Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20190115 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING January 15, 2019 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 222 Cleveland St. - Special Review - Variation to the ADU Design Standards B. 813 W Smuggler - RDS Variation - Articulation of Building Mass VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Appointment of Chair / Vice-Chair VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 18, 2018 Chairperson Mesirow called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Commissioners in attendance: Skippy Mesirow, Teraissa McGovern, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Rally Dupps, Ruth Carver, James Marcus, Spencer McKnight Absent: Scott Marcoux, Ryan Walterscheid Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Garrett Larimer, Permit Coordinator Kevin Rayes, Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that her four years on the Planning and Zoning Commission have been meaningful for her. She has enjoyed working with her fellow commissioners. She thanked city staff for their help and support. She wished everyone happy holidays. Mr. Mesirow thanked Ms. McNicholas Kury for her service on the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that the commissioners are excited for her next step as County Commissioner. STAFF COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. McKnight voted to approve the minutes from December 4th, 2018. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Mesirow stated that he had an unexpected offline conversation with a friend of the applicant on 909 Waters Ave. He spoke with City Attorney Jim True and he recommended that Mr. Mesirow recuse himself from the hearing. Mr. Mesirow recused himself from the hearing for 909 Waters Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING 909 Waters Avenue – Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard Variation P1 IV. Mr. Rayes introduced himself as a Planner with the City of Aspen and stated that the hearing is for a request for a variation from the articulation of building mass residential design standard for the property at 909 Waters Avenue. He gave background on the existing site conditions, stating that it is located in the R-15 moderate density residential zone district. It contains a single-family dwelling and is considered a nonconforming lot due to its small size. The lot that is there now is about 6,000 square feet and the minimum lot size in the R-15 zone district is about 15,000 square feet. It is located within the Aspen infill area. Mr. Rayes stated that the existing house conforms to the setback requirements of the R-15 zone district, but the house itself is considered nonconforming with regards to the articulation of building mass residential design standard. The standard states: a principal building shall be no greater than 50-feet in depth as measured from the front most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. The idea behind this standard is to ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. Mr. Rayes stated that, from the front-most wall to the rear-most wall, the building measures 54.7 feet and the remainder of the house is just over 50 feet. He pointed out the at-grade patio, which is a deck on the second level, stating that the property owner is planning to fill that space in with additional livable area, which would contribute to increasing the bulk and mass of the dwelling and the nonconformity of the structure. The applicant has proposed integrating a chamfer corner to minimize the impact that this addition will have as viewed from the front of the house. Mr. Rayes stated that, when granting a variation from a residential design standard, there are two criteria for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider. The first is: that the variation, if granted, would provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard as well as the general intent statements in the RDS code section. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. One part of the general intent statement of the RDS code section is to ensure that buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The intent statement for the articulation of building mass states that: it should reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. While the applicant did provide an alternative design approach with the chamfer corner, that will only reduce the bulk and mass as seen from the front of the house. He stated that The Gant is behind the house and the lodge units directly behind the house would be able to see the impact that the additional design would add on to the house. He stated that the second criterion for Planning and Zoning to consider is that the variation, if granted, should be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. This property is considered a nonconforming lot because of its small size. It is normal for smaller lots to conform with the setback standards for their zone district. There are nonconforming lots all over the city and they are required to conform with the setback and design standards for their respective zone district. Because it is a nonconforming lot, that does not mean that this is a condition that is unusual or site-specific. He stated that the articulation of building mass design standard is critical in the infill area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys, and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent. Due to its small lot and location within the Aspen infill area, staff recommends a denial of the variation request. P2 IV. Mr. Rayes asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Seeing none, Mr. McKnight turned the meeting over to a presentation by the applicant. Mr. Bendon introduced himself as the representative of the applicant. He introduced the applicant, Neil Katyal. He thanked the commissioners for continuing the hearing. Mr. Bendon stated that this house was designed by Harry Teague and the applicant is working with Kim Raymond and Milo Stark from Kim Raymond Architects. He stated that the property is a single-family home in the R-15 zone district, which results in setbacks that are larger than the size of the property would otherwise dictate. It was constructed before the residential design standards and the block where it’s located has many different types of residences on it. Mr. Bendon stated that Mr. Katyal has a large family, which led him to want to expand the kitchen and dining area. Mr. Katyal does not want to change anything about the front of the building due to his desire to maintain the Teague design. Mr. Bendon showed on a rendering where the setbacks are located. He stated that the proposal focuses on expanding into the existing footprint of the home. He pointed out where the 55-foot wall is located along the east side of the home, stating that it was built before residential design standards. That distance does not change with this proposal. There is significant vegetation between this parcel and The Gant, which will not change as it is important to the project. Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants believe that they meet both criteria that Mr. Rayes mentioned. The intent standards start with the articulation of building mass, reducing the overall perceived mass and bulk of the residence, conveying forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings. He stated that there are no changes to the street frontage of the building. This set of residential design standards is primarily geared to new development. The standards also talk about meeting the needs of the owner and an important piece of the commission’s consideration is balancing that with community objectives. The existing connection to the street is not changing with this proposal. Regarding response to neighboring properties, it is important to the applicants that they are staying within the existing footprint. That means that the expansion is not really visible from any aspect of the house and the perceived mass cannot be seen, even from behind the property. Mr. Bendon showed a picture of The Gant, pointing out that the mass closest to Mr. Katyal’s property does not have any windows that would look onto it. He stated that the applicants had a conversation with Donnie Lee, the General Manager of The Gant. They asked him if he had any response to the public notice that applicants sent out and he responded that he had not heard from any of the owners. Mr. Lee had no concerns for this development from an ownership standpoint. He showed a picture on the slide of the view from The Gant property looking toward 909 Waters and noted that the vegetation and fencing making it difficult to see from that view. Mr. Bendon addressed the next intent statement, which discusses reflecting traditional building scale. He stated that this is primarily focused on the aesthetics from the street, which is not changing. The applicants feel that the house already does a good job of reflecting a traditional building scale. Mr. Bendon addressed the unique conditions of the property. He stated that, since it was built before residential design standards, it didn’t anticipate an expansion having to deal with the articulation of building mass. He stated that the applicants feel that it’s important for the commissioners to P3 IV. understand that this project is not a scrape and replace. If it was, he would expect the Planning and Zoning commission to have different expectations from the project. He believes that the existing house is a unique condition of the property. The applicants’ plan is to expand the existing floor area in the most appropriate way, which they believe is to focus on the nonpublic side of the home. Mr. Bendon addressed the variation criteria. He stated that the he believes the design meets the intent standard by maintaining the subtlety of the home. He believes the design is and will remain similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings and that the building has and will maintain a connection to the street. Regarding reducing perceived mass and bulk from residential buildings from all sides, he stated that that criterion comes down to the view from The Gant, which the applicants believe is subtle. Regarding reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants want to work with the current house and expand on it. He urged the commissioners to use their discretionary power to approve this project. With that, Mr. Bendon turned the meeting over to Mr. Katyal for comments. Mr. Katyal thanked the commissioners. He stated that he came to Aspen in 2005 and fell in love with it. He has made connections in the community and plans to live in Aspen part of the year and ultimately retire here. He fell in love with the Harry Teague designed house and does not want to change the design, but he does have a need to expand for his large family. He does not want the expansion in the front of the house and he wants it to continue to be one of the smallest houses on the street. Mr. Katyal addressed the variation criteria. He stated that, regarding providing an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard, the applicants went back to the intent statement, as the commission suggested. That is where they noticed the preamble, which states that the design should serve the needs of the owner. He understood from Mr. Rayes’s presentation that the issues are the bulk and mass of the building. The house cannot be seen from The Gant and the nearest building at The Gant that has windows that might look into the back of Mr. Katyal’s house is 200 feet away. He emphasized that the dimensions of the house are not changing with this design. Mr. Katyal addressed the unusual site-specific constraints. He stated that the lot and Harry Teague designed house make this a unique lot. He stated that the notice of public hearing has been posted for two months and only two neighbors have asked him about it. One of them responded that they are glad that the house is not being torn down. Mr. Katyal address Ms. McGovern’s comments from the previous hearing on this proposal, noting that she said she would like to approve the project, but she can’t see how to get there because the rules state that the mass must be reduced on all sides. He stated that that the RDS design standards are not rules, they are standards and they are flexible for a reason. He stated that that is the reason for Planning and Zoning, to interpret the code from a human perspective. Mr. McKnight stated that he appreciates having the actual applicant here and not just the representative. With that, Mr. McKnight turned the meeting over to commissioner comments. Ms. McGovern asked Mr. Bendon to show the slide that shows different dimensions than the same slide at the previous presentation. She stated that that slide at the previous presentation was not inclusive of the posts that are holding up the eave and the house. P4 IV. Mr. Bendon stated that the slide in the previous presentation included all of the porch area and stopped short the post on the south side. There is a question of the points of measurement, whether it is considered a piece of the wall and the chamfer corner would raise the same question of points of measurement. Mr. Katyal stated that he agrees with Ms. McGovern that the applicants did not make it clear that the A- frame does come out. Mr. Marcus asked if the applicants would be extending beyond the current footprint, regarding the roofline. Mr. Bendon stated that the question is if they should measure to the first corner or to the first depth of the chamfer. Mr. Marcus asked if the post goes away on the far end. Mr. Bendon replied yes. Ms. Carver asked if she saw a picture with an elevator on the roof and the deck extending further into the backyard. Mr. Bendon stated that the plans do include a popup that fits within the setbacks and heights, which will be an office for Mr. Katyal. He stated that what Ms. Carver saw is a staircase. Ms. Carver asked if the new porch on the second floor will extend further into the backyard. Mr. Bendon stated that there is a patio that would use some of that backyard space. Mr. Stark from Kim Raymond Architects replied that the deck does not go to the setback line. Ms. Carver asked if it goes further than it did. Ms. McGovern stated that it does based on the proposed south elevation. It sits in front of the master, not next to the master where it was before. Ms. Carver asked how close to the setback the deck will be. Mr. Bendon stated that the setback is ten feet from the property line in the rear and the new deck will not be closer than ten feet. Architect Kim Raymond stated that the deck is not affected by the standard. Mr. McKnight asked if there were further questions from the commissioners. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT P5 IV. Tim Mooney introduced himself as a Planning and Zoning alumni. He stated that he has a love for the community and the messy vitality that he perpetuated while he was here. He stated a concern that the commission is too focused on a small detail to see the big picture. The purpose of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to bring a human perspective to the project and he thinks it’s crazy that there are design criteria that is being applied to a 6,000 square foot lot that has an existing home designed by one of the preeminent living architects in town. The house is an important piece and Mr. Katyal is an important future Aspen local. No votes are important sometimes, but he believes this is not the place for a no vote. Lex Tarumianz introduced himself and thanked the commissioners. He has known Mr. Katyal for five years. He worked at The Gant condominiums for 12 years and lived on the property and in that time, there has never been a connection to or notice of the property on Waters Avenue. Mr. Katyal and his family want to contribute to the community and live like Aspenites. The variance Mr. Katyal is asking for is minor and it will improve the backside of their home. Harry Teague’s legacy will only continue to grow in the future and his work should be preserved. He encouraged the commissioners to approve variance. Mick Ireland introduced himself and stated that he understands variance in a way that many people don’t and that he helped write the anti-variance ordinance. The idea of a variance should be regarded with a human perspective, which means that the commission is not here to look at every variance request as something that can never be done. Variance requests need to be weighed against the greater good and, in this case, the greater good is bringing someone who wants to be a permanent resident into this community. The number of free-market, single-family homes that are occupied by people who live here has been declining steadily through the last two censuses. The opportunity to bring a family here to be part of the community is important. This proposal could be beautiful and will be unobtrusive. He encouraged the commissioners to look at the big picture. He does not see that this adversely impacts the community in appearance or in setting a precedent, but it does have the opportunity to add a family to the community at a time when the City is losing them. Mr. McKnight asked if there were further public comments. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to staff rebuttal. Ms. Phelan commented that there are 15,000 square foot lots throughout town. She recommended that the commissioners don’t act from their feelings but base their vote in the criteria. Ms. Bryan stated that, if this decision were challenged in a court of law, it would be challenged on whether the criteria were met. Mr. McKnight turned the meeting over to commissioner deliberation. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she continues to support the request based on the first criterion for the variation. She stated that the applicant’s picture that Ms. McGovern asked to be displayed was what allowed her to review the language in the standard and decide that this design either retains or reduces the perceived mass on this side. Where the back plane of the wall ends and supports the current A- frame is part of the plane of the current building and filling that in and designing it with the chamfer corner makes the step to reduce that plane and get to the point where she can approve the variation. She encouraged the other commissioners to support this as well. P6 IV. Mr. McKnight stated that he agrees with Ms. McNicholas Kury. The proposal might be even better than the current condition as it is adding windows. The effort that the applicant made with the chamfer corner helped him get to the point where he is ready to approve this variation request. Mr. Dupps stated that he is tired of Harry Teague’s buildings being knocked down. The commissioners have a chance to be human beings and preserve a treasured community asset that’s at risk of demolition. If Mr. Katyal were to sell the house because it is too small for his family, someone else could buy it and demolish it and start over. He is completely in support of it. The applicants do meet the second standard that relates to fairness and site-specific conditions. Ms. Carver stated that she does not believe the commissioners should look at the sentimental aspect of the code and rules. This design would be a fit in the neighborhood and that it would be okay for the commissioners to approve this request. She stated that she will vote yes. Ms. McGovern stated that the design standard gives three options to come into compliance for design. One is the 50-foot maximum sidewall, another is an offset with a one-story connector to separate the two masses, and the third is to do a step-in and step-down at the rear. Because the code gives a lot of option to comply, she cannot get to approval from a code standpoint. She does not feel that it is necessary for reasons of fairness and does not think that it’s an unusual site. She does not think that the alternative design meets the overall intent and changing the articulation of mass. Stepping out those four feet is increasing a nonconformity and she could not approve this in good conscience using the code that she is allowed to use. Mr. Marcus stated that it was helpful when the applicants showed the measurement of the actual roofline. The fact that the proposal fits seamlessly within what is already the distance of that wall, and the perceived mass does not seem to be affected. He does not see that there will be a significant impact for the neighbors and the fact that the community who came for public comment is in full support speaks highly for the project. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to approve Resolution 7 of 2018. Mr. Dupps seconded. Ms. Stickle read the roll. Ms. McNicholas Kury, Mr. McKnight, Mr. Dups, Mr. Marcus, and Ms. Carver voted yes. Ms. McGovern voted no. Motion approved. PUBLIC HEARING 813 W Smuggler – Residential Design Standard Variation – Articulation of Building Mass Mr. Mesirow re-entered the meeting at 5:35 pm. Mr. Larimer introduced himself as a Planner with the City of Aspen. He stated that 813 W Smuggler is located in the R6 Zone District. It’s an undeveloped lot and lot 3 of the Ranger Station subdivision. It’s located within the Aspen infill area. The existing lot is a 6,639 square foot lot and has some existing conditions that affect the site. There is a ten-foot utility and access easement to the rear of the property and the Si Johnson ditch easement located on the southwest portion of the lot. The dimensions of the lot are approximately 60 feet by 110 feet. The applicant applied for an administrative review of the residential design standards. They comply with all other standards in the residential design section for a single-family duplex house. They do not comply with the articulation of building mass standard, which is a nonflexible standard that requires approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission to be varied. The standard states that a principal building shall articulate building mass to P7 IV. reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. The code provides three options to satisfy the standard. The first one is the maximum sidewall depth. The building must be 50-feet or less as measured from the front most wall to the rear most wall, providing a length limit for the primary mass. The second option is to provide an offset one-story ground-level connector between the two masses. This must happen within 45 feet of the front most wall, set back five feet from the side wall on either side of the primary mass, and must be ten feet between the primary and secondary mass of the building. The third option is an increased side setback or rear stepdown. This must be 45-feet as measured from the front most wall. The one-story stepdown must be set back five feet from the side wall of the primary structure. Mr. Larimer stated that, going back to the options for the standard, the maximum sidewall depth encapsulates all mass on site and the 50-foot maximum. The proposed structure is 84 feet four inches, clearly beyond the allowances for the maximum sidewall depth and maximizes the amount of development on site. The one-story step-down to the rear of the property happens at about 65 feet from the front most wall, which is beyond the allowances of the standard itself. There are two review criteria that need to be met to approve the request for the variation. The first is to provide alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standards as indicated in the intent statement as well as the general intent statement of the RDS section. The second is that the variation be necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. He stated that there are three items in the general intent. The first is to connect to the street. The design complies with the majority of the street-facing façade requirements of the residential design standard. Staff is not overly concerned with the connection to the street of this design. The second is response to neighboring properties that reduce the perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings from all sides and encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale. Staff feels that the proposed design does not reduce the perceived mass and bulk of the residential building as viewed from all sides. The east and west facades of the structure measure just over 84-feet with a two-story element that measures 65- feet long. The lot to the west of this property is also an undeveloped lot that’s currently in development review to be built if it does comply with the residential design standard. It will not have a relationship, as far as the mass is perceived from those two adjacent properties. Mr. Larimer stated that the third is reflect traditional building scale. With 84-foot sidewall depth, staff does not feel that it is necessarily consistent with historic architectural tradition in Aspen. Regarding the articulation of building mass intent statement, Mr. Larimer pulled out four elements from the paragraph that he stated were key. The first is that the standard seeks to reduce the overall mass as perceived on all sides. On the east and west sides of the structure, it is an 84-foot building depth, 65 feet of that is two stories. As viewed from all sides, it would be perceived as that length of building. The massing and articulation that conveys forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings, staff feels that the design does not meet that element. It states that this standard is critical in the infill area and this property is located in the infill area. It’s critical because small side and front yard setbacks exist. The setback between the adjacent property to the west and the proposed structure is five feet and the proposed design is right up to that setback line in some places, which impacts the adjacent property. Lastly, design to change the plane of the building sidewall, step a primary building’s height down to one story in the rear portion, or limit the overall depth of the structure. Staff feels that the design does not limit the overall depth of the structure but maximizes the amount of buildable area and, although it does provide a stepdown for the one-story element in the rear, it doesn’t meet the dimensional requirements of this standard. Because of this, staff finds that the does not meet review criteria number one. P8 IV. Mr. Larimer stated that the second review criteria for a variation states that it must be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constrains. He pointed out the zone district setbacks and utility and access easements and the ditch easement on a rendering on the slide. Although there are additional constraints on this site, staff feels that the constraints are not beyond what are seen in other properties in Aspen and there is still a substantial amount of developable property that the applicant should be able to provide a design that complies with the requirements of the code. Because of that, staff feels that the two review criteria that are set out for a variation are not met. Because of this, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a residential design standard variation for the articulation of building mass. With that, he turned the meeting over to commissioner questions. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Larimer the size of the connector allowed in the second option. Mr. Larimer stated that it must be set back from the sidewall five feet and be ten feet long. Mr. Dupps stated that he needs to leave the meeting. Mr. Dupps left the meeting at 5:54 pm. Seeing no further questions, Mr. Mesirow turned the meeting over to applicant presentation. Rob Sinclair introduced himself and T Coverthwaite as being from Sinclair Building Architecture and Design and representing Smugg LLC for 813 W Smuggler Street. He stated that they had the design standards front and center as they were designing the house and considering the requirements. In the intent statement for the articulation of bulk and mass, there are the three distinct standards. In reviewing those, the applicants feel that they have all of the best aspects of the three options included in their design proposal, though it does not succinctly match with any one in particular. They did a very thorough site-analysis. How the property is accessed is pre-determined through the alley. They do have some restrictions regarding the installation of infrastructure in the alley. At the end of the alley, there is a setback on an encroachment which aligns with the ditch easement where the transformers and all the other utilities are located. They have addressed that in different ways with the setback and the articulation of their façade. Mr. Sinclair stated that the connection to the street is not in dispute with staff. Regarding response to neighboring properties, they do have a general understanding of bulk and mass of the neighboring property. Regarding the variation review standards, they feel that they have taken all the best aspects of the three options. A third of the site is encroached by the utility and ditch easements or the alley easement. Mr. Sinclair stated that their initial concept is a parti. He showed a diagram on the slide and stated that it is a strict interpretation of the traditional building mass block in the West End of Aspen. Because of the constraints on the site and the applicants’ desire to comply with the best aspects of all three criteria, they agreed that the best solution is to be able to step down to the single story at the alley. He showed on the rendering where the setback is located on the property and stated that, as they stepped up, they had additional setbacks. On the first level, the plan steps back five feet and an additional five feet on the second level. He showed where a twenty-five feet setback is located on the property and the measurements of the plan. There is one section of the building that could arguably be perceived as two- story wall with the articulated step backs as it goes up vertically. P9 IV. Mr. Sinclair stated that, looking at a flat two-dimensional elevation, arguably the building does give the perception of having this additional length. The applicants really worked to articulate the setbacks vertically and horizontally to respond to neighboring properties as well as draw upon the best aspects of the three design criteria. Mr. Sinclair showed a section of the building on the slide and stated that, by itself, it would comply with the second criterion, though it is not preferable. He showed that plan as an overlay with the proposal in question on a slide. The applicants feel that their proposal is a better design for that site. Some of the underlying design criteria are better for their end-user who has accessibility issues. The design does include an elevator. All three floors are single-level and they all need to be able to be connected. The applicants had an earlier design with a ten-foot split. If the elevator is one side or the other of the ten- foot split, the client, who is in a wheelchair, would be forced to go outside to navigate the second story of the property. There are the individual characteristics that the applicants had to consider from a livability standpoint. Mr. Coverthwaite stated that an unattached garage was not an option due to accessibility issues and considerations for weather. That took option 1 of the standards away and left the applicants to consider the other two. When the applicants considered option 3, they realized that bumping the garage would be very difficult to achieve without putting it on the west side of the setback because the site tapers down, which makes the plan noncompliant with that standard. The ghost massing to the left of the gable could not actually be built because the applicants would need additional side setback on that side to meet the 18-foot combined setback standards. He stated that the length is correct and gave the measurements for the plan. The front of the two-story mass is set back considerably from the site of the setback, so it does not really read that way. The applicants could use option 2 to get to an 85-foot building. There are no constraints to the rear mass being shorter and smaller than the other. The applicants found that to be an unappealing option, so they wanted to design the building so that it opens towards the west and their neighbor, making it more interesting and less massive on the front. Mr. Mesirow thanked the applicants for their presentation. He turned the meeting over to commissioner comment. Mr. McKnight asked the applicants to pull up the slide that showed the reduced portion of the plan which would be compliant. Mr. Coverthwaite showed the slide. He stated that the building to the left is the Forest Service barracks, which does not adhere to the setback. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the alternative design was discussed with staff as part of administrative review. Mr. Sinclair stated that it was not discussed directly. They spoke generally to say that they had explored many different options on the site and that they felt that they were 80% on all three, but not 100% on any one specifically. Ms. McGovern asked if the elevator is at a different level than the garage. P10 IV. Mr. Sinclair stated that there is now a ramp down. He stated that the infrastructure on the alley forced the garage higher, so it was a last-minute adjustment. He stated that that is a strict criterion that they are going to comply with. Mr. Messirow asked Mr. Sinclair if he can speak to the intended use case. Mr. Sinclair stated that it’s an individual who is in Aspen 90% of the year who has an extended family with children and grandchildren. The intended use is that this is a family hub. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were any other questions from commissioners. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Michael Brown introduced himself as a neighbor of the lot. He stated that it is a difficult lot to work with. From his perspective, being located to the south, he has no objections to what is being proposed. He stated that there are some aspects of it that are favorable to them. Mr. Mesirow asked if there was further public comment. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to commissioner deliberation. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they feel that it’s appropriate to consider the owner’s physical disability in conjunction with the site. Ms. McGovern stated that it’s not in the purview of the Commission to base decision on an individual. Ms. Bryan stated that, if a court were to review this, they would be looking at whether there was any competent evidence in the record to support whether the criteria were met, to support the Commission’s findings of either approval or denial. What the commissioners were referencing is not referenced at all in the code or criteria, however criteria are always open to interpretation. Ms. Carver stated that she would like to see the applicants fully comply with at least one of the standards. She stated that this is brand new construction and she imagines they could make it work for their client. Ms. McGovern stated that she agrees with Ms. Carver on that point. She stated that the ditch is something that not every lot has. But not every lot is 110 feet long, either. The utility easement cannot be part of our review as a hardship because they have an additional ten feet on their lot. The buildable length is the same. She would like to see them comply. There are a lot of options and their design does not meet them. Mr. Mesirow stated that he agrees with Ms. McGovern and asked if anyone has a different opinion. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Ms. Bryan about the applicants from the previous hearing referring to the preamble of the standards. She asked if that is something that could come into consideration for supporting a decision or if the criteria come after that. P11 IV. Ms. Bryan stated that there is a good argument to be made that all sections of the code must be viewed in harmony with one another and in context. If this were to be reviewed, it would be reviewed on whether there was any competent evidence in the record to support an approval or denial. There could be an argument that the commission is reviewing this within the context. There are very specific criteria for this section of the code, so the fact that it doesn’t necessarily cross-reference the specific section Ms. McNicholas Kury mentioned is notable. Mr. McKnight stated his agreement with the rest of the commission. He expressed concern about the applicants following the code and ending up with something that’s terrible that the commission can’t say no to. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicants if they would like the opportunity to continue the hearing so that they might revise their proposal. Mr. Sinclair replied that they would. Staff and applicants discussed a date for the continuation for the hearing and settled on January 15th, 2019. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to continue the hearing to January 15th, 2019. Mr. Mesirow seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. ADJOURN Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:15 pm. Mr. McKnight seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager P12 IV. TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Garrett Larimer, Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: Special Review of 2019 (Continued from 11/20/18) MEETING DATE: January 15, 2019 APPLICANT: Brent and Debbie Sembler Central Ave., St. Petersburg, FL 33707 REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams, 300 S Spring St. #202, Aspen, CO 81611 LOCATION: 222 S. Cleveland St. CURRENT ZONING: Residential Multi-Family (RMF) SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Design Standards to replace an ADU that was removed without the necessary approvals. The ADU was approved under a that allowed subgrade ADUs. The applicant is interested in replacing the unit in the same location, but the current code does not allow for subgrade ADUs. This agenda item was continued from its original hearing date on November 13, 2018. Elements of the ADU have been revised and those changes are reflected in the memo resolution, and review criteria. Revisions and updates from the original application are underlined in the memo. MEMORANDUM City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Garrett Larimer, Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Special Review – ADU Design Standards – 222 S Cleveland St., Resolution No. (Continued from 11/20/18) January 15, 2019 Brent and Debbie Sembler, 5858 Spring St. Family (RMF) The applicant is seeking Special Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Design Standards to replace an ADU hat was removed without the necessary was approved under a code s. The applicant is interested in replacing the unit in the same the current code does not allow for continued from its original hearing date on November 13, 2018. Elements of the ADU have been revised and those changes are reflected in the memo, Revisions and updates from the original application are STAFF POSITION: Staff recommends either recognizing the circa 1996 ADU design allowances and approving the variations requested via Special Review or, in the alternative, recognizing that the replacement of the ADU should meet toda standards or be vacated pursuant to the code. Page 1 of 5 , Resolution No. __, Series recommends either recognizing the circa design allowances and approving the variations eview or, in the alternative, recognizing that the replacement of the ADU should meet todays’ design pursuant to the code. P13 VI.A. Page 2 of 5 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: · Special Review – Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standard Variation The applicant is requesting approval for a variation to the ADU Design Standards related the replacement of an ADU in the basement of the residence and per section 26.520.080.D. The Code allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant special review approval for variations to the ADU Design Standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. LOCATION/BACKGROUND: The subject property, 222 S Cleveland St. is a single-family residence located on a lot in the RMF zone district in the Aspen Infill area. The property was developed in the mid-1990s and received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1996. The land use code at the time allowed for subgrade ADUs, and an ADU was constructed, out of a number of mitigation options, in the basement to mitigate for the affordable housing impact fees generated by the development. Although construction of an ADU is an acceptable form of mitigation, the land use code does not require rental of the unit. Since the property received its Certificate of Occupancy, elements of the ADU were removed without the necessary approval. A building permit was submitted and issued for the renovation of the residence and minor changes to the ADU, which still maintained minimum requirements to be considered an ADU. During an inspection of the property for the renovation, it was noted by City staff that the ADU did not have the required kitchen appliances. The specific design requirements have changed over time, but since the late-nineties there have been defined requirements for the minimum components needed to qualify as an ADU. The current code requires that an ADU contain a full kitchen including a 4-burner stove, a refrigerator, and a sink. The unit must also have storage, a bathroom, and access to the unit’s mechanical systems and electrical panel among other standards. A brief history of ADU requirements is attached as Exhibit D. Once it was discovered the ADU did not exist and was required, staff informed the applicant of their options: to replace the ADU meeting current code standards, to apply for special review to replace the ADU with variations from the current code requirements, or legally remove it. The applicant is interested in replacing the unit with variations from today’s standards. CURRENT REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Special Review approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to replace an ADU that was removed without approval. Special Review is required when the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards are not met. If the Planning and Zoning Commission feels it is appropriate for the unit to be replaced in the previously approved location, the following standards will need to be varied via Special Review: 1. ADUs are required to have more than 50% of the finished floor level above grade and be detached from the primary residence. The proposed ADU would be attached to the primary residence and located entirely below grade. This is the original condition. 2. The amount of storage provided is below the minimum storage requirements of the code. The current code requires 10% of the unit’s square footage be provided for storage. Currently one closet is shown at approximately 22 sq. ft. or 6.2% of the units overall square footage. This is an increase from the original application, the original size was 4.3% of the overall square footage of the unit. 3. The current code requires a full kitchen which includes a sink, dishwasher, 24 square feet of counter space, 15 cubic feet of cabinets, a 30inch wide oven with 4-burner stove top and 20 cubic foot refrigerator with a freezer. o The application does not include a dishwasher. o The refrigerator will be a minimum 9.5 cubic feet. This is an increase from the 6-cubic foot refrigerator in the original application. P14 VI.A. Page 3 of 5 o An oven with four-burner stove is proposed. The original application only included a two-burner stove. The increase in the number of burners slightly reduces the square footage of counter space provided. o Approximately 4.5 sq. ft. of counter top space is shown. The only cabinets provided in the original application were below the kitchen counter, the revised proposal includes the cabinet below the counter and includes cabinets to be installed above the kitchen counter tops increasing the amount of cabinet space to approximately 12 cubic feet, which is still below the minimum required. 4. An interior connection between the primary residence and the ADU exists and is proposed to remain. This appears to be the original condition. In order to allow for an entry connection between the two units, current code requires special review and approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission. 5. The current code requires the ADU have separately accessible utility and mechanical systems. The primary residence and ADU share mechanical equipment, which is located in a mechanical room outside the interior connection between the ADU and primary residence. This appears to be the original condition. 6. The current code requires washer and dryer hookups, which are proposed in the shared mechanical room. The ADU will have access to the washer and dryer and the space appears to be able to accommodate a 27” unit, which is the minimum required by the code. 7. A half glass entry door is proposed to increase the amount of natural light to the unit. Staff and the applicant have discussed the applicability of older ADU regulations given the era the ADU was originally constructed. On November 8th, 1999, which is after the unit was built, the ADU Design Standards were amended and included more detail, especially for the kitchen requirements. Under the 1999 amended code requirements, the earliest available with specific standards, a number of items are also not met. The elements of the ADU that don’t comply with the 1999 Code include: 1. The storage provided must be 10% of the units net livable, the plan shows approximately 6.2 %. 2. The interior connection must have been approved by the P&Z Commission. No approval was originally given, as it was not required at the time the ADU was initially built. It’s important to note that the kitchen complies with all requirements of the 1999 code. Issues for Discussion: The application is reviewed under the current code for replacement purposes but given the unique nature of this situation and the fact that existing infrastructure for an ADU exists, the unit could be replaced essentially in its original condition with certain variations from today’s standards. Staff also recognizes that the ADU was removed without any formal approval and there are other paths in the current code to reestablish or remove the unit. In response to the discussion at the original hearing, the applicant has revised the floor plan. The changes include: an enlarged closet, washer and dryer hook ups in the mechanical room, a larger refrigerator/freezer, cabinets above the kitchen counter, a four-burner stove, and a half glass entry door to increase the amount of natural light in the unit. The four-burner stove slightly reduces the amount of counter space provided. If the commission feels the additional counter space is preferable, the applicant is willing to consider a two-burner stove. The storage provided is an improvement from the original proposal but is still below current standards. The applicant believes, and staff agrees, that increasing the amount of storage to the 10% minimum required by the code is less beneficial in the current unit configuration as it reduces the amount of living space in the unit. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff acknowledges approval was originally granted to place the unit in the basement, but the unit was removed without proper approvals, and a land use application is required to bring the property back into compliance. All P15 VI.A. Page 4 of 5 land use applications are subject to the current code in which they apply, however, this is a unique situation in that the larger house is already constructed and the ADU is proposed to be located where it was originally. At this time, staff does not recommend the unit be replaced, given the standards in the current code. Under the Purpose clause of the land use code for ADUs, the code notes anticipate that “ADUs and carriage houses represent viable housing opportunities for working residents,” and that the ADUs provide additional housing opportunities in the town. The purpose section also notes that “detached ADUs and carriage houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident and that “Aspen desires occupied ADUs and carriage houses”. The commission can choose to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Special Review request to vary the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards and allow the ADU to be replaced in the basement. If the Planning and Zoning commission finds replacing the ADU in the basement appropriate, it can choose to include variations for the other standards that have not been met or can require that the applicant comply with as many as of the standards as the commission feels appropriate. If the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts the replacement of the ADU, staff recommends the following variations be granted, given the existing construction, all of which are reflected in the resolution. The list of variations has been updated to reflect the revised application. 1. A 100% subgrade location of the ADU is permitted. 2. The mechanical systems of the primary residence and ADU are located in a shared mechanical room. 3. A washer and dryer hookup, with dryer vent rough in, to accommodate a minimum 27” wide washer/dryer unit must be installed in the shared mechanical room. 4. Interior access requirement is varied to allow for direct access between the unit and primary residence to remain. 5. The following kitchen requirements shall be met: an oven with a four-burner stove, a sink, a refrigerator/freezer with a minimum capacity of 9.5 cubic feet, and 12 cubic feet of cabinets. 6. A reduction in the minimum storage or closet space required is granted to allow a minimum twenty-two square foot closet. 7. The deed restriction shall be updated to comply with Section 26.520.070, which requires lease terms of no less than six months. 8. The ADU exterior door must contain at least 50% glass to allow for increase natural light. Staff recognizes that improvements to the application have been made to improve the livability of the unit. Staff still remains concerned that the unit will not be occupied. The recent renovations removing the window on the west wall of the ADU significantly reduced the amount of natural light, and because of this, the unit is not being replaced as it was. PROPOSED MOTION (WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): The Resolution as written grants approval of a Special Review request of the applicant allowing for a subgrade ADU and certain design variations. If the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to approve the request the following motion can be used: “I move to approve Resolution No.___, Series of 2019 to vary the ADU Design Standards to allow for the ADU at 222 S Cleveland St. to be replaced in the originally approved location in the basement as shown in Exhibit A.” ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS: #1 P16 VI.A. Page 5 of 5 If the Planning and Zoning Commission does not wish to grant the Special Review request, the Planning and Zoning Commission can make a motion to deny the Resolution and use the following motion: “I move to deny Resolution #___ series of 2019 to grant a variation to the ADU Design Standards via Special Review.” Attachments: Exhibit A – Proposed Drawing Exhibit B – ADU Design Standards - Review Criteria Exhibit C – Special Review – Review Criteria Exhibit D – Summary of ADU Code Requirements Exhibit E – Original Application Exhibit F – Addendum 1.8.19 P17 VI.A. RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR VARIATIONS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DESIGN STANDARDS IN ORDER TO REINSTALL AN ADU FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS, LOT 1, FELLMAN LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED OCTOBER 31, 1994 IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT PAGE 67, AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 222 S. CLEVELAND ST. Parcel No. 2737-182-040-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Chris Bendon of BendonAdams LLC, on behalf of Brent and Debbie Sembler, requesting Special Review approval for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standard s to replace an ADU that had been removed without requisite city approval, in it’s the original location within the basement; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the current applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the Special Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on November 13, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was continued to November 20, 2018 at which point it was opened and continued to January 15, 2019; and, WHEREAS, on January 15th the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on January 15, 2019; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, P18 VI.A. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution #___, Series of 2019, by a _____ to _____ (___ - ___) vote, granting approval of Special Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Special Review for a Variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design standards via Special Review as identified in the attached Exhibit A, to reinstall the ADU with the following conditions: 1. A 100% subgrade location of the ADU is permitted. 2. The mechanical systems of the primary residence and ADU are located in a shared mechanical room that can be accessed through an interior connection by the ADU. 3. A washer and dryer hookup, with dryer vent rough in, to accommodate a minimum 27” wide washer/dryer unit must be installed in the shared mechanical room. 4. Interior access requirement is varied to allow for direct access between the unit and primary residence to remain. 5. The following kitchen requirements shall be met: an oven with a four-burner stove, a sink, a refrigerator/freezer with a minimum capacity of 9.5 cubic feet, and 12 cubic feet of cabinets. 6. A reduction in the minimum storage or closet space required is granted to allow a minimum twenty-two square foot closet. 7. The deed restriction shall be updated to comply with Section 26.520.070, which requires lease terms of no less than six months. 8. The ADU exterior door shall contain at least 50% glass to allow for increase natural light. Section 2: This approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning, building, or any other applicable code regulations within the City of Aspen’s Municipal Code, including Ordinance 40, Series of 2016. The applicant must submit a building permit application demonstrating compliance with all applicable codes prior to any development on site. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals P19 VI.A. and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on January 15, 2019. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ____________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Attachments: Exhibit A: Proposed Floor Plan of the ADU P20 VI.A. 0----0----- 0---- �---- 0----- I I --t I ----�--- I ,( � EXISTING EGRESS I I 7'-7" WINDOW I 2'-0' ,( -- EXISTING BA-,_----1 c·-,1rJ•, ''>;--d,·:c_:� ---=-1 ==--==--0�] I .- NEW T.S. COLUMN 1, REF, STRUCTURAL I 11 __ !\I_�. EXISTING BATH. EXISTING ,-----EXISTING EGRESS WINDOW EXISTINCl BEDROOM EX[STING BATH 11-11 I I I I ,_c ·'\I_-�, ,---'/'\ \---. <'--7_ \ ' .. BASEMENT ' STACKED W/D I I ----LIGHTING ANDVENTltl\TION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET THROUGH EXISTING\WIN,DOWS FOR THE FAMILY ROO,M ___ i EXISTt� MECH. ___ _ 8'-1" I I I r-1--REF./ FREEZER MIN. ' EXISTING WINDOW RANGE HOOD JI -0 en -0 ----© / FULL HEIGHT BUILT-IN STORAGE CABINETS ABOVE jFOUR BURNER RANGE SINK-/; UPPER -----LIGHTING AND VENTILATION � REQUIREMENTS AR�ET BY 4 DOOR AND WINDOW!l;fOR TH A202 ADU. ...... CLOSET 2'-4 1/2' \__ 5 1/211 CABINETS LAMINATE-�' \ COU NTERTOP1------------;;;F--/ ---------__ ,-,- . 11 ,- -11•�1 1/�1 , __ 1, __\ 21'-2 1/2" 33'-o· EXISTING ADU 355 SQJFT. 