Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.616 W Hopkins Ave.A58-95w 1 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen m DATE RECEIVED: 5 1 95 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: / �.2 LJ PLOQ iw MEMBER KJ A58 -95 PROJECT NAME: -H-1RttffFTTtD CONDITION USE REVIEW FOR ADU Project Address: 616 W HALLAM Legal Address: LOTS H & I BLOCK 25 APPLICANT: ROBERT & SHERI HIRSCHFIELD Applicant Address: 5895 SW 91 ST. , MIAMI FL 33156 305 662 -8 REPRESENTATIVE: STRYKER /BROWN ARCHITECTS �CiM B� Representative Address /Phone: 300 S. SPRING 925 -2254 Aspen, CO 81611 -------------------------------------------------------------- FEES: PLANNING $ 224 # APPS RECEIVED 3 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 3 HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: TYPE OF APPLICATION STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: XX 2 STEP: (o P &Z Meeting Date ZD PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: ES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: City Attorney Parks Dept. School District City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT b / yG /� / Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board L Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other Zoning Energy Center Other JJ I DATE REFERRED )K— INITIALS: 1 DUE_ 1 - - -- /0 -- -- - cam FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL City Atty _ City Engineer _Zoning _Env. Health Housing _ Open Space _ Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: Z - 735 - 12 V - VJ` -OOY Aspen/Pitkin Community f Development Department y 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 City Land Use Application Fees: 00113 - 63850 -041 Deposit -03855 -042 Flat Fee - 63860 -043 HPC -63875 -046 Zonng & Sign Permit - MR011 Use Tax County Land Use Application Fees: 00113 -63800 -033 Deposit -63805 -034 Flat Fee - 63820 -037 Zoning -63825 -038 Board of Adjustment Referral Fees: 00113 - 63810 -035 00115- 63340 -163 00123 -63340 -190 00125 -63340 -205 Sales: 00113- 63830 -039 - 69000 -145 Address: County Engineer City Engineer Housing Enviromental Health County Code Copy Fees Other -'% — / / tfl c> RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Steve Buettow, Marta Chaikovska, and Robert Blaich. Excused was Jasmine Tygre. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Garton stated, first of all, Leslie, the dish for KAJX is the wrong color. I went to take a look and my suggestion is to paint it the color of the cement block, as it is a better blend than what is there already, it is a deeper red. Garton also stated, I have a request. August 22nd we will be doing a review of an ADU for the Sam Korn residence on Cemetery Lane, and I have a request from several home owners that called me to have that moved into September because they want to attend the public hearing, and several of the neighbors, except for one, will be out of town because it is their time for vacation. They would like it when school resumes. Lamont asked, did they give us a date? Garton stated, they just said anytime in September that would work. Lamont stated, that would be the 5th or the 19th. I need to ask John Worcester if that is possible, if the request is not made from an applicant, but it is coming from the P &Z, and coming from the public, can we do that, I don't know. Garton stated, and do we need a motion to move it, as well? Lamont answered, we would still have to open it, and move it, because it has been advertised for the 22nd. Garton stated, so, on the 22nd I would do that. Lamont stated, right, we would open it and continue the public hearing date, for those people who have received notice, but are not here tonight, for example. So, we would have to officially move it to September 5th, but my question to John is, can the P &Z move something to the 5th. I'll ask him and you will know by August 22nd whether you can move it or not, O.K.? PUBLIC COMMENTS Garton asked, are there any comments from the audience regarding anything that is not on the agenda this evening? There were none. 1 I PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 STAFF COMMEN Lamont stated, I would just like to first thank Bob Blaich for hosting our going away dinner for Bruce at his house, it was very nice. The Commission applauded Commissioner Blaich. Also, my� suggestion, before the three of you came in, that we switch Old Business and the Work Session because Dave Tolen and George Krawzoff will be talking to you about the ADU Survey, and it is just me with you all with the AH /RO. I want to cut short our AH /RO Discussion, so if we could switch those two? Garton asked, do we need a formal motion to do it? It was agreed a formal motion was not required and the switch was agreed upon by the Commission. GOLDSBURY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Garton opened the public hearing. Lamont represented staff and made presentation stating, this is a Conditional Use Review and the applicants are requesting to legalize an existing accessory dwelling unit that is on the property. They propose to go through some renovation of the home, and realize that they have a bandit unit and they are in the process to legalize their accessory dwelling unit. There will be some exterior changes to the accessory dwelling unit and there will be a slight expansion of the accessory dwelling unit to the rear of the unit. The unit is 107 by 48, so, the parcel is eligible for a floor area bonus of up to 250 sq. ft. or half the size of the ADU, whichever is less. The ADU itself, is approximately 516 sq. ft., there is an exterior exit to the unit; currently, it is a protected access to the ADU, but with the renovation of the home they will need additional extended porch and roof overhangs. There are actually two entrances to the ADU, one in the front and one in the back of the accessory dwelling unit. The dwelling unit is occupied and I don't know if it has been occupied by the same person for several years, but the applicant's representative says that the caretaker unit has been used for many years as just that. Staff recommends approval of this accessory dwelling unit with pretty much our standard conditions of approval, however, I would like to point out one unusual condition of approval for our typical ADUs. When this property went through the lot split process of Lot \l A and Lot B, before it was the Ben Deane Subdivision; a trail j 2 PLANNING & ZONI COMMISSION AUGUST 8. 1995 easement was given to the City at that time. Chuck Roth, at a site visit, and in looking at the plats, has determined that easement may be problematic, and so, I'm recommending that the applicant work with Iour Parks Department so we can solidify that trail easement, and since the City now owns all that Meadows land area right next to this property, it might be a good time for the Parks Department to diligently work with the applicant to get our trail. So, that's why I included that condition of approval. The Affidavit of Posting was not presented, but a photograph of posting was presented to the clerk by the applicant's representative, Nicole Finholm, Finholm Architects. Garton asked, Nicole, do you have a presentation? Finholm answered, I don't, other than I might wish to address the Parks rule. We have had the same employee living in the unit for several years, he's been there for at least 15 years. We hope he will stay on with us after we remodel it. Garton asked, do the Commissioners have any questions of the applicant or staff? Do you need anything clarified? Hunt stated, I do have a question about the overhang on the south elevation and possible snowshedding there at that entrance to the l unit. Has there been any snowshedding problems? Finholm responded stating, no, because the overhang extends 3 and 1/2 feet. Hunt asked, is the overhang the dotted line there (referring to drawings)? Finholm answered, yes. Hunt stated, O.K., fine. Garton stated, before I ask for questions from the public, I want to remind them that what our purview here tonight is to review and legalize an accessory dwelling unit, and to be sure that it meets the requirements of the code, which has been answered in the memorandum. Garton stated, I have a couple of questions regarding the compatibility of the code. One is, parking space requirement, it isn't actually defined or mapped out here on the blueprint. Finholm stated, we have parking spaces for all persons in house, plus p.r.i.vate parking spots for the ADU unit. Garton asked, where is that on the blueprint? Finholm showed on a site plan where all the parking was. Garton asked, so, you have five spaces for how many bedrooms? Finholm replied, we have five bedrooms, and we actually have eight spaces with the garage. 3 PLANNING & ZONI COMMISSION AUGUST 8. 1995 Lamont stated, let me just add for clarification, remember, we changed the code to one or two parking spaces per dwelling unit, not for bedrooms. i Garton asked,, also,, Chuck's memorandum, he mentions about the public trail easement, which we want to address. He also says that Sneaky Lane carries a public pedestrian easement. It is a private road, and is that true, there's a pedestrian easement? Finhol.m answered, it is my understanding that on Sneaky Lane there is a utility access easement. Lamont added further comment and stated, we discussed many alternatives, and our understanding is that there is an access, public: utility access easement on Sneaky Lane, and it is not a private pedestrian easement. But we can go through that. Garton asked, and we don't have a map to show what you would like to have widened? Lamont stated, no, that's why my condition of approval recommends that they work with the Parks Department to figure out what kind of easement we would like, what kind of trail we would like because they have easements on the other side of the creek also, and where it would hook up and how it would hook up. Garton asked, is that agreeable to you, Nicole, and to the applicant? Finholm answered, yes, it is. J Garton asked, any questions or comments from the audience about this application for an accessory dwelling unit? There were none. Garton stated, in that case, I entertain a motion. MOTION Hunt stated, I move to approve the conditional use of affordable housing unit at 700 Sneaky Lane with Conditions 1 -8, Planning Office memorandum dated 8 August, 1995, finding that it meets all the review criteria. This is also conditioned on the applicant getti.ng the address list for the Public Notice to the Planning Office. Blaich seconded, voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. j 4 I \ l+\ PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST S, 1995 616 W. HOPKINS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Garton opened the public hearing. Mary Lackner of staff presented and stated, David Brown is here representing the applicant. The Commission noted that plans of the site were not included in the packets and Lackner apologized for the oversight. Lackner stated, staff really doesn't have any concerns with this project, we do have some typical recommendations for conditions. It is a demolition and reconstruction of an existing house, it has received approval through Ordinance 35, Design Review Standards. We recommend approval of this project. Lackner stated she had another set of plans which she passed onto the Commission for viewing. Garton asked, does the applicant have a presentation? Brown replied, a brief presentation. The existing house will be substantially removed, the only thing that will be remaining will be the fireplace, so, it is a very different house than the existing house. As Mary noted, it has already been throught Design 1 Review Approval. One category in the site plan, on the first floor, when it went through the Design Review, that plan shows an encroachment into the side yard setback on the west side. That was not approved at the Design Review and that will not be part of it, so we would literally "squish" it into the setback to make the ADU work and do some slight internal modifications to conform with the Design Review. Another thing I noticed today in reviewing the plan that I feel very bad about, there is not a dormer over the entry to the ADU. I throw myself prostrate before this body and plead for mercy. We will put a small dormer over the entry to the ADU whether this body asks for it or not. Substantially, we agree to all the conditions of approval and this ADU is above grade with access off the street, has light and air ventilation, private deck, so from my standpoint, I think it would be a nice, if not terribly luxurious, unit. It is about 315 sq. ft., give or take. Brown stated, a couple of the conditions, we'll start with the big one. Staff is requesting on -site parking because this is along a pedestrian bikeway. I completely understand and concur with the request for off - street parking, however, in discussion with my client's representatives and my client, the ownership feels that this project that is designed meets the goals of the ADU ordinance. The ADU ordinance does not require off - street parking and my client does not wish to provide off - street parking designated for this unit. The five off - street parking spaces shown, two in the garage, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 three off the alley, and if this unit does become rented out, I think in all likelihood there's a good chance that the off - street parking space; my client wishes to make the representation, that that is guaranteed. i Garton asked, how many bedrooms does it have? Brown answered, the way it is shown, right now, it would be five bedrooms, two in the basement, three upstairs, actually, it's two, plus a study, which would be construed at the Planning staff level as a bedroom, so, it would Jae five bedrooms, plus an ADU. So conceivably, as it is currently drawn, it will be a six bedroom facility, including the ADU, or five bedrooms, plus the ADU. Garton asked, you say there's five parking spaces on site? Brown stated, there's five parking spaces on site, two in the garage and three behind; two behind the garage, and one to the side of the garage. Mooney asked, where is 616? Brown answered and explained the location of the property to Mooney. Garton asked, what is the other condition, David, you have changed something? Brown stated, well, we