Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20110517 P1 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, . May 17, 2011 4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen _ I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioner B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES A. Approve 4/5/11 minutes IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS — A. 217/219 S. Third Street — Map Amendment (rezoning) B. 518 W. Main Street, Subdivision and related land use reviews VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 10 P2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 217/219 South Third Street — Map Amendment (Rezoning) Resolution No. , Series 2011— Public Hearing MEETING DATE: May 17, 2011 APPLICANT /OWNER: PROPOSED LAND USE: YLP West, Inc. The Applicant is requesting Amendment to the Official Zone District Suzanne Foster Map to rezone the subject lot from R -15 to Medium Density Residential (R -6). A duplex or two detached residences is the LOCATION: maximum residential density permitted under the R -6 zone district. 217/219 S. Third Street STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CURRENT ZONING & Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission USE recommend approval of the Amendment to the Official Zone District Located in the Map request. Moderate - Residential (R -15) zone district. A duplex dwelling is located on the lot. Under R -15 zone district regulations a {= duplex may replace the present structure if it is ' demolished (with the floor area of a single , family residence). i rr 4 y4wasy/ N1111 I . tea. ,, Figure 1: Existing duplex Page 1 of 8 P3 SPECIAL NOTE: On March 15, 2011 the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map (rezoning) application on the property commonly known 217 and 219 S. Third Street. The applicant requested the property be rezoned from Moderate Density Residential (R -15) to Medium Density Residential (R -6). Two things of note occurred at the hearing: 1) members of the public claimed that a neighbor (within 300 feet of the subject property) did not receive notice, and 2) the Commission concluded the hearing with a tie vote. After the hearing staff reviewed the affidavit of notice and confirmed that a person residing within 300 feet of the boundary of the subject property was not listed on the affidavit. As a result of this determination, the Applicant has asked to perfect the notice by conducting another hearing and providing new notice. The purpose of doing this is to ensure all neighbors are provided code compliant notice and have an opportunity to comment at public hearing. Secondly, the Commission's motion resulted in a tie, which is "considered a failed motion and shall not be considered action." This staff report provides the information presented in the March 15, 2011. The only changes are Figure 3 has been modified slightly, a letter from the public received after the hearing has been added and the March 15 minutes have been included. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Amendment to the Zone District Map — An application for Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone District Map. The City Council is the final decision - making body. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Suzanne Foster has requested approval to rezone the subject property from Moderate - Residential (R -15) to Medium - Density Residential (R -6). The existing lot is 9,942 sq. ft. and currently contains a legally established duplex. The property is located in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood and is adjacent to the Midland Trail. The Applicant, according to her application, is requesting to rezone the subject property to permit redevelopment of the site with two detached residences. This is an option that is not presently available to her, due to the size of the lot, in the R -15 zone district. Page 2 of 8 P4 b I c 7 .t, -f- a s I f ` ,- • 0 4 .,,,.., ,,,,....,-.-4.yr,z,,,ir i --7.er . pii--;—..,, . v 4 Subject ,w'' - .. .1 T-_ - y t1 r', Site i ' -, +; 7":"` - Figure 2: Vicinity map Permitted and Conditional Uses Permitted and conditional uses for both zone districts are quite similar, the only difference being that the R -15 zone district permits Agricultural Uses as a conditional use within the zone district. The following table outlines the permitted and conditional uses of each zone district. Table 1. Permitted and Conditional Uses with the R -15 and R -6 zone districts Existing: R -15 Proposed: R -6 Permitted Uses - Detached residential dwelling - Detached residential dwelling - Duplex - Duplex -Two detached residential -Two detached residential dwellings dwellings -Home occupations -Home occupations - Accessory buildings and uses - Accessory buildings and uses - Accessory dwelling units and - Accessory dwelling units and carriage houses carriage houses Conditional Uses -Arts, cultural and civic uses -Arts, cultural and civic uses - Academic uses - Academic uses - Agricultural uses - Recreational uses - Recreational uses -Group home -Group home -Child care center -Child care center - Historic landmark properties: - Historic landmark properties: bed and breakfast and bed and breakfast and boarding house boarding house Staff Comments: As shown above, the permitted and conditional uses within the two zone districts are practically identical with the exception of agricultural uses which are not permitted in the R -6 zone district. Page 3 of 8 P5 Dimensional Standards As noted in Table 1, permitted uses in both the R -15 and R -6 zone district are primarily residential, permitting for a detached residential dwelling (single - family residence), a duplex dwelling (two attached residences), or two detached residences on a lot. The density, or number of dwelling units permitted, is based upon the lot size. Generally, the larger the lot the greater the permitted density. Shown below in Tables 2 and 3, are comparisons of the dimensional standards of both zone districts. Table 2. Existing and Proposed Dimensional Standards for a Single- Family Residence --40soassi teas Sri UST )(test nc P r :`s ue ,., ... i rar < ,,r.TMyxe -_^ _ 3 Minimum lot size 15,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Minimum lot area per 15,000 sq. ft. (detached 4,500 sq. ft. (detached dwelling unit residence) residence) Minimum lot width 75 ft. 60 ft. Minimum front yard setback 25 ft. 10 ft. Minimum rear yard setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Minimum side yard setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Minimum total side yard Not Applicable 34.71 ft. setback Maximum site coverage Not Applicable 36.86% Maximum height 25 ft. 25 ft Allowable floor area (based 4,145.94 sq. ft. 3,716.52 sq. ft. upon a 9,942 sq. ft. lot) Allowable floor area with the 3,109.45 sq. ft. 2,787.39 sq. ft. maximum deduction for steep slopes* Note: * Lot area is reduced with the presence of steep slopes greater than 20 %. In no instance can the total floor area for a property exceed 25 %. Ms. Foster's lot in the R -15 zone district is currently considered a non - conforming lot of record (with regard to lot size) and . contains a non - conforming structure (with regard to density). The minimum lot size in the zone district presently required for either a single detached residence or a duplex is 15,000 sq. ft., whereas the existing lot is 9,942. sq. ft.. With regard to density, a duplex is required to be on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. If the lot were vacant today, only a detached residence would be permitted; however, as mentioned earlier, since her duplex was legally established with a valid building permit the land use code permits her to maintain a duplex density on the property'. ' A legally established non - conforming duplex is permitted to be replaced at the same density, although the allowable floor area permitted is of a single detached residential dwelling 026.312.030 (F)(2), Purposeful destruction). Page 4 of 8 P6 Table 3. Existin and Pro .osed Dimensional Standards for a Duplex or two Detached Residences z ` 4 ;hex A . eLeod4 Del ehe tftaa t t. ^.y. ,Yy(M'�J.'�' O iy.