12'-2 1/2"1 ,( ,( ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'NEW GLASS EGRESS DOOR EXISTING STAIRWAY 1 Al04 LEGEND II NOT IN SCOPE c::::J EXISTING WALLS GENERAL NOTES, 1.EXISTING CONDITIONSMUST BE FIELD VERIFIED FOREXACT DIMENSIONS 2.DIMENSIONS ARE FROMGRID, FACE OF STUD, ORCONCRETE WALL3.DOORS AND WINDOWS AREDIMENSIONED TO CENTERLINE4.COLUMNS ARE DIMENSIONEDTO CENTERLINE LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN 1/4"=1'-0' I :l 605 EAST MAIN ST REET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (T) 970 / 925 4755 {Fl 970 I 920 2950 Consultant Issue: 01-07-2019 Final Set SEMBLER RESIDENCE ADU RESTORATION 222 S. CLEVEIAND ST. ASPEN, COLCRADO C) NORTH PROJECT NO, 21546.0 DWG Fil[ 21541.00A104ADU.dwg SHEET TITLE LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN A104 Ce) 2019 �M��fl1llW��Jroo, P.C TilE INFORMATION AND DESI� INTENT CONTAINED ON 11-ISOOCI.NENTISTilE PROPERTY OF Bill POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTIJRE NII PLANNING, P,C, NO PART [JflHIS ltfilRMAllON MAY BE USEDWITtO./TlfE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF Bill POSSAtll ASS{ICIATES, NlCHITICTUREAND PLANNNG, PC BILL POSSANOASS{ICIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNlt«:, P,C. SHALlRETAIN All COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGITS, IM::t.lOltl. COPYRIGKT lHERETO, Exhibit 1 P21VI.A. 0----0----- 0---- �---- 0----- I I --t I ----�--- I ,( � EXISTING EGRESS I I 7'-7" WINDOW I 2'-0' ,( -- EXISTING BA-,_----1 c·-,1rJ•, ''>;--d,·:c_:� ---=-1 ==--==--0�] I .- NEW T.S. COLUMN 1, REF, STRUCTURAL I 11 __ !\I_�. EXISTING BATH. EXISTING ,-----EXISTING EGRESS WINDOW EXISTINCl BEDROOM EX[STING BATH 11-11 I I I I ,_c ·'\I_-�, ,---'/'\ \---. <'--7_ \ ' .. BASEMENT ' STACKED W/D I I ----LIGHTING ANDVENTltl\TION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET THROUGH EXISTING\WIN,DOWS FOR THE FAMILY ROO,M ___ i EXISTt� MECH. ___ _ 8'-1" I I I r-1--REF./ FREEZER MIN. ' EXISTING WINDOW RANGE HOOD JI -0 en -0 ----© / FULL HEIGHT BUILT-IN STORAGE CABINETS ABOVE jFOUR BURNER RANGE SINK-/; UPPER -----LIGHTING AND VENTILATION � REQUIREMENTS AR�ET BY 4 DOOR AND WINDOW!l;fOR TH A202 ADU. ...... CLOSET 2'-4 1/2' \__ 5 1/211 CABINETS LAMINATE-�' \ COU NTERTOP1------------;;;F--/ ---------__ ,-,- . 11 ,- -11•�1 1/�1 , __ 1, __\ 21'-2 1/2" 33'-o· EXISTING ADU 355 SQJFT. 12'-2 1/2"1 ,( ,( ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'NEW GLASS EGRESS DOOR EXISTING STAIRWAY 1 Al04 LEGEND II NOT IN SCOPE c::::J EXISTING WALLS GENERAL NOTES, 1.EXISTING CONDITIONSMUST BE FIELD VERIFIED FOREXACT DIMENSIONS 2.DIMENSIONS ARE FROMGRID, FACE OF STUD, ORCONCRETE WALL3.DOORS AND WINDOWS AREDIMENSIONED TO CENTERLINE4.COLUMNS ARE DIMENSIONEDTO CENTERLINE LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN 1/4"=1'-0' I :l 605 EAST MAIN ST REET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (T) 970 / 925 4755 {Fl 970 I 920 2950 Consultant Issue: 01-07-2019 Final Set SEMBLER RESIDENCE ADU RESTORATION 222 S. CLEVEIAND ST. ASPEN, COLCRADO C) NORTH PROJECT NO, 21546.0 DWG Fil[ 21541.00A104ADU.dwg SHEET TITLE LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN A104 Ce) 2019 �M��fl1llW��Jroo, P.C TilE INFORMATION AND DESI� INTENT CONTAINED ON 11-ISOOCI.NENTISTilE PROPERTY OF Bill POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTIJRE NII PLANNING, P,C, NO PART [JflHIS ltfilRMAllON MAY BE USEDWITtO./TlfE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF Bill POSSAtll ASS{ICIATES, NlCHITICTUREAND PLANNNG, PC BILL POSSANOASS{ICIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNlt«:, P,C. SHALlRETAIN All COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGITS, IM::t.lOltl. COPYRIGKT lHERETO, Exhibit 1 P22VI.A. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 1 of 6 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.520.050 MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY Design Standards: All ADUs and carriage houses shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise approved, pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special Review: 1. An ADU must contain between three hundred (300) and eight hundred (800) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be a closet or storage area. A carriage house must contain between eight hundred (800) and one thousand two hundred (1,200) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be closet or storage area. NOT MET 2. An ADU or carriage house must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes the following: a. An ADU or carriage house must be separately accessible from the exterior. An interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved, pursuant to Special Review; YES b. An ADU or carriage house must have separately accessible utility systems, controls and disconnect panels. This does not preclude shared services; YES Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards P23 VI.A. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 2 of 6 2c. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a full-size kitchen containing at a minimum: i. Minimum 30-inch wide oven, 4-burner stovetop. ii. A sink, dishwasher, and a minimum 20 cubic foot refrigerator with freezer. iii. Minimum 24 square feet of counter space and a minimum of 15 cubic feet of cabinet space. iv. Kitchens may not be located in a closet. NOT MET 2d. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a ¾ or larger bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a toilet and a shower. YES 2e.    An ADU or carriage house shall contain washer/dryer hookups, with a dryer vent rough-in, to accommodate minimum 27-inch wide washer/dryer units. YES 3. One (1) parking space for the ADU or carriage house shall be provided on-site and shall remain available for the benefit of the ADU or carriage house resident. The parking space shall not be located in tandem, or “stacked,” with a space for the primary residence. YES 4. The finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit’s net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. NOT MET 5.    The ADU or carriage house shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or carriage house located above a detached garage or storage area or connected to the primary residence by an exterior breezeway or trellis shall still qualify as detached. No interior connections to the primary residence, or portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or carriage house as detached. NOT MET P24 VI.A. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 3 of 6 26.520.050 Design standards All ADUs and carriage houses shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise approved, pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special Review: 1. An ADU must contain between three hundred (300) and eight hundred (800) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be a closet or storage area. A carriage house must contain between eight hundred (800) and one thousand two hundred (1,200) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be closet or storage area. Staff Response: The ADU is shown at 355 sq./ft. which complies with the minimum size requirements of the current code and 1999 code (original approval granted under mid- 90’s Land Use Code). The closet measures roughly 22 sq./ft. which equates to approximately 6.2% of the overall unit square footage, which is below today’s standards and the 1999 standards. The applicant increased the amount of storage from the 6.    An ADU or carriage house shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the property is located. DOES NOT APPLY 7.    The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU or carriage house. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided. YES 8. ADUs and carriage houses shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of this Title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not limited to, building code requirements related to adequate natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression and sound attenuation between living units. This standard may not be varied. YES 9. All ADUs and carriage houses shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070, Deed restrictions and enforcement. This standard may not be varied. YES P25 VI.A. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 4 of 6 previous approval, but since the proposed storage is below the minimum size requirements, staff finds this criterion to be not met, and Special Review approval would be required. 2. An ADU or carriage house must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes the following: a. An ADU or carriage house must be separately accessible from the exterior. An interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved, pursuant to Special Review; Staff Response: An exterior stair provides access to the ADU. Interior access is also provided from the primary structure which, along with the subgrade location, requires Special Review and approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This standard has remained unchanged from the 1999 version, attached ADU’s with interior connections weren’t prohibited when the unit was originally approved. Special Review is required for the internal connection, but staff finds this criterion to be met. b. An ADU or carriage house must have separately accessible utility systems, controls and disconnect panels. This does not preclude shared services; Staff Response: The floor plan for the ADU shows an existing mechanical room accessible by both the primary residence and the ADU. The ADU will be required to provide access to a subpanel for the unit. Since shared services are allowed and the ADU has access to this mechanical room, staff finds this criterion to be met. c. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a full-size kitchen containing at a minimum: i. Minimum 30-inch wide oven, 4-burner stovetop. ii. A sink, dishwasher, and a minimum 20 cubic foot refrigerator with freezer. iii. Minimum 24 square feet of counter space and a minimum of 15 cubic feet of cabinet space. iv. Kitchens may not be located in a closet. Staff Response: The proposed kitchen is shown to meet the 1999 code requirements for a kitchen in an ADU. The house was built under a mid-1990’s code and the kitchen standards were silent. It’s been discussed between City Staff and the applicant that the 1999 standards, which adopted more clear guidelines for a kitchen in an ADU, may be used to provide guidance for the kitchen requirements. The applicant revised some of the kitchen elements in response to the first hearing. A four-burner stove top, sink, kitchen cabinets (12 cu. ft.), and “apartment” refrigerator and freezer (minimum 9.5 cubic ft.) are proposed, which would meet these 1999 standards. The proposed kitchen does not meet the current code requirements. Under today’s code the refrigerator is still below the 20-cubic foot minimum size required, dishwasher, and 24 sq./ft. of counter P26 VI.A. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 5 of 6 top space would be required under the current code. Since the proposed kitchen does not meet the current standards, staff finds this criterion to not be met, and Special Review approval would be required. d. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a ¾ or larger bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a toilet and a shower. Staff Response: The code requirements in 1999 are the same as todays requirements. The proposed ADU contains a shower with a tub, toilet, and sink. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e. An ADU or carriage house shall contain washer/dryer hookups, with a dryer vent rough-in, to accommodate minimum 27-inch wide washer/dryer units. Staff Response: Washer and dryer hook ups and a stacked washer/dryer system are proposed in the shared mechanical room for the resident of the ADU. No dimensions of the washer dryer unit was provided, however, there appears to be room to accommodate a 27” unit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. One (1) parking space for the ADU or carriage house shall be provided on-site and shall remain available for the benefit of the ADU or carriage house resident. The parking space shall not be located in tandem, or “stacked,” with a space for the primary residence. Staff Response: At least one parking space is provided for use by the resident of the ADU, staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit’s net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Staff Response: ADU is entirely below grade. The code under which this property was approved and built did not prohibit subgrade ADU’s and was in conformance with the applicable code at the time. The applicant is requesting to replace the ADU in the same location, staff finds this criterion to be not met, and Special Review approval would be required. 5. The ADU or carriage house shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or carriage house located above a detached garage or storage area or connected to the primary residence by an exterior breezeway or trellis shall still qualify as detached. No interior connections to the primary residence, or portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or carriage house as detached. Staff Response: The code in which the property was originally built allowed attached ADU’s and did not prohibit interior connections. If the commission determines it’s appropriate to replace the ADU in the originally approved location, it’s impractical given the circumstances to require the applicant to comply with the requirements of this section since the illegal removal of the kitchen triggered the replacement of the ADU process. That being said, the ADU does not comply with the requirements of this P27 VI.A. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 6 of 6 standard, and therefore, staff finds this criterion to not be met, and Special Review approval would be required. 6. An ADU or carriage house shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the property is located. Staff Response: Accessory dwelling units are an allowed use in the R/MF zone district. An analysis of height, floor area, and other dimensional requirements of this zone district are not included in this review. The applicable dimensional requirements of this zone district are legally established and are not subject to review as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU or carriage house. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided. Staff Response: The stairs are open to above but are snow melted, staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. ADUs and carriage houses shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of this Title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not limited to, building code requirements related to adequate natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression and sound attenuation between living units. This standard may not be varied. Staff Response: Light and ventilation is provided by windows between the unit and the stairwell, the entry door to the unit will be replaced with a half glass door to increase the amount of natural light, and the stairs provide emergency egress from the residence. The assemblies separating the ADU and primary residence are not being altered in this scope of work and are presumed to comply with the requirements of the code at the time the structure was built. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. All ADUs and carriage houses shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070, Deed restrictions and enforcement. This standard may not be varied. Staff Response: The property is deed restricted according to the deed restriction with Reception #383889. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P28 VI.A. Exhibit C Special Review – ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 1 of 3 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.520.080.D MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY D. Special Review. An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design standards shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted, mailed, and published pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within a Historic Overlay District, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the Zone District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability. NOT MET 2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property. YES Special Reivew - Variation of Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards P29 VI.A. Exhibit C Special Review – ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 2 of 3 D. Special Review. An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design standards shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted, mailed, and published pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within a Historic Overlay District, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the Zone District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability. Staff Response: The ADU was built according to the applicable code requirements of the mid-1990’s. In general the proposed features of the ADU do allow for general livability; however, the variations may discourage the likelihood of the unit being occupied as it is not detached and is connected to the primary residence, as noted in the purpose statement of the ADU Program below. The ADU is below grade but meets the minimum size requirements, provides natural light to the unit, has storage, an adequate bathroom, and serviceable kitchen, but would need variances to meet the minimum requirements for multiple items in the ADU. Overall the unit is livable, however, given the purpose statement listed below, staff does not find that the ADU promotes the purpose of the ADU and Carriage House Program. Because of this, staff finds this criterion to not be met. 26.520.010 Purpose The purpose of the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and carriage house program is to promote the longstanding community goal of socially, economically and environmentally responsible development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between local working residents and part-time residents. ADUs and carriage houses represent viable housing opportunities for working residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing being easily identifiable as “employee housing.” ADUs and carriage houses support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base within the City and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's character. ADUs and carriage houses allow second homeowners the opportunity to hire an on-site caretaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an environmentally preferred land use pattern, which reduces automobile reliance. P30 VI.A. Exhibit C Special Review – ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 3 of 3 Detached ADUs and carriage houses emulate a historic development pattern and maximize the privacy and livability of both the ADU or carriage houses and the primary unit. Detached ADUs and carriage houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a community goal of housing the workforce. Aspen desires occupied ADUs and carriage houses; therefore, detached ADUs and carriage houses which are deed restricted as "for sale" units, according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, and sold according to the procedures established in the guidelines, provide for certain floor area and affordable housing credit incentives. 