will have to redo the first floor, because it sticks 5 ft. or so into the side yard setbacks. We were hoping to retain that portion of the existing house in the side yard setback and the Design Review Committee, in its infinite wisdom, didn't go for it. So, what can I say. It wasn't another condition, it was in another review. Buettow asked, so, in this first floor plan here, where you are going to eliminate that encroachment there, so you are going to redo this whole area (referring to the site plan)? Brown stated, the whole area will be re- completed. Mooney asked, where is the main entrance to the ADU? Brown answered, it is on the west side. If you look at the site plan, it is on the southwest corner, facing west. Brown showed on the site plan. Mooney stated, O.K., I got you. Hunt asked, do you have sufficient sound installation between the units. Brown stated, not yet, but we will. Lackner stated, I just want to make sure you understand staff's position about requiring the parking space. We do think that is important. j 6 PLAYN -Cha & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST S. 1995 Brown. ;;i:aited, I completely understand and in another quorum, I mighi:::oncur, but on behalf of my client, I cannot. i Garton asked, are there any comments from the audience regarding this zpplication? Maxi:Fi,: Madsen, the neighbor from the west, stated her concerns; she asked clarification on the height of the roof and voiced concern rega.rdi.nL the parking. Brown explained to Madsen using the site plans to assist in his explanations to her. There was much discuss at random between Brown and Madsen, and Mooney, and Garton :.i.sked to have the conversation directed more toward the Commi.;;; i on. Madsen stated she had ten apartments with fifteen people living in her building, and she had had a parking problem and i.racreased the parking in the alley. She stated there was quite • collection of cars on West Hopkins, that was why parking was such • concern to her. Madsen stated, we have a courtyard to the east of this project, and grass doesn't do very well, and it is the only space we have. Everytime a building goes up higher we get boxed in. Garton asked, Bob and Steve, did the Design Review Committee address the stepping down to the adjoining building in the neighborhood? Did staff look at that? Lackner stated, no, that was before the new guidelines came out. So, he came through Ordinance 35, and Ordinance 30 had a different view of that. Brown e;tated, (showing on the site plan), however, this is the street elevation and in the middle of this are two substantial spruce trees. So, the impact on the street, and this was in discusr.;i.on with the Design Review, would not be terribly changed from the existing, because those trees would be maintained. This does set. down the facade and will continue to set down on the facade. This eave is lower than the height of the Madsen Apari.mr�rnts, although on that side there is a one -story shed, ca..po.'r, one parking space on the side of the building. The intent is i.() create a one -story feeling across the street facade, reg,_uil.ess, with a one -story porch, a single -story livingroom elem- at., so you keep the small character of the Victorian flavori,ugs of the community. Gari.,)o ,,asked, are there any other comments from the audience regarcl.i -n.g this application? 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 Meta Packard Barton, a visitor to Aspen, stated, I have many friends in Aspen, and have been coming here over the years. I want you to stop me, if I am out of order, but I'm not sure I understand your process completely. My question was, I have been interested in trying to purchase real estate in Aspen and consider myself as a potentially good citizen, having been trained in medical psychology and having a CPA designation. For the last three or four years I have been looking for property, and there happens to be one property in which I think the house is perfect, as it is, for someope like me. I did place a bid on this house within the year in which the current owner purchased the house, and I had offered $100,000 more than he purchased the house for and I was turned down. My question to this committee is, I walked through the west end over the weekend and there seemed to be just a hugh enventory of these large properties with additional units, and five bedrooms, and so forth, all of which are million dollar plus properties. My concern is, whether this group and the citizens of Aspen, really want to limit future property owners, to people who can't afford multi - million dollar places or they really want to keep some of the buildings that you have to get a diversity to stay within the budget for some other people who might be desirable citizens of this community. Garton stated, thank you for your comments, and that is a concern of all of us. We have a couple things in place in Aspen, and one is, an historic list of homes and properties that are preserved. J Secondly, we have an affordable housing program, which is trying to meet the demands and keep the community of mixed character, and we have already been accused of social engineering on that one. The third is, a new ordinance, Ordinance 30, which is when a property is turned over it must respect certain character guidelines and other requirements, which is a new way of measuring the bulk and mass of the building, and that is all we can do. We can't look at what someone's income is, unfortunately, when one purchases a home, or what their intent is with the property, whether or not they meet the codes, but it is a concern of all of US. Brown stated, I would just like to add to it. one of the goals of the ADU Program is to bring more dwelling units into the enventory that would be within the reach of a broader group of people. Barton asked, so, would that be considered as subdivision. Garton stated, no, what we are doing tonight is a conditional review for a piece of property because it exceeds its floor area ratio, on the parcel, it has already gone through Design Review. What we are doing tonight is approving a conditional use, which is called an accessory dwelling unit, which must be part of the new home. It is, hopefully, to house the working population. 8 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST S, 1995 Barton asked, but it cannot be sold separate? Garton stated, and it is not sold. It is not condominiumized. Barton stated, it does not provide additional lower costs. Brown stated, it could. Lamont stated, a lower cost eventually. Barton sty�ted, but I'm talking about personally, for profit, here. There was discussion at random regarding ADUs between Lackner, Garton and Barton at this point. Mooney stated (to Barton), you were willing to buy the existing house and give the current owner a $100,000 dollar profit, but we can't do anything about how much they want to get in return. They are building a spec house, obviously for profit. We can't help manage who gets into position. Brown stated, if I could comment because I share a lot of the concerns I'm hearing. On behalf of my client, one of the goals was to get an approval so that they could market this property. This is not a fact, that it will be torn down and replaced. Someone could buy this house, with or without this approval. Maybe someone wished to negotiate a relationship with the current owner, so that is outside the purview of this body. But, this is not a bad deal, and if we approve this or don't approve it, it still is not a bad deal. Any buyer could choose to leave it the way it is and let this approval go away. So, we're not trying to hide anything here, it is strictly trying to show a potential buyer an improved alternative to the existing. I happen to disagree with some members of staff and some members of the Design Review, but I think this is more in keeping with the character of old Aspen, than the existing house, which I think was a cute house for 1973 or 1965, but it is very contemporary and it doesn't have some of the historic flavorings that this might have. Garton stated, now, I'll get back to the conditional use review, but I think that detour is alright, it is always good to remind us why we are here and the work we still need to do. Hunt stated, I'm strongly inclined to keep 7 -e., which is the on- site parking requirement for two reasons. Number one, it is a spec house, and number two, there is a parking problem in that immediate vicinity so, I think it is only right to require that at this development. As far as the roof height, I don't see going into that at this point, it is within regulations. 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 Blaich stated, it is my understanding, if we were to approve a motion, 7 -e. is automatically in there. I just think there is a question of wording because 7 -e. says, the final site plan shall indicate an on -site parking space for the ADU; previously, in the memorandum, planning said, as long as one of the spaces is specifically designated. Is that wording precise enough, an on- site parking place? As I understand it, your client is saying, they will take one of the other places. My understanding is that staff wants us to word specifically, designate it so that that is guaranteed that the ADU has a parking place. So, I would only suggest that e. be strengthened. Hunt stated, O.K., how about, the final site plan shall designate an on -site parking space for the ADU? Lackner stated, we could say, specifically designate a parking space. Blaich stated, I don't care which one, if it is in the garage or outside, but a place for the ADU, otherwise, they could say, there is a space but somebody else took it, it's too bad. Those things can be very loose later on. I would like to see it firmed up, I do think there should be a specific recommendation. Garton asked, to say, specifically designate, that would be alright with you, Robert? 1 Blaich stated, yes, to be specifically designated, which is firmly J used earlier in the draft. MOTION Hunt stated, I move to approve conditional use for the approximately 312 sq. ft. affordable housing accessory dwelling unit at 616 W. Hopkins with Conditions 1 -9 on Planning Office memorandum dated 8 August 1995, except that 7 -e. shall be changed to read, the final site plan shall specifically designate an on- site parking space for the ADU, and finding, otherwise, that it has met all the review criteria. I will add Condition #10, that a provision to prevent snowshedding for the accessory dwelling unit shall be provided over the entrance. Blaich seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion Mooney asked, does this mean if this passes, then, the applicant is required to comply with all this or pay cash -in -lieu? Lackner replied, no, he still has a chance to pay cash -in -lieu. The other thing that David just whispered to me, he would like the dormer to be a condition of approval. i 10 PLANNING & ZONING. COMM ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 J VICKERY CODE AMENDMENTS (TABLED FROM JULY 18) Garton opened the public hearing. Lackner of staff presented, stating, this is a request for an Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment. The applicant is looking to allow in the Land Use Code, in the R -6 zone district, a splitting of historically designated parcels into two lots that would be non - conforming under the current R -6 lot requirements. This request is being requested not to be counted in the pool of growth that we have recently changed to limit to only one a year; it would be exempt from that pool. So, these things would be allowed as long as the parcel complies with the lot area requirements and the other provisions we have in the code, they are not limited per year; it is an exemption we are encouraging for historic lots to create this ownership separation. Essentially, it is for lots between 9,000 and 12,000 sq. ft. in the R -6 zone district. Initially, we had talked about expanding this into some of the other zone districts, RMF, Office, and R -15, however, when we looked at those zone districts more closely, the second unit on those lots, is a conditional use. One thing we don't want to allow is a creation of subdivisions for conditional use; what we want to do is open this up to where it is currently permitted in the code and that's why we have left it to the R -6 zone district. J Lackner continued stating, there are several aspects to this code amendment. What it would take is, it would be reviewed by the Growth Management Commission, as that is where lot splits will be going now with the new revisions to growth management and there would be a set of standards they would look at, if the property is historically designated, how big the lots are, those kinds of things. They also have some ability to look at the project's compatibility to site design on surrounding properties, those types of general review. Lackner stated, one of the recommendations from staff on this project, and as with some things, not everyone agrees, that we have asked that the creation of these lot split parcels not be able to obtain the FAR bonus available in the HPC Program. That is a 500 sq. ft. bonus. We have competing ideas on this, but that is the one way we have drafted this, and the applicant is in substantial disagreement with that requirement we have put into this draft. We talked about this at the worksession, where everyone felt it was 0. K. that the Historic Lot Split can go down to a minimum 3,000 sq. ft. lot as that is a traditional townsite lot size, 30 by 100 feet, so, it ended up that those provisions have been put into the R -6 district, that if you create a lot split, you can go down to a minimum of 3,000 sq. ft. as long as your historic house isn't � 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 located on a non - conforming size parcel. Lackner continued stating, I can answer specific questions, I think more will come up, but I think that is the general overview, and we feel, as drafted, staff can recommend approval of this code amendment. I think the FAR bonus issue is definitely something to discuss. I know Jake has some "stuff" he wants to go through with you. Jake Vickery, applicant, stated, first of all, I want to review the purpose of this program; there's about six or seven purposes, I'll just read them all out. First