPE J STEPHEN&PATRICIA 218 STEEPLECHASE RD 980 E HYMAN AVE 1015 E HYMAN AVE #3 BARRINGTON HILLS, IL 60010 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 TACHE MARK C SILVER GLEN TOWNHOUSES CONDO ASSO( HERRON HERINK REAL ESTATE LLC 1001 E HYMAN COMMON AREA 3886 LOCUST RIDGE RD ASPEN,CO 81611 E HYMAN AVE NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 ASPEN,CO 81611 PETERSEN LORNA M PUNJ JULIA ANJALI MORGAN RIVER M 915 E HOPKINS#8 PO BOX 4469 PO BOX 1460 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 PEVNY HANA LIVING TRUST 26 EAU CLAIRE LLC BROWN ROBERT GST TRUST 5703 EAGLE CLIFFS 600 PORT OF NEW ORLEANS PL#9F 5651 OAKWOOD RD AUSTIN,TX 78731 NEW ORLEANS,LA 70130 SHAWNEE MISSION,KS 66208 PACK R MICHAEL MCCAFFERTY PEGGY ARKIN JONATHAN 5005 TEXAS ST STE 305 900 E HOPKINS#6 625 E MAIN ST#1028 SAN DIEGO,CA 92108 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816111935 EUBANK CONDO ASSOC BLATT ROBERT M REV TRUST EDMONDS SUZANNE L COMMON AREA 10925 REED HARTMAN HWY#200 PO BOX 782 1022 E HYMAN AVE CINCINNATI,OH 45242 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ROM HOLLY M&WILLIAM N PORTER FRANCES H ALPERN THOMAS E 350 E 82ND ST#7W 33970 MEADOW LN 1023 E HOPKINS AVE NEW YORK,NY 10028 CHAGRIN FALLS,OH 44022 ASPEN,CO 81611 RK PARTNERS LLC COATES NELIGH C JR REV TRUST JDG WEST LLC 31 WASHINGTON AVE 212 LUPINE DR 1035 E HOPKINS AVE SHORT HILLS,NJ 07078 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEARY DENNIS R&NANCY CENTLIVRE ARAPAHOE LLC CAREW II LLC 8282 BOWLINE CT 1201 N BIRCH LAKE BLVD 100 GALLERIA OFFICE CENTRE#427 INDIANAPOLIS,IN 46236 ST PAUL,MN 55110 SOUTHFIELD,MI 48034 KELLY JESSIE M LP#1 TCDC HOLDINGS INC BOYD RICHARD P 6295 GREENWOOD PLAZA BLVD 2345 GRAND BLVD PO BOX 10984 GREENWOOD VILLAGE,CO 80111 KANSAS CITY,MO 64108 ASPEN,CO 81612 COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA ASPEN VALLEY LAND TRUST GLEASON FRANK J JR PO BOX 1927 320 MAIN ST#204 235 OVERLAND DR CARSON CITY,NV 89702 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 SIDNEY,OH 45365 SMILIOS PENNY WHITE 306 ASSOCIATES LLC SOUTHPOINT ASPEN 1B LLC 1007 E HYMAN AVE#2 PO BOX 7067 PO BOX 1499 ASPEN,CO 81611 BLOOMFIELD HILLS,MI 48302 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 CHATEAU EAU CLAIRE CONDO ASSOC CARLSON KERRY Y SUNRISE CONDO#8 LLC 1034 E COOPER ST 982 E HOPKINS#3 623 E HOPKINS ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 OLSON PETER W&CANDICE C DECRAY MARCELLA TRUST ROM WILLIAM NICHOLAS&HOLLY MEEKER 1022 E HYMAN AVE 1528 HILL ST 350 E 82ND ST 7W ASPEN,CO 81611 SANTA MONICA,CA 90405 NEW YORK,NY 10028 P L&A INC GORTAN TIZIANO&ENRICA USSEGLIO EAST HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS: 9727 SPRING ST 260 COLUMBINE CT COMMON AREA OMAHA,NE 68124 BASALT,CO 81621 1019 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 RICH VICTORIA MOLITOR PROPERTIES I LLC WEISBARD MARK W 455 RIDGECORDE 53196 N MAIN ST 1706 CENTRAL AVE CREVE COEUR,MO 63141 MATTAWAN,MI 49071 WILMETTE, IL 60091 MOUNTAIN RIVER MANOR CONDO ASSOC CURRAN CHRISTOPHER BELLINSON FAMILY IRREV TRUST 900 E HOPKINS AVE 1019 E HOPKINS AVE#1019 5532 LANE LAKE RD ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 BLOOMFIELD HILLS,MI 