2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property. Staff Response: The ADU is subordinate to the primary residence in every way. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P31 VI.A. Exhibit D Summary of ADU Design Standards Page 1 of 2 Below is a summary of requirements from the mid-90’s, 1999, and current code: Mid-1990’s code (the original ADU was approved under this code): - Unit Size = 300-700 square feet of net livable - Deed restricted, limited to rental periods of no less than 6 months - One parking space - For attached units (different requirements for detached units) o Subject to dimensional requirements of the zone district 1999 code: - Unit size, between 300-700 square feet - Must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit o Must be separately accessible from the exterior, interior entrance must be approved by P&Z via special review. o Must have separately accessible utilities. o Must contain a kitchen containing at a minimum an over, a two-burner stove, a sink, a refrigerator with a minimum of 6 cu. ft. of capacity and a freezer. o A bathroom containing a minimum sink, toilet, and shower. - One parking space - Must comply with requirements of the zone district - Roof should prevent snow shed on the entrance, and if the entrance is accessed via stairs, a measure to reduce snow accumulation should be provided. - Shall be deed restricted and comply with the other requirements of the code, including building code requirements. Current Code (2015): - Unit size between 300-700 sq. ft., and 10% must be a closet or storage area. - Must function as a separate dwelling unit o Must be separately accessible from the exterior, interior connections must be approved by P&Z via special review. o Must have separate utility systems, does not preclude shared services. o Shall contain a full-sized kitchen including: § 30” over with four-burner stove § Sink, dishwasher, a minimum 20 cu. ft. refrigerator with freezer. § 24 Sq. ft. of counter space and 15 cu. ft. of cabinet space § Kitchens can’t be in closets o Must contain a ¾ or larger bathroom with at least a sink, toilet, and shower o Washer/dryer hookups with dryer vent rough-in to accommodate a minimum 27” wide washer/dryer unit. - One parking space - Must be 50% above grade - Must be detached from primary residence. Can be above a detached garage that’s connected to the primary residence by breezeway counts. No interior connections are allowed. - Must comply with the dimensional requirements of the zone district. P32 VI.A. Exhibit D Summary of ADU Design Standards Page 2 of 2 - Roof should prevent snow and ice shedding on the entrance of the ADU. If accessed via stairs snow and ice accumulation must be reduced. - Must comply with building code requirements. - Must be deed restricted and registered with APCHA. It is important to note, that today the code does not allow new ADUs to be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Existing ADUs are able to stay, and ADUs that have had alterations without a permit are able to request Special Review from P&Z to be restored. Additionally, owners who are interested in full removal of their ADUs are able to pay a cash-in-lieu and/or land a housing certificate to buy out of it. When considering the alternatives, it’s important to understand the cash in lieu option and why it’s provide in the code. The total mitigation required for a development is determined by first calculating the number of full time equivalent employees (FTE’s), or the number of employees housed or generated by the development. For new residential development the number of employees housed in a unit is used as a basis to establish the FTE for that development. For the removal of an ADU, the code requires mitigation for .38 FTE’s. This figure is based on the following methodology: the average ADU is a studio or one- bedroom unit that houses 1.5 FTE’s. ADU’s have an occupancy rate of approximately 25%, so 1.5 (FTEs)x.25=.375, which is rounded up to .38 FTE’s. Once you establish the number of FTE’s generated by a development activity, you multiply the FTE number by the cash-in-lieu rate. The cash-in-lieu rate is based on affordable housing category designation. The cash-in-lieu rate was established by City Council with help from city staff and consultants and is updated every 5 years. The most recent cash-in-lieu rate was updated via Ordinance 5, Series of 2018. The cash- in-lieu rate is established by subtracting the unit sales revenue per FTE from the total cost of development per FTE. The cost of development looked at “hard” and “soft” costs associated with the construction of units in Aspen. The development cost was an average of current construction costs and anticipated future costs of construction. The category designation required for each type of development is established by the land use code. The mitigation for the removal of an ADU requires .38 FTE’s at a Category 2 designation. The category 2 cash in lieu rate is $342,599.02, therefore, the total cash-in-lieu fee for the removal of the ADU is $130,187.63. - P33 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM September 14, 2018 Mr. Ben Anderson Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Sembler ADU – 222 So. Cleveland Avenue M r. Anderson: Please accept this application for Special Review to reinstall an Accessory Dwelling Unit at the 222 South Cleveland Street property. The property was originally developed in the mid-1990s with a single- family home and an Accessory Dwelling Unit. During the course of various owners and use over the following 20+ years, the kitchen of the ADU was removed. The absent kitchen was noted by the City during a recent building code inspection for unrelated remodeling work and the City requested the property owner either reinstall the ADU (by installing a kitchen) or provide a fee-in-lieu payment mandated when an ADU is removed. This application proposes to reinstall the ADU by installing a kitchen. The City’s ADU standards have changed over the years. The Land Use Code section applicable to ADUs in the mid 1990’s, attached as Exhibit 2, provided minimal guidance. ADUs were encouraged to be attached to the primary unit, accessed from an alley if one existed, subtle in their character, and subordinate to the primary residence. The code allowed for subgrade units and internal connections. The code also provided minimal guidance on the minimum kitchen facilities needed for an ADU. The ADU in question was approved and built under this mid-1990s code. Exhibit E- Application P34 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM The lack of specificity regarding a kitchen was addressed during a 2001 Code update. The revisions provided minimum sizing for kitchen elements among other changes to the ADU program. In discussing this issue with Community Development staff, it was decided to refer to the 2001 code amendment language for guidance regarding kitchen requirements. While the ADU is not subject to these standards, the update provided a much better description of a kitchen and an easier target to agree upon. Due to the ADU being developed under a previous code, the proposed re-installation does not comply with the current ADU standards. Without redeveloping the entire property, adherence to the current standards is physically impractical and an unreasonable request in light of a simple kitchen installation. For example, current standards require an ADU to be detached from the primary residence. Without a complete redevelopment of the property, compliance with this requirement is impractical. Recognizing the existing physical realities and retrofit aspect of re- installing the ADU necessitates a Special Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Special Review criteria are addressed in Exhibit 1. Plans for the ADU are attached along with pictures of existing conditions. We look forward to working with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me for a site visit or additional information that will aid your review. Kind Regards, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC Attachments: 1. Review Criteria 2. 1990s ADU Standards 2.1 2001 ADU Standards 3. Pre-Application Summary 4. Application form 5. Agreement to Pay form 6. HOA form 7. Authorization to represent 8. Proof of ownership 9. Vicinity Map 10. Photos of existing conditions 11. ADU Retrofit Plan P35 VI.A. Exhibit 1 Review Criteria 26.520.080.D. Special Review. An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design standards shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted, mailed, and published pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within a Historic Overlay District, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the Zone District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability. Response – The unit continues the tradition of incorporating small-scale affordable housing opportunities into existing neighborhoods, allowing employees to live within the fabric of the existing community. The unit allows complete independent living for a resident having no caretaker relationship with the property owner. The unit also has the ability to house a caretaker or caregiver with a more direct relationship with the property owner. This flexibility increases the likelihood the unit will house a local working resident. The unit has high (9-foot) ceilings and all interior spaces are finished in a comparable manner as the main house. (the photo to the right shows the bathroom finishes.) The unit is provided with its own dedicated parking space and downtown is a 5-minute walk. The unit’s general livability is very high. The ADU is consistent with the purposes of the zone district. This property is zoned Residential Multi-Family. The purpose of the district is as follows: The purpose of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District is to provide for the use of land for intensive long-term residential purposes, short term vacation rentals, and customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District are typically those found in the Aspen infill area, within walking distance of the center of the City or lands on transit routes and other lands with existing concentrations of attached residential dwellings and mixed attached and detached residential dwellings. P36 VI.A. Exhibit 1 Review Criteria This property is developed with a single-family home (a permitted use) providing housing for long-term residential purposes and an Accessory Dwelling Unit (a permitted use accessory to a primary dwelling) also providing housing for long-term residential purposes. The property and this ADU are reflective of and supported by the purpose of the zone district. 2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property. Response – The Accessory Dwelling Unit is subordinate to the primary residence in every respect. The unit is smaller and is accessed from the alley-side of the property. The ADU has only one of the three parking spaces. The ADU enables either complete independent living or a living situation where internal access to the primary unit is desirable or necessary. This enables the unit to serve an employee with no operational or employment relationship to the primary unit or a caretaker or caregiver with direct access needs to the primary unit. While ADUs are not required to be rented or occupied, this flexibility provides a higher likelihood the unit will be used to house a local working resident. The unit’s access is located along the alley side of the property. The access is simple, providing a code compliant and appropriate front door to the unit while remaining compatible with the architecture and subordinate to the primary house. The primary entrance to the house continues to read as a single-family home. The property is landscaped with mature vegetation and the ADU is treated with the same level of landscape treatment. The property has no historical significance. P37 VI.A. Exhibit 21990s ADU RegsP38VI.A. P39VI.A. P40VI.A. P41VI.A. Exhibit 2.1P42VI.A. P43VI.A. P44VI.A. P45VI.A. P46VI.A. P47VI.A. P48VI.A. P49VI.A. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: August 28, 2018 PLANNER: Ben Anderson, 429.2765 PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 222. S. Cleveland PARCEL ID# 273718204004 REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, BendonAdams DESCRIPTION: (Existing and Proposed Conditions) The home at 222 S. Cleveland contains a deed restricted, “voluntary” Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). When approved with the original development of the property, the ADU was located in the basement. At some point, the kitchen facilities required of the ADU were removed. During a recent zoning inspection for a remodel of the home, the absence of the ADU kitchen was noted and a progressive enforcement process was initiated by Claude Salter, Zoning Enforcement Officer. While the Land Use Code provides a process for the removal of ADUs, the City can find no evidence that such a process has ever been initiated at 222 S. Cleveland. The owner of 222 S. Cleveland has two options to remedy this situation. The first path would pursue administrative approval of the removal of the ADU and associated deed restriction. To remove the deed restriction pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.520.090.C, the applicant shall provide mitigation for 0.38 Category 2 Full-time Equivalent employees in the form of Affordable Housing Certificates or fee-in-lieu. The current fee-in-lieu rate for Category 2 is $342,599.02, per FTE so mitigation by that method would be 0.38 x $342,599.02 = $130,187.62. An inspection to confirm that the space no longer qualifies as a dwelling unit shall be issued prior to the release of the deed restriction. The release shall be accepted by the City Attorney and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The second path would re-establish the physical requirements of the ADU in its previous location. This requires special review of the Planning and Zoning Commission; subject to 26.520.080.D. The requirement for the Board review stems from the fact that the current Land Use Code standards do not allow for subgrade units, and currently require kitchen features that are significantly different than those that were originally installed in this ADU. Staff would be supportive of this outcome with P&Z, but it is an outcome that is not able to be approved administratively. If this outcome were approved by P&Z, the deed restriction for the ADU remains in place. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.520 Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code Exhibit 3 P50 VI.A. REVIEW BY: • Staff for Complete Application Option 1 Community Development Director Option 2 • Planning and Zoning Commission REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): • Option 1 – Amendment of an ADU or Carriage House Development Order • Option 2 – Special Review – for a variation of an ADU design standard PUBLIC HEARING: • Option 1 – No • Option 2 - Yes. It is the responsibility of applicant to coordinate with Planning staff to meet the notice requirements for the public hearing. PLANNING FEES: Option 1 $975 deposit for 3 hours of staff time (Admin Review) Option 2 $3,250 deposit for 10 hours of staff time (P&Z Review) APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should first be submitted in a paper copy.  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application)  A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. Essential to this case is a floor plan and description of the lower level depicting the past, existing, and proposed conditions for the ADU.  Written responses to applicable review criteria. P51 VI.A. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  1 digital PDF copy of the complete application.  Total deposit for review of the application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P52 VI.A. Sembler ADU - 222 So. Cleveland Street 2737-182-04-004 Brent and Debbie Sembler 5858 Central Avenue; St Petersburg, FL 33707 727.384.6000 Brent.Sembler@Sembler.com BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St #202 970.925.2855 Chris@BendonAdams.com Re-Installation of an Accessory Dwelling Unit within an existing home. Home previously had an ADU in the proposed location. Replacement ADU is proposed to meet Land Use Code requirements applicable upon its previous installation. Special Review - Variation of ADU design standards n/a n/a 1 (existing) n/a n/a 3,250 Exhibit 4 P53 VI.A. CITY OF ASPEN CoMMuNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENJI Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”)and Please type or print in all capsAddressofProperty:222 So.Cleveland St.;Aspen Property Owner Name:Brent &Debbie Sembler Representative Name (if different from Property Owner)__BendonAdams Billing Name and Address -Send Bills to: Brent Semblec;5858 Central Avenue;St Petersburg,FL 33707 Contact info for billing:e-mail:Brent.Sembler@sembler.com Phone:727.384.6000 I understand that the City has adopted,via Ordinance No.30,Series of 2017,review fees for Land Use applications andpaymentofthesefeesisaconditionprecedenttodeterminingapplicationcompleteness.I understand that as the propertyownerthatIamresponsibleforpayingallfeesforthisdevelopmentapplication. For flat fees and referral fees:I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated.I understand that these flat fees arenon-refundable. $.flat fee for __________________. $.____________ __________________________________________________________ $._____________ _____________________________ For Deposit cases only:The City and I understand that because of the size,nature or scope of the proposed project,it is notpossibleatthistimetoknowthefullextentortotalcostsinvolvedinprocessingtheapplication.I understand that additionalcostsoverandabovethedepositmayaccrue.I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to completeprocessing,review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for projectconsideration,unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned totheCityshallbeconsideredbytheCityasbeingreceivedbyme.I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation ofaninvoicebytheCityforsuchservices. I have read,understood,and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment.I agree to paythefollowinginitialdepositamountsforthespecifiedhoursofstafftime.I understand that payment of a deposit does notrenderandapplicationcompleteorcompliantwithapprovalcriteria.If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit,IagreetopayadditionalmonthlybillingstotheCitytoreimbursetheCityfortheprocessingofmyapplicationatthehourlyrateshereinafterstated. $__3,250 depositfor 10 hoursofCommunityDevelc above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $_________________deposit for ______________ hours of Engineering deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: November 2017 City of Aspen I 130 5.Galena St.1(970)920 5090 $.