�x ,. ,H'3 w t `k"2" 'M' r s "' p]J�-.r oY'�' m Ilv 3(.. _+.l. e+�, uA?. . «+Sce§Y}. t iYYi9 RQ1" a .Qh Q�tty -'F�i Uri ,. 1::. �✓ �. Minimum lot size 15,000 sq. ft. (duplex) 9,000 sq. ft. 30,000 sq. ft. (two detached residences) Minimum lot area per 7,500 sq. ft.(duplex) 4,500 sq. ft. dwelling unit 15,000 (detached residential) Minimum lot width 75 ft. 60 ft. Minimum front yard setback 25 ft. 10 ft. Minimum rear yard setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Minimum side yard setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Minimum distance between 10 ft. 10 ft. detached buildings on a lot Minimum total side yard Not Applicable Not Applicable setback Maximum site coverage Not Applicable 36.86% Maximum height 25 ft. 25 ft Allowable floor area 4,145.94 sq. ft. 4,136.52 sq. ft. Allowable floor area with the 3,109.45 sq. ft. 3,102.39 sq. ft. maximum deduction for steep slopes* Note: * Lot area is reduced with the presence of steep slopes greater than 20 %. In no instance can the total floor area for a property exceed 25 %. The presence of steep slopes does not reduce lot area when calculating the permitted density. Staff Comments: As shown above, many of the dimensional standards are similar in both zone districts. Since Ms. Foster has indicated that she would like to develop the property with two detached residences rather than a duplex, comments will focus on Table 2. Rezoning the subject property will permit the lot to be considered a conforming lot and permit two detached residences to be developed on the site or an attached duplex. Minimum required setbacks are the same except for the front yard setback: 10 feet in the R -6 zone district vs. 25 feet in the R -15 zone district. Height, at a maximum of 25 feet, is the same in both zone districts. The overall allowable floor area will be less than currently permitted if the property is rezoned to R -6. Additionally, the R -6 zone district has a maximum site coverage restriction that is not applicable to the R -15 zone district. Neighborhood Character The subject property borders city owned land to the south and west that is zoned Park (P) and contains the Midland Trail. To the north, across the alley, are three properties that are also zoned R -15 and contain single family residences. All four of these lots, although designated R -15, do not meet the minimum required lot size of 15,000 sq. ft., instead ranging from 7,500 sq. ft. to 12,000 sq. ft.. Additional lots that are zoned R -15 and are adjacent to Hyman Ave. and behind the Ice Garden also do not meet the minimum required lot size and are non - conforming. Across Third Street the properties are zoned R -6, containing a number of residences and the St. Moritz Lodge. In general the lots are smaller lots ranging from 3,000 to 7,500 sq. ft.; however, Page 5 of 8 P7 there are a number of larger lots in the area that contain multi- family residential, a non- conforming use in the R -6 zone district. The neighborhood character includes single - family residences, duplexes as well as multi- family residences. m ``• 6 _ D F _. - 217/219 S. Third Figure 3: Existing Zone Districts In looking at the purpose statement of the R -15 zone district, the paragraph states that the zone district typically includes "additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district." With regard to the R -6 zone, the purpose statement notes that lands in the R -6 zone are "generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, contain relatively dense settlements of predominately detached and duplex residences, and are within walking distance of the center of the City." Lastly, a parcel of land across from the Boomerang Lodge and adjacent to Hopkins Ave. was rezoned from R -15 to R -6 by City Council in 2006 as it was determined that the character of the neighborhood allowed for denser, smaller houses. Staff Comments: The proposed rezoning would change the property at 217/219 S. Third from R- 15 to R -6. According to a staff examination of surrounding zone districts and existing land uses, Page 6 of 8 P8 the neighborhood contains a mix of residential dwelling types and uses. A zoning of R -6 would be more compatible with the existing neighborhood than the current R -15 zoning. This relatively high - density neighborhood includes R -6 and R -15 zoning and contains single-family, duplex and residential multi family housing as well as short term lodging in close proximity to the subject parcel. The property, although bordering Aspen Mountain, is part of the original Aspen Townsite. The property is within walking distance to the downtown core and is not really on the periphery of the city in a true sense. Additionally, land in the area has been recently rezoned from R -15 to R- 6, resulting in changed neighborhood conditions. With regard to zone district standards, permitted and conditional uses are essentially the same between the two zone districts. Zoning the subject property to R -6 will result in less floor area if the site is redeveloped. Setbacks are similar and the R -6 front yard setback is a pattern one sees in the neighborhood. Allowing two detached residences vs. an attached duplex will permit the mass on the site to be divided, potentially lessening the perceived mass on the site. SUMMARY OF SCHEMATICS: The Applicant has provided two sets of schematics showing two potential development scenarios: 1) development of the site with a duplex and carriage house under the R -15 zone district requirements and 2) development of the site with two detached residences under the R -6 zone district. Staff's analysis will focus on the uses proposed rather than verifying dimensional standards, as this is done at building permit submission. 1) Duplex and carriage house (Exhibit G). As described previously, the Applicant has the right to demolish the existing duplex and replace it with a new duplex because the Land Use Code permits a legally established non - conforming duplex to be replaced at the same density, although the allowable floor area permitted is of a single detached residential dwelling. Under the R -15 zone district regulations the potential maximum achievable floor area is 4,145 sq. ft. for the site (if there is no reduction in lot area by the presence of steep slopes); however, the Applicant is proposing to utilize a floor area bonus of 1,800 sq. ft which is allowed within the land use code. In addition to the duplex structure, the schematic shows a 1,200 sq. ft. carriage house that is proposed to be a for sale affordable housing unit. A carriage house is permitted on the lot as it is not considered a unit of density. The maximum allowed size of a carriage house, without Special Review approval, is 1,200 sq. ft. of net livable area. When offered for sale, a detached and permanently affordable housing unit qualifies the property for a floor area exemption and bonus. Section 26.575.020 D.10., Permanently Affordable Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, excludes up to 1,200 sq. ft. of floor area of the carriage house from the calculation of floor area and provides the site with up to a 600 sq. ft. bonus in floor area. Up to 1,800 sq. ft. of additional floor area may be permitted to be landed on the subject lot under this scenario. 2) Development of the site with two detached residences (Exhibit H). Under this scenario the Applicant redevelops the site with two detached residence. With the R- 6 zone district regulations the potential maximum achievable floor area is 4,136 sq. ft. for the site (if there is no reduction in lot area by the presence of steep slopes). With R -6 zoning the Applicant can still avail herself to the floor area exemption and bonus as outlined in scenario 1; however, the Applicant has stated a willingness to deed restrict the subject property to prohibit development of Page 7 of 8 P9 the carriage house. Staff does not support the offer of a deed restriction. If a deed restriction were recorded it would be the city' s position that such deed restriction would be a private agreement that the city is not interested in being party to or enforcing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission find the application meets the review criteria for an Amendment of the Official Zone District Map and make a recommendation of approval to rezone 217/219 S. Third Street to R -6. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve resolution no. _, recommending the property commonly known as 217/219 S. Third be rezoned from R -15 to R -6." ATTACHMENTS: (BOLD EXHIBITS ARE INCLUDED WITH THIS STAFF MEMO) EXHIBIT A — Review criteria (provided 2/2/10, 3/15/11, 5/17/11) EXHIBIT B —Zone district standards (R -15 and R -6) (provided 2/2/10, 3/15/11, 5/17/11) EXHIBIT C — Application (provided 2/2/10) EXHIBIT D — Neighborhood lot sizes and density map (provided 2/2/10) EXHIBIT E — Public comment submitted at 2/2/10 public hearing (provided 2/2/10) EXHIBIT F — Applicant cover letter dated 12/2/10 (provided 3/15/11 and /17/11) EXHIBIT G - Applicant schematic: R -15, duplex with carriage house (10/18/10) (provided 3/15/11 and 5/17/11) EXHIBIT H - Applicant schematic: R -6, two detached residences (2/28/11) (provided 3/15/11 and 5/17/11) EXHIBIT I - Applicant schematic: R -15 vs. R -6 development comparison (provided 3/15/11 and 5/17/11) EXHIBIT J - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2010) (provided 3/15/11 and 5/17/11) EXHIBIT K - Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes dated 2 /2 /10(provided 3/15/11 and 5 /17/11) Exxon L - Public Comment (provided 3/15/11 and 5/17/11) EXHIBIT M - Letter submitted by the Applicant at 3/15/11 hearing (provided 3/15/11 and 5/17/11) EXHIBIT N - Exhibit submitted by Jake Vickery at 3/15/11 hearing (provided 3/15/11 and 5/17/11) EXHIBIT O — Public comment dated 3/11/11, Meta Barton ExxIBIT P - Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes dated 3/15/11 Page 8 of 8 P10 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2011) - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DISAPPROVE A MAP AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP (REZONING) FROM MODERATE- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -15) TO MEDIUM- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -6) FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 217 AND 219 S. THIRD STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735 - 124 -65 -005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from YLP West, Inc. represented by Suzanne Foster requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Map Amendment to the Official Zone District Map from Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) to Medium - Density Residential (R -6) for the property commonly described as 217 and 219 S. Third Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Land Use Code, an amendment to the official zone district map may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider 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; and, WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission passed Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2010), recommending denial of the request but recommended the Applicant consider resubmission of the request with submission of a development plan that addresses the expressed concerns of the public; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant resubmitted the request for a map amendment with schematic development plans; WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission voted on the request which resulted in a tie vote, constituting no action; and, WHEREAS, due to the tie vote and concern that mailing of notice may have been defective, the Applicant requested a new hearing to perfect notice; and, P11 WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 17, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider 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; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to the official zone district map with a vote of to ( -to -). Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approve the zone district map amendment to rezone the following described property from Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) to Medium - Density Residential (R -6). The subject property is legally described as Lots , P, Q, R, and S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, excepting therefrom that portion of Lots 0, P, and Q that lies south of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8.5 feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628 and commonly described as 217 and 219 S. Third Street and recommends the applicant to consider resubmission for rezoning concurrent with submission of a specific development plan that would address the expressed concerns of the public. Section 2: 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 3: 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 regular meeting on May 17, 2011. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel _ --. Gibbs, Chair P12 ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P13 • Exhibit A Amendment to Zoning Map Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning.and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title and will change the status of the lot size from non - conforming to conforming. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: rezoning of a property is not directly addressed in the. 200 AACP. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) • C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and and uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment allows for a R -6 zoning designation, which is compatible with a relatively high- density neighborhood that includes a mix of single - family, duplex and multifamily residences on smaller lots. While there are also a number of properties in the neighborhood that are zoned R -15, the characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the R -6 zone district. • • •D..The effect of fhe proposed• amendment -on traffic generation and road safety.. . • Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not increase the permitted density of the lot as the property currently contains a duplex with two dwelling units and the property, if rezoned is permitted up two to dwelling units in an area that is close to the urban core and amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. E. Whether and the extent t v - .:ch the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed P14 amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: To the extent that the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, the applicant will offset those demands in the form of impact fees, upgraded water and sewer infrastructure and appropriate drainage planning. Again, the proposed amendment does not increase the permitted density of the lot as the property currently contains a duplex with two dwelling units . and the property, if rezoned is permitted up two to dwelling units in an area that is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in a conforming lot (with regard to lot size and density) within the city. The density permitted on site is compatible with community character in the city. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: A parcel of land across from the Boomerang Lodge and adjacent to Hopkins was rezoned from R -15 to R -6 by City Council in 2006 as it was determined that the character of the neighborhood allowed for denser, smaller houses. This property is within the neighborhood of the subject parcel. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in a conforming lot (with regard to lot size and density) within the city and is not in conflict with the public interest is is in harmony with the intent of the land use code. P15 ,`gC-C • 26.710.050 Moderate - Density Residential (R -15). • A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Mod- erate- Density Residential (R -15) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district. 1. Detached residential dwelling; • 2. Duplex; • 3. Two detached residential dwellings 4. Home occupations; 5. Accessory buildings and uses; and . 6. Accessory dwelling units and Carriage Houses meeting the provisions of section 26.520.040. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are p ermitted as conditional uses in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses. 2.. Academic Uses. 3. Agricultural Uses. . • 4. Recreational Uses. 5. Group home. 6. Child care center. 