48302 ZORRITO LLC LINHART FAMILY TRUST GUPTA ARJUN 1901 FLOYD ST 5110 N 40TH ST#254 820 S MONACO PKWY#313 SARASOTA,FL 34239 PHOENIX,AZ 85018 DENVER,CO 802243704 SCHRINER BONNIE DOLGINOW SCOTT FORD ANN MICHIE 4546 KING ST 203 S CLEVELAND ST 216 WAPITI WY DENVER,CO 80211 ASPEN,CO 81611 BASALT,CO 81621 HANDZUS MICHAL BOYD RICHARD P SUTHERLAND GRANT 123 29TH ST PO BOX 10984 PO BOX 9003 HERMOSA BEACH,CA 90254 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 PORTNOY GERALD A REV TRUST KRIGEL SANFORD P TRUST CHATEAU EAU CLAIRE CONDO ASSOC 222 2ND ST SE#701 4520 MAIN ST 1034 E COOPER ST MINNEAPOLIS,MN 554145138 KANSAS CITY,MO 64111 ASPEN,CO 81611 DUNNE REVOCABLE FAM LIV TRUST PARADIGM PARTNERS INDEPENDENCE CONDO ASSOC 3865 AVENIDA FELIZ 1543 WAZEE ST#400 COMMON AREA RANCHO SANTA FE,CA 92091 DENVER,CO 80202 1104 DALE AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 VAN DEUSEN CONDO ASSOC PINE GLEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOC KRIGEL SCOTT W TRUST COMMON AREA COMMON AREA 4520 MAIN ST 1006 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 KANSAS CITY,MO 64111 ASPEN,CO 81611 NAGER DEBBIE TRUST CROCKETT RUFUS MOLNY CONDO ASSOC 11712 OVERBROOK RD PO BOX 3837 COMMON AREA LEAWOOD,KS 66211 ASPEN,CO 81612 1020 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 KENNEDY WILLIAM W REV LVG TRUST SACK FAMILY TRUST PETERS JULIE 218 STEEPLECHASE RD 1010 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 1643 BARRINGTON,IL 60010 ASPEN,CO 816112118 ASPEN,CO 81612 JOHNSON SALLYANNE C DI LORENZO MICHAEL PIERCE ANITA M PO BOX 5050 609 GARDEN RD 5062 S 108TH ST#122 ASPEN,CO 81612 OAKWOOD,OH 45419 OMAHA,NE 681376310 BAUTSCH MARY ILLMER NANCY&RICHARD CRAFT HAROLD D 1982 BLUE MTN RD 1918 N OLIVE ST#1003 17235 LECHLADE LN LONGMONT,CO 805046211 DALLAS,TX 75201 DALLAS,TX 75252 BROOKE TRUST SCHROEDER PATRICIA A REV TRUST NIX ELIZABETH 1024 E HOPKINS#17 36261 SPRUCE TR 1019 E HOPKINS AVE#1019 ASPEN,CO 81611 PINE RIVER,MN 56474 ASPEN,CO 81611 1000 EAST HOPKINS HOA MCCABE THOMAS J TEN SIXTEEN EAST HYMAN 972 E HOPKINS AVE 1017 E HOPKINS AVE COMMON AREA ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 1016 E HYMAN AVE SPEN,CO 81611 GML ASPEN PROPERTY LLC CALAMOS JOHN P ROTH JOSEPH R&ELIANNE V 3815 LISBON ST#203 2020 CALAMOS CT#200 848 BRICKELL KEY DR#4504 FT WORTH,TX 76107 NAPERVILLE,IL 60563-2793 MIAMI,FL 33131 HENRY CASADY M SCHULTZ BRIAN&ELIZABETH BMB 1 LLC 525 W HALLAM ST 9301 MEADOWBROOK DR 6923 SPANKY BRANCH CT ASPEN,CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75220 DALLAS,TX 75248 OZIER FAMILY COLORADO LP WESTERMAN JEFF&TERI YPSI ANN ASSOCIATES 2896 WRANGLERS RETREAT 5130 SHOSHONE AVE 39577 WOODWARD AVE#300 WICHITA FALLS,TX 76310 ENCINO,CA 91316 BLOOMFIELD HILLS,MI 48304 COMPTON LARA C WEIL LORNE HICKS LESLIE 314 N RIVERSIDE AVE 250 WEST 57TH STREET#2223 PO BOX 8225 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK,NY 10107 ASPEN,CO 81612 TDR REVOCABLE TRUST AUVIL PAUL R JR TRUST THREE LEE ASPEN LTD 201 N UNION ST#300 1024 E HOPKINS AVE #14 970 ISOM RD ALEXANDRIA,VA 22314 ASPEN,CO 81611 SAN ANTONIO,TX 78216 KING WALLACE M ARKIN ERIC GOLDSTEIN BARRY J PO BOX 590 625 E MAIN ST#102B 950 S CHERRY#320 OLATHE,CO 81425 ASPEN,CO 