___________flat fee for flat fee for flat fee for Additional time Signature: Jessica Garrow,AICP PRINT Name:Brent SemblerCommunityDevelopmentDirector Owner;222 So.Cleveland St;AspenCityUse: Title: ______________________________________________ Fees Due:$Received $_______ Case #_________________________ Exhibit 5 P54 VI.A. Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner ("I"): Name: Brent Sembler Email: Brent.Sembler@sembler.com Address of 222 So. Cleveland; Aspen, CO 81611 Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) Phone No.: 727.384.6000 @ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. D This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. D This property is subject to a horn owners association rivate covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use ap Ii proved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy an applicability, meaning or understand that this docu d the c· of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the 1 ate enants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I cument. Owner signature: Owner printed name: =B.;..re""'n"""t"""S:;..;e=m"""b"""l""'e.;...r _____ _ or, Attorney signature: ____________ date: ____ _ Attorney printed name: ___________ _ Exhibit 6 P55 VI.A. September 101 2018 Jessica Garrow,AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So.Galena St. Aspen,Colorado 81611 BendonAdams RE:222 So.Cleveland Street;Aspen,CO. Ms.Garrow: Please accept this letter authorizing and BendonAdams,LLC,to represent our ownership interests in 222 South Cleveland Street and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I contact me. can assist,please do not hesitate to Property —222 So.Cleveland Street;Aspen,CO 81611 300 SO SPRING ST I 202 I ASPEN,CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM Legal Description —Lot 1,Fellman Lot Split Parcel ID —7 -182-04-004 Debbie Sembler Br 5858 St.Petersburg,FJ3707 727.384.6000 Brent.Sembler@sembler.com Exhibit 7 P56 VI.A. MEMORANDUM OF OWNERSHIP-ACCOMMODATION NO LIABILITY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., A DULY LICENSED TITLE INSURANCE AGENT IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. BY EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DISCLOSES THE FOLLOWING: GRANTEE IN THE LAST INSTRUMENT OF CONVEYANCE BRENT SEMBLER and DEBBIE SEMBLER LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1, FELLMAN LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat thereof recorded October 31, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 67. DEED OF TRUST APPARENTLY UNRELEASED DEED OF TRUST FROM : BRENT W. SEMBLER and DEBBIE N. SEMBLER TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF THE COUNTY OF FOR THE USE OF : BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. TO SECURE : $3,500,000.00 DATED : DECEMBER 10, 2015 RECORDED : DECEMBER 23, 2015 RECEPTION NO. : 625823 LIENS AND JUDGMENTS (AGAINST LAST GRANTEE) APPARENTLY UNRELEASED NONE THIS INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR SOLE USE AND BENEFIT AND IS FURNISHED AS AN ACCOMMODATION. THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE PUBLIC RECORDS, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO, OR EXAMINATION OF, INSTRUMENTS WHICH PURPORTS TO AFFECT THE REAL PROPERTY. THE INFORMATION IS NEITHER GUARANTEED NOR CERTIFIED, AND IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, OPINION OF TITLE, NOR A GUARANTY OF TITLE, AND OUR LIABILITY IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT CHARGED FOR THIS REPORT. EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: Authorized Officer JOB NO: ACCOM2840 Exhibit 8 P57 VI.A. P58 VI.A. P59 VI.A. P60 VI.A. Exhibit 9 222 South Cleveland Street – Vicinity Map P61 VI.A. 222 South Clevelandvisuals of home and exisƟ ng conditionsaspen | colorado123Exhibit 10Site photos from northwest property corner and from southwest corner looking along alleyExisting access to ADUfrom alley side of propertyInterior pictures showing entry, bathroom, interior connection, kitchen locationP62 VI.A. Exhibit 11 P63VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM January 8, 2019 Mr. Garrett Larimer Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Sembler ADU – 222 So. Cleveland Avenue Mr. Larimer: Please accept this addendum to the 222 So. Cleveland application. We have made some changes to the ADU in response to P&Z Commissioner comments at the prior hearing. A revised plan is attached. The changes are summarized as follows: Storage – We have moved and expanded the closet/storage area to fit along the entire western wall of the ADU. We propose a normal depth for the closet and built-ins even though this is still below the 10% storage marker of today’s code. We explored a deeper closet and feel it takes too much away from the living space. The 25.5 square feet of closet/storage equates to 7.2% of the ADU. Four-Burner Range – We propose a 4-burner range with oven and a vent hood. Counter and Cabinet Space – We don't have an opportunity to expand counter space. But we do propose cabinets above the kitchen. The area above the stove will need to accommodate a range vent. A minimum of 12 cubic feet of cabinet area can be accommodated. Refrigerator – We are proposing an apartment-size refrigerator. This is larger than the under-counter versions with a typical height of roughly 5.5 feet. A final specification is not set but will be a minimum of 9.5 cubic feet in size, including the freezer. Washer/Dryer – We have space for these in the mechanical room and will provide the hook-ups and a stacked washer/dryer system for use by the ADU tenant. Natural light – We will replace the entry door, currently a solid panel, with either a half- or full-light door. This will enhance the natural light condition of the interior of the ADU. Kind Regards, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC Attachments: 1. Updated Plan P64 VI.A. 0----0----- 0---- �---- 0----- I I --t I ----�--- I ,( � EXISTING EGRESS I I 7'-7" WINDOW I 2'-0' ,( -- EXISTING BA-,_----1 c·-,1rJ•, ''>;--d,·:c_:� ---=-1 ==--==--0�] I .- NEW T.S. COLUMN 1, REF, STRUCTURAL I 11 __ !\I_�. EXISTING BATH. EXISTING ,-----EXISTING EGRESS WINDOW EXISTINCl BEDROOM EX[STING BATH 11-11 I I I I ,_c ·'\I_-�, ,---'/'\ \---. <'--7_ \ ' .. BASEMENT ' STACKED W/D I I ----LIGHTING ANDVENTltl\TION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET THROUGH EXISTING\WIN,DOWS FOR THE FAMILY ROO,M ___ i EXISTt� MECH. ___ _ 8'-1" I I I r-1--REF./ FREEZER MIN. ' EXISTING WINDOW RANGE HOOD JI -0 en -0 ----© / FULL HEIGHT BUILT-IN STORAGE CABINETS ABOVE jFOUR BURNER RANGE SINK-/; UPPER -----LIGHTING AND VENTILATION � REQUIREMENTS AR�ET BY 4 DOOR AND WINDOW!l;fOR TH A202 ADU. ...... CLOSET 2'-4 1/2' \__ 5 1/211 CABINETS LAMINATE-�' \ COU NTERTOP1------------;;;F--/ ---------__ ,-,- . 11 ,- -11•�1 1/�1 , __ 1, __\ 21'-2 1/2" 33'-o· EXISTING ADU 355 SQJFT. 12'-2 1/2"1 ,( ,( ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'NEW GLASS EGRESS DOOR EXISTING STAIRWAY 1 Al04 LEGEND II NOT IN SCOPE c::::J EXISTING WALLS GENERAL NOTES, 1.EXISTING CONDITIONSMUST BE FIELD VERIFIED FOREXACT DIMENSIONS 2.DIMENSIONS ARE FROMGRID, FACE OF STUD, ORCONCRETE WALL3.DOORS AND WINDOWS AREDIMENSIONED TO CENTERLINE4.COLUMNS ARE DIMENSIONEDTO CENTERLINE LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN 1/4"=1'-0' I :l 605 EAST MAIN ST REET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (T) 970 / 925 4755 {Fl 970 I 920 2950 Consultant Issue: 01-07-2019 Final Set SEMBLER RESIDENCE ADU RESTORATION 222 S. CLEVEIAND ST. ASPEN, COLCRADO C) NORTH PROJECT NO, 21546.0 DWG Fil[ 21541.00A104ADU.dwg SHEET TITLE LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN A104 Ce) 2019 �M��fl1llW��Jroo, P.C TilE INFORMATION AND DESI� INTENT CONTAINED ON 11-ISOOCI.NENTISTilE PROPERTY OF Bill POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTIJRE NII PLANNING, P,C, NO PART [JflHIS ltfilRMAllON MAY BE USEDWITtO./TlfE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF Bill POSSAtll ASS{ICIATES, NlCHITICTUREAND PLANNNG, PC BILL POSSANOASS{ICIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNlt«:, P,C. SHALlRETAIN All COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGITS, IM::t.lOltl. COPYRIGKT lHERETO, Exhibit 1 P65VI.A. TO: Planning & Zoning FROM: Garrett Larimer THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 813 W Smuggler St. MEETING DATE: January 15, 2019 *Special Note: The design proposal has not changed; the applicant is interested in discussion from the previous hearing on 12/18/18. Staff’s memo has not been amended. Applicant: Smugg LLC, c/o Curtis Sanders, 730 Durant Ave., Suite 200, Aspen, CO 81621 Representative: Robert Sinclair, Sinclair Building and Architectural Development, LLC, PO Box 8114, Aspen, CO 81611 Location: 813 W Smuggler ST Current Zoning: Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Summary: The applicant is requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards for the construction of a single-family residence. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard. MEMORANDUM Planning & Zoning Commission Garrett Larimer, Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director 813 W Smuggler St.- RDS Variation January 15, 2019 *Special Note: The design proposal has not changed; the applicant is interested in discussion from the previous hearing on 12/18/18. Staff’s memo has not been amended. Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Proposed Structure Rendering Page 1 of 6 *Special Note: The design proposal has not changed; the applicant is interested in continuing the discussion from the previous hearing on 12/18/18. Staff’s memo has not been amended. P66 VI.B. Page 2 of 6 Figure 1 Figure 2 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: · Residential Design Standards Variation (Section 26.410.020.C, Variations): To grant a variation of the Articulation of Building Mass, a non-flexible design standard, to construct a single-family residence on a vacant lot that does not meet the depth requirements of the standard. Applications that do not comply with the standards contained in the Residential Design section of the code, in which an applicant is applying for a variation, require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision-making body. BACKGROUND: 813 W Smuggler St. is located on Lot 3 of the Ranger Station Subdivision in the Medium Density Residential, (R-6) zone district. The lot is a 6,639 square foot (approximately 60’ by 110’) vacant lot within the Aspen Infill Area. The property had previously been part of the United States Forest Service Property, and the Forest Service recorded a survey creating 5 separate lots, but the subdivision and creation of those lots was not approved and signed by the City. The City represented that it would not object to the subdivision of the property by the federal agency as long as any development on the lots meets city regulations. Development allotments, allowing for residential development on each lot, were granted via three ordinances in 2015. The lot is vacant but there are existing conditions that affect the development of the lot. A 10’ utility and access easement exists on the southern portion of the lot (comprised of the northerly half of a formerly vacated alley). The zone district setback is measured from the edge of the access easement, which creates a 15’ setback for the garage and a 20’ setback for any portion of the primary structure other than a garage. This setback requirement creates a similar condition for any other lot in the West End that has an alley adjacent to its rear property line. The Si Johnson Ditch also runs through the southeast portion of the property with a 10-foot easement on either side of the centerline of the ditch. The 60’ lot width is a standard width for the R-6 zone district, but the lot is larger (6,639 sf.) than a standard 6,000 square foot R-6 lot. The applicant applied for an administrative review and approval of the Residential Design Standards to develop a single-family residence on Lot 3; however, the application does not comply with the Articulation of Building Mass standard and the applicant is requesting a variation from this non-flexible standard to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Articulation of Building Mass standard provides 3 options to satisfy the requirements of this standard: 1. Maximum Sidewall Depth: The building shall be no greater in depth than 50’ as measured from the front most wall to the rear most wall of the building, see Figure 1. 2. Off-set with one story ground level connector: The main building and secondary mass of the structure shall be separated by a one-story connector between the primary and secondary mass of the building. The one-story connector must be 10’ long, and setback a minimum of 5’ from the sidewall of the primary and P67 VI.B. Page 3 of 6 Figure 3 Figure 4 – Rendering showing maximum sidewall depth measurement from Figure 5 secondary masses and must occur no more than 45’ from the front most wall, see Figure 2. 3. Increased Side Setbacks at Rear Step Down: If the building is two stories, it has to step down to a one-story element at the rear of the structure. The step down must happen within 45’ of the front most wall, and the one-story element must be setback 5’ feet on each side from the primary mass of the building, see figure 3. Non-flexible standards are those that shall be met by all projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no Alternative Compliance permitted. The applicant is seeking an RDS Variation pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. PROPOSAL: The design proposal does not satisfy any of the three options provided by the code. The maximum sidewall depth measures 84’4” from the front most wall to the rear most wall, see figure 5. A one story stepdown, containing the garage, occurs at the rear of the structure but does not meet the setback requirements from the primary structure and does not occur at 45’, but at 65’ from the front most wall, see figure 6. P68 VI.B. Page 4 of 6 = Roof Overhang = Building Envelope = Setbacks/Easement Figure 6 REVIEWS: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION: An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that the variation, if granted would: Figure 5 P69 VI.B. Page 5 of 6 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site- specific constraints. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant’s position is that the ditch and utility/access easements constrain the site and justify a variation for the Articulation of Building Mass standard. The Si Johnson ditch has been in this location for many years and the property was purchased with this existing condition in place. Properties throughout Aspen often contain existing conditions such as ditches, rivers, or steep slopes which may impact development. The additional setbacks that affect the property are shown in Figure 7. The zone district setbacks are shown in orange and the additional setbacks required for the utility/access and the ditch easements are shown in green. Staff does not feel that the additional constraint prevents reasonable use of the property or prohibits a compliant design. The second consideration for a variation focuses on the intent statements associated with the Design Standards. Staff acknowledges that articulation elements are used to assist in breaking up the façade’s plane; however, the massing of the building “as viewed from all sides” still presents a façade that measures over 84’ in depth and does not break up the mass by limiting the overall depth of the sidewalls to the 50 foot maximum, providing a one story connector to break up the primary and secondary mass of the building, or using a one story stepdown at 45 feet from the front façade to reduce the perceived mass. These three options are provided to satisfy the requirements of the code and given that this is new construction on an undeveloped lot, the design should comply with the code. The standard’s intent statement also mentions designs should “limit the overall depth of the structure.” Given the lot length of 110’, with combined front and rear setbacks of 25’, a total building area length of 85’ exists. The design measures 84’4” and maximizes the depth of the structure, which does not meet the intent of the standard to reduce overall depth of the building. The Articulation of Figure 7 P70 VI.B. Page 6 of 6 Building Mass Standard Intent Statement specifically mentions the importance of this standard within the Infill area where small side yard setbacks exist. The side yard setback on the west side of the property is 5’, and the lot size is typical of west end lots in the R-6 zone district. The current design proposal does not comply with setback requirements. There are elements of the primary structure on the lower level that are within the required rear yard setback and the roof overhang within the ditch easement is not allowed. The applicant will be required to comply with all setback requirements prior to building permit issuance, but these elements do not affect the Articulation of Building Mass measurement or Residential Design Standard review. Staff recommends that new construction comply with the requirements of one of the options to meet the standard. The design does provide articulation elements but does not meet the requirements to qualify for a variation to the Residential Design Standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard as the proposal does not satisfy the review criteria for a variation and is a proposal for new construction that should comply with the requirements of the code. The Articulation of Building Mass Standard provides three options to satisfy the requirements and includes alternatives for allowing for additional mass on site beyond the primary mass, and none have been met. The easements on site do not constrain the site unfairly or prevent reasonable use of the property. Design alternatives could be used to meet the code requirements and still provide design flexibility. PROPOSED MOTION: The resolution is written in the affirmative, approving the request. If the commission supports staff’s recommendation, a motion to deny, as suggested below should be used. “I move to deny the request for Variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard.” Attachments: Exhibit A- Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Exhibit B- Application Exhibit C – RDS Checklist Exhibit D – Public Comment P71 VI.B. RESOLUTION NO.