thing, to increase the flexibility of dealing with historical resources; secondly, to increase the incentives given to landmarks to encourage new landmarks; thirdly, to offset the renovation costs of historical structures; fourthly, to encourage more reasonable and authentic restoration efforts and strategies; fifth, to provide designated deceiving sites for an historical structure (we've since taken that one out, I think) ; we also want to reduce the amount of demolition with historical resources; and simplify the methods of ownership of historical properties. That sort of summarizes the intent of what we are doing. I might add, in a kind of editorial way, that the affect, as I visualize it, is to create more smaller houses and fewer larger houses; create smaller units of density which have less impact than larger units of density. Smaller houses are really not being created these days, and these smaller houses would better serve the needs of the local, resident famililies and singles. It is kind of a counter measure to the production of the large homes. These smaller houses would balance the mix and fabric of the town, be more in scale with the traditional historical character, and be more available, potentially, for local families. Vickery continued stating, the corner unit that I initially planned, as I proposed it, was intended to be, actually, a very simple one in which all that was happening was that one could now through the code, end up with a condominium ownership, you could do the same thing, but end up with a single - family lot ownership. Everything else, in reality, or the intention was supposed to be like what you can already do with the code. It was really simply a change in the form of ownership. The code amendment as regarded by staff has gotten, in my mind, a lot more involved and a lot more complex, in terms of the issues. We had a meeting this afternoon and I tried to understand what staff's concerns were; they seem to be looking out quite a ways in their perspective that I didn't initially know about, and so, I think the two things that I want to, I guess, focus on; as proposed by staff, this code amendment is unworkable for my project. That's not to say it is not a good idea, but the way they proposed it, by forcing or not allowing the bonus in the use for the historical landmark properties, in my mind, creates a disincentive rather than an incentive to landmarks, 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 and a major obstacle to the way I have intended this thing would work. Lackner stated, one clarification, since Jake just covered the point about condominiumization, currently, he can do separate ownership of the historic parcel and a new house through condominiumization which is approved by the Planning Director. The City Attorney has advised staff that that condominiumization exemption or approval by the Planning Director needs subdivision approval ( process. So, that condominiumization approval by the Planning Director; we have been directed to change that to follow the subdivision process and would go through those standards. So, that is something that we have been advised as being closed. Jake drafted this code amendment with the vision that the Planning Director would sign off on the lot splits. The reason staff revised it to go to the Growth Management Commission is we are narrowing the existing lot split provisions in the code that is for lots 12,000 sq. ft. or greater, and we feel the Growth Management Commission was created to look at growth and lot splits and they are the appropriate body to be reviewing this. So, that is just to clarify, if you have questions about condominiumization. We have been advised that that needs to be taken out and we feel you will be seeing that before too long. Vickery stated, just to focus the dialogue a little bit, let me tell you where I'm at with this thing. First of all, turn to the review standards that we have in the memorandum here. I think I can say that there is pretty much agreement between myself and staff on items B through H, and that is the main body of the "stuff ", but where we are falling apart, and need some more room for work is on A and I; in both those cases, the memorandum refers to the revisions that staff has made and I would prefer to stick with the amendment as I proposed it. Those two standards, I think, we need to look at in a little more detail. In terms of staff's recommendation at the end of the memorandum, what I would like to do is eliminate number 4, no, not number 4, but eliminate the second part of number 4 where it says, the only HPC variance permitted for the Historic Landmark Lot Split are setback variances found to be required by the HPC. Also, eliminate number 5, which says, the historic landmark FAR bonus is not permitted on any lot created by the Historic Landmark Lot Split. I would like to see the bonuses and the full historical program for these landmarks maintained without compromising the situation. I don't understand why these particular things have been added to this code amendment, I think it is mixing two sets of jurisdiction, and it ends up being a stange mixture of "stuff ". Garton stated, Roger, before we ask questions of the applicant and staff, Amy, do you have any presentation as to why you did add some things? 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 Amidon answered, well, actually, I'm not amongst the staff who participated in writing the memorandum, and I agree with Jake, that I thinkithe FAR bonus should be retained. Jake and I did a quick study today and this seems to be an issue of some confusion between City staff, P &Z, and HPC. In the last, a little over two years, since I came here in May of 1993, there have been only two FAR bonuses awarded to an HPC project, and I think sometimes people have perceived that we are giving them out left and right, and that isn't the case. And, the same goes for the setback variances, the site coverage variances, and given the restriction that Jake is proposing here, where only the duplex FAR is allowed for the property. The FAR bonus can be very important; I don't think we should weaken the program by eliminating it, I don't think it is fair, and I don't think it has any connection. There doesn't seem to really be any justification for it. That 500 sq. ft. doesn't represent additional growth. Lamont stated, I just want to clarify the R -6 Zone District. The total floor area ratio for two detached residential dwelling units on a lot of 9,000 sq, ft. or greater shall not exceed the floor area lot of a duplex. Garton stated, you are supporting staff, Leslie? A Lamont stated, I'm just pointing out that the code already limits jl the floor area for two detached units on a parcel of 9,000 sq. ft. or greater to a duplex. It already limits it. Lackner stated, except, I think what Jake is clarifying, is that when he is creating the two parcels, it is a 9,000 sq. ft. lot, you are creating one 3,000 and one 6,000. The R -6 Zone District says for a 3,000 sq. ft. lot, a single - family home can have x, and a 6,000 sq. ft. lot can have x. So, instead of adding those two together and getting two single - family home sizes, which is a lot bigger, instead of having it calculated independently from what they can have on a single - family home on each, he is limiting it to a duplex for the whole parcel, which is 20°s less. Lamont stated, no, if this code amendment is not adopted to allow the lot split we all agree you could do two detached homes on this parcel and condominiumize these. But the floor area is that of one duplex. It's the lot split, that we all agree to do the lot split, you should not maybe be able to get the floor area for a single - family home. But you are not proposing even more than you can already do. , Vickery stated, exactly, like I say, the whole purpose, the whole structure of this thing was to do exactly what you could already do by the code, except end up with single - family lots instead of 14 PLA hWN \i;.5 Z ONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 cu; it:, uwriership. I would like to circulate this around; it i for you "guys" that I made, and what it does, it ju: v.es the FAR, single- family duplex FAR per size of lot. The . you increments. La %a:r;,r 1'nd, the FAR thing, and Leslie might be able to help you out a I; , bit on this. One of the reasons I think staff is a ;4 <I mf ii i 1. not be included is you are creating a non - conforming p� ri.storic structure. Staff's believe is that by giving h, u; xl i.on of not counting this new unit in the pool is a big ir,,cr�.ri, .;l,. It is not limited to one a year, we are providing owner, ;Hp incentive, yes, there is the condominiumization no if he can just divide this, but that is pending to be i. So, we are providing an option that non - conforming lo i: , ,,?, il.ed and that you can split an historic element on a sw "I! r ,.,rr.ucl. But, to put a 500 sq. ft. bonus, which is your max.imiim n?C bonus, on a non- conforming parcel may be too much. Mayb: we would want to say, somewhere in between, that maybe only 250 s ii, bonus would be appropriate because they are such small lots, discussion we had this afternoon, Jake and Amy were sayiii I rsually the full bonuses are only on larger parcels, mayno jtia;.c half a bonus, or something to reflect the smaller lot is ., aviy we can look at it. I don't know, maybe it confuses you more. Pt,i we are just trying to see a way to make it somehow work. Vi<;kery 1! wed, just to clarify that one more step, is just that, I pnrsoiiiI1 -y feel that HPC is perfectly qualified to judge whether or r1c,i , project deserves to get a bonus. That is their job, th:,l '„ Lhey are charged to do, that's their authority. I'm tr.y i o,jj i that authority with HPC. Like Amy said, in the past two pry ir;;, :Ance May of 1993, there's only been two projects that we. know o, that have gotten the bonuses. Both of those projects, one o.i .uh Ls the one that I am doing, are 10,500 foot lots. The purpos;c oll :showing you the FAR, as you see, as the lot size gets largc : n, the higher end of the scale, the FAR proportionately is ;lL <,�antly lower. One fairly viable argument supports the abi - I hese larger lots to accommodate up to 500 sq. ft. more. Ar.' this is the jurisdiction of HPC and we are trying to kc egrity. This program wasn't intended to undermine the Ht„ Lamm �::d, just to add to what Mary was saying, this whole year oi' ltl;;icr:" home discussion, and FAR discussion, when we started re <ing at our allowable FARs the biggest problem that we b; -: a. t: we were having with FARs was the ratio on our small lci ., Arr_r `r.�d, I agree with Leslie, this whole FAR discussion came G Jake's particular project, which is just one example of ;alts in 1,950 sq. ft. on a 5,200 sq. ft. lot, which is 1S i I \ I j f"+ PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST S, 1995 not an exceeded amount of FAR, and you should also realize that in his particular case that there are historic out - buildings that he is required to keep which add up to 400 sq. ft., or something like that. So, you have to realiJ:e that there are portions of buildings that someone might not necessarily wish to keep or out - buildings that are eating up FAR. That's part of the reason for the bonus in the first place. Hunt stated, well, I'll start with the basic philosophy that I do have pro]lems creating a non - conforming lot, just the basic problem there, it doesn't mean I can't get over it. I don't like the idea of creating a non - conforming lot, however, under the circumstance, there's an historic structure, and it can be parceled in a 3,000 sq. ft. lot, that's fine, but now, what goes on the remainder of the lot, which may not necessarily be historic at all once you've separated it from the historic structure. Now, if there's an outhouse or something like that, I guess that makes it historical all of a sudden, but my concern is, that on this new 6,000 sq. ft. developable lot, that really has minimal historic qualities to it, you are basically going to put a new structure on it, and I have severe problems of allowing that new structure, let's say, variances that would be to an historic structure. I'm just not interested in giving a new structure all those variances, I don't see where it is appropriate at all. What happens to the lot next to the new structure, if you vary the sideyard setback, you're going to impact that one with a new structure and don't think that's "cricket ". I'm sorry, I don't want to rely on HPC to make those decisions. I want to protect the next property owner, as well, in this whole thing. So, I can go along with this lot split idea, O.K., it makes some degree of sense, there's a good argument for it, but I have grave problems about variances and bonuses applied to the new structure; the lot that isn't necessarily historic. If there is an historic outhouse on it, and it's in a side yard setback, or something like that, fine, the variance can apply there to the outhouse, but it shouldn't apply to the new structure. Amidon stated, that actually is not being proposed. We have had the same feelings, I think, and there are no bonuses that are to be alloted to the part of the property that does not have the historic building, other than whatever might be allowed under cottage infill, if they were to be doing an ADU or something like that. We're not suggesting that, I agree with you, if it's a new empty lot, they should build within the regulations. Chaikovska stated, I think we have two conflicting things here, we're looking at a code amendment that applies to everybody, and yet, we're also constantly keeping in mind your project, which some of us may like very much, or may not, there are personal preferences, so, we are confusing two different things. To expand icy ® 1a .