816111935 DENVER,CO 80246 P S W D INVESTMENT CO LTD DRATCH KATE TYCHER 2012 IRREV TRUST 2013 WOLFOND FAMILY TRUST 215 S MONARCH ST#101 100 PASSAIC AVE#240 49 HIGHLAND CRESCENT ASPEN,CO 81611 FAIRFIELD,NJ 07004 TORONTO ONTARIO M21-1G7 CANADA, STEINMAN DAN P TRUST GAVILON5 LLC BLACK MOUNTAIN LAND CO LP 2314 N LINCOLN PARK WEST#21 PO BOX 10521 500 MAIN ST#1200 CHICAGO,IL 60614 ASPEN,CO 81612 FORT WORTH,TX 76102 905 EAST HOPKINS LLC MCPHEE SHARON S 1985 TRUST PONY OIL LLC 623 E HOPKINS AVE#102 4389 MALIA ST#463 4245 N CENTRAL EXPY#320 BOX#109 ASPEN,CO 81611 HONOLULU,HI 968211173 DALLAS,TX 75205 ARGENT JASON M&NANCY H AC ONE LLC OLSON PETER W&CANDICE C 504 4TH ST PO BOX 3417 1022 E HYMAN AVE MANHATTAN BEACH,CA 90266 LITTLE ROCK,AR 72203 ASPEN,CO 81611 TORPEN CONDO ASSOC MOBI WEST LLC PICKARD NANCY S COMMON AREA 45 E 9TH ST#45 1020 E HOPKINS AVE#4 1018 E HOPKINS AVE NEW YORK,NY 10003 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 KENNEDY WILLIAM W CHILDRENS TRST MCDONOUGH JOELLE VANMOORSEL GERARDUS H&MELINDA E 218 STEEPLECHASE RD 1007 E HYMAN AVE#7 1021 E HOPKINS BARRINGTON HILLS, IL 60010 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SCHULTZ E WYLY CHERYL R MARITAL TRUST ARNDT BRICE&KRISTINE PO BOX 11717 210 S WEST END ST 83 GREENWOOD CIR ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 WORMLEYSBURG, PA 17043 DORNEMANN MICHAEL BELLISON FAMILY II IRREV TRUST BERYLIUM SERVICES LLC 390 LAKE AVE 5532 LANE LAKE RD 916 E HOPKINS AVE#001 GREENWICH,CT 06830 BLOOMFIELD HILLS,MI 483022129 ASPEN,CO 81611 WILLIAMSON ROBERT E TEAM SACHS LLC 622 OCEAN LLC 982 E HOPKINS#3 3348 CORTE DEL CRUCE PO BOX 522 ASPEN,CO 81611 CARLSBAD,CA 92009 ISLE OF PALMS,SC 29451 DECRAY MARCELLA IRREV PROPERTY TRU J2C LLC DAKA CAPITAL LLC 1528 HILL ST PACASSISTRASSE 62 PO BOX 1401 SANTA MONICA,CA 90405 1130 VIENNA AUSTRIA, ASPEN,CO 81612 AUVIL CAROL A TRUST MOON ROBERT DENNIS&LAURA SUMNER GAVILON CONDO ASSOC 1024 E HOPKINS AVE #14 4520 FAIRFAX AVE COMMON AREA ASPEN,CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75205 935 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 FULLER JAMES T III CARDWELL ROBERT A CITY OF ASPEN 3616 FULTON ST NW 1672 LOUISE ST 130 S GALENA ST WASHINGTON,DC 20007 LAGUNA BEACH,CA 92651 ASPEN,CO 81611 SALTZMAN SUSAN DORAN MICHAEL H ASP TEST TRST RIVER HOUSE LLC 915 E HOPKINS#3 4280 GUNNIN RD 729 E BLEEKER ST ASPEN,CO 81611 NORCROSS,GA 30092 ASPEN,CO 81611 WEISS LYNN COOPER TACHE CHRISTEN KALNITSKY EUGENE TRUST 625 E MAIN ST#102B 1001 E HYMAN 1701 S FLAGLER DR#1601 ASPEN,CO 816111935 ASPEN,CO 81611 WEST PALM BEACH,FL 33401 COHEN STEPHAN L QRT MCDONALD FRANCIS B SHORE JILL A 801 ARTHUR GODFREY BLVD#200 PO BOX 4671 PO BOX 8673 MIAMI BEACH,FL 33140 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 SCHRAGER TERRI L PAUL REV FAMILY TRUST OGBURN TOM&CAROLYN 3217 S 101ST ST PO BOX 1801 1245 STANHOPE CT OMAHA,NE 68127 RANCHO SANTA FE,CA 92067-1801 SOUTHLAKE,TX 76092 GOLDSTEIN GARY L LVG TRUST NO 1 TYCHER MARSHALL B&SALLY K EVANS ROY D JR&JENNIFER E 1020 E HOPKINS AVE#7 100 PASSAIC AVE#240 972 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 816114109 FAIRFIELD,NJ 07004 ASPEN,CO 81611 PORTER CATHERINE T CITY OF ASPEN KANG NOBUKO 3616 