Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20100706P1 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, July 6, 2010 4:30 p.m. regular meeting- Sister Cities Room CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. 15 Harbour Lane, Stream Margin Review VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Fxomt: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy D~recto~ RE: 15 Harbour Lane -Stream Margin Review, Residential Design Standards Variances, and a Special Review variance from Stream Margin Review Standards, and PUD Amendment -Public Hearine DATE: July 6, 2010 ADalicant: Dona Stewart Zonin : R-15 A/PUD (Moderate- Density Residential and PUD overlay) Lot Size: +/- 7,000 Squaze Feet Land Use: Single-Family Residence Request Summary: The Applicant is requesting a Stream Mazgin Review Approval, Variances from certain Residential Design Standazds, and Special Review for variances from Stream Margin Review, as well as a PUD Amendment. Staff Recommendation: Approval wit conditions of the Stream Mazgin Review, granting of one variance from Stream Margin Review, Granting of dimensional vaziations through the PUD Amendment and continuation of the hearing to a future date certain for variances from the Residential Design Standazd. F 15 Harbour Lane LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicant is proposing to build a residential addition to the existing residence and a new garage. The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the site with asingle-family residence addition and gazage: Stream Maz in Review approval for development within 100 feet of the mean high water line of the Roaring Fork River or its tributaries (Castle Creek) pursuant to Land Use Code (L.U.C.) Chapter 26.435, Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Page 1 of 7 P2 • Variance approval from the Residential Design Standazds pursuant to L.U.C. Section 26.410.020 D., Variances. Special Review approval for variances from the Stream Margin review standazds pursuant to L.U.C. Section 26.520.080 D., Special Review. The Applicant is requesting a vaziance from L.U.C. Sub-Section 26.435.040 C.8. (requires that no development other than native vegetation occur within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or high water line, and Sub-Section 26.435.040 C.9. (requires development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback to meet a progressive height requirement). • PUD Amendment -Other Amendment approval for varying of dimensional requirements pursuant to L.U.C. Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development. REVIEW PROCEDURE' A development application for Stream Mazgin review, Residential Design Standazds Variance, Special Review, and PUD Amendment -Other Amendment shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after review and consideration during a duly noticed public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission. PROJECT SUMMARY' The Applicant has requested approval to build a residential addition onto the existing single- family residence and a new garage located at 15 Hazbour Lane. The river, high-water line, top-of-slope, and floodplain all converge on this property and make development difficult. For that reason, the applicant is pursuing this review to establish the development parameters for the property. The subject property is located in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15A) zone district and has a PUD overlay upon it. The property backs up to Castle Creek and Harbour Lane is a private access easement that runs through part of the property. TERMS' A few terms of art will be used for this case. The Jloodphlin is the azea affected by flood waters and certain building restrictions aze effective in this azea -principally that development may not increase the height of flood water and that the finished floor level of a structure must be one foot or higher above that base flood level. The City Engineer is the City's designated flood plain administrator and is responsible for implementing these development restrictions. Mapping of this azea provided by the National Flood Insurance Program. The high-water line is used to determine a property's development rights. Areas below ahigh- water line do not contribute to Lot Area and do not increase a property's floor azea or allowed density. The high-water line is the point at which the presence and action of water aze so regulaz as to impress a character distinguishing a river bank from a river bed. (Le. a river bank has soil and vegetation and a river bed does not.) Page 2 of 7 P3 The top-of--slope is the point along a river separating the flat or natural topography of the land from the steeper river bank. It can be considered the top edge of the river bank. STAFF ANALYSIS' A. Stream Margin Review: The intent of Stream Margin review is to "reduce and prevent property loss by flood while ensuring the natural and unimpeded flow of watercourses. Review shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural features." The Applicant's site is constrained by a required twenty-five (25) feet front yard setback requirement (which is measured from the private road), a ten (10) feet minimum side yard setback and a required fifteen (15) feet setback from the Top of Slope. Along Castle Creek there exists vertical cribbing that retains the bank and delineates the 100 year flood plain line (as indicated by the surveyor). The Engineering department has recommended determining a Top of Slope for this property which follows the cribbing and flood plain line as indicated in Figure 1. Currently, the existing residence sits approximately eleven to sixteen feet from the Top of Slope. The proposed residential addition and garage would sit within the required minimum Top of Slope setback as well as the minimum front yard setback and the northerly side yard setback. Figure 1: Setback Constraints I _ _ ALONG 7HE CEN N 19"' "- TERUNE~~p!