^1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 on what Roger says, we have to look when we do a code amendment as to what is fair, and what we think is appropriate for a code amerdment, period, without viewing your particular project. Then, once we decide what is appropriate there, then, we can look at your project, but to confuse the two makes it very difficult. Congress doesn't allow us to create an amendment to fit one person's needs, so I'd like to be able to separate the two in our minds, no matter how much we may like your project. Garton stated, I have a question, I need help from the staff; on page 5, recommending approval, what you are suggesting is all in bold, right? Lackner stated, yes, those would be the additions to the code. Garton asked, explain Item 2 to me. Lackner stated, the parcel is a designated historic landmark. The hiss,oric landmark is located on the lot which is less than 6,000 sq. Et. so, the new house, the new development, must be on a conforming size in the R -6 Zone. The historic house is the only one that can go on a non - conforming size parcel. Garton stated, only the historical is on the non - conforming. Vickery stated, that's a difference. Garton asked, than what you propose? Vickery stated, I don't propose that. Garton stated, so, you don't agree with that. Lackner stated, staff's looking at this as if we are going to be creating a non - conforming size parcel. We want that attached to the historic building to make it clear that that is our incentive. Now, we are confusing things, for Jake's approval, he wants to divide his lot evenly, creating two non - conforming sized parcels, and he can currently do that under his condominiumization. In terms of this code amendment, staff doesn't feel he should be going that far. Garton stated, I have to second Marta on this thing, too, I would like to see this happen for Jake, but I agree, that I think if it is a non - conforming lot it should be an historic parcel. Vickery stated, may I address that on a general basis? I will try to keep my project out of this as much as possible. The reason I don't support that, and I don't support it generally, not just for MY project, but generally, for in order for this to work, for example, if you had a 9,000 foot lot, and you had to make a 6,000 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 foot lot, that would only leave it 3,000 for the other site. Now, there's lots of historic properties that are not going to fit on the package like that because in order to do it, we'd have to have a house that's no more than 20 feet wide, and then, both of your side yards would only have to be 5 feet wide. I maintain that that's not a optimum situation, that it might be better to be 45 and 45, in that case, or whatever works. But to be saddled with a restriction of having to do a legal size 6,000 foot lot, when the FAR, by definition, is already going to be restricted and lowered to an allowable lot of record, it seems to me, just to saddle the project with less flexibility, and then a potentially less workable and attractive situation. Garton stated, my problem is that if you allow the new dwelling to go on the non - conforming lot, then, it shouldn't get the bonus, like you shouldn't be able to get it all, it is one or the other. Vickery stated, may I go back a step and just address that briefly? First of all, the entire parcel, or the two parts of parcels, are perpetually under the jurisdiction of HPC. So, the whole thing, forever, gets reviewed by HPC. It's not like just an historical part is reviewed by HPC, and the other thing just gets cut loose, it is a perpetual review. I believe, that you want to maintain the flexibility to be able to move things around, internal to the properties, and what might work, you may or may not want to put the bonus to the old house; or move it over to the new house. The J whole purpose of this is to take the development pressure off of the historical resource, push it over there, let it happen off to the side, so that you don't have the imposition of these large masses from the rear, kind of backing over these little, old houses. The purpose of this is to allow the little, old house to be restored and maintained in its own integrity, without the development pressure put on it, and put all that other pressure, or whatever you want to call it, or development onto this new thing, that's got its own entity, and is also reviewed by HPC. Let me point out just briefly, the proposal here is that HPC needs to have the flexibility in the variances and the coverage in order to make this dual house thing happen, because of the coverage requirements and setback requirments of large lots. The proposed code amendment says, the new lots shall conform to the underlying zone as if they were laws of record, which means that the coverage and the setbacks of these historical lot split lots then ought to meet the underlying setbacks and coverages as if they were lots of record. Is that clear? By doing that you eliminate the need for a vast majority of these variances. (At this point the tape has to be changed and some of the conversation between Hunt and Vickery was not taped.) 18 -. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 Vickery continued stating, let me give you an example. A hypothetical 10,500 foot lot; the side yard minimum side yard setbacks are 15 feet, not 5, not 10, but 15 feet, and the total of i the two side yard setbacks is 36 -1/2 feet, so, what this would do is allow the two houses to go on there and maybe have a 5 or 10 foot side yard setback that would require a variance from HPC, does currently require a variance from HPC, but under this new code amendment, would not, because when you make the small lots, all of a sudden you are down 5 and 10 foot side yard variances, with a total of. 15, inside this really big, the rather large setback requirement of the full size lot. Lackner stated, staff is seeing this as it is drafted that now the newly created lots, whether it's 3,000 or 4,500, meets those site coverage and setback requirements of that size parcel, and hopefully eliminating the need for any site coverage and setback variances. And then, that's what the neighbor would know when they call the Planning office, how close is this "guy" going to build to me, you would look out and see your setbacks, so it would be the same consistency as the rest of the townsite. Vickery stated, we are actually in agreement on that part. Hunt stated, I agree with that, but the "kicker" is the allowable variances that HPC could eject there. Vickery stated, in order to get a variance, any variance, or even any bonus from HPC, you have to go along with an argument that's made on the basis of what you are proposing is more compatible to the historical resource than what would otherwise be allowable. It has to meet that test, that's the test used to decide if the variance should be awarded. If somebody has a better idea how to do something, and they need an extra foot or something to make it work, HPC has the ability, under that circumstance, to approve that variance. That's the way the code is set up, that's the kind of authority HPC currently has. Hunt stated, for an historic resource, that's fine. Garton stated, I understand what Jake and Amy are saying, these are Siamese Twins forever, I mean, they really support each other and for us to suddenly think of them of a whole new building on another lot, we're allowing that to happen in order to make the historical structure work better and design a wall around that, before we divide out the other lot. You know these things are going to come into play, and it would probably be better for the character of the neighborhood. It puts a lot on HPC, but that's what HPC does now, anyway. 19 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST S, 1995 Chaikovska stated, HPC has review control over the whole parcel, correct? Your concern is that some of the FAR, all of the FAR, could go on the new parcel, but not on the old historic house? Garton stated, no, the bonus. Chaikovska stated, the bonus. You can always do the middle of the road, do a portion if you want it to go that way. Hunt stated, that there is so much square footage for the parcel? Chaikovska stated, yes, and the 500 is allocated between the two, that's another option. Chaikovskc�a stated, I just want a little more clarification on this #2, again. The parcel is designated historic landmark. The historic landmark is located on the lot which is less than 6,000 sq. ft. So, you're saying that the historic landmark will always be on the smaller parcel? Amidon answered, yes. Chaikovska stated, why do you care? Why would it have to be on the smaller parcel, why couldn't you have the situation where it could be on the larger parcel, what's the magic there? Lackner stated, just to follow that if it is an historic building, this is the incentive for a lot split, that we want to keep our new development more in conforming size parcels, which is 6,000 sq. ft. The aggregate, whatever it is, between 3,000 and 12,000, should be the historic parcel. That's where you could still get your HPC setback site coverage variances to fit your house onto that aggregate, or left over floor area. We still do have some concern about creating a non - conforming lot, as Roger said. That, at 1 first, when Jake came to us with this code amendment, how do we get past that issue, it's a really tough one, and that's where we were saying, that putting the historic element, or the incentive portion of the property onto the non - conforming parcel, we're maintaining the integrity of 6,000 sq. ft. lots we need developed. I think Jake has some valid concerns that the historic piece might not always fit. If it happens to be only a 9,000 sq. ft. parcel, that house may be too wide for that 3,000; I don't know, maybe look at other lot configuations. But that's where staff got over that non- conforming size lot issue. Amidon added, part of the other idea was too, was assuming we're dealing with a small, historic structure we wanted them to end up on small parcels because of the much less FAR. Garton stated, Jake, I see that the big issue is #5. Vickery stated, yes, I think the big issue is #5. I think where #4 gets a lot of relief is because of the underlying zoning deal. Garton asked, and you can live with that? 20 ,�. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION "1 AUGUST 8, 1995 Vickery stated, yes, I think that's basically right. Can I say one thing about the FAR? For example, let's take a hypothetical 9,000 sq. ft. lot. If you were to build the duplex FAR, you can see that on your sheets there, for a 9,000 sq. ft. lot, it is 40 -80. If you were just to evenly divide it into two equal lots, and you evenly divide the FAR, you would get two houses of 2,040 sq. ft. If you built to 4,500 feet, which is the size of each of those lots, you can see, the allowable single family FAR is 2,820. It means that the FAR in this new kind of lot deal is going to be approximately 780 sq. ; ft. less than what would be allowed on a lot of record. So, although we are creating non - conforming lots, we are also creating FAR restricted lots, so that these non - conforming FAR restricted lots are going to yield a structure for ball park purposes, is it going to something like about 25% smaller than what would be allowed on a lot of record. Vickery added, I'm comparing it to a 4,500 sq. ft. lot. I'm simply comparing it to a lot of record, basing it on a hypothesis of developing a 9,000 foot lot just from an academic view. Garton asked, does the Commission need more information on this? Mooney stated, this is killing me. I don't think I can vote for this; it's not because I want to vote for Jake's alteration of this, it is because I have a problem with non - conforming creations and I don't think this simplifies the code. I think we have plenty of leeway and plenty of incentive for an architect to draw the project that is compatible with the HPC's desires and insight and with the City Code. This to me is just taking off on a tap that I don't know when it's going to apply, where it's going to apply, and who it is going to apply to. People need these things, they can get their architect to do what they need on these lots with what we have existing, in my opinion. For us to invent another way for some imaginary project to be better than it could be, it's driving me crazy. So, I would make a motion to deny it, even this code amendment, because I don't think the code amendment is necessary here, and I'm not making the motion to deny this because I think that one or two of the conditions need to be treated, I think the whole thing is just not really all there. Lamont stated, don't forget, you are the Growth Management Commis;,i.on with the County P &Z. Chaikovska stated, we need to go back to the beginning; I like the idea that we were trying to simplify the process for somebody who wanted to lot split versus condominiumizing because if it was condominiumized, would you have control over the whole project anyway? 21 PLANNING & ZONING COMM ISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 Amidon stated, well, yes, because we do all our landmark designations by legal description. Chaikovska stated, so, whether 1we allow a lot split or a condominiumization, it doesn't,-matter in terms of what type of agency had control over the whole parcel? Amidon stated, no. Chaikovska stated, under a lot split we would say, under this, HPC has control over the whole parcel, correct? Under condominiumization, we still have control over the parcel. No change, all it does is make it easier for somebody to sell their project. Mooney stated, it doesn't restrict or limit the way they can sell it, it just basically means that there are two people that decide what happens with the land underneath both structures. So, they basically have to agree. Chaikovska stated, if you come under the lot split you don't really exempt them out of that pool for three years, is that correct? Lackner stated, the way this code is drafted, yes. \ Chaikovska stated, so, that's the benefit of it. J Garton stated, if they stay to the old process that our City Attorney's now advise us, they'd have to track the subdivision process. Chaikovska stated, so, if you're condominiumized you would get your 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus from HPC, correct? The whole bussel. The thing that becomes different is now when you are saying, you've been put on the new or the old, am I correct, if you lot split? Vickery stated, it's all done as part of a site specific development plan that's looked at as a whole. The site specific development plan is what apportions the FAR to individuals. Lackner stated, the way the code amendment was drafted, the applicant was asking that he could get an FAR bonus for both new and created parcels. Staff's believe is you have the following parcel with an historic designation, you are allowed one FAR exemption. I think that's been fairly clear throughout the project. Vickery stated, that's agreeable, the intention really isn't to get more FAR bonus or anything. The FAR bonus that is potentially available to the full site, right now, would still be available to 22 .