7. For historic landmark properties: bed.and• breakfast and boardinghouse. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): Fifteen thousand (15,000). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split Three thousand (3,000) 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling, unit (square feet: a. Detached residential dwelling: 15,000. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. b. Duplex: 7,500. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. c. Bed and brea1 ast, boardinghouse: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): Seventy -five (75). For lots created by Section 26 480.030 A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split: Thirty (30). 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): Residential dwellings: Twenty -five (25). Accessory buildings and all other buildings: Thirty (30). 5. Minimum sine vaid setback (feet): Ten (10). City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 11 r aid (, I, ' 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): Principal buildings: 10 Accessory buildings: Five (5). • 7. Maximum height (feet): Twenty -five (25). 8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): Ten (10). 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement. 10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two De- (Sguare Feet) Single- Family Residence* tached Dwellings or one Dulles.* 0- -3,000 80 square feet of floor area for 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 each 100 in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum maximum of 2,400 square feet of 2,700 square feet of floor area. of floor area. 3,000 - -9,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 plus 28 square feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi- area for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a I square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet of floor I. maximum of 4,080 square feet area. of floor area. 9,000-15,000 4,080 square feet offloor area, 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 7 plus 7 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,920 square feet of floor maximum of 4,500 square feet area of floor area. . 15,000 -- 4,500 square feet of floor area, 4,920 square feet of floor area, plus 6 50,000 plus 6 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 7,020 square feet of floor maximum of 6,600 square feet area. of floor area. 50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor area, 7,020 square feet of floor area, plus 3 plus 2 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- c for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area. feet in lot area. *Total residential not exceed the area allowed fo one dupl x. Total ex emal floorarea for mul detached residential flooid ntial dw ll- floor City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 12 P17 ings on a lot less than twenty- thousand (20,000) square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area in- crease. Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. (Ord. No. 56 -2000, §§ 2, 7 (part); Ord. No. 25 -2001 §§ 2, 5 (part); Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 20 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 54, 2003 §7; Ord No. 50 -2005, §2) City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 13 P18 ( 1 26.710.040 Medium - Density Residential (R -6). • A. Purpose. The purpose of the Medium- Density Residential (R -6) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Me- dium- Density Residential (R -6) zone district are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, con - tain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences, and are within wallcing distance of the center of the City. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Medium - Density Residential (R -6) zone district: 1. Detached residential dwelling; 2. Duplex; 3. Two detached residential dwellings; 4. Home occupations; 5. Accessory buildings and uses; and 6. Accessory dwelling units and Carriage Houses meeting the provisions of Chapter 26.520. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Medium - Density Residential (R -6) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses. 2. Academic Uses. 3. Recreational Uses. 4. Group home. 5. Child care center. 6. For historic landmark properties: bed and breakfast and boardinghouse. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Medium - Density Residential (R -6) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): Six thousand. (6,000). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 P 4., Historic Landmark Lot Split Three thousand (3,000). 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a) Detached residential dwelling: 4,500. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. b) Duplex: 4,500. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. For properties subdivided as of April 28, 1975: 4,000. For properties annexed subsequent to January 1, 1989: 3,750. c) Bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): Sixty (60). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4, Historic Landmark Lot Split Thirty (30). 4. Minimum front yard (feet): Principal buildings: 10. Accessory buildings: 15. 5. Minimum rear yard (feet): Principal buildings: 10. For the portion of a principal building used solely as a garage: 5. Accessory buildings: 5. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 5 P19 6. Minimum side yard: Lot Size (Square Minimum Size for Total of both Side Yards* Feet) each Side Yard 0-4,500 5 feet. 10 feet. 4,500 -6,000 5 feet. 10 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 300 square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 15 feet of total side yard. 6,000 - -8,000 5 feet. 15 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 200 square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 25 feet of total side yard. 8,000 - 10,000 10 feet. 25 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 200 square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 35 feet of total side yard. 10,000+ 15 feet. 35 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 400 square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 50 feet of total side yard. The following requirements shall apply on a lot annexed subsequent to January 1, 1989. Lot Size (Square Minimum Size for Total of both Side Yards* Feet) each Side Yard 0 -7,500 10 feet. 20 feet. 7,500 - 10,000 10 feet. 20 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 200 square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 32.5 feet of total side yard. 10,000+ 15 feet. 32.5 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 400 square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 50 feet of total side yard. * Two detached residential dwellings located on one lot shall not be subject to the combined side yard setback requirements, provided that the minimum setback between the two detached dwell- ings on the lot shall be ten (10) feet. For Purposes of calculating the minimum side yard setback for lots within the Hallam Lake Bluff - , rit _ ly Sensitive Area (ESA), the area below the top of slope shall be subtracted from lot size. 1 City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 P20 ( f 7. Maximum site coverage: Lot Size Maximum Site Coverage ( %) (Square Feet) 0- -5,999 No limitation 6,000 - -9,000 50 %, minus 1% for each additional 300 square feet of lot area, to a maximum site coverage of 40% 9,000 -12,000 40 %, minus 1% for each additional 300 square feet of lot area, to a maximum site coverage of 30% 12,000 -- 18,000. 30 %, minus 1% for each additional 1,200 square feet of lot area, to a maximum site coverage of 25% 18,000+ 25% 8. Maximum height (feet): 25 9. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): 5. 10. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement. 