___ (SERIES OF 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION FOR A PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 3 RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED PLAT, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION RECORDED MAY 25, 2018, IN PLAT BOOK 122 AT PAGE 22 AS RECEPTION NO. 647625, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 813 W SMUGGLER STREET. Parcel No. 2735-124-28-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Smugg LLC, c/o Curtis B. Sanders, Esq., Sherman & Howard LLC, 813 W Smuggler St., Aspen, CO 81611, requesting approval for a Residential Design Standard Variation for the property at 813 W Smuggler St.; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of Residential Design Standard Variation; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on December 18, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was continued to January 15, 2019; and, WHEREAS, on January 15 the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on January 15, 2019; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, P72 VI.B. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution _, Series of 2019, by a ___ to ____ (_ - _) vote, granting approval of the Residential Design Standard Variation as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Residential Design Standard Variation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for a Residential Design Standard variation to construct a single-family residence on the subject site (Chapter 26.410.020.C, Variations), varying from the Articulation of Building Mass standard. All other standards including height and setbacks shall be met. Section 2: Parks: A tree permit is required prior to removal of trees. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on January 15, 2019. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ____________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair P73 VI.B. ATTEST: ____________________________ Jeanine Stickle, Records Manager Exhibits: Exhibit A: Approved Plans P74 VI.B. Exhibit A: Approved Site Plan P75 VI.B. Exhibit A: Approved Floor Plan Exhibit A: Approved Floor Plan P76 VI.B. Exhibit A: Approved Elevation Plans P77 VI.B. P78 VI.B. Exhibit A Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Section 26.410.020.D, Residential Design Standard Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or Staff Response: The intent of the Articulation of Building Mass standard is to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property, as viewed from all sides. The code indicates that this standard is critical in the Infill Area where “small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent.” The proposed structure’s sidewalls measure much larger than the code allows, and the design does not limit the appearance of massing when viewed from the east or west side of the building. Articulation elements are used, but the overall massing still appears and measures longer than what is seen in historic Aspen building forms. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.410.020(D) - Variation Review Standards . See Exhibit C for detailed comments.NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY D. Residential Design Standard Variation Review Standards . An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or NOT MET 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site- specific constraints NOT MET MET Review Criteria for 813 W Smuggler St. The applicant is requesting a Residential Design Standard Variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Standard, which is a non-flexible standard. The application must satisfy the intent statement of the Articulation of Building Mass Section 26.410.030 (B)(1), and the review criteria for variations listed in Section 26.410.020(D). P79 VI.B. Staff Response: The subject site is not constrained to a point that limits the use of the property. There are setbacks from an existing ditch in the south east corner of the property and an access easement to the south of the property. The extent these setbacks restrain the property only slightly more restrictive that the zone district setback requirements. Staff does not feel that the increased setbacks are a basis for granting relief from a non-flexible standard on an undeveloped lot. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. P80 VI.B. November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 50ϵ0 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION WroũeĐƚ NĂme ĂŶĚ ĚĚreƐƐ:_________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ APPLICANT: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ emĂŝů͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ emĂŝů͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Description: džŝƐƚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ WroƉoƐeĚ oŶĚŝƚŝoŶƐ Review: ĚmŝŶŝƐƚrĂƚŝve or oĂrĚ Zevŝeǁ Have you incůuded the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement ,KA oŵpůiance Ĩorŵ Aůů iteŵs ůisted in cŚecŬůist on WreAppůication onĨerence ^uŵŵarLJ Required Land Use Review(s): 'rowtŚ DanaŐeŵent Yuota ^LJsteŵ ('DY^) required Ĩieůds͗ Eet Leasaďůe square ĨootaŐe ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ LodŐe Wiůůowsͺͺͺͺͺͺ &ree DarŬet dweůůinŐ units ͺͺͺͺͺͺ AĨĨordaďůe ,ousinŐ dweůůinŐ unitsͺͺͺͺͺ ssentiaů Wuďůic &aciůitLJ square ĨootaŐe ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ P81 VI.B. P82 VI.B. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: October 17, 2018 PLANNER: Garrett Larimer, 429.2739 PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: Lot 3, Ranger Station Subdivision REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Sinclair, rob@sin-bad.com DESCRIPTION: The applicant is interested in requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the construction of a new single-family residence located at Lot 3, Ranger Station Subdivision, zoned R-6. This lot is in the Aspen Infill Area. The proposed project requires a variation from the following standard: 1. 26.410.030.B(1) – Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) Non-Flexible standards shall be met by all projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no alternative compliance permitted. If the application is found to be inconsistent with any of the non-flexible standards as written, the applicant may submit a land use application for a variation from that standard. Variations may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. The Planning and Zoning commission, with a recommendation from planning staff, will consider whether or not the design meets the intent of the standard as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3, in making their decision to grant or deny the variation. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variation request. The applicant shall include written responses to the variation review standards and the RDS standard in which they are seeking a variation from. The responses should address how they feel the design meets the intent of the standard and overall intent statements in this section. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410.020.D RDS Variation Review Standards 26.410.030.B.1 Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code REVIEW BY: • Staff for Complete Application • Planning and Zoning Commission REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): Residential Design Standard Variation Request P83 VI.B. PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, Planning and Zoning Commission It is the responsibility of applicant to coordinate with Planning staff to meet the notice requirements for the public hearing. PLANNING FEES: $3,250 Deposit for 10 hours of staff time (additional hours will be billed at $325/hr) REFERRAL FEES: No TOTAL DEPOSIT: $3,250 APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should first be submitted in a paper copy. … Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement. … Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). … Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. … Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. … HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application) … A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. … A completed copy of the Residential Design Standard Checklist: https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1697/RDS-Application-Packet---SF-DX … Written responses to applicable review criteria. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P84 VI.B. P85 VI.B. P86 VI.B. P87 VI.B. P88 VI.B. 49103127.1 SMUGG LLC. c/o Curtis B. Sanders, Esq. Sherman & Howard L.L.C. 730 East Durant Avenue, Second Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel. (970) 925-6300 Fax (970) 925-1181 Email: csanders@shermanhoward.com October 24, 2018 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Smugg LLC.; T.B.D. Eighth Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611; Lot 3, Ranger Station “Subdivision”, as more fully described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”) Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing as Authorized Representative of Smugg LLC., a Colorado limited liability company, record owner of the above referenced Property. Smugg LLC. desires to apply for, pursue, and obtain at its own expense, a variance to certain of the City of Aspen’s Residential Design Standards with respect to the Property, and any other approvals and land use approvals which may be required or requested by Smugg LLC. in connection therewith. This letter shall confirm that Smugg LLC. authorizes attorney Curtis B. Sanders of Sherman & Howard L.L.C. and authorizes Sinclair Building Architecture Development, LLC, and any other personnel of such firms to apply for, pursue and obtain the City of Aspen’s review and approval of such matters in connection with the Property. Contact information for Curtis B. Sanders and Sherman & Howard L.L.C. are as follows: Curtis B. Sanders, Esq. Sherman & Howard L.L.C. 730 East Durant Avenue, Second Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel. (970) 925-6300 Fax (970) 925-1181 Email: csanders@shermanhoward.com Contact information for Sinclair Building Architecture Development, LLC is as follows: Sinclair Building Architecture Development, LLC P.O. Box 8114 P89 VI.B. 49103127.1 Aspen, Colorado 816112 Tel. (970) 925-4269 Email: rob@sin-bad.com; tee@sin-bad.com Please contact the undersigned with any questions. SMUGG LLC., a Colorado limited liability company By: _________________________________ Authorized Representative P90 VI.B. 49103127.1 Exhibit A (Legal Description of Property) LOT 3, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION, according to the Amended and Restated Plat, Ranger Station Subdivision, recorded May 25, 2018, in Plat Book 122 at Page 22, as Reception No. 647625, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Block 9 of the Townsite and City of Aspen, monumented with a 3/4 inch dia. Steel pipe with a cap marked "9", thence S 75°05'24" E along the Northerly boundary of said Block 9, a distance of 120 feet to a 1 1/2 inch dia. aluminum cap on 3/8 inch dia. rebar, the Point of Beginning; thence S 75°05'24" E, along said northerly line of Block 9, a distance of 60 feet; thence S 14°50'15" W a distance of 110.30 feet to the Northeast Corner of Lot 4 of this survey monumented with a 1 ½ inch dia. aluminum cap on 3/8 inch dia. rebar; thence N 75°07'25" W a distance of 60 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 2 of this Survey, from which a 1 1/2 inch dia. aluminum cap on 3/8 inch dia. rebar bears N 14°50;15" E a distance of 10 feet; thence N 14°50'15" E a distance of 110.34 feet to the point of beginning. P91 VI.B. P92 VI.B. 1 813 W. Smuggler St . • Residential Design Standard Variation Request Sinclair Building|Architecture|Development • 24 October 2018 INTRODUCTION Our project at 813 W. Smuggler St. is on Lot 3 of the new Ranger Station Subdivision in Aspen’s West End, approximately one block from the turn onto Power Plant Road. The lot is 6639 SF in area, and is zoned R6. It is currently undeveloped. On our lot, we are proposing a 3080 SF single-family private home (3282 SF is allowed by F.A.R.). We are at 43% Lot Coverage, where 49% is allowed in the R-6. Due to the SI Johnson Ditch, and its 20’ wide easement, as well as an alley utility easement, approximately 28% of the site within the 5’ side-yard and 10’ front & rear setbacks is not buildable. These immutable site constraints result in a trapezoidal- shaped building site that tapers from the full lot width on Smuggler Street to just over ½ of the lot width at the rear. In our study of the City of Aspen’s Residential Design Standards and their intent, the unique site shape suggests an alternative approach to achieving the intent of the “Articulation of Building Mass” provision of the R.D.S., which combines some of each of the prescriptive options listed in Section 26.410.031.B.1, instead of fulfilling a single approach. We are aware that fulfilling at least one of the options is a “Non-Flexible” requirement of the R.D.S. As such, we request a variance to pursue an alternative, and we believe more appropriate and better, path to comply with the intent of the ordinance. DESIGN With our site rapidly diminishing in width as it receded from the street-front, we needed to place most of the building mass of the home in the front 2/3rds of the site. Influenced by historic Aspen vernacular forms, we wanted to keep the individual mass forms appropriately small, thus the 20’ width of both our gabled forms. We placed the gabled forms in a staggered echelon that opens the front porch to the street, conveying a sense of welcome and entry, while deferring to our neighbor to the west. The home moves away from the side setback in three steps, eventually to 25’ from the property line, allowing in light and air, and enhancing privacy. The two primary gabled forms begin to resemble the massing diagram shown in R.D.S.’s Articulation of Building Mass “Option #2”, but without the 10’ single-story gap. Because our site narrows to the back, we had a difficult time creating the 10’ gap without pushing the south-most 2-story form over the garage, where it would then overlook our neighbor’s backyard, losing the aspect of Building Mass “Option #3”, that we most liked and sought to retain. INTENT We believe that the setbacks and staggered massing of the home’s design have the same effect and address the same intent to articulate the building mass as the 10’ gap in Option #2. Further mitigating the impact on our neighbor to the north, no part of the 2-story form of our design is closer than 10-feet to the west property line, where 5-feet is allowed by right. Our single-story forms, i.e. the bedroom at the midpoint of the home and the garage at the rear, modulate and articulate the plane of the 2-story gabled form, specifically “to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of the building”, as stated in the R.D.S. standards. In sum, we believe that our design addresses the various intents of the Building Mass Articulation standard, in direct response to our unique site configuration, more effectively and successfully than any one of the three prescriptive options for Articulation of Building Mass listed in Section 26.410.031.B.1 of the R.D.S. P93 VI.B. 2 RESPONSES TO CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE STANDARDS: NOTE: Sinclair B|A|D responses are in red italics 26.410.010. General A. Intent. The City’s Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape. The Residential Design Standards are intended to achieve the following objectives: 1. Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between streets, and residential buildings located along streets. Porches, walkways from front entries to the street, and prominent windows that face the street are examples of elements that connect to the street. With our broad single-story front porch, recessed massing, and street-facing front door (10’ from property line), we have complied with all relevant requirements addressing this R.D.S. standard. 2. Respond to Neighboring Properties. Reduce perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings from all sides. Encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale. Create a sense of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape. Providing offsets or changes of plane in the building facades or reducing the height near side lot lines are examples of responding to neighboring properties. Frequent step-backs and changes of plane, along with alternation of single- and double-story building masses reduce the perceived “mass & bulk” of our design. Our front yard setback matches our neighbor’s, while our receding building massing and single-story elements along the west setback line respect our westerly neighbor, and allow light and air to their east-facing elevation. 3. Reflect Traditional Building Scale. Retain scale and proportions in building design that are in keeping with Aspen’s historic architectural tradition, while also encouraging design flexibility. Reinforce the unique character of Aspen by drawing upon the City’s vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in the design of structures. Encourage creative and contemporary architecture, but at a scale that respects historic design traditions. Ensure that residential structures respond to “human-scale” in their design. Ensure that residential structures do not visually overwhelm or overshadow streets. Windows that are similar in size to those seen in historic Aspen architecture or limiting the height of a porch to be in line with the first story of a building are examples of reflecting traditional building scale. While our design is clearly contemporary and “of its time”, its 20-foot wide 2-story 8:12 pitch gable forms are intended to recall Aspen’s 19th Century residential vernacular, its windows display a story-by-story expression, and its 1-story front porch suggests a comfortable human scale. P94 VI.B. 3 26.410.020.D D. Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or While our design for 813 W. Smuggler St. does not fulfill a complete, literal interpretation of any single prescriptive option listed in the ‘Articulation of Building Mass’ standards of the R.D.S., it incorporates aspects of all three options in meeting the intent of the Standards: the design is highly articulated with no large continuous planar surfaces, it is composed of multiple architectural forms, it steps down to one-story at the rear, it is deferential to its neighbor with its generous setbacks, and allows access to air and light far beyond R.D.S. requirements. 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Due to the SI Johnson Ditch and rear alley utility easements, 28% of the site within the setback lines is unbuildable, thus creating a trapezoidal site that diminishes in width toward the rear of the site. This constrained, unique site shape makes the prescriptive “Articulation of Building Mass” options less practicable and appropriate for this specific site, and encourages an alternative solution that nonetheless addresses the intent of the standards. 