-. 1 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION that site. AUGUST 8, 1995 Blaich stated, I'm trying to separate the two issues, too. I would like to come back to this specific project.i Jake, your objection to the condominiumization of the property, is related to what, because you can do everything under that? What is your objection? Vickery stated, my objection to condominiumization is number one, what happens is, the land is owned between the two people, and I felt like it would be better to have it; I just want to own this land myself. Secondly, in order to do the condominium, you have to have condominium documents, you have to have a condominium plat, you have to have a Tax I.D. number, and you have to do all this "stuff ". It's really superficial "stuff ". The people that are out there doing it, and it works out fine, but, you know, they just legally "rig" it up so that it is ineffective. I prefer to have the idea that this is my house, this is my lot. Blaich stated, well, I speak as somebody who lives under those circumstances, as I brought up before. With my property, it has had little or no problems as long as both parties agree, or that's where you get into trouble, because, at least under my agreement, the original owners agreed, and I have to live with this, that there will be no major alterations of design on houses, they would approve such things, and that they have first priority of refusal on purchase or sell of that house. Those are the only real 1 restrictions, and the second one doesn't mean anything because the person can say, I'm going to sell that property and I want 10 million dollars for it, and if they don't want it, turn around and sell it for 3 million. So, I can just say from experience, it doesn't bother me that it is condominiumized. It might bother somebody who wants to buy my property or the other property later. It could be an affect, maybe, but I don't know. I wouldn't make too much of it, that's all I'm saying. There was discussion at random between Blaich and Vickery regarding the possibility of condomininiumization. Blaich stated, what we are trying to do here is, we have the issue of trying to do something to help you get your project through, and then, complicating our lives, because this thing might have a negative affect the next time it comes before us, and everybody has the right to say, I'm sorry, you did it before, we now have the right too. I'm a little disturbed about this, because there is differences of opinion between staff, I'd like to see staff in agreement with this, not say, well, we really haven't come together. I think it would be a lot easier for us to deal with it if staff would say we have worked it out and we can agree with this. �' 23 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 Hunt st_.ated, I'm very close to Tim on this, and may second a motion., so it doesn't die, but I haven't yet. About this FAR bonus, O.K. you get a tangible benefit with the lot split and as far as I'm concerned, the bonus is on the historic original parcel and that bonus should be split up between the parcels because we no longer have common ownership between the parcels. For example, let's set up the hypothetical situation that HPC approves application of all the bonus on the new structure, and what happens, if later down the line someone wants to do something with the historic structure and add a little to it, and the new structure has eaten the bonus all the way up. That's not particularly correct, so, what is condominiumized, if there were any bonus left over on the new structure, with a condom i_niumization, the historic structure could possibly apply for that bonus. well, when you stick the lot split in there, you don't any longer have that transfer between the fee, so to speak. So, consequently, I only feel it is fair to apply the bonus on the basis of the ratio of the size of the lots to the properties. I'm very close to Tim, I can't move for it the way it is, I'm really close t.o Tim. I don't know if anyone else is, or not, but that potential defect in the bonus in the way the variances are applied to the new structure has me really worried. Garton stated, for me, I too am disturbed, like Bob, by the difference in staff on this, but I do see this as a real effort to try to keep some small, historical resources, and keep them small. If they are on a parcel that warrants this, it is one of our best chances, I see, at keeping a small, historic house. I have a lot of problem with the bonus thing, as well, and I think Marta's suggestion enlarges on this too, to somehow have a ratio. But then, on the other hand, I have a lot of faith in HPC, and I think I would like to leave it up to them, I think HPC was really created to look at these things. If there is an historic element with it, I think HPC can review it a lot better than any code can actually do. I am willing to go with Jake's original proposal. MOTION Mooney stated, I move that we deny this application for a code amendmcint under the existing conditions. Hunt seconded. Roll call vote was requested by Garton. Voting commenced, vote was: Hunt, aye for the motion; Garton, no for the motion; Mooney, aye; Blaich, no; Chaikovska, aye; Buettow, no. Vote was a split vote, motion did not carry. Discussion of Motion Mooney stated, I am making the motion because of non - conforming size of the lot and because basically I think that we can stretch it to b., because that is kind of an overall umbrella; I think i. Ox" o n PLANb & 'ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 has aihroad enough umbrella; I think h., basically dealing with the setb,i(A iras changed the surrounding neighborhood and impacts the house:; t.hat are immediately adjacent. 0 Hunt si,ai;cd, I could see in this application that the bonuses and varia.ric,rs would be in conflict with the compatibility of the surrounding zone district land use, for one thing. Garton asked, is there another motion from the Commission? MOTION Blaich stated, I would like to make a motion that we table it and that si.c.t'i` go back and work it out in more detail after the discussi.ort we have had today. Hunt seconded. Roll call vote was requested by Garton. Voting commenced; Hunt, aye; Garton, aye; Mooney, aye; Blaich, aye; Chaikovska, aye; Buettow, aye. Vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion Lackner stated, I would like a lot clearer direction, I think, from the di.sct.ission we had today, we were kind of all over the place. There iaa:; a lot of discussion about non- conforming, some people can't: qr.0 passed that; bonuses, we really haven't come to a 1 direction of where we should be going with those. Some of the J comments were, everything's in the code now, why worry about it. Garton stated, wasn't the Commission interested in exploring the ratio ;x,rtion of the bonus? Hunt - ,!_uted, my biggest concerns were the bonuses and the variances, and how do we deal with those. You know how I feel on those. tor. example, if that could be addressed, I could probably switch my vote. Vickery stated, what would you like to do, would you like it to be a proporlJonate type split? Hunt Wi,ji,od, well, in the case of bonuses, the original bonus for the i or.-operty, parceled out between the new pieces of property proporti.ouately. Vickery asked, would you have a problem with all of the bonus going in the tii:;r.orical resource? Hunt ;;i yes, because it is now on a non- conforming lot, and I'm l.00ki.oq at the bonus as belonging to the original parcel, so that: toxin; should be split up between the two new parcels. That's when., ['tr. coming from there. The variances, I have no problems W PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION there and if they needed an eventual change of just full line bu, and it was not used as a residential unit, then we have achi.eved our employee migigation requirements. AUGUST 8, 1995 Garton asked, does the applicant have anything to add? Ted Guy, the applicant, stated, we agree with the conditions and restrictions outlined in the memorandum. The deed restriction that has been presented to us by the Housing Authority does allow us, if we terpinate the commercial use of this Unit #7, to apply to the Housing Authority to remove the deed restriction on Unit #8, since it is no longer required. So, we have no problems with staff's recommendations. Mooney stated, can't you buy it back from the person? Guy replied, it is only a rental. Lamont stated, my understanding is that deed restrictions ultimately have to be lifted, but they have to be lifted by Council. Garton stated, so, we wouldn't see it, then? Lamont stated, typically, the way we catch people going from \, residential to commercial is through their business licenses or if J they are not pulling a building permit to eliminate a kitchen or do significant renovation in the building; it's through a business license which goes through our zoning office that we catch somebody and say you have to come through our change in use process. Garton asked, does it go through Stan or something? Lamont answered, no, Bill calls the person on the license and says, you need to go through a change in use, or with your business you are not allowed in that zone district, or things like that. That's why all our business licenses go through Bill Drueding and that is where we would typically catch a change in use. Hunt stated, sort of a quick question here, are there any other units that are deed restricted in this complex? Guy answered, no. Hunt stated, my only problem, not a major problem, but I guess it has to do with the business aspect; how do you figure out that the hair salon is all the way back around this question mark (referring to drawings)? It shows the existing walk, but that existing walk is shaded by a lot of foliage in that little corner. 28 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 1 Guy answered, we are going to be improving the side yard on the west. We have several handicapped clients who follow this location, so they will come in either from the alley and be able to come in from the street. We will, basically, plant lilac hedges and turn that into a very nice yard. Now, if we had to put a sign or something out there, we would have to 'go through whatever sign code requirements you have and address them. Hunt stated, I assume you have one or two parking spaces in the alley for, this unit and are the parking spaces numbered for the actual apartments? Guy stated, well, we suggested that what we would do is to double parking on the side. A condition for the addition was that one of those spaces be deleted, and I think that Chuck Roth felt that there was enough on street parking in the area to cover the occasional use. There are eight legitimate studio apartments at this time, but there are only seven parking spaces. Hunt stated, in other words, the seven across the back? Guy stated, so, we are improving the parking situation and will park our employee car in the parking right next to the door to #8. Hunt stated, but that is a double park space, and I don't recall you have access. Guy replied, yes, it is a double park space and we will park there and our customers will be allowed to park on the alley. The person who is the deed restricted occupant in Unit #8 does not own a car. Hunt asked, would you plan on, in affect, re- designating these spaces, assuming that, let's say, #7 and #8 are on the end here, and however you want to work them, so that your customer would be able to use the one closest to the alley? Guy answered, right now, the lease on the those back units we do not provide parking on site for. Garton stated, would you like to make that a condition, Roger, just because it is better planning? MOTION Hunt stated, I move to grant a GMQS Exemption for the change in use of one 457 sq. ft. dwelling unit, number 7, from a primary residential use to a mixed commercial /residential use with Conditions 1 -3 in Planning Office memorandum dated 8 August 1995, with an addition of a condition to reorganize or renumber the parking spaces in the alley to allow the minute commercial apartment parking in what is now spaces 1 and 8. Blaich seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. M PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995 1 r Discussion of Motion Mooney stated, I'm wondering, is the person who lives in the unit that is going to be deed restricted, does he already qualify? Guy answered, yes. Mooney stated, and do you think that we should say, that with that qualification, that he won't own a car? Because we are now eliminating his parking space and making it a kind of temporary in- and -out parking space. Guy answered, no, he does not have a parking space at this time, so, we're not changing anything in regard to his situation because of the lease. Hunt stated, I understand. But you do have some spaces across the back section? Guy answered, but the way people park, they only have five on some days. Commissioners Blaich and Buettow had to leave the meeting at this point. WORKSESSION The worksession on the ADU Survey Review was taped and is stored in the City Clerk's Office for any information needed. AH /RO CONTINUED DISCUSSION: TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO NON - CONTIGUOUS PARCELS Old Business, AH /RO Continued Discussion: Transfer of Development Rights to Non - Congiguous Parcels was tabled to the August 22, 1995 meeting. Additional Discussion Lamont stated, what we need to do is look at commercial growth in a different way, and I'm wondering if we need to bring our work program to you and we can discuss with you your priorities for us. Mooney stated, well, the whole thing is, I don't know how to get at it. We have big companies coming in and dominating the resort appetite of a small community, and who are not mitigating. This community has to in some way be in partnership with these big businesses that are national and international corporations, and I think one of the things that we don't have is the ability to pay 30 PLANNING & ZON ING COMMISSION AUGUST 8. 