11. Floor Area Ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two Detached (Square Single - Family Residence* Dwellings or one Duplex* Feet) 0 -3,000 80 square feet of floor area for 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 each 100 in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of maximum of 2,400 square feet 2,700 square feet of floor area. of floor area. 3,000- -6,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 plus 28 square feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi- area for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,600 square feet of floor maximum of 3,240 square feet area. of floor area. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 7 P21 Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two Detached. (Square Single- Family Residence* Dwellings or one Duplex* Feet) 6,000 - -9,000 3,240 square feet of floor area, 3,600 square feet of floor area, plus 16 plus 14 square feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi- area for each additional 100 tional 100' square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of floor maximum of 3,660 square feet area. of floor area. 9,000 -- 3,660 square feet of floor area, 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 6 15,000 plus 6 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a feet in lot area, up to a maxi- maximum of 4,440 square feet of floor mum of 4,020 square feet of area. floor area. 15,000— 4,020 square feet of floor area, 4,440 square feet of floor area, plus 5 50,000 plus 5 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a feet in lot area, up to a maxi- maximum of 6,190 square feet of floor mum of 5,770 square feet of area. floor area 50,000+ 5,770 square feet of floor area, 6,190 square feet of floor area, plus 3 plus 2 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area feet in lot area. *Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not ex- ceed the floor area allowed for one duplex. Total external floor area for multiple detached resi- dential dwellings on a lot less than nine- thousand (9,000) square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to Section26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence, with the following exception: Properties within the same Subdivision or Planned Unit Development as a sending site may be specified as eligible for up to two (2) Floor Area increases per residence pursuant to the Subdivision or Planned Unit Dev- lopment approval. The properties to be speci- fied as eligible for up to two (2) Floor Area increases re - shall be located within the same Subdivision or Planned Unit Development so as to enhance preservation of the historic City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 P22 �- resource, considering a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission, shall not • be located adjacent to the sending site, and shall be described and depicted in the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development approvals granted by City Council. The total number of Floor Area increases permitted within the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development shall not exceed an aggregate total of one (1) per non - historic residence within the entire Subdivision or Planned Unit Development. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligi- ble for this Floor Area increase. (Ord. No. 56 -2000 §§ 1, 7 (part), 10; Ord. No. 25 -2001, §§ 1, 5 (part); Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 20 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 54, 2003 - §6; Ord. No. 48 -2004 §1; Ord. No. 50 -2005, §1) • • City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 9 • FDT P23 Jennifer Phelan From: suzanne ©tfosterjewelers.com Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:45 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: R-6 Attachments: Foster - Schematic Design Packet - 10.18.2010.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged December 2, 2010 Dear Jennifer, Please accept this letter as our request to re -open our zoning change to R -6 for 219 S. 3 Street: At the P & Z meeting, recommendation was denied due to the inability of the commission to visualize the building mass and scale of development under both R -I 5 and R -6 zoning. You may recall that under R -15 zoning, we plan to build a 1200 SF affordable housing carriage house and will receive a 600SF FAR bonus for the free market units. We have hired architects and have created the plans that show both the carriage house and the new reconstructed duplex as you can see from the attached architectural plans. The addition of the carriage house accomplishes three important goals under R -15 zoning. 1. Mitigation for affordable housing. 2. Fulfillment of 10% detached mass requirement 3. 600 SF free market FAR bonus Please note that the above information stays the same whether or not an FAR reduction for slope is determined to be applicable at a later date. You may recall that if R -6 zoning is achieved , there will be a net reduction of 10' of FAR based on the 9942 SF land mass' In addition, we have stipulated that the land would carry a deed restriction for no carriage house, and a deed restriction to limit building height in the rear 25' of the parcel to 30" above grade. Our pl n s: is two build a detached duplex with a minimum of 10' between the structures. This accomplishes the followin 1. A reduction of 1810 SF of FAR for the parcel (10 SF less for zoning change, 1200 SF for removed carriage house, 600 SF removal of FAR carriage house bonus). 2. 1 less unit of density 3. 25' of open space between the neighbor's upstairs bedroom view and shadow mountain. 4. Fulfillment of 10% detached mass requirement. 5. Brings parcel permanently into conformity Please note that the above changes stay the same whether or not an FAR reduction for slope is determined to be applicable at a later date. We feel the reduced density and detached duplex will have far less an impact on this mountain site and is worth the added expense of affordable housing cash in lieu and the decreased value of 600 less SF of free market FAR. I believe our attached plans will give P & Z the visualization that they require for R- 15, and that with a bit of imagination, they can envision what we will build under R -6. Just remove the carriage house, slide the duplex 15 ` closer to 3 street split the buildings in two and trim about 600 SF off the foot print of unit two. Our architectural plans were designed to fit under both R-1 5 and R -6 zoning districts. 1 P24 Please send me a confirmation tl cur application is moving forward and let Me know if you need any additional information is needed. Sincerely, Suzanne Foster 2 �xAt, s ti-- v P25 © � (^u3` L d 1%.1 S fI N fit C 1 F S c w .i a O '3 (D 3 G s +f'1.. y3 i nO �. s[ '4$J o 3'', fD !v 2 F M d. CD m w •• ! f v+ C:2- f"1 ro s� � _ o tn OQ * O N r r 3 FD i . 1 - f co zr r Ni o u g • ® a • } 'te �w.:� • s _ • I Y 3 1::::1: ` 9 , /11:1; � . A 4 x • > 1-. -: O V' • ,mC ire P26 ' T 77 0 0 rt d N Q `n - O S .I v t F 0 �i 0 i ° t I i ,k Q — s� �_ t. / + -t � k +rJ • fir•° /` I . :•.t' : 4,',.../ , re , I - y 344 -9 • . . F M Y 4. 1' - • G Gz v ry , O e; � ms 'µf • ‘ -�. g - - _ , 9 x 3° S474 4) ` (pia i ce" FJdi s, £ - a k� ... ? := } �, § �. ` r O °' t YMa*- ' ,ten \t t'tbJ „ _ i S ;. tii� 2 U T N �;. 3 ' a F I O 4 1_' P27 - n r O 0 cn rr co N O C = Q v co to w . "1 �` f t I . �a - � !; i —.:— G J �g. 4 1 / J �__ i f� Ef 4 xL! t , I s ge n z S r / fia ;C:::;;;I:t:lit i Ayr -._�.. : ,;;:i.-7;-::,5, 3 F Y. k M4 p f'u � bd a Y E-R � . x E - r� F .4 - n . ' 4E r ye qr om» s 1g 0:4 s' �xs - $ a l b! . i }. S r M. ft y � m r7J • P28 T (./1 0 0 s 0 co ;tee o-+ .r J �j $ yx e.y�Il�T 4< < , . r'.l yn �,Ct } if 3 h: !C 17 Mr -. cpd Y ,f f jr x Sti 1 • /fi vI p i •P: 1 . � � S r y. Y G,/ T il ti+ '-2 1 F 1 { T bt z �UF ` I ma , do t ter,. F- ... -,,. r-:-,, ,,._' 4Th . � { q 'N' r fy '3.J' �r4 f� { a � tkI - . ' i -- b A a � i- y $ r �, 5 x y �-r' ,. . i ° ma y ` . � a E. E -04 a SS d t : ft' s- ` �, y y . f .± . $ * 4 i'.'m tsi s .. . I'L` Y` �Ab p f ZS '% {, is m m r P29 T 0 o rD rt n — rn -s (..n rD 0 s DJ n H i 0 YH'� z i , , Y T 24 3 b L ` X ti 1 l / yyp ' p*f il y am.. ! t i +^i A� � r '.,'',;A::_:".42--_--s:61-,W ` Or y a f / 5 i 4c, y iy '/ F 'a 4,y}. s P ,_ 11,74`x; L tt rat -5ya k! y "S°E —�v.w— h ^4' '.tr a� S 4 .. ,x 4^ i e. -'. to iLL s 'Y" ki r . • r , y " 1 . 4 S .