• CASTLE CRFEK ~ - 98~"' _ . - Staff Proposed CAST Top of - ~ . LE CR EEK .. ~ ~ Slope O ~ N w~.ric -~_ - J ~, u We aY ra. ~ for uwc t ro ~~'~ NAUI LIA4 Tl4R ~~ ROXINAIE RICH WATER UHE ~ ~ t' orm~ ,~. ~ / ~(1 STEPS VFRMK ~ x 1 ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~`~ WA"" ~~ O ~ ~ ~ ( ~ r ~ ~ _ ' T Twenty-five ~ t a. 3 ~,l~t ~ '~~f `~ I ` ~ _ t ~ ~ ~ -; ~ ~ o $ y Fifteen Foot Front ~` ; r ~ _ .-~ ~ '" ',_,t ~ ~ _ , ; a ~ p Yard & Ten d. ,` ~ ~ `~` `~- ~; o ~ - -'' /O ~ of Slope Foot Side ~ ~ . , ~ ,, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~- -- - - ~ i°' ~ ~ o~~~ Wf a ~° ~ " Setback Yard S tb k ~ i ~~;~- _~ - `~ ; ~i - - ~- `~" ~ ~ ~~ ~ / e ac E r I - ~ ~: ~ ~ . ~ I \1 f#; e„ I j ~ ' NO ~ G y ' - p ~ ' ~n - ~ S 15.30~W 58.48 ~- ~~ N / / HOUSE O [` / / / / ' / % pOP~~~' / a~N, Page 3 of 7 P4 B. Special Review: The Applicant is requesting two variances from the Stream Margin Review Standards. The first variance being requested is from the required setback from the Top of Slope (review standard 26.435.040 C.8.). The applicant notes that the actual Top of Slope is much higher in elevation (in the vicinity of the Villa of Aspen Townhouses or 8~' and Bleeker) and that a more reasonable measurement would be from the 100 year flood plain. The flood plain line is essentially the same Top of Slope being recommended by the City Engineer as noted previously in Figure 1. As proposed, the new addition and garage will not meet the required fifteen (15) feet setback from the Top of Slope delineated by the City Engineer. The second variance is from the requirement of Streani Margin Review that no building breach the progressive forty-five (45) degree height limit from the Top-of--Slope as required by Land Use Code Sub-Section 16.435.040 C.9. and shown below in Figure 2. Again, as proposed, it appears that both the residential addition and garage would not meet the progressive height limit. Figure 2: Progressive Height Measurement 45 degree progressive height lielt DO Top of Slops 15 Foot Setback - Figure "A" Staff Comment on Stream Margin and Special Review: As one can see by Figure 1, the potential for development is quite constrained on this lot with regard to setbacks. Staff recommends that the Applicant be required to meet the required fifteen (1 ~) feet setback from the Top of Slope that has been determined by the City Engineer for most of the property; however, the Applicant has an existing dug out/retained area adjacent to the existing building that is used for exiting the basement and staff is willing to work with the Applicant in the area shown in Figure 3. Specifically, Staff recommends that this existing area be allowed to be maintained by the Applicant for any necessary egress (such as a window well or doorway) from the proposed addition but not expanded and that the proposed residential addition be allowed to sit within two feet of the the fifteen foot setback. This will require shifting both the proposed residential addition and garage closer to Harbour Lane. Both the Parks and Engineering Departments have noted that the area between the house and Castle Creek has been severely degraded. The area will be required to be Page 4 of 7 Figure 3: Egress Area P5 restored with native vegetation. Staff recommends granting a variance fi°om the progressive height measurement. B. PUD AMENDMENT -OTHER AMENDMENT 15 Harbour Lane was annexed into the city in 1989 and provided a zone district designation of Moderate-Density Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay (R-15AlPUD). Although there is not a site specific development plan on file, a single family dwelling is permitted to be developed in conformance with the underlying zone district requirements'. As a PUD, the Applicant may request a variation from the dimensional standards. As seen in Figure 1, the site's development potential is quite constrained and the Applicant is requesting certain dimensional variations to develop the addition. Table 1, below, outlines the underlying zone district requirements, the request of the Applicant and staff's recommendation. Tahle 1: R-15 A 7_.one District Standards Dimensional Requirement Underlying Moderate- Applicant's Proposed Staff Recommended Density Residential(R- Dimensional Dimensional 15A) Zone District Requirements Requirements Re uirements Minimum Lot Size 1 x,000 SF Existing Lot 15,000 Minimum Lot Width 7~ Feet 75 Feet 75 Feet Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling 15,000 SF 15,OOOSF 15,000 SF Minimum Front Yard 25 Feet -Residential 5 Feet 5 Feet Setback Dwellings Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 Feet 10 Feet on the north 5 Feet 3 Feet on the south Top of Slope Setback 15 Feet 8 Feet from Top of 13-15 Feet Slope -residence 4 Feet from Top of Slope -garage Maximum Height 25 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Calculate per code as amended from time to time Staff Comment: The underlying zone district standards as well as the Stream Margin Review standards leave the Applicant with a very limited development envelope. Staff recommends modifying the underlying front and side yard setbacks to allow the development to be closer to the private road and further away from Castle Creek. Additionally, staff recommends platting a development envelope on the site to clearly delineate where development may occur. See Figure 4 on the next page for a conceptual building envelope. Staff believes these dimensional variances are consistent with the neighborhood. ~ The current lot is considered a nonconforming lot as it does not meet the minimum lot size within the R-15A zone district. A detached single family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be developed on a nonconforming lot. Page 5 of 7 P6 C. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES: Staff Comment: Staff is recommending a different "development envelope " than what the Applicant is proposing. If an amended envelope is approved, the Applicant will need to reconsider the design and location of the proposed addition which could change what Residential Design Variances are requested. Staff is recommending that the design variance component be continued to a future date so that any changes to the addition can be evaluated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request meets most of the Stream Margin Review standards that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.43~.040(C), Stream Margin Review and should be granted a variance from the progressive height requirement but not a variance from required setback from the Top of Slope (other than the small encroachment for the addition. Staff recommends that the applicant map a development boundary line that is fifteen feet from the top-of--slope delineated by the City Engineer, with the plat to be approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director and then recorded. Additionally, Staff recommends that the side yard setbacks and front yard setback be allowed to be five feet from the property line and delineated on the plat, essentially defining the building envelope. Figure 4 Conceptual Buildins Envelope - f ~ - - I ALbNG 1HE CENTERIJNEOF CASTLE CREEK - N 19a55~ ~ ~ E- 96.6-T- - - I C - ASTLE CREEK O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~_ J \/ ~ u !m or iqq~ llam ~ ~ ~'vr~q PRO%IAIATE NIGH WATER 4NE' ~ uttR o1O~ ~~ ~ ~ I Q' 1« ~ --_ ~ STEPS '~ 4 ~ 3 « ~ UEOL `` Mvm'R. N ~ am~°M ~ . L ~` ~~ _ rS~, J}~ _ 1 ~ I ~} °v n ~ _ ~ ~ r 1 f ~ ~ L ~F'x ~ w cam t. wnta n ~ ~.. O ~ ~ ! ~ r ~ t ~ y g n~ o ~~, ), ~ j _ I ~ ~ It~k ) f LA { _~ t a .. ~ ~ / ow ~,/ ~ ~~ N O P ~i F +- # ~~~~~` ~ a y a ~ . / u' n WI,tK ~ _ ~ r• ~ i ~ / z II I f I_ _ ~: 0.0AO ~ M ~ . WAY VEL F ~; / ~ti ~ ~~ N V~ a ~ I - ~ ~ L ssa'' ~'~s ~ a ~ / / O HbusE ~ / / AJ / s / / / -4~ ~ WAY / T'~~ , A ~ ~ .. ~ Rawly\G4S / i PCGLS'' ~ ~+/ . J / _ ~ Page 6 of 7 P7 Community Development staff also believes the map should indicate and tabulate all azeas of the property above below the high water line, or affected by easements. This will enable the owner, prospective owners, and staff to easily determine Lot Area and development rights. Pazks and Engineering Department staff recommend that riparian areas of the property be rehabilitated. The azea between the house and the Top of Slope is significantly degraded and restoration can be done at the time the property is redeveloped. Pazks is also requesting a fishing easement be provided by the applicant. This is a request and not a requirement. Staff is recommending adoption of a resolution defining conditions of approval and requiring recordation of this development boundary map mentioned above. Staff is recommending future redevelopment in compliance with these regulations not be subject to an additional review by the Commission. This allowance would be in place for at least the period of vested rights or as long as the City's riverfront regulations remained the same. Staff recommends that if the City changes riverfront development restrictions that the property be subject to those new requirements and possibly another Commission review. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2010, approving with conditions, a Stream Mazgin Review, PUD Amendment and a variance granted via Special Review from the Stream Mazgin Review Standazd to construct asingle-family residential addition located at 15 Harbour Lane and continue the balance of this hearAng to , 2010 for consideration of the Residential Design Standazds Variance(s) request." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A -- Stream Mazgin Review Criteria Exhibit B -- Special Review Criteria Exhibit C -PUD Amendment Review Criteria Exhibit D -- Application Page 7 of 7 P8 RESOLUTION N0. _ (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, A VARIANCE VIA SPECIAL REVIEW, AND A PUD AMENDMENT -OTHER AMENDMENT FOR 15 HARBOUR LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2735-123-00-017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Depaztment received an application from the owner of 15 Hazbour Lane for a number of land use reviews to develop an addition to a single- family residence as well as a garage; and, WHEREAS, the property is located along Castle Creek and is subject to the City's regulations on stream mazgin development; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has identified a Top of Slope for this property as part of the review to indicate where development can occur and the applicant has submitted a variance request through Special Review, a request for Stream Mazgin Review, and a PUD Amendment- Other Amendment to develop her site with a residential addition and gazage; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 6, 2010, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the applicant, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the reviews, by a _ to ~-~ vote, with the allowances and limitations as outlined in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Aparovals Granted The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the following land use reviews with the following conditions: A. Stream Mazgin Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission grants Stream Mazgin Review approval for the subject property. All development within the development boundary shall be setback approximately fifteen (15) feet from the top-of--slope as identified by the City Engineer and as memorialized in a recorded plat. No development other than native vegetation planting shall take place between the building envelope on the Castle Creek side and the Top of Slope unless expressly permitted by the city. 1) A ripazian restoration plan approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department and Engineering Department shall be required as part of the building permit application for this property. The