1995 full -time lobbists, like the Aspen Skiing Company, to expand the airport. We don't have the ability to hire full -time transportation experts that can balance out these "guys" from Vail that are trying to turn our community into a mini -Vail, just to expand the resort. To me, we start hedging on the idea that if the resort gets so big that it makes us a second class community, then, the resort starts to fail, and my idea about the attack they are taking, is to expand the airport, to put more people on the street, and once they get more people on the street, they are going to have an appetite for more rooms, and more restaurants, and more shops. Once they build more rooms, restaurants and shops, they are going to want to expand the airport, create more people and put more people on the street. If we don't start mitigating that kind of outside growth, not just in what people do while building on their lot, just control the appetite of these national and international corporations for using our community for their resort development. I think we lose everything, and all the work we have done residentially, to put these people in these whatever kind of boxes, on these lots and these spaces. Garton asked, you don't think the Community Plan is that kind of guide and has that kind of teeth? Mooney stated, I don't think the Community Plan addresses the commercial growth in any level of a percentage that is effective; I definitely think that without Snowmass being involved in the Community Plan, Sara, we're going to be shattered by the immediate growth of these commercial entities. And the Ski Company, it is outrageous, 2,700 employees. To my mind, I don't think they have mitigated for one of those employees. I know they have some employee housing that they bought, but they are bringing in outside employees as fast as they can build their business and they are building their business by bringing in outside employees, and all of a sudden the community is becoming shadowed by them trying to compete with other resorts. I don't know, I've got to get at it, so that's my "speal ". Lamont stated, but do you think we could have a better discussion in the context of our work program where we're really, so far, for Council, we have a lot of commercial work that we want to do. It's not reducing our quota, if you look at what our available quotas have been and what we have gotten in commercial growth management, it's been nothing. We want to get at it. Mooney stated, just because we have allocated growth for commercial development in the core, we have made that available, but we haven't made it useable. What we've done is, sqeeze it on one end and shoot out the other end. So, what we are doing is allowing international companies to come in here and dominate us with their kind of growth, because we are not allowing other local businesses i 31 I PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION to take advantage of growing in the commercial core. That's not really a priority for me, to say that there's too much available FAR for commercial growth. To me, it is the philosophical intent iof allowing the community to be used for huge corporations to profit when they are not mitigating the impacts on the community. AUGUST 8, 1995 Garton stated, there's no way that they could provide the infra- structure and pay for it. Mooney stated, maybe, that's it. I've always been curious to find out how we can shut the water off. We're at the head of all the water, the tap fees, and the growth, and everything, and maybe, unless there's mitigation for commercial growth of these companies, you know, you just start pulling something in or taking control of a company. When I started the Ski Company there were 45 ski instructors on Aspen Mountain and there were about 90 at Buttermilk, and maybe, 90 at Snowmass. Now there is 900. 900 instructors. There's 2,700 Ski Company employees. Now, we don't have the ability to say if you expand the FAR of your building, you have to pay. But, here, they have the whole outdoors and they're putting people off because they want people coming through; it's out of balance. It is commercial growth that has me very concerned. Garton asked, in our next packet for the 22nd, be sure to put the l 31st, that worksession, on our future meetings. With P &Z, where J we are to meet with them. We are supposed to meet with the City Council to discuss the Aspen Area Community Plan, and I have August 31st, a Thursday, at 5:00 p.m. Lamont stated, I will double check and I will make sure it is on your agendas so you all will know; the time, everything, because they are starting to meet at 4:30 p.m. for the worksessions. Mooney stated, I would like to take it into as strong a discussion session as possible. I don't mean to climb the ladder with this kind of information, I like to start at the top and start throwing people energy at it. You know, this sensationalism that the Ski Company and other community aspects are using to create a sentimental idea that we're not big enough, is "stuff" like the ski season was 5; off in attendance. Well, that's not talking about the profit the Ski Company made; they have the highest lift ticket price, they're running some of the most expensive hotels, blah, blah, blah, and they are still generating a tremendous return with the people we have coming here. To say that they need more people in order to make their companies viable is some kind of sensational kind of headline. That gets everybody worried that we're not strong enough_ 32 1 PLANNING & ZON IN(; CO MMISSION ` Meeting was e3(p r icA at 7:45 p.m. i Respectfully wLi.i.ed, Sharon M. Car`ril o, Deputy City Clerk AUGUST S, 1995 33 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: 616 W. Hopkins Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit - Public Hearing DATE: August 8, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking to construct an accessory dwelling unit in conjunction with a new residence to be developed at 616 W. Hopkins, to satisfy the housing mitigation requirements of Ordinance 1. The Planning Office recommends approval of the 616 W. Hopkins Conditional Use for an accessory dwelling unit with conditions. APPLICANT: Dr. Robert and Sheri Hirschfield, represented by David Brown of Stryker /Brown Architects. LOCATION: 616 W. Hopkins, Lots 0 & P, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen. The site is 6,000 sq.ft. ZONING: R -6. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use approval to build a required accessory dwelling unit in conjunction with the demolition and reconstruction of an existing three bedroom, 2,234 sq.ft residence to a five bedroom, 3,546 sq.ft. residence. The ADU is proposed to be a studio unit of approximately 312 sq.ft. The project received Design Review approval, pursuant to Ordinance 35, Series of 1994. The ADU is proposed to be located on the southwest corner of the residence on the 1st floor of a two story house. The unit has two minimal sized windows from the unit facing south onto Hopkins Street. The primary windows for the unit are oriented to the west to the neighboring property. Since this unit is located above grade, it is eligible for a floor area bonus of one -half of the unit's size. The applicant has submitted floor plans and site drawings for the proposed development. See attached blueprints and the application information in Exhibit "A ". REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments from the Engineering Department are included as Exhibit "B" and Housing Authority Exhibit "C ". STAFF COMMENTS: The Commission has the authority to review and approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to the standards of Section 7 -304: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located; and Response: The proposed dwelling unit has the potential to house local employees, which is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan and the underlying zone district. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and Response: The accessory dwelling unit is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The unit will not be visible as a distinct unit from the exterior of the residence. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and Response: The accessory dwelling unit will be completely contained within the proposed residence. The unit is located in the front of the residence, however the orientation of the unit is to the west sideyard. The entrance to the ADU is covered by a porch like roof. No on -site parking is proposed for the ADU, however the site plan indicates that two parking spaces will be provided in the garage and three additional spaces on the garage apron. Staff believes these five spaces are adequate for the residence and the ADU, as long as one of the spaces is specifically designated for the ADU. As per past P &Z concerns, a recommended condition of approval requires that the unit be identified on building permit plans as a separate dwelling unit requiring compliance with U.B.C. Chapter 35 for sound attenuation. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage I '\ systems, and schools; and Response: The City Engineer, Chuck Roth has identified several conditions of approval that would be applicable for the ADU. These conditions address site drainage, encroachments, utilities, and work in the public right -of -way and are included in the proposed conditions in the recommendation section of this memorandum. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and Response: The applicant must file the appropriate deed restriction for resident occupancy of the unit, including a six month minimum lease. Proof of recordation must be forwarded to the Planning Office prior to issuance of any building permits. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Community Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. Response: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and all other applicable conditional use standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the 616 W. Hopkins ADU, subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted to resident occupancy with a minimum six month lease. Upon approval by the Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Prior to issuance of any building permits, a copy of the recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit must be forwarded to the Planning Office and Housing Authority. The accessory dwelling unit shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements. During building permit plan review, the Zoning Enforcement Officer and Housing Office shall make the final determination that the unit meets the minimum size requirement of 300 sq.ft. net liveable as defined in the Housing Authority Guidelines. The accessory dwelling unit cannot be less than 300 net liveable sq.ft. 5. During building permit plan review, the Zoning Enforcement Officer and Housing Office shall make the final determination that the unit is above or below grade. If the unit is found to be located above grade, the applicant is eligible for one - half of the floor area of the ADU as a FAR bonus. The accessory dwelling unit shall have a kitchen which is a minimum of a two - burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6 -cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. The applicant shall meet the following requirements of the City Engineer: a. The new development plan shall provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run -off shall be maintained on site. b. Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right -of -way. The final development plan shall indicate an easement for the existing utility pedestals. The final development plan will be recorded to document the easement. c. The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area which cannot be located in the public right - of -way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers. d. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920 -5088) for design considerations of development in the public rights -of -way, parks department (920 -5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way from city street department (920- 5130). d tj W Kate e. The final site plan shall �.acate an on -site parking y� space for the ADU. tp4A f. A sidewalk shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. A curb and gutter agreement will also be required to be signed by the applicant at this time. The City Engineer shall review and approve the location and design of the proposed sidewalk. 8. The applicant shall meet with the Parks Department to review the proposed vegetation alterations on site. This meeting shall take place prior to the issuance of any permits for the property. The applicant shall comply with the tree 0 replacement requirements of the Parks Department. 9. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECONMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Conditional Use for the 616 W. Hopkins accessory dwelling unit to be located within a new residence, subject the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated August 8, 1995." Exhibits: " A " - Application Information "B" - Engineering referral memo "C" - Housing referral memo 10, Q�noviaui>\ �noGu�`i� �� ��20 p�l✓t� ��{,u<f aG t�4 DNU d t6U b➢- Q 5 S TRYKER/ B ROWN A R C H I T E C T S, PC 616 W. HOPKINS, Aspen lots O+P, block 25 Accessory Dwelling Unit Conditional Use Permit Application TO: Ms. Kim Johnson, Aspen Pitldn Planning Department FROM: David Brown DATE: 4.25.95 Exhibit A Please find plans and elevations (attachment 3) attached for the 616 W. Hopkins, single family residence which includes a proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit. Also attached are Attachment 1 (1. application form), Attachments 2: (1. Applicant's address and authorization of agency for representative; 2. Address and legal description, above; 3. Copy of Tax Notice (proof of ownership) 4. Vicinity map 5. Written description of the proposal and how it complies with the review standard, i.e.: Attachment 4 The net usable area for the proposed unit is 312 +/- sf. Final Construction documents will conform with this approved amount. The unit is above grade and 156 sf of additional "bonus" FAR is being applied for. Please let me know if you need additional information, the scheduled date for P +Z review, and when the Posting Notice is ready for pickup. 