- L I o f "'J �° m C P30 • T O v., Z \ \ i I 1 t A • ,. . , • • • ; . 0 ' l�r }4pp S +y� 91rµ.. } J °1Y. liA L .nr are _ ( " \ G i g r W � iiC ; LL 4 ° � , ® } g "Tt � i,b . CkI 1 � � ' �'% , fi v� — i '4 _ M r 6 S . g ms ` s.._ ai i3 i k- 1 1 ! : • ' ^ � X 71 i. 7 k7 Y .J ..4 G-- P31 O ro f L: { O co �• q 3 - t zy CU WI G7 A - j� Q /T ki V g, m x N . c • QQ 0 'S 0) Q N O m PO f 7 m C P32 Fya x';P Y »..b 1�,,. } `, 1 � ��� :r O t F 1 �� O 7 , v F ' .� � .� S?d Q 3 !�.✓ ry� � y i e � Gl Q1 CU crq co O r x co �h - 0 - LA r4 N O n M - � , Y 1 L ES S N 4Y Et t L cr '2 d G 6I T r d IA F s'J " R x a g. ` t4 3 t. .? 'It-. x i 't F 3333 In Y3 ms-i. OG � w 2 x a � C kl e...4 ^ , t;$z � O 3"' 'tmy— r e "' R T S 4 ''fir 3C.pYk7 '. O Y. c3 v4r i, j R K K ti ta. a i c m ` p O - �.lw '� - ( r tx `' t , s ' 7 , - y r t mC t tea #r E v Y'+.q&rf a' ar a o E i P33 { t Of at 4 u i A &4* % t*'4t tet �{ t e. W e t � " - 1 co z.: �. t °q t r .1 E l r i • t J/ 4 mow, .. .a a I` t 4 ' • t rn t �t CD i t N. i V ♦ rD ro [ S� a k * Q+ 6 F Y CT dY t k f° ' r3 , t - �' t • / i E tt�q = t t"' t y Gy l / k 3 la is `T` X Alj { a ° 4i r y7 FW I - f' 2 ds F S Alt i ., $.s V sa 5 7.11 w it 1 0'� E t *- � i ii -, •r.!.2."-- - -� .fi -.,,,q L '�z �,,'�:.cE '1,r_7.2 I e , # . - x .3 r x rates '» d g, d •3 �� r ..mss- ' Iaa. .'?+ l�3 t i 5141 z `�i t S ai I 1 • cr a t t 1 .. t t * • i o T: : � � . ya "yr.+rrtz "'•r•.a`...1e�}+w aim '✓"'.+eaesrr .+uP+carus?�P.co+x ` f� e 4y i � • 1 � i � Fi r ` -a a, • P34 44 Ilit � C t { 0 3 { ti4 f4 O 4t %t4 gi O f 0 1 F 'li1111lhI1IU{ I t 1 f t i cro O -,' J3 1 N a' ::... ells, nd. r a" i f `` t T, INIMIPW-1 y' rtVr• . f r 0 arm' c+rt.yr . al I 4' S s HLZ-1f'M1 fl ■ r---,, ( 4 !� , fry .-4- x_aW 1 Li* t 17 r` . 1 * ! h c r I { L F c lz r } r I F � t r 1 - Y` x A i z :t N �r I F t l `R 4 F _� — � ©1 4a E E i. 1 1 ; r a Q i { t t - 'z I - �� b { r c t- 411 r ISb {E[`EI ti 1 p � t �k.- �v „ t •— S _ r eP..wue i - _ ; a . l Frvr^ d ".e°E web. wx�ax +�?rwMn:we:..�r!':ix4ryr ��y • ;I / wry- . p ,} l IMF ra. t 1 r1 ` P35 vF S 4 o n ■ ix Y4Attt v " t[ %i4 ' i r+ e+ Z ` d` w P we F �{ F t Y e f m fr j f CI- 1 . ` t i ! ! r cro l t CD 1 1 t 1 o ..,i111'.; 1 t i i to oo O vt .. 1 1 f y Y ((Jj iR' I f f » 1 . ':/- . - ' - , t. 4 I ic : I: r. ,. ,'; - . — - !•. ' - - t v n , � 1 K Y V K L i i ma y , i F 0 1 i f 1 t 1 Y ,t.' . ji• � � 4 � r V .. �_ 1e;,.�. =..,..x ' "'ail y 1 + Vt: c' v� t \ 4; r t Y 4.4e0 1 t o A 4 r n 1 s •^ 1 1 X11 F . yM.:J-- .......`•a-.ia'.Ti6.A°r�.....i .�"C �: �.. Y' Y. el, r P36 T C O = r+ rt m D m 3 r+ a) m J O O c n C v - v 00 co in O O LA G' V' VA", � v 4w iii � 1 P t e . I gt* 4 F 9' y �]..� x yq V rl R ri c ado q 1 Q . r P37 O C N 3 et rr rp D m D r rD G rD V O O Ln ch 17,_7„ 22,_8„ t i t > at ti Do rD —r ■ u, 02 w O x a O W N N CA N a $ r' 4 tt� 11 �. F, f: L op r F % x tC s �P ' 1 W, ... C1 L1 ' F. s j O n ' ''' ' 49 : :' ', 7 1 -; .. ... . 1 I 3. _. 1k2.,. -.,t,T.Ar —. 7:- L _ ,i.:_:_. _± S �ya I O >L, ,,DT „CT - ,ET ,OT 2 of o • F C x m G C O M o It o m d ri n •e•-n-; 0 3 m L o O mod. ,. O N M C y 7) P38 T C O et rIM ro D v CD r < CD N N O O 0 n w _ d fi • suit • _ - r -cp n T(l) iu 3 of qc) wavi_ O l O bdo O P p. rn C F P39 T C O = fD D DJ D r eo rD F .a N 0 0 in 0 N n n I W 0 0 N D h N 1' ^if .. i v 'N C" -- p " ... . �� FF ryry I �+' P � �.. 1 4 u 3'nbw°o fir': =a �,s vy f v' , ' V,l 4.a _ l T • "SIN' "--"II--'-' im.. �a Y'` -. - I C �. s - �. ' I , 1 c ,.b - ,Si „8 - , in o I- . m O o ro m o r o pes O. O o, ■te- fne P40 T c o N • • rF fD D w w CD m . r ry CD v 0 0 in CD 0 V n s rD 3 • • m r ry 0 c r. o 0 D v 0 Ln C v �� d. j t . . '" �sv_ �1� V } . o 0.4. 1 0 O T p) • iT 70 P 41 -n c 2. H. el* ro C r CD CD Go cri cu ro to rD --h - 1 , • .':.';11:11. I I ' e • . fra el-FEW 4 1 • _ , . t - i• • :;: _ • p 0...44. . r., ,°•■ 7 m %- r- P42 T C O + fr 4' - 6" - c 4, _ 8 „ 23, _ 2" I m r ro • ro tm O N N M N ill .. al O C O n CFO a c i o 7 N U1 ro N a O $ N Ell 4 ' L a a * —� Sv I FS I' r _:_.:,..,wr,ctis..,..i„ trir,,, \ l i ' bw, M i r5 �z r +' mi r �Kt« .,a9 ' , h. pOtar k e _t_,,,,,,„ _ . r ..astir. �.a �yy�jp ,' -J1. 3 l ss a i q'., .FyR 4" _ '. r , T L al O Pt C r 73 P43 - 3 ro m K 7 r ro solo. m - N o in N ro C!1 0 W 1 •l // • Ct • ,� A i ' �' V- I t� ^ hu S" h" <, t 1. l t r *k , A U V 1 3, . G I i' _. gym .... 1 ,.t {, . I �: �q®i ;, b � ,� `i j - e t n -, ' ▪ n It : s m C P44 - o c N r � + r-+ O co ' 2'_ 32'_ 4., 'I K 4-0- < r- r _ rn a g 1-•-s f g hi '' x is . - - -k - s n it 5 . F - i ' • ' "�" a „aA . 2�, n`+ ±e ih to L aw F... !' 3 , � \. ` T £ vi- .i.aL e ms WS.Y WX VS ` _ r.-.. ),. - F j' --- , { t{ F ���� V ! . - ST • L Y f i` tee' "ff I ' „ I] III . �� . V L `S , 2 rF ' HltyT �+.�.. -t _ as u 0, ■ • 2 r N 'fr 0 -d > T „S ,Z < O „9-,ZT „b - ,6 „9 - AT T s p......4 M C X P45 o c o D rti W W d in O 3 N D r+ r c ._ O T T O 0 cm fD CL n 0 n n _ v 0 c r+ o r o 1 as t1k4 3 Ln - _i . o n O = 3 . cn [ F g A p r 4h _ 5 .�. ? __ LL6 y- t S r ral m n r P46 -n n 0 m N r4 0) -1 dQ ro 0 c N 0 0 ) 1 r a ro -o 0) 0) N O F smt il m tT 1 1 i l I r r -` sue' !; ev- 1. 1 X 1 'g- p ty T l_� , ,. :K , s. z 3 + 'p -� 4 i t % 4ui ~ -1,--;;,..7 Y V m r m X P47 T n o m (n -< r+ -, CD v CM (D 4 ' r 0 . C in lD K r CD ro - o d n rn N O N • -n • N o 0 cn 4,..lasso,..r*sft....€ ,L.,____ m_________„*. 7 rt - u a tg, ______ ........,,..,zitir i V . t.,. r ____ _ / 1.,.,,,,,, 11423,..,231,M.:7_— _. r-- ( i P d 0 F +-1 O ` . O N f .d 1 r- i P48 T -n_ __ O Di • in -' fD a l a) S O C vi (D C TS (D r G (D d 3 co O in a i I�� A a ffi.. M ' J r- } JU1L • n 1 i , l 2 YT O ' s C.„, ea P49 -n ("") O O) N -, rt -7 d N S O c in (D C CD r CD CO O In CO 0 V -h P. m 0 dt_ X a l'3 F -, D N ` Q x S W 0 X A p N 3 N 0- v o m X 0- x 4^ o • n - I. o t+ _ ^o --!E 3 - m o. t. x n I it- p In - o i P=-- -- 3 - L_____ _____l —_. 3 3 T al n — Ge O p i 7c 1 P50 o 1111111111 III a et ti• D -- S il rt co v f T A G d O n E P 2 , LL1 ■ In O 1, O W l ti N . O x r m I M r ,OZ ,s - ,LL P51 - c rD 11111 IA O c s —I i __ _ . • Q N i co For J Q p Q m FD ' c Di 5 0 6 oa N 0 0 CD N CD P. CD O i. N N O ier p-id . sommmella r _ N : -4 rn c , 1 71 ,OZ .,8 - ,LL P52. UA O w cm El_ _ - N 3 ■ °' 25' •- height limitation I T C -� t 3 u b rt r w m > II { ! { II{{11 II `1111!! in 0 F ly: £ A ; b y ti aE �L xy - &' �1' N i T � ti' #" : c rt r 1 „1 , 1n s I i a rA , y > c °,gyy ' O = O 5 ? : O O • G I s P 0• 0 t - �! ill- g N Iw L _ - 41- 01 F 4 . 1 FS � a s .5. C at t f F , N 4 4 b 5..�� O � >o. •- N re I o f is ir.... - R a � �'`'�� s o � • i nx p � }x _ O ma �yy `+ _ -...�. m • -4 I r ? ,OT „9 - ,£ i P53 o it [ .+ 10. 1 r P. H m o Cu m Q a o . _ 0 O a yr a 0 0 CD v 1 C � _ ., 0 A OA t 7 o ` - , - W 3 A n D 00 3 N N Cl n O a J LA.) I ' x ,- W a m a < " — n m Di d: i . z - - ., • + N r y N o 0.1 n o CM a DI n I-. v C a 1 } m w a m 1D it, 3 In CO. a o < 0 Li) L! - n _. F l ii, , L... .- I = 1 , _a - . = - I . , . , ' I '. . _ :::::: -1 N • r t I� N O \� ` ii - n _ m • 3 O 'rT '1 N °_'. d 0 J in D S t a = O ! rn m we - 3 F s. - y I' - P54 T 3 27 ' -4 „ ro h < /.' - height restriction - Units A &B d Q 7• -6„ n m d 0 • C q }n a) r- n F rD 1f D.) �I } o ^ o 0 5 J mn • • m Z. 0 11 o uogop ;saryeiati - ,sl I P55 \ 0 co n ; -. t \ M P �� / y / » d0 / ƒ � . _ 0 , 4i -- \ %� § I re «z1 rjj) , � _5A \ r 1 ral \ \ . . : I! P56 Infi illlltllni • 0 IJlfltltl4 • Le, rD y Ur 90nV .p nmm�!F :14' II _ `- n rP a 5 . (1•) N ,- ro I r T x,3 I P j - r • r j - b iJ t f 2 S ^, • —^d • m 1 (r^ P57 :* O a , it tn e e D ' t CD 3 �� � O dam . . J : ` -- 7,,--,_ 1 M L lD n s, • 3 j 4 -- � - i bt: 7 3 �a 7 l L d - a r+ = lY d - ? V r x1 i I� : S t'���i ' a � 1 t � ' i a } _ _ , ems+ qS x 1 — A 1 a, r t l i _ _ f, 'y ; ' i# &' AlC fi r _ . _ t „.;7„ a x 4 [_�� i i G 4 t L t k m 1.----/-4 7. F" � l� p co S , ,` P58 -n < �• r� D _ CD LD , i f 1 • rn - O H :�. cn rri P59 t j7j7 0 rt) -, i1 O ;Ir c • V s w o - -7 0 w 3 4 • - • J£ l L C n : - v in rr if IM C r P60 o co rt 1 ks % y - 1,. V — i i I ,,y 5 ■ 1 I� �- _.® i t 1-. y _ .. _ .° E°- =tea: - i i 0 —. 1 , { -r rTh 3 � __ -, ; ,4e = 5. _ P61 Tc x ` 1 1 Ot"s N r t �pBC i''.. pi if I 1` - IP ' 4 [ a l' :- 1 E _ t i • � ' x � _ I � I If • a 7 d l h V ; _fr _ _ _ • i � 7 g . �. 