restoration plan shall require implementation of the restoration prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Remodeling or other similazly limited P&Z Resolution No. 14, Series of 2010 Page 1 P9 development activity, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall not trigger this restoration requirement. B. Special Review. The Planning and Zoning Commission grants a Variance from the progressive height limit (Sub-section 26.435.040 C.9. of the Land Use Code) and all development shall not be subject to a forty-five degree (45°) progressive height limit from the top-of-slope. C. Planned Unit Development -Other Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission grants certain variations from the R-ISA zone district requirements. Specifically, the Applicant is permitted a five (5) foot minimum side yazd setback for a residential dwelling and a minimum front yazd setback of five (5) feet. The front yard setback shall be measure as outlined in Sub-section 26.575.040 B., Required yards adjacent to private streets or rights of way of the Land Use Code and memorialized through the creation of a building envelope. D. A Building Envelope for this property shall be prepazed by the applicant for approval by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The map shall describe and depict a building envelope based upon the requirements listed previously within this section of the resolution. 1) Building eaves may project outside the building envelope by no more than eighteen inches. 2) Egress window wells for the proposed addition may project outside the building envelope only when the egress meets both the minimum dimensions and number necessary to meet building code requirements. 3) The proposed residential addition may use the existing dug out azea on the westerly side of the property for egress but may not be altered from the existing conditions without the express consent of the Engineering department. The map shall also indicate and tabulate all aeeas of the property above and below the high water line, those areas affected by steep slopes, and those areas affected by right-of- way or access easements. This plat shall be attached to and recorded along with this Resolution. A 24" x 36" copy of the map shall also be retained in the planning file and the building address file. Section 2: Building Permit A building permit application shall meet all adopted standazds of the city. Additionally, a copy of this resolution and the plat approving the building envelope shall be submitted with the application. The two following items will be addressed in the application. 1. It is prohibited to impact or construct within the drip line of the existing spruce tree. The Current plans shows that the comer of the new addition inside of this zone. The project shall redesign a way to develop the proposed plan and not impact or excavate for the structural portion of the corner. P&Z Resolution No. 14, Series of 2010 Page 2 P10 2. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees on site. This ferice must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. This is critical and required at all times azound the'lazge spruce tree adjacent to the river corridor. Section 3: Fishing Easement The Planning and Zoning Commission encourages the applicant to provide a Fisherman's Easement along the watercourses within this property. The applicant is encouraged to discuss with the City of Aspen Pazks Department ideas that may facilitate such a grant of easement such as labor or design assistance with the ripazian restoration plan. Section 4: Vested Rights This approval shall be valid for the greater of the three-year period of statutory vested rights, as more precisely defined in the Development Order issued by the Community Development Department, or until the City's Stream Mazgin regulations aze amended. The period of statutory vested rights may be extended pursuant to Chapter 26.308 of the Land Use Code. Until said time, development on this property in compliance with this resolution may proceed to building permit as allowed herein. After said timeframe, this approval shall be subject to any revised provisions of the Land Use Code and may, based on a determination by the Community Development Director, be subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 6• 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 7• 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 Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6s' day of July, 2010. P&Z Resolution No. 14, Series of 2010 Page 3 P11 APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Stan Gibbs, Chairman P&Z Resolution No. 14, Series of 2010 Page 4 P12 EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA c4[ STAFF FINDINGS A. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW STANDARDS The proposed development is located within an environmentally sensitive area described as a Stream Mazgin and is subject to Stream Mazgin Review Standazds. No development shall be permitted within the Stream Margin unless the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 Hazazd Area, will not increase the base flood elevation on the pazcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepazed by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado 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 Finding Staff finds that the proposed development will not increase the base flood elevation in that it is proposed in a location outside the 100 year floodplain. 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Pazks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan aze 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 boundazies of the river course shall be granted to the greatest extent possible via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement." Staff Finding Staff finds that this proposal will not be in conflict with the AACP or the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan because the entire scope of work is to be confined outside of the native riparian area as defined by the fifteen (1 S) foot setbackfrom the river's top-of-slope. 