300 SOUTH SPRING STREEC S[nE 300, ASPEN, GDLoRADo 81611 303.925.2254` 975.2258 (FAX) 1) 2) 3) 5) 6) ATTAaRleir 1 _,No USE AP X CA J T 1 1a / s � FM Project dame (e' 0 w tbf `�` "� Pzo i ect Location �!(O W "npy -++� cors C4 f PV ,Oae— -ZC e ur .... rrr... . _. (lndlcat6 sixeet a ]mss, of h1 Ock nmiber, legal descz7.ption re . appropriate) (n 000 51= Prwit zoning �-CO 4) Lot size r r i 7�)/ Type of Application (Please check all that apply) Conditional Use __ Cuxxpbial SPA Historic Dev. Special Peview _ Final SPA _ Final Historic Dev. _ 8040 Greenline St ream Margin .. Final PUD _ Mocmtain View Plane _ Subdivision borx1 mini u6ization' ?gip Ame[cbmt Itrt Split/Tat Lim Adjustment Minor Historic Dev. Historic Demolition Historic Designation G QS Allotment Gtps Emopt1on 9) ... .ib M lA �� 9 2 i mil '' i 10) itavv you attached the follori ' p4sponse to Attac 2. Miy x StrtnissiOn 03ntcnts Response to Attachment 3, Specific Skmissian Content; Response to Attachment 4, Revia+ Standards for Your Application I r C d fJ an I W °c n N I C < I ,G J Z «+ J 4 V O V = Z w 1� IW H Y d Un < ,w W O Z x a M G 7 :2 c n h cC, r O ° a h Z i1 u: J ' G Z m y Q Y W 0 ;; W G 1 I I I I � F APP 25 '95 A:50 3TR'rKER /BROWN i�RCHS. April 2.4, 1995 Ms. Kim Johnson Planner Aspen - Pitkin County Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 616 W. Hopkins, Aspen, CO Dear Leslie and Kim: P.1 /2 I, We, Robert and Sheri Hirschfield, as the legal owners of the above referenced property, hereby authorize Mssrs. David Brown and Wayne Stryker of Stryker /Brown Architects, PC to represent me in all matters pertaining to the addition /renov4tion approvals for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at our property at 616 W. Hopkins, Aspen, The Stryker /Brown business address and phone number are as follows: Stryker /Brown Architects, PC 300 South Spring Street, Suite 300 Aspen, CO 81611 303.925.2254 925.22586 (fax) If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Signed this .2-5— of 1 _ 199. IF I 305. 662.8587 Phone number 5891 Southwest 91 Str eet, byliami, Florida 3315! Address _ r P ' . 616 W. HOPENS lots H +1, block 25,Aspen Attachment 4 Review Standards: Accessory Dwelling Unit Conditional Use Permit Application A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located; and The Conditional Use, Accessory Dwelling Unit, is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the R -6 zone district. This ADU will provide potential resident housing within walking distance to mass transit (reduced auto impacts) and community services, enhancement of the Shadow Mountain pedestrian system, and promote Environmentally Sustainable Development (energy efficient attached dwelling close to services), lifestyle diversity, in a structure designed to be compatible with the Historic resources of Aspen. The ADU will provide about 334 sf of net liveable space in an . efficiency" configuration. The unit will comply with Housing Authority guidelines and the requirements of Ordinance 1. The Owner will hopefully rent the unit to a local resident in exchange for some light caretaking responsibilities. _ The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and ac— tivities in the - immediate vicinity of. the parcel - proposed for development; and The Conditional Use, Accessory Dwelling Unit is consistent and compatible with the character of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood of Aspen, the immediately adjacent buildings are contemporary single and multi - family uses, and the neighborhood is an eclectic mix of styles and uses Including lodges. The ADU will only slightly Increase the size of the Single Family House and entry will be provided it's own street sidewalk access at street level. The new house will be MORE compatible with the traditional character of Aspen and the neighborhood character than the existing house. The location, size, design and operating characteris- tics of the proposed conditional• use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedes— trian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and The ADU and principal residence of this structure will minimize visual, circulation, parking, trash and service, and noise Impacts on surrounding properties. Although an offstreet parking will not be dedicated to the unit, it is likely that one of the off- street spaces will often be available for use by the ADU resident. The location of the residence will allow pedestrian access to town, services, and Main Street bus routes. Trash will be contained within the garage which will be accessed from the - garage door by a keypad operator. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and There are existing utility services to a home on this site. The existing home is to be replaced with a new slightly larger home is bedrooms, if 2 are built in the optional basement plus ADU vs. existing 3 bedrooms). There are adequate public and municipal services to service this expansion. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and yes. F. The proposed conditional tional standards imposed Comprehensive Plan and by ments of this chapter. use complies with all addi— on it by the Aspen Area all other applicable require The Conditional Use Accessory Dwelling Unit complies with all additional standards imposed by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and other requirements of the Zoning code. I .. ITM To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department 6-k- Date: July 28, 1995 Exhibit B Re: 616 West Hopkins Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) (616 West Hopkins Avenue; Lots 0 & P, Block 25, Original Aspen Townsite) Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. A ccess - The access is from the alley which is a good site design. 2. Sidewalk. Curb and Gutter - Section 19 -98 of the City Code requires that sidewalk, curb and gutter be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The site is located on West Hopkins Avenue which is designated by the "Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan" as a primary pedestrian route. Sidewalk will be required to be constructed prior to C.O., and a curb and gutter agreement will be required since there is no other curb and gutter in place on this block. There is no sidewalk in place on this block, however the Neighborhood Advisory Committee and staff both recommend obtaining segments of sidewalk at all opportunities. The curb will ultimately be located 17' -6" from the property line, therefore the preferred location for the sidewalk will be between the irrigation ditch and the private property line. 3. Site Drainage - One of the considerations of a development application for conditional use is that there are adequate public facilities to service the use. One public facility that is inadequate is the City street storm drainage system. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run -off must be maintained on site. 4. Parkin ¢ - Even though there is on- street parking in the area, the final development plan should potentially be required to reflect one parking space for each bedroom including the ADU because snow removal requirements place increasing pressure on on- street parking and because West Hopkins Avenue is a designated bike and pedestrian route. 5. Utiliti - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the alley public right -of -way. 6. Easement for Existing Pedestals - The final development plan should indicate an easement for the existing utility pedestals. The plan will be recorded to document the easement. 7. Trash & Utili Are a - The site improvement survey does not indicate the location of the dumpster. The site visit revealed that the dumpster is in the alley. The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area, which may not be in the public right -of -way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash md recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers. 8. As-builts - Staff has researched the potential burden of requiring as- builts on a computer disk in a DFX format compatible with the City /County GIS system so that the system can receive building footprint and other information updates as development occurs. One vendor in the private sector reported that the cost would be about $75. The City /County Data Processing Department reports that they might be able to do the work at a cost of $50 to the client. Therefor it appears to be reasonable to begin to require as- builts on a disk in a DFX file for all land use applications. Staff is working on a Code amendment to require this as a condition of all certificates of occupancy. 9. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920 -5088) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920 -5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920 - 5130). cc: Stan Clauson, Dr. Robert & Sheri Hirschfield, David Brown, M95.175 2 wrstv.7:iNkP. n� Exhibit C TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: June 5, 1995 RE: 616 West Hopkins Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit Parcel ID No. 2735- 124 -48 -008 The size of the accessory unit falls within the guidelines of the Code: Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable floor area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor area. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. The applicant states that the accessory dwelling unit is to consist of approximately 312 square feet of living area, and is be located attached to the principal residence on the first floor. The kitchen must also be built to the following specifications: Kitchen - For Accessory Dwelling Units and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a two- burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6 -cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. This unit falls within the Code and, therefore, staff recommends approval. The applicant must provide to the Housing Office a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, which can be obtained from the Housing Office. The Housing Office must have the recorded book and page number prior to building permit approval. \word \referral \616wh0p.adu 616 W. HOPIQNS lots H +l, block 25,Aspen Attachment 4 Review Standards: Accessory Dwelling Unit Conditional Use Permit Application A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of` the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located; and The Conditional Use, Accessory Dwelling Unit, is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan end the R -6 zone district. This ADU will promAde potentie! resident housing within walking distance to mass transit (reduced auto impacts) and community services, enhancement of the' pedestrian system, and promote Environmentally Sustainable Development (energy efficient attached dwelling dose to services), lifestyle diversity, in a structure designed to be compatible with the Historic resources of the West End. The ADU will provide about 312 sf of net Iiveabie space in an "ef dency" configuration. The unit will comply with Housing Authority guidelines and the requirements of Ordinance 1. The Owner wYl hopefully rent the unit to a local resident in exchange for some light caretai<ing responsibilities. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character, of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and ac= tivities in the immediate vicinity of. the 'parcel proposed for development; and The Conditional Use, Accessory Dwelling Unit is consistent and compatible with the character of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood of Aspen, the Immediately adjacent buildings are contemporary single and multi- family uses, and the neighborhood Is an eclectic mix of styles and uses including lodges. The ADU will only slightly increase the size of the Single Family House and entry will be provided its own street sidewalk access at street level. The new house will be MORE compatible with the traditional character of Aspen and the neighborhood character than the existing house. C. The location, size, design and operating characteris- tics of the proposed conditional.itse minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedes- trian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and The ADU and principal residence of this structure will minimize visual, circulation, parking, trash and service, and noise impacts on surrc:mding properties. Although an offstreet parking will not be dedicated to the unit, it is likely that one of the off -street spaces will often be available for use by the ADU resident. The location of the residence will allow pedestrian access to town, services, and Main Street bus routes. Trash will be contained within the garage which will be accessed from the "garage" door by a keypad operator. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and There are existing utility services to a home on this site. The existing home is to be replaced with a nuw slightly larger home (5 bedrooms, if 2 are built in the optional basement plus ADU vs. existing 3 bedrooms). There are adequate public and municipal services to service this expansion. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and yes. F_ The proposed conditional_ use complies with all addi— tional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable require— ments-of this chapter. The Conditional Use Accessory Dwelling Unit complies with al additional standards imposed by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and other requirements of the Zoning code. APPLICANT: ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONE DISTRICT: LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET): EXISTING FAR: ALLOWABLE FAR: PROPOSED FAR: EXISTING NET LEASABLE (COMMERCIAL): PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (COMMERCIAL): EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE (COMMERCIAL): PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE (COMMERCIAL): EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: EXISTING ON -SITE PARKING SPACES: ON -SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: SETBACKS: EXISTING: Front: Rear: Side: Combined Front /Rear: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hirschfield 3240 + 167 (adu bonus) s 3407 S.F. tO Principal Bldg: 25'allowed /Accessory Bldg: Principal Bldg: +/ -24' /Accessory BSI g: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: 13.25' Front: 10 Front: 11.5' ±7 Rear: 10, Rear: 18.5' 12 Side: 15' Side: 15' 20,25'+/- Combined Front /Rear: ,30'- Combined Front /Rear: 30' EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ ENCROACHMENTS: west wall encroaches into west side setback 3'+/- VARIATION REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks Only: character compatibility finding must be made by HPC): FAR: SETBACKS: Front: Rear: side: Combined Front /Rear: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: Parking Spaces: Open Space (commercial): _ Height (Cottage Infill Only): _ Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): -. ASPEN /PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920 -5090 FAX 920 -5439 MEMORANDUM TO: Housing Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Hirschfield Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit Parcel ID No. 2735- 124 -48 -008 DATE: May 5, 1995 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Robert and Sheri Hirschfield. Please return your comments to me no later than June 1. Thank you. July 3, 1995 David Brown Stryker /Brown Architects 300 S. Spring Street, Suite 300 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 616 W. Hopkins Accessory Dwelling Unit Dear David: The Planning Office has made an error in the public notice for this project. We inadvertently wrote 616 W. Hallam on the public notices to be mailed and for the newspaper. Unfortunately we cannot proceed with the hearing on July 11th. I have rescheduled this project for August 8th and have asked Suzanne Wolff to prepare a corrected public notice for mailing and publication. Due to the inconvenience to you and your client, the Planning Office will prepare and mail the notices for the August 8th meeting if you provide us with the mailing labels. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 920- 5106. Sincerely, Mary Lackner Planner ASPENlPITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 FAX# (303) 920 -5439 May 17, 1995 David Brown I t 300 S. Spring St. �h Aspen, CO 81611 / Re: 61 W. Hallam onditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit Cas Dear David, We have rescheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, July 11, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. A corrected public notice for mailing to property owners within 300' is enclosed. If you have any questions, please call Kim Johnson the planner assigned to your case, at 920- 5101. Sincerely, Suzanne L. Wolff Administrative Assistant apz.ph ASPEN /PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 FAX# (303) 920 -5439 May 5, 1995 David Brown Stryker Brown Architects 300 S. Spring St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Hirschfield Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit Case A58 -95 Dear David, The Community Development Department has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, June 20, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Community Development Department. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the public hearing. The Special Overlay Review Committee will review the Hirschfield's application on Tuesday, May 30, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 PM in the Second Floor Meeting Room at City Hall. If you have any questions, please call Kim Johnson the planner assigned to your case, at 920- 5100. Sincerely, L5t^ Suz ne L. Wolff Administrative Assistant apz.ph r +� U PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 616 W. HOPKINS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 8, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen to consider an application submitted by Robert and Sheri Hirschfield, Aspen, CO, requesting approval of a Conditional Use Review for an approximately 312 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit attached to a reconstructed single family residence. The property is located at 616 W. Hopkins Ave.; Lots O & P, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mary Lackner at the Aspen /Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5106. 9/Bruce Kerr, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission E" eru. d 7 t �� - 5 1 1995 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 616 W. HOPKINS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 8, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen to consider an application submitted by Robert and Sheri Hirschfield, Aspen, CO, requesting approval of a Conditional Use Review for an approximately 312 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit attached to a reconstructed single family residence. The property is located at 616 W. Hopkins Ave.; Lots O & P, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mary Lackner at the Aspen /Pitkin community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5106. s /Bruce Kerr Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission & V <0' JUL 17 1995 1 Weien J. Robert P.O. Box 3506 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Madsen, Martha W. 608 West Hopkins Avenue, Apt 9 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Fleisher, Richard J. I.F. Associates " 111 West Washington #1505 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Levinson, Dan B. and Lynne P.O. Box 2012 Aspen, Colorado 81612 McGill, Don Inc. a Texas Corporation 11800 Old Katy Road Houston, Texas 77079 Boomerang, LTD. 500 West Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 ULLR Lodge, Inc. 520 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lost Diamond, Inc. P.O. Box 416 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Starford Properties, N.V. C/O Keon, William 550 Biltmore Way, 9th F1. Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Anson, Weston and Susan P.O. Box 7953 Aspen, Colorado 81612 i to R d Sheri r am , F rida 3 6 Coscarello, Robert and Elizabeth 200 West 60th Street Apt 35C New York, NY 10023 West, Alfred P. Jr. and Loralee S. 12 Greenbriar Lane Paoli, PA 19301 Christiania of Aspen 501 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Johnson, Stanford P.O. Box 416 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Scott, Mary Hugh P.O. Box A Aspen, Colorado 81612 Shadow Mountain Corp. C/O Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, P.C. 533 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Budsey, Nikifor II Wabiszewskim Susan 728 West Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dodge Benjamin H. Holobaugh Nancee L. 134 South 7th street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Hanle, Jeffrey T. and Kelley J. 126 South 7th Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lavigne, Nancy E. „ P.O. Box 1901 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Pearson, Mark L. Holmes, Laura B. 732 West Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Wolfer, Mary E. 130 South 7th Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Koepp, Kim Amos 79 Wirginia Lane #A Montecito, CA 93108 -2833 Olshan, Burton and Kathleen W. 5408 Old Leeds Road Birmingham, Alabama 35210 Allen, Douglas P. Alpine Professional Building 225 North Mill Street, Ste 210 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Iglehart, Jim 610 West Hallam Aspen, Colorado 81611 Rudolph, Richard E. P.O. Box 3080 Carefree, Arizona 85377 Throm Robert & Phyliss Throm, Douglas 617 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Knight, Glenda C. P.O. Box 328 Snowmass, Colorado 81654 Nevins, Robert M. and Wendy S. P.O. Box 11482 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Valley, Mia 740 West Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Coloarado 81611 Hayes, Mary E. 209 East Bleeker Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Le Blanc, Sherie Matilida 112, 634 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Wood, Helena 1950 Stemmons Dallas, Texas 75207 Dunsdon, S. Michaele Borkenhagen, David A. P.O. Box 2225 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Klein, Debbie a Colorado corporation 546 McSkimming Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 Straight, Patricia Family Trust 617 West Main Street, 11200 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Young, Donald L. 617 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 e-,. MAILING LIST Barber, Edgar F. P.O. Box 9678 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Daily, Kimberly Dawn P.O. Box 34385 Los Angeles CA 0034 -0385 Hahn, Elizabeth Evans P.O. Box 9678 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lenio, Ted P.O. Box 9854 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Marshall, Thomas 300 Riverside Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Parker, Gale M. P.O. Box 1490 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Shapiro - Hykes, Joan 205 S. Mill Street spen, Colorado 81611 Tatlor, John W. 31050 W Thompson Lane Hartland, WI 53029 End, Terry 700 Gillespie Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Piper, Col. Robert B. and Lynn B. 695 Bottle Bay Road Sagle ID 83860 Abbott, Danny P.O. Box 2265 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Bryan, Sheilah Judith P.O. Box 976 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Haddad, Nancy J. P.O. Box 11453 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Jablin, Merle Ellen P.O. Box 778 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lester, Christine N. P.O. Box 9696 Aspen, Colorado 81612 O'Neil, Brian and Suzanne 11995 SW 222 Street Miami, Florida 33170 Reid, Suzanah V.K. P.O. Box 10443 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Shonk, Cheryl Barker 710 West Hopkins Avenue #8 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christopher, Maridee 8957 East Pershing Avenue Scottsdale, AZ 85260 -7612 Hispatel Corporation, a Deleware Corp. Finser Corp -C /O B Keon 550 Biltmore Way Coral Gables FL 33134 Tan, Susan 1340 Gateway Snowmass, Colorado 81654 Blomquist, Linda Lee Beereboom, Kurt Ian 724 W. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 �cF PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 616 W. HALL CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 11, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen to consider an application submitted by Robert and Sheri Hirschfield, Aspen, CO, requesting approval of a Conditional Use Review for an approximately 312 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit attached to a single family residence. The property is located at 616 W. Hopkin Ave.; Lots O & P, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen. For furt r information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen /Pitkin Community De lopment Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5100. L s /Bruce Kerr, Chairman rCCtnS�r ✓C�Qd� Planning and Zoning Commission VIP- r � ' ° o „k �ae2c1 ��eu�v, ( - 7 �S ASPEN .PITKIN PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT July 3, 1995 David Brown Stryker /Brown Architects 300 S. Spring Street, Suite 300 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 616 W. Hopkins Accessory Dwelling Unit Dear David: The Planning Office has made an error in the public notice for this project. We inadvertently wrote 616 W. Hallam on the public notices to be mailed and for the newspaper. Unfortunately we cannot proceed with the hearing on July 11th. I have rescheduled this project for August 8th and have asked Suzanne Wolff to prepare a corrected public notice for mailing and publication. Due to the inconvenience to you and your client, the Planning Office will prepare and mail the notices for the August 8th meeting if you provide us with the mailing labels. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 920- 5106. Sincerely, Mary Lac kner Planner 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303.920.5090 . FAA 303.920.5197 ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 JTI Weston & Susan Anson Box 7953 Agncn. m R1F1 ANS0953 816121002 1595 07/1° ANSON BOX CLOSED UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER �r ASPEN / PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 • NO MAIL RECEPTACLE Cheryl Shonk 710 W. Hopkins Ave. #8 Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE [" pm 130 S. GALENA ( ASPEN, C081611 .. / a Jug v Glenda Knight Box 328 Aspen, CO 81612 KNIG328 KNIG14T 816121002 1694 07/151 BOX CLOSED ASPEN / PITKIN PLANNING OF-r iCE 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 .wlOFLIVER`a11LE AS ACuDRES9ED MO 6C�RWJ;nvl!lC+ 4N iA$ Kimberly Dawn Daily Box 34385 Los Angeles, CA 90034 -939& ASPEN / PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 %,.�. Pp Ted Lenio Box 985 Aspen, CO 8176=?. LENI654 616121007 1494 07liSi LENIO BOX CLOSED UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER z U 3 O a Ifi F w m �p N w cn oo N ul o c V r! z N F c4 o N o z 0 H H 0 z z� 0 z x0` n a � ^ Y e� ) OUT - � 5L.�:/ATIO /Jd' 0 ( o11 z u Un w_ GQ F m F z oo N rn W x a moo„ CC F U x V z Cli ui rn cnda�m z O H O z W z� x�.8 x°u pv Q0 . 1110° �r To • F �Y[as' w'-o" ao' -o �aFr:Mr� -�f c II�- I I I i i e �L.�VAMOtN z u 3 Fy N ° N rn W O 94m F� Cl! CG U N z 6 0 z� 0 3Qu �Q I 1�7C FL,00F. 2ND E Z u 3 0. 0 a � H u a F " w E a u H a 8 M � w F � z $ � J M U N z 0 H 0 �z z� 0 0zo x °0 3Q �Q a `off¢ LA 'z CST L:L EEl Tio� .. , "Aw .. im N0974W�r �L�VA-nog 1/10"= I' -0 z v 3 a w 4, � � o v rl c4 u N z 0 H 0 z� x Hu �A d � � d o 0 Z 1 - 1 s 25,5 1 --- - - - - -- - - - -t i I i . I � I . I I I !f I f 7 ` diLrlo -� 1 I r - ek-61 I� F I I G� Lw w-_9 YIWAL Pi Ha 4 vpry i I i P 1 tz s I _i N 0t:�'KINzi P-, v' L, , �xc �' cl e rove, Ml a L S TRYKER/ BROWN AR C H I T E C T-S, PC 616 W. HOPKINS 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUrm300, ADDITION/ RENOVATION ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Aspen, Colorado 970.925.2254 925.2258 (FAX) f v � Vim^ aF'Y E irk I 2 V 140". C -O EC9�F�i Llf�+d'� v�LL J u ry 3 w x � NA+yC4L � L»T WELL O H 9 O z� x °� 3Q� �o a I I I I I I 0 4-1 c v it E� d u z v N R'i u o rn W F U N V � N O N O OR z 0 H 0 z z� x-, �0 x°u 3Q v � Q a add I I I , 1 I � 65. OWHt2 rr110 711 1/1011= 11_01, 0 T a z u 3 a � FG y v, w Z N cn 4 cr� O z 0 F 0 z� 0 x °0 ':�ODr- #l�r1 z u FG � � F YI W w F x " r x x u VJ X �n w � N Z N w � N � S ¢ � z 0 F 0 Ln z z� b q v