2 i 6 x �. iii L g g _. ' O r a :1412■ P62 a--\PECI" c n Q . N y S D • (D - o 3 no ` r d W a • x gt Ln D.3 ; p:d4 t et - �p • 1 tt 1 , 1 a }i , f >.: f r r ra i*s 0 N pp fat e Ni • 1 \ pri ti-TM 1:4 DO \ .. t J • ft .a s/ � y -± � l r 7 m �'' ►�1 F= = y A s' 2 n. 1.) ir k P63 ip • C { • • K: a It , 5 / mC f • • P64 E I T • 0 N ! co i4 i 1 -- E 5 p � 4i C Ito P65 Q Lp 1 i.^ �� Al 1(G`�N f 3 _ , S LH i t A& ,��r + �' I k. ' L \' I ' p l t r f ll ' i [" 11 ° 1 dc. dt ;,__ t i� , i v ` � - -'-'�K . I t011 {1 . kFf r t 1 1111 , t3 S - - � Y 1 I ',� 1 111S! '� . - r FEi. g o d . 1 1 1, � ' — c. : :1 1 iI _ j ;' F F i F p. M ¢� ,, 4. u y __ 2 x41' , Y 3 — 4 (1 33 t t + ` � + ` -, t_' \'i a W A 0 d 3 L Ma l 1 V. ® 70 ;}1A P66 ;crag - "I G- 0 � in ro la s e W i 9M: ` �. 1 — ` :;da S off -:;-si 9 I � i l5 _ 1 1'i �1ri� a .. 11 __ &z u' . �l� fit" i r • 1 i R - j. 3 E� : yfi II c ( i m i �•, i. M Lil j ] SY 2 I (I 4 —ti «i4 > 3J L � -. 4- � O N rn ", P67 T D ling .1 n -t s�3 9 f t i I 1 = j J rrc_ .F "° > a O p -1 ti ` 1 3 rc I r- P68 3* T 0 I . "/"" . " e.. .... .... ... , se. ' .. :: . I I it - ..04. I 4. .4. $V '2 '7 , . r. l 1;` • Z" Ca r£ 4 � t 'a _ y � r � _ y i III � i r fg -- ^v i t •+ 7 a i . s. 1 .. . • �v x E y . Y ; t� , ..-r s.. �.. y, f 3 ' P ., gg �, '. C Mk .7-H, . F 5 - i. • =.2.! � s �_ 1 titi .. 4 3e w` 'F 1 'e 1 , t /; s ; bbb I 4 k v ; i m 1110 W Y(' L. + li it rr a" i ,_.". ' Yom* :f; ; e - �' i R.. y X ! p. ti. -I'we Eke .99 . t%, i ♦ ‘450.:-,-:-,...----, �� ,...41,--. R .. +H Y'�Y'.Tf.`.✓Yx' t+ N' ZG hk � .'S -��31. m� � . 1 .'. , ' , P69 r. 11 0 cn CD 1 nFr G ' . A �l . r � R ___A flA i F l F i w i. r , s „' R 'it .„ C V 5 1 t .+ T y • . O O � O �d 4 :. ma , ■ o p rnC r- ..,-----" ?Citi,t1 I— P 7 0 ila tit tH , I top s , :::_. : .I: . - , . •,- V-3- - 1 4. ..... -n . . 0 Ltl - r. 111111%& 7 - A - M-Er" 4 II Th.' -174. 3 r-1- ro , . a - .. -- ..- • 4 ' . 4 :i . - ; 2:4 4 ,., fir - hi:6%W At 'LW Til 2. 114. • It -141:71.447l'. - i- ' J ',4 4.t; 4 ` ' -4-;1nt — "— .- 7 - - 7 - -r ' - 14,." •,•,---.-2•1:7, a • 4 r i • - 2 - _(., -... ,. ,......g,-;■ . 1 -T.'S," ••, '--,--:.;:r .'t W :_4. ?,:t4W .. ‘ . 4 1-,:. ---;-' I= ' ±^14-ra- M,""f9 • I -0- -1 }-,-; r- ' 2. {, . -, ertilae •S" 4,±t. 'illt"E%-, 1 ' , K ,47:4 i "4 - - --4 rie el.? 4.1 ' 1; :i . . 4 "-; 5 44 -1-- Zr"%S t" ' • ; - 4 - ' -7417* i r , ;( 1, '""- -- -7 - , ir 1, .,,,-;,-..,---: --2-----r--,---- • ,=,--e.. i .w..-7A--2; ii - ii. . ' t c''' , '' ' -, 1 ■ 4. -P I ex , i . t . 3 . %-). ,- --er- - rtt. tiA - - '' -7-- - - - - ' A ' ."--•-, -, - ] 110 X 4Ri7 A ' 4,- - -- , - . "----- - , . A •• t a' 1 / 4 -- t.' . ' ::: --t'A I - -.' "- - ; " - - - - r",...-... • . ,AC 4t-'::3'..4 ' i el?-;;;;- :. ' ":' - -- • . 1 ---• -•.. -: r F.y.-1„it.„,, ‘4;;E _ 4 ;-..Gb -•••_,A . 1 ' , "tile W ar ?JAVA-. I_ irPt.Cli • . - -1,-1.v,7- ,..‘..-' a s-- ek-7-- 11'. ` -,' .... ..- minsim7` a , ‘... f 240 goi -''''' ± --- i - :re' s---:-.t.s,-.*: Ari -14 ' W _ ., . _ . - 4- .it , -- im- i wt:-. r • 40 's Illaves4-54'f..L§:1/4, firmi,..,....tit-:7.7..,,,,4414...._ :c ...--z--.-... rt L. ' :.;',/,:, ----- -,.. rilir - 1 i e. I; - • i . ,2 : - .te . :f4i. „ ,I -La r..? ''. V"' • r_÷.14#2"1”,..tE::=1;0 . 4 • 7 . 1.. .' _ ) ".,I ( =" L i. ,. : e. . ".. t'cir t, , 4 tS" Zif. -', ' ,1,,, t . 0 4 " .* -It't - . --- ( • 7,- 1 , ... , _..._± , --_-: - -c"; : t . , 9 - tor-- c f. . ' 1 - ri t ) irt :: .,.A.214-7; h-4.2:::,--z._ rI ---;':- e`... - .•-- - - - .- . -- - et- •:-' . ' - I t - 7 _ 4*s, . .1 0.-1;:' ' - - . ; , t r -, - :- - -• ' - - - ',,, ' -, • Xi; S - r 11 i t wi• .. - . _ - .- • 0 ,._ , 4 .-", ,. , t 1 4 e • -=•,._ . " ---- :" , - It i.. 4 - -- - r3 , fr il l • Ink - ' '•. — - -:,-- -• 'C.-21 t- \ ,I 4: ' . _ - ___- _: --,tite*,..74,,it 71 4- r . _. * t o _-t-fg:: itz-.-- . _,-, _ _..-„-,f,x_@_.•, ..1_,- , ifr ,„ . ;. 0.,..?; ,,,..,,,-,i , mr.,--__-_„, _______„_ .„,===._._- _ _=-2 - in -ii-a-.4-. -..-. 14 -.X- , lielie:‘,---i-it- .. nrc. 4 e ' 1 4* t :;./rffl? :.. - r :"1111IPI :11-46,11- - -- , itit,i--, i'.-aTir.4.-r- , :--",..7 - -Nt-' Fl.. 0 t k _ s. c ii nb- 4fi tit. s ......., * P?.. .• 0 , '. r 4 <Tat -.) }.1 i ik, : , .'., .<....,test...w.tt •tc ' ' a'• ' , 2 -- a IS: ',2 7:"; t:clit'i laca• '4 I 'i -?:-;."- "tat- :::.1-' -Tr- --746 i '; "d '41 1,-,.. - "'" t •',::1?".;4 ; ,4: -'.4 7 47-- . ' - 't - -- - -v- 1=44_ > rtLt 4. . .,. i,..: .....c''',F t. " T. - .1: . L.:-Crt--I1 k l .-. : ;.;1 ... ' '-'4'74:A :4. *Y&L- ',Y-7";:';.----;-..7.2ii. '::'?-;--1 ;7,1) - r-- - 1 4 .._-* ... e-bli-ii;.--_:::::...c.----=.-=-`):. .42 .4, c.n 14.114,c)-7”:%-fa ezi---s -'-----eic-aiiint■T .77:izalstcifi,.. _! -±-,:! : --11. 4.ff: 1/4" FL.' . ,,,„„„,_._,,k,,,,s.„, . .._ . 1 . -,'. .1friff'C-4:.;. r- 7a , --- A a ct d r - 2 v,,Lr.:..:.,....:- +. re- . • • — '•••• ..,... _ ....._ 1 p 7 1 _......... 1 - q4 Si Isi 1 am „a IQ Ott, t 14 I, d. t.-4 '• Ei ivir0 1 If- 9 tr n . • . . _ . , .__. ) 0 =, ,-+ , 1 W °"» 4 ' - n ‘ i 4,11$ 7,----a_;11---t---.-g-,c7,- ---,, Jr _.:Te , ; -- -,‘L' _ - • '-. 1 1 co t - --fsirn _4-110^r; , 4 t , • 4.: - - ! - n - et:: ..•-:-. - - -, - - ',2i a lc k i n : 4t:$ ill it ' --.;-,F-r-e--_=-2-s • •.,:::: - --- _.c. --.... - A Cl I f - - , d 4 ; --s is. i 1 •-%. . - • . ,P14-*G2L'4' 1•7--7:.--i•-..- ' -i -. at . t Fo t k crq Ay l_iftiti:it % sw ( - • .4- , • . r:-.•:. ,:•-■,....N.' :4-„,":»4:-..----•-&-T;-;--- t • t = , _ ••;:xxi-t .--t--, a ....A.,--4.,•4,:,:=',1=-5,,,,r420.7,,,re • .■ • • *, it. + ' : *raw - 7 r:ErTi:= 1,‘,.,411-1EZsen-a'i...4_,.• _-i--fs r4 . t :•,-;:, ;,i .-,47."472,7-4:01_,,,atzti A vl 1 _ 45 1t77-t.c.",,_ 4.st iii..a. ,._. _ . (,, 01) .; t ,,,d,." 7. 4. ,7:_,:ffi, 1 r _ _ „„...,_ „,_ ...<:s ... m ..- l• 1 -,.... A ..;4, Le, .4Fc,e,:_ -I, ' , - - f a ri. _ i: 7.. zr:.,7._ , ci to 1 • . .... '''''' .4. ,?...41_7:2„Lt; ,,fr:‘, z=7,-arctir 1 ES "., 2:kipitt, a- .:0: - r ° - . - :=V tf.'.k.'Ar,==:.==: tdi 6.--;-::7X-• ' S ' ... i '1=- = —.-.2 - ' c _ VT..: - l'i.., --„0:-Tzlt-•.....-", . - r fOi . 1 ;,T;;,..V.=,_ ::-_,-;...:;-..;;---,"--.1 a r 0.2 ' • . ., f .., ,-;_i,,.._-,),s-..y.,-.7T:-;;::._::-::' s. -At i f At ii el ,-181M-7.. 1.1.11' ' i., r- ' .',,4..7:: --7-1-,17:74Ag--i'le-5t--). • 4:.)----.'.:,-7-=----_:;:-.- --:44-;;; -2-qiii-,,,,--,._„,:'.- ...-,-,c„...,,r,:l. . , rv4,.. 4 - __ -. . t--Ft-=.-- : 1 'ir-3 , 1,- ---- _.1.,..-7.-..,0:t i . e _ .-:i_-.._ .a",4.-:a ... , • 7 4 '''- 'r=="4,1 4 ea n c L. - i -7_ gri.,1,-J,-.2.---4:„..-4_,4 __,.- __ia'...kc.if_ ...,.....,.,=.1.7-yit.,_ .0 . t • it " " "'., -.=*. bt ._ ' --...,_---•-ci."-a-krxi=7„,- ..4.0". --,-...;,••-•-•.•0s.a.-TA. Jt... 1 '74:- ft%'14-• '77,-;:-.7..to.."'sfl'',01rr.C".".5.---••--- '="=='' "i , Cli 1 ; 1Zg't1.7..#;':f4j.tc :2.5:"TTAkiliffirrA•• t--•„.„.aal•-if.: ti C'- k•e 1 1,.. rt} X 1 4.ttn-.±,:-7277.1.- I : es, , •ell-t-PI4. ;-‘ - ''-- --- - ''' ----:1.4---` ,:ti?t't.:' ' i f ' ! .17:::.. 11,"ttSt:---:=,bt-2.-•:4.3-At?-p. „;,;,,i,iTalit, Ar i . . . 11 . r ' .= ....,4 ' 4 ;,,E4r 4'41,,titfiz i7ita•te*:•:- -9. '.12-7:il i f % 0 '',V2elli-tett''le \I :s iluP .-..• - - `e. k ` s:tb-WE--:: -47;2:1744.-c,;+, f ,, ,r,, IL_ prifh,-,•,-4.11,,Tg.,L= 4f=a----,fritli W''' -f •-• k a : ' . j':• SI iLlaii.L..ii- 4=i-Ztrir,11...W.,4:t '-'' itZt $4.100'4:i. 'If -&• ta . i.N.,J.W.I'' ,?::1- -,4,'"ii. 1'17c-- ...-.: L ii 2 ti - 1 , ;,i TI r±.... 1 i • i / -- - t • •cig"--'s----i--•••-„1,4--- •-L-:.rh-r.„.i....,•_..-,.... -.-:_,..-•••• • .,-..--- t• . *. . k . c ; .- .,; 71, ;•91 i4.At.'._ , 'mkt- ±4.."..S....4, E Wakil -1.. 4' ' Illia , ;.. * : N Q . ■'',.144,53,In - ' ' 4 ''' 174 - k. ' , 4 'k i :- — ;-k,,..,--41. ,- :42•- - •;'' '•- -,T,,,,,- _Th..,-.,.-,3..' ..--t, , 1 * ) „ WS . .. ,, .. s - ' 1 0 , to mar air , e a 7-,s • -, \N„, , ._, , .,,,._ __ . _ , › . ,.... , :,. • i 4 ._ — Pea , 4 S Alliks ,04.,a'a***StiA, t 0).: 4:,••#, 1 1.. Ft. ; Nij i i 4 t n..1 a• t i ,. 33 'ir tte t AC 46 a._ „..., .w,7-11: dirtMf*” la , /...---4 el- - • 0 kat I I-- 7c1 Ilks P72 p 2 o :. r. rb w > it Y -, J i a '-_ s _! . _� .-., . _ -. �. x 54 StR yi + i RfA i s 4R., a 'a �� N «rK Tr of d p L y -- w `"", ."'ti T NW: �'" C 4 )),??" s �-z... * t-- 140a. � 2 4 $ AA • z b -n I ' w i 1 v ° . , � � � [ 9 1 s L7 iLi «a� i��' ' j �. p��yo 'rF (c-in 3 ' • 0 > 4 0 24-3.^t1 �� : m C p 7 3 -AA 1 ...,.c... ..