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 recorded on a plat pursuant to Section 26.435.040(F)(1). Staff Finding The subject property will be required to plat a building envelope. Staff finds this review standard not to be met. 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 pazcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope. P13 Staff Finding The proposal does not interfere with the natural changes of the river. Erosion control will be required as part of the construction management plan with building permit submittal. A drainage plan will need to also be submitted with the building permit application. Staff finds this standard to be met. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the watercourse in any way. Staff f nds this standard to be met. 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a watercourse is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the pazcel is not diminished. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the watercourse in any way. Staff finds this standard to be met. 7. Copies aze provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one-hundred-yearfloodplain. Staff Finding There is no proposed development within the one-hundred year floodplain. Staff finds this standard to be met. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting within fifteen (1 S) feet back 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 Finding The Applicant is proposing development that encroaches within the fifteen foot setback from the Top of Slope and is requesting a variance from this standard. Staff finds this standard to not be met. 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". P14 Staff Finding As submitted, some of the development will be within the forty-f:ve degree height limit. The Applicant is requesting a variance from this standard. Staff finds this standard to not be met. 10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed towazd the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with section 26.575.150. Alighting plan will be submitted with all development applications. Sta Finding Any proposed outdoor lighting must be in compliance with the City of Aspen Outdoor Lighting Code and will be reviewed at building permit. Staff finds this standard to be met. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff Finding The Applicant's surveyor has not indicated that there are any wetlands on the property.. Staff ftnds this standard to be met. An applicant who desires a vaziance from the Residential Design Standazds shall demonstrate, and the deciding boazd shall find that the vaziance, if granted, would: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider P15 the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Findine The Applicant is requesting two variances from the residential design standazds so that the entryway door is not required to be oriented towazds the street and that the front fapade of the building not be required to be pazallel with the street. The intent of the design standards is to reinforce the typical chazacteristics of the front fagade of a building and reinforce the relationship between the building and the street, by enhancing the streetscape. With the meandering nature of the street Staff feels that it can support the Applicant's request to vary the orientation of the building. However, the lack of a front door facing the street negatively impacts the chazacter of the neighborhood and the public realm. Many of the adjacent neighboring doorways aze oriented towazds the street. Staff feels the design of the entry could be amended to provide the required front door entry and still be accessible from the garage. C Specia[Review Criteria for a Variance from theADUDesipn Standards. An application requesting a variance from the ADU and Carriage House design standards, or an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a)(b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and Carriage House program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability. 2. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property. P16 3. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. Staff Findine One of the primazy goals of the ADU/Carriage House program is to provide viable housing opportunities for working residents. As stated in the purpose of the program, "detached ADUs and Carriage Houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident". Detached ADUs aze less likely to be used as an extension of the primary residence. P17 Exhibit B E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream mazgin review standazds or an appeal of the Stream Mazgin 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 Pazagraphs 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 regazds 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; and 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standazd(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. Staff Finding: Staff is not recommending a variance from the required Top of Slope setback as the building can be moved closer to the road to accommodate the development. The buffer between the house and the river can assist in protecting the health of the river. Staff does recommend a variance from the progressive 45 degree height limit as the house is close to the river corridor and little will be visually gained by enforcing the height restriction. P18 EXHIBIT C Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standazds and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standazds shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The redevelopment of the property will: "Protect and enhance the natural environment" by rehabilitation the Top of slope and area between the house and the river. The proposed development shall be consistent with the chazacter of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding.• The proposed development is for an addition onto a single family residence. Harbour Lane contains a number of single family residences as well as a duplex The site is adjacent to other residential uses and fits the character of the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding azea. Staff Finding: Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: The Applicant is exempt from GMQS. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone district shall be used as a guide in P19 determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property aze appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected futwe land uses in the surrounding azea. b. Natwal or man-made hazards. c. Existing natwal chazacteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding azea such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, pazking, and historical resowces. Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional standards recommended by staff will mitigate impacts to Castle Creek. Many of the houses along Harbour Lane are quite close to the road and locating the house closer to the road • is appropriate. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the chazacter of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding azea. Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional standards will permit a massing that is moved away from Castle Creek and fits the development pattern of the area. 3. The appropriate number of off-street pazking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cazs used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common pazking is proposed. c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. P20 Staff Finding.• Not Applicable, the Applicant will meet underlying zone distric requirements. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drairage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b. There aze not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding.• Not Applicable, density is not being varied. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazazds or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding azea and the City. d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding Not Applicable, density is not being varied. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subpazagraphs 4 and 5, above, those azeas can be avoided or those chazacteristics mitigated. c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Staff Finding: Not Applicable, density is not being varied P21 C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed. development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which aze unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures aze appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings aze appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding.• The Applicant is being required to develop a certain distance from Castle Creek and rehabilitate the landscape to provide more protection to Castle Creek. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual chazacter of the city, with surrounding pazcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. P22 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding. The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan with the building permit application. A large Spruce is required to be protected as well as rehabilitation of the area between the house and the river. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural chazacter. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual chazacter of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed azchitecture of the property, represent a chazacter suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of neazby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solaz access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- orless-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: The Applicant is proposing a modest addition that fits the character of this eclectic neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Lighting. 1. The purpose of this standazd to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: The Applicant will comply with all lighting regulations in place. G. Common Pazk, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation azea for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: The proposed amount, location, and design of the common pazk, open space, or recreation area enhances the chazacter of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the vazious land uses and property users of the PUD. P23 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common pazk and recreation azeas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of yeazs) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similaz manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent Gaze and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shazed facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding: Not Applicable. No open space is proposed. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standazd is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements aze provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. StaffFinding.• The Applicant has appropriate access to adequate utilities/facilities for the site. I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standazd is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other azea dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehiculaz access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. P24 Staff Finding: The lot has adequate access to Harbour Lane and currently has adequate off-street parking. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. Staff Finding: Not Applicable .No phasing is proposed.