FULTON ST NW 130 S GALENA ST 916 E HOPKINS AVE#101 WASHINGTON,DC 20007 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 BLATT ROBERT M REV TRUST RAPIDS EAST ASPEN LLC YOUNG JESSICA 10925 REED HARTMAN HWY#200 6247 PRESTONSHIRE LN 962 E HOPKINS AVE CINCINNATI,OH 45242 DALLAS,TX 75225 ASPEN,CO 81611 BUFORD RC&ELIZABETH B VANHEES JOANNE G&ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN BARBARA E SIMON LVG TRUST 12 ELMCOURT ST 95 HORATIO ST#9K 1020 E HOPKINS AVE#7 SAN ANTONIO,TX 78209 NEW YORK,NY 10014 ASPEN,CO 81611 MCCORMICK MURIEL E GLUCK STACY E MORGAN RIVER PO BOX 3515 916 E HOPKINS AVE #304 900 E HOPKINS#16 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611-2089 ASPEN,CO 81611 MEGA VIVIAN RIVER MANOR#3 LLC PAGANO JOSEPH K&JOSEPH A 1982 BLUE MTN RD 400 E HYMAN AVE#101 PO BOX 7785 LONGMONT,CO 80504-6211 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 GIEFER PATRICK C ERNEMANN MICHAEL FREDERICH ELLIS ROBERT RUSSELL&YVONNE MARIE 950 S JOSEPHINE ST LONDON FLAT 4 GALAXY HOUSE 912 CLUBHOUSE DR DENVER,CO 80209 32 LEONARD ST NEW CASTLE,CO 81647 LONDON EC#2A 4LX ENGLAND, RIVERVIEW CONDO ASSOC BELLIS ARTHUR'P KENNEDY PATRICIA ANN REV LIV TRUST COMMON AREA 1008 E HOPKINS AVE 218 STEEPLECHASE RD ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 BARRINGTON,IL 60010 CIMARRON TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC J&F INVESTMENT CO LP BUERKLIN ACHIM COMMON AREA 25 BERKELEY TERRACE PO BOX 910237 1015 E HOPKINS AVE LIVINGSTON,NJ 07039 ST GEORGE,UT 84791 ASPEN,CO 81611 KELLEHER DOROTHY A HANN SANG E DR&ANN K TYCHER DANA 2012 IRREV TRUST PO BOX 1 555 MAYFLOWER RD 100 PASSAIC AVE#240 ASPEN,CO 81612 LAKE FOREST,IL 60045 FAIRFIELD,NJ 07004 CAREW LLC SEID MEL WILMERDING PATSY 100 GALLERIA OFFICE CENTRE#427 1104 DALE AVE 203 S CLEVELAND ST SOUTHFIELD,MI 48034 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 L&E PROPERTIES LTD MARTIN MONICA A 3701 S NARCISSUS WAY 301 E 79TH ST#35P DENVER,CO 80237 NEW YORK,NY 10021 0 o PM M BendonAdams °� 25 OCT �" 300 So Spring St 202 .= Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.2855 bendonadams.com CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN,CO 81611 IIIIIIi � lll o►4��t NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: ;Nkzi� 222 S. Cleveland St. ,I Project Location: 222 S. Cleveland St.; Aspen � cnc.i Land Use Reviews: Special Review - ADU Design Standards Variation 130 S. Galena Street Decision Making Body: Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen, CO81611 Hearing Date: November 13, 2018, 4:30 p.m. p: (970) 922 0.5000 f: (970) 920.5197 Hearing Location: City Hall, Sister Cities Room, I 3 S. W416 aena �C0�1 Prol%t Nvi�tiqo, T% CQ er' WaS OCI 1��11 � an C ACCeSSON Dwelling Unit In the ba.. ament. The ADU has since been removed without the necessary approvals. The applicant is proposing to replace the ADU in the basement to bring the property back into compliance. A variation from the ADU design standards through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested. Legal Description: Lot 1, Fellman Lot Split according to the Plat thereof recorded October 31, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 67. Parcel ID: 2737-182-u-nu