26.410.031.B.1 B. Location and Massing. 1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible). a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except: (1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area. b) Intent. This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. Designs should promote light and air access between adjacent properties. Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation that convey forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard is critical in the Infill Area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent. Designs should change the plane of a building’s sidewall, step a primary building’s height down to one-story in the rear portion or limit the overall depth of the structure. Our multiple building forms are relatively small in scale, derived in scale from historic Aspen vernacular residential architecture. The massing forms are staggered in placement, and are generously setback from the side property line to maximize light and air access to our adjacent neighbor. Our garage steps down to a single-story expression to diminish mass and bulk, as well as to preserve our neighbor’s backyard privacy. P95 VI.B. 4 26.410.031 B. Location and Massing 1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) (cont.) c) Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. Please see response to Item b) above re: articulation & historic precedent d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: (1) Maximum Sidewall Depth. A principal building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. An accessory building that is completely separated from the main building is permitted. Garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for an accessory building. See Figure 5. Our initial design diagram resembled Option 1, as we needed to place most of the building mass forward on the site, due to the site narrowing toward the rear. We then shifted the western half back on the site to create our entry porch and provide a more generous setback to the west in deference to the neighboring property. (2) Off-set with One-Story Ground Level Connector. A principal building shall provide a portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least an additional five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. Accessible outdoor space over the connecting element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a connecting element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. See Figure 6. We believe our alternative compliance approach to the Building Mass standard creates a similar effect to Option 2 cited above. Our two 2-story gabled building masses are not dissimilar to the two gabled forms shown in R.D.S. Section 26.410.030.B.1.d) (2) graphic, except that instead of a 10-foot 1-story connector, we have staggered our building masses to create required articulation and allow light and air to the adjacent property. Our unique site shape, with greatly reduced width toward the rear, forced us to keep our 2-story massing components more to the front of the site, making literal compliance with Option 2 difficult. (3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. A principal building shall provide increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal building is two stories, it shall step down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front-most wall toward the rear wall. The increased side setbacks shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the side setbacks at the front of the building. See Figure 7. We also used Option 3 as inspiration for our alternative compliance approach. We were eager to step down to one-story at the rear to allow light and air onto our westerly neighbor’s site, as well as to preserve the privacy of their backyard from overlook. We were able to increase side setback to the east, however, due to the reduced width of our uniquely constrained site at the rear, we could not do an increased setback on the west side without rendering the garage unusable. In conclusion, we believe we have achieved compliance with the intent of the R.D.S.’s Articulation of Building Mass standards, deriving our site-specific approach from the prescriptive options, while making accommodation for our tapering site. The result, we believe, is better for our site, our neighbor to the west, and to the community at large than had we been able to pursue one of the prescriptive options. P96 VI.B. Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist4JOHMF'BNJMZBOE%VQMFY Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes B.1.Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) B.2.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.3.Build-to Requirement (Flexible) B.4.One Story Element (Flexible) C.1.Garage Access (Non-flexible) C.2.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) C.3.Garage Dimensions (Flexible) Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional sheets/graphics may be attached. Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Page 1 of 2P97 VI.B. Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes C.4.Garage Door Design (Flexible) D.1.Entry Connection (Non-flexible) D.2.Door Height (Flexible) D.3.Entry Porch (Flexible) E.1.Principle Window (Flexible) E.2.Window Placement (Flexible) E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible) E.5.Materials (Flexible) Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Page 2 of 2 Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist4JOHMF'BNJMZBOE%VQMFY P98VI.B. P99VI.B. P100VI.B. a 1 b c d e f g 2 3 4 5 a b c d e f g 1 2 3 4 5 10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"18'-0"17'-0"19'-4"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"SCALE1lower level floor plan 1/4" = 1'-0" elev. 104 tile mechanical 013 conc. laundry 008 tile ll bath #2 006 tile closet 007 carpet ll Bedroom #2 005 carpet hall 009 carpet yoga / gym 010 carpet ll bedroom #1 003 carpet ll bath #1 004 tile game/media room 001 carpet bar 012 tile bar sink bev. fridg. lightwell ventilation for mech. lightwell unexcavated wine cellar 002 tile washer dryer bath 011 tile lightwellunexcavated 3'-5" open to above 4'-6"elev. 84'-5 1/2" t.o. slab elev. 92'-5" t.o. slab 003 A max size that will fit gas linear fireplace appliance 008 A 002 A 104 A 004 A 005 A 011 A 010 A 013 A 008 A 007 A 006 A 001 A 003 A 004 A 005 A 001 B lightwell Egress Egress 1A-4.1 1A-4.2 1A-4.4 1A-4.3 1a5.2 016 A 015 A 014 A Egress closet #2 016 carpet sump 015 conc. Game storage 014 carpet 1'-6"1'-6" sump s.g.s.g. 1'-6"1'-6" s.g.1'-6"1'-6"recess plumBing 1 hr rated area separation electrical panel 36"36"dry wet sewer ejector 6" step f.d. f.d. co sd co sd co sdco sdco sd up 1a5.1 lower level floor plan A3.1 1/4" = 1'-0" sheet number: sheet title: RL3 Scale: SINCLAIR building, Architecture & development PO BOX 8114 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 970-925-4269 p 970-925-5478 F ALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building | architecture | development, AND SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE without WRITTEN with PERMISSION. © copyright, 2018 all rights reserved plan Check 813 W SMUGGLER STAspen, Colorado 8161110/01/2018 ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 PLANS.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:59:17 AMLast Saved by:Jacobprivate residenceRL3plotted:10/29/2018 10:59:17 AMdate reviewers stamps variance request 10/29/2018 P101VI.B. a1bcdefg2345abcdefg1234510'-0"10'-0"10'-0"18'-0"17'-0"19'-4"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"SCALE1main level floor plan1/4" = 1'-0"great room101WOODkitchen112WOODhall111WOODguest master107WOODw/c106tilepowder105tilecoat cl.103WOODelev.104tileentry102WOODstair113WOODgarage114conc.mudroom110WOODguest bath108tilecloset109WOODporch116stone54" gas fireplaceapplianceflue frombelow48" range w/hoodsinkd/wterrace48" fridg.elev. 100'-0"t.o. ply subfloorelev. 102'-3"t.o. ply subfloorplanterretaining wallelev. 102'-3"t.o. slab102C105a107a113b113c106A110A101D101b101a113A101C102a102b107b107C107d108a113a113d112a101A102A103A104A105A107A109A108A114b114ahinged egressgrate112Aopen tobelowlightwellhinged egressgrate1A-4.11A-4.21A-4.41A-4.3mech. chase lightwelllightwelllightwell54" gas fireplaceappliance20 min door1 hr rated areaseparationh.bh.bh.b1'-5 1/4"1'-5 1/4"2'-1"2'-1"co sdco sdco sdco sds.g.s.g.dnup10'-0"1a5.1main levelfloor planA3.21/4" = 1'-0"sheet number:sheet title:RL3Scale:SINCLAIR building,Architecture &developmentPO BOX 8114ASPEN, COLORADO 81612970-925-4269 p970-925-5478 FALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS ANDPLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTYAND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building |architecture | development, ANDSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE withoutWRITTEN with PERMISSION.© copyright, 2018 all rights reservedplan Check813 W SMUGGLER ST Aspen, Colorado 81611 10/01/2018ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 PLANS.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:59:19 AMLast Saved by:Jacob private residence RL3 plotted:10/29/2018 10:59:19 AMdatereviewers stampsvariance request10/29/2018P102VI.B. SCALE1upper level floor plan1/4" = 1'-0"master sitting202WOODmaster bedroom203WOODmasterwardrobe205woodmasterbath206tileelev. balcony201WOODmaster terrace209paverselev.104tile6'-6 1/2"clerestory int.glassint. glass panelopen tobelowopen tobelow10'-0"19'-6 1/2"2'-5 1/2"9'-6 1/2"10'-5 1/2"17'-6 1/2"8'-2 3/4"9'-2 3/4"19'-4"4'-0"4'-5 1/2"4'-0"5'-7"5'-0"8'-0"5'-0"10'-0"9'-1"10'-5 1/2"6'-0"54" gas fireplaceapplianceflue frombelowmastershower207tilehall204woodflue frombelowa1bcdefg2345abcdefg1234510'-0"10'-0"10'-0"18'-0"19'-4"17'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"elev. 110'-5"t.o. ply subfloor101I102d206a113h101f113g101e102eaboveabove101g101h202a101j204a102f203a203b203c203d205a209a113e113fabove206b104c203a203bopen tobelowrailing1a5.21a5.11A-4.11A-4.21A-4.41A-4.31'-5 3/4"1'-5 3/4"h.b101kaboveco sdco sds.g.s.g.egressegressdn11"sheet number:sheet title:RL3Scale:SINCLAIR building,Architecture &developmentPO BOX 8114ASPEN, COLORADO 81612970-925-4269 p970-925-5478 FALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS ANDPLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTYAND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building |architecture | development, ANDSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE withoutWRITTEN with PERMISSION.© copyright, 2018 all rights reservedplan Check813 W SMUGGLER ST Aspen, Colorado 81611 10/01/2018ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 PLANS.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:59:21 AMLast Saved by:Jacob private residence RL3 plotted:10/29/2018 10:59:21 AMdatereviewers stampsvariance request10/29/2018upper levelfloor planA3.31/4" = 1'-0"P103VI.B. SCALE1roof plan 1/4" = 1'-0" a 1 b c d e f g 2 3 4 5 a b c d e f g 1 2 3 4 5 10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"18'-0"19'-4"17'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"0.25:12 chimney 8:12 8:12 8:128:12 8:12 0.25:12 0.25:12 0.25:12 0.25:120.25:120.25:120.25:12 0.25:120.25:120.25:120.25:12 0.25:120.25:12 8:128:128:128:12chimney flat roof below 0.25:12below 1A-4.1 1A-4.2 1A-4.4 1A-4.3 1a5.2 1a5.1 note:Class A Roof Assembly (per ICC ESR-2053) to be min. 28-gauge (0.016”) steel standing seam system over 1-layerVersaShield on min. 15/31” plywood sheathing roof plan A3.4 1/4" = 1'-0" sheet number: sheet title: RL3 Scale: SINCLAIR building, Architecture & development PO BOX 8114 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 970-925-4269 p 970-925-5478 F ALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building | architecture | development, AND SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE without WRITTEN with PERMISSION. © copyright, 2018 all rights reserved plan Check 813 W SMUGGLER STAspen, Colorado 8161110/01/2018 ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 PLANS.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:59:23 AMLast Saved by:Jacobprivate residenceRL3plotted:10/29/2018 10:59:23 AMdate reviewers stamps variance request 10/29/2018 P104VI.B. P105VI.B. P106VI.B. P107VI.B. P108VI.B. image 1i,1nasheet number:sheet title:RL3Scale:SINCLAIR building,Architecture &developmentPO BOX 8114ASPEN, COLORADO 81612970-925-4269 p970-925-5478 FALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS ANDPLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTYAND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building |architecture | development, ANDSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE withoutWRITTEN with PERMISSION.© copyright, 2018 all rights reservedplan Check813 W SMUGGLER ST Aspen, Colorado 81611 10/01/2018ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 A4.1 ELEVATIONS SOUTH_NORTH.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:58:45 AMLast Saved by:Jacob private residence RL3 plotted:10/29/2018 10:58:45 AMdatereviewers stampsvariance request10/29/2018P109VI.B. nasheet number:sheet title:RL3Scale:SINCLAIR building,Architecture &developmentPO BOX 8114ASPEN, COLORADO 81612970-925-4269 p970-925-5478 FALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS ANDPLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTYAND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building |architecture | development, ANDSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE withoutWRITTEN with PERMISSION.© copyright, 2018 all rights reservedplan Check813 W SMUGGLER ST Aspen, Colorado 81611 10/01/2018ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 A4.1 ELEVATIONS SOUTH_NORTH.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:58:53 AMLast Saved by:Jacob private residence RL3 plotted:10/29/2018 10:58:53 AMdatereviewers stampsvariance request10/29/2018image 2i,2P110VI.B. nasheet number:sheet title:RL3Scale:SINCLAIR building,Architecture &developmentPO BOX 8114ASPEN, COLORADO 81612970-925-4269 p970-925-5478 FALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS ANDPLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTYAND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building |architecture | development, ANDSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE withoutWRITTEN with PERMISSION.© copyright, 2018 all rights reservedplan Check813 W SMUGGLER ST Aspen, Colorado 81611 10/01/2018ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 A4.1 ELEVATIONS SOUTH_NORTH.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:59:02 AMLast Saved by:Jacob private residence RL3 plotted:10/29/2018 10:59:02 AMdatereviewers stampsvariance request10/29/2018image 3.i,3P111VI.B. nasheet number:sheet title:RL3Scale:SINCLAIR building,Architecture &developmentPO BOX 8114ASPEN, COLORADO 81612970-925-4269 p970-925-5478 FALL RIGHTS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS ANDPLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTYAND COPYRIGHT OF Sinclair building |architecture | development, ANDSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY OTHERPERSON FOR ANY USE withoutWRITTEN with PERMISSION.© copyright, 2018 all rights reservedplan Check813 W SMUGGLER ST Aspen, Colorado 81611 10/01/2018ISSUED FOR:file location:Z:\SIN BAD\RL3\DRAWINGS\RL3 A4.1 ELEVATIONS SOUTH_NORTH.DWGplotted:10/29/2018 10:59:10 AMLast Saved by:Jacob private residence RL3 plotted:10/29/2018 10:59:10 AMdatereviewers stampsvariance request10/29/2018image 4i,4P112VI.B. Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Staff Checklist - Single Family and Duplex Standard Complies Alternative Compliance Does Not Comply N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes B.1.Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) B.2.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.3.Build-to Requirement (Flexible) B.4.One Story Element (Flexible) C.1.Garage Access (Non-flexible) C.2.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) C.3.Garage Dimensions (Flexible) Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Page 1 of 2 Approved: (Approved plans/elevations attached)P113VI.B. Standard Complies Alternative Compliance Doesn’t Comply N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes C.4.Garage Door Design (Flexible) D.1.Entry Connection (Non-flexible) D.2.Door Height (Flexible) D.3.Entry Porch (Flexible) E.1.Principle Window (Flexible) E.2.Window Placement (Flexible) E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible) E.5.Materials (Flexible) Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Staff Checklist Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Page 2 of 2 Approved: P114VI.B. Exhibit D Public Comment Public Comment: Robert Schwab, owner of 504 N 8th St. called on 12/6/18 to discuss the project. He said he has no concerns with the proposed design and would like to include his input in the public record. P115 VI.B. RESOLUTION NO. _ Series of 2019 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to elect a chairperson and vice- chairperson as outlined in Section 26.212.030, Membership-Appointment, removal, terms and vacancies of the land use code; and WHEREAS, the term of each position is for one (1) year; and WHEREAS, the commission voted to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson on January 15, 2019; and WHEREAS, ________________________was elected chairperson and ___________________was elected vice-chairperson; and WHEREAS, both positions shall expire on January 15, 2020; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado, by this resolution that _____________be appointed as chairperson and ________________be appointed as vice-chairperson. DATED: ________________ _________________________ _________________, Chair ATTEST:__________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager P116 VII.A. TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Election of Chairperson and Vice DATE OF MEETING: January 15, 2018 At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re Skippy has been elected Chair while RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion “I move to make a recommendation to elect ____________, as chairperson and _______________as vice chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commissio MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a Chair Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re hair while Spencer was elected Vice-Chair. The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion “I move to make a recommendation to elect ____________, as chairperson and _______________as vice chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission for 2019.” At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a Chair Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re-elected. The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion “I move to make a recommendation to elect ____________, as chairperson and _______________as vice- P117 VII.A.