-?..,,_„, ..4 ;0;2, 4s3-4r...„..k -- - - .„ ..- --,::. ,-1 -*.=- - - -- ; - -',-,',:4,-•:p9.7--1-,i; ,.• ,-------,, 71. r,--_, - was''. .,. , c .., _,,--_....,:---$..0 -_-. ‘''' W , C't _ *4 ' 1-- .11;Vi::'.-77.--ff'n -...'Ai.{ ....ar,r4.V.;11. ■1-7-14t. ;,.. ,-- ip, ...:: -. If-4.-:' ',...-t.,.....**-4';-;g:---inc:: p'. . -1k..--• -i. i , , . . . ,.:,.. [0-4,, ;-.,±.......--- tit-ir ....:- . r0t._,_-R...,,,,L5a.....-.. ,2.. 4.z4...,..-,.:,s- ..,-.-*, ,..„,_:„....,-,...twit ,....,.,.. ....}.7,. (rktii.k.1, ..,- *P- Er.z- .;..-;-,,..113ifkitt.,4- :..-._ - •,= 1'+' - .-,- $.1,11'..:1". "$1-1„. ..,' „ .7' ..z„ak: ,"'" 44-1:4'1-1' -11 C se... j p} - 1;_.- ' ...,,,,,i„aLid,,,1 „a -tWelt-- .:,,r-- ., ... - t U1 -,,,zi: "..,'-,12,:. -,`_..1117 ' • ' cit- "..-',11,.:...- • kit 3t - ---__ - - - 4i • E-..,--;-- -3,....-- r----_,=-r,i,:t... or-ot t.7.-•-ti- .--Will It' ,;'11:' t:'‘'''. - ..--- o p - rvii- ::f:t. ,-, :---r-, CD -I > 00 'S.". /---. ' ' ":"±-1;',V,4?„1-1,4,-:' ,,p' ..-r, '-,.* ...re ,.. - " 41.- ' 1 :. ,- . • 41: 0.1 = 4'1.'1-2 ,, - 1/2.1R11;`-.&°Clit-4,,3,1 1:2„ -17 ' ,- --...,Irfc-f-- ;ee' 1 'CIF' ,-,4•2740., t‘1.1")...1 '141, 1 .1.-ti.:1,-; -.; ,,•".","'" E.' ' .Y n ;41''''' ;--22.4- ‘ '41:- ---.Yr----- .-4,..n.:..a. ..„,....., ... :.‘:....., w r:zs., V-t..2.-.4.4, !”r44 c--,- (D-Lez,. • ,- --4"7:k 1:+1/44.1.::-5-L, -c te r`41 - 5.4 - 1 " 4:1,--- - - fer: Sit i.:V"; el-1' 4-:1/2,,,taiaC) ae rf:::Tcs 1- .:..1.,;:i;-,-R,-;... ; ,.., ...."3:t. .. _zig.W,"[LEr.-4.5 .,.. risk- ..;:tr - - --,.• ..4.0 .";2„,:..F444;:; 111 Cy • a '1--- - ::'S--,‘"7::..in '"- - '-', Ca114t-4,..0 . ---1-s?"'s"--7,„"C-•:%;.: (7C1 -1Crika „Six- zo`*--..2 .ir .1111c,l;: . • 1 '' ' ri.-.' • -??.:-Th :.,,r... :it. t 'V . . - • . , '.. ' -'`. • :.:'''''':;' . CD - - -I- '-''t .-- . .41'4; . 13E4.‘t' . -••• L = A",- '.-a--'''.i." •'.. ::: . '--i- '`' "1-1-r: ' . 4,, ,,--''''' 4 0 1.--171,t,„bt,ti-fe 'i;-,;;c-4-,,;,L 7:12% ' '' -4.-- ;7P. 11:1111: -n ±1■'747' c "EnAM:t"--..'-btlik 41r4.-;477-1-T Za:::.-;;;%::7:4-i ''''.` "-, ,,, ' ''''''' ,€1453V*-4-Ti ' • _=:?.:72;i:';'-'''':1:: cn rikt,tera"r7-11ELLN-321--i-eCelf 'El:5;. f:”' t i -, .6;.4.14r<.'' c...? -i;11;::: CD "!-.7.7•11,[1'; -:-:=7 - 12 1 'Ir. ... lia .4c.f.'5,::' . ''' -. •- , '"e'd .t■ •":"411,.. <147-1:/2.,Zn.....k.'„1-.v., t■ ift.9,14.7.10y:4 ' ;I.\ rfv, }-z•3.4t74:5-tiel.:= ....-14--17.^4.-A, ,- -- . tal"gig. e 'r' ''''' 4.al4:7:2:11rd'i ..."- --.1 0‘.• . , .1 41'..-;" 'rr. 1 .1 ' ' 0, ' - '11.1.--‘1] rw.. L.rtiLt .. 1 :• '4 li.a."4S.''' ' • ': ".. i ' ..' :. 5 . ..HE7,---,--1---w.- ,. -. .:ci:s. ;.•. -- :. ‘1,1, ' - : .."- . 1, 9-'11w ; -4,. ' ...?-,-,,"1"-.!"1,14; '..Z .if•A '' ...A V 1- 54...:"-""S# -!. r ,,Itap-• AI." • 4,T, ,, ‘-r-,- -',$ sic=',;;;"x?..- :i: f-- - 7 0 - -- ',t ..:...ii `& , -.; ' is ,,is;141-:!-,;-_- .2.7fi.:,: ' • ..,:r: ,„:1,......--. . i.r., , , ,,,,,.". _ ., :;Lli. ,tc:.1:* ° ,,, 7....; -4.',--iz,1:-...;%„..,,,i, --_ -- - .:::-:-“-- ‘ . ,: i- ..t .',.: • ' , .., . ,-,•;1-ft,1,,,s.,-?7,44 _---_ - - .1 :-.-1; .:y.'1; .:1--%.-- --•=,- 2----', -' • ''' '- -. '± .' ' -t,...f,"14,4r44,T '.1,4 :, ---241tN 2 - - t It. -,,W..,,.•,'•-:-K-Cti • ''‘. 722 a. • , .1p , ..,;-...„.. .. . . r t . : . .c.:.,•,,,7,-„;-; t4 . . .... . .. --.„45.-.-:- 4..... . :41: .-."--5t. ii- --,,z; ..---' c ; 2- z ..41 .4 1 : • --' :• x, E SI 'n -.-,;[ '...::' .W Da IV fi':....; 1 '1 2.- ' '41t4j_.,,--7 .,,,1:1,;":1';'W ..1.a• . tl! ' LII . >:-a'' .2...:' '1;11'2 '' 714:4‘4,1: ' ".. .:-;-",‘,X.:.`15---•,/,1.1''.(1f4;',.;4% . ‘i.1,1416.:titrAir,:gi-1.-;'15- \ ,, _ 1 .. :',';t :''' -...1t41kTiTi .' P Nia..- • ''''r •-' -72::1":7-- -(1 • "... - 7,4:', ..1, t1 - , - : t..: •:-... -;.,,:',..•!'hl a. -11'.1-ZTa1:' - .7±7,, 4 . :. " .r. f . '. '7 ' ' c'il ' ', ,;‘:-..2"13 ••< -•,M -7.efl , "", :: : .1 . [ 1 ........it„F-L3-C,' -.7.- c'1.1.-Ht.,:t._*‘.;.• .--:' ..;..,- - f'"."4,ft, --. 1:71-Ct Czt41 11 `` 1 / 4 ': '-1, : p2 ." - ' t 1._ -' • . • . . ' ■ - :1-i'- •-1 '',"./' ' : -,f __, _:-..,,•• cz, r : ;.-- ., 1: ka \ Ln ........ --,r, i :;:- :'• -, .. .r.,itt.- 7-T- - --.7 -'''''.i.:- ...' .-:::Yr 9.- 7 1 ,:;,...-:.. ,, Ur -.,,' 4, ::--- ..i7S, ;' .?, 'a:A: - . - ,.‘ ‘L. ', . • ° ' . . , - ?"-Z airi.„2,. .„ j;,:::,-,Th 1 T:?: r-}t4s,qr.l6'rr, tr.C.H.‘ 'Ztrit; ,-;,.7.Z.74 ' ' °Lt. l''.1"t?'"1::^. ': .': ' Y-271r t -'' 61 MI • . • a L 'L . - - - - ,4114115'.1C-::Ii;-:. ;.:1"..1r1:erT,1:,..‘4474-#01:-.-... "_11..2:Iii ' -1 - - -.4 . •rrs.:-:;-s...- 9.:„k .., ..a4 . " ,:_:,-, .. : & • 3' * . iLit...---z."-.. . 7,1 .e. . ' 1, . ir.t.;',41:11a1“. , . r:4-1,...."2*- 2,2y,'''',Xitipj.:;,„ (-1:1 . : _ Z "; .r.-....‘_:_ys t t...: 7 , , y ry , • 2; „ , _ ,„•,,_„ ,-,, . '1A' *-A-; :14-It:- .--; -1." • '' -.`, " , 4,..... , ,c ------,?.;" ..,:.,-";.-- '',.:114. ' ° \ C*47.7":„., 11,1-t• ... i',.:.' '_-1" _ - '' " "Ini-Ifi..-'5.:' "!, .,.' -,7 Z. -, ' L'2.::::ii: .C •:`, ---7--44,7'.' Of -.74",t4,-,-•- , . - :s24.. Im.',::::st; , ;1:',:,:"ter • --k-st " " . ,,.,.f r2- _.L., ,,,,t1.-.74.--5, -4".1 ',•_„?-941`iiiii -M:17:-_,--Vi . -5,r4t.,;; --", :-. . - . . - -._ _ ._ ._,- ..---.' - L,.. ,...:.::;.,:47.---.!. '.,-; .- .1,---_-,-_,.4.7.2Ai.p4:::_--•,--_. - , .,- - =,. __. - - - -- . i , , ..t ' - -- --i-',..-t-ntd.... -,...---....-tp4c-te-,?-.---e-,-.44.3_,_-_--4,:tc--- ... ", . ' '..: , ' . • . , _ .7 -' .-.-- , a _ 0 , 14 • .•'.-,",,r,,,i . ). .:. , :""j.:i • . .. 4) ) L : r T " : " " r.'...)' )-." ..";) '17) Cr. ..t r 0 E. )4‘t. '.4%4;t) 4.3. , ._ a .. C. E ;:=4:4.r,e-,-; .iy.-r.-14-4,. ;-....4:-:.-:„.,..:2,.....,......"7,--"3„, -, Eili-, ji -- , ---,da-,-:-:- --' I rn 1/4 r" 73 _ . ____ P74 - • rc CI cn Q ,. d N N ➢1 -'1 t C Pt 3 n n O k d 0.1 v r. m� N a n. n —I o f7 cn ro sh ;i I � 11 ' t 4 O " F r+ I c� .s y, O N N co c N i 4 t O N k " - ,ap -.. - 4 fig : r\.. } y am' T . Y ki sY ! 4 r o- \ .7 f i { • �ti a yf Pt _ S n . m r » - .xrr �.' 1�'' � it 5 � � x s :.. l e c, t y = am x i ‘.in,.-.4..-•,- l" P75 T t. 0 VI r. co .—% ky ¢'t . iG 4 s : i g' .tit ` k - - M IV 1 pSenF I� I #.• III ' a. F + .-a r _I $ i -d JJyyyytp y t , j 2 1 -- In / �, = _: II w s : 1 -.t i s ` 1` L • ,,,i . 3 k y , i^ , of y III ' r r • y'f d �`` '�}1 l • ;.+ x $ i EA ,mC ..F r- _�, P76 yz3 a o (D fD MI z 1 I P P m.I a;pd • C � O (n M • 1 r P77 .; x .. - n C in rt m 0 .. CO Y K U, Su Std : j 4 -1 ll --,,,, SIN" - thh V 3' t . }Y '�$ y y k � P ,; i — 4' +cx �� scar i j - -- r b - : t $$$ :3 rti . tr,. , ht a x:,., te _ --'+% • L i f s , , 3 -. � C it ti+ ;i P78 , :,. -... ,...: .... A O + v 'k ___ ,.......,,,...:. . v, . .. Y „,,,..,,.,,,:„_.: ,.... ro 4 _, F 'T i ?%- ;z� .j ' ''' r< / �3 = r � 4- ea- Ix k - xn Ty 9 '.-1- P L y i% dry ti r r.jiAe- . r 4 ,,,,.„,..,._,,,,„...........:.,.., YA S �T` -srn a r _, , .c, _ . d � §Yp 4 n - 4 ” x Gy 3 F ip 1 4-S • frt Y P, F-y l ohm N N -i C `" P7 C I ;..,z • 111:,t,14 i ; 1.! ,y 0 FE fD E h -4.7..]= ii S w t.- . a '� e . t -s 3 D i e s s T r n co o .c I Y„ , -c tY - - � e t LD G * n � ^ "C ' f t"' •.i- 'L4-: , 1- A L k F !� : ' .. ' ea 1-1x ,. + ..ta rt �d iF3 .mot. y • ' 3 .V. -r + - S .: s, ; a am . ' : r .' -L _ -�[+ 1 ti • / ' �.. t� E V- f ' u F -t -- -, Y„_.c `�`� J ;14.w-II.';-'2 y. 4 F ' '� m [ 1 t t i - � 1 1. ��ti 1 .- q L4 g ti S I y ' i �F `� - t h S R b E �. - -5 [ , 1 t y 4 k'1 , -7 T • - ' 5 a t t I x t s a ` aH ' t ▪ - "WI 1 ry .° t t i ; - 0 l = ; f • q t u t xte,{, -.rte t ' t`I la..� t E - v) i� i �. . . z ai .. �` T 4 x t Q e i 0 � ,� ' �. 1.....4I x � , _ e z t S • T r f Cam' .1 • . �Zk � � p '�rti'S. S r-4'11-1.7 8 e '' ff -trilk 4- ' �� *. p L3.i ,. m c bz 5 III 7 L v f `i k. • P80 RECEPTION#: 567702, 03/1612010 at 10:28:00 AM, 1 OF 2, R $11.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO tESOLUTION NO. 5 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF TILE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL A MAP M MODERATE-DENSITY THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP (REZONING) FOR THE RESIDENTIAL (R -15) TO MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-6) PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 217 AND 219 S. THIRD STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735- 124 -65 - 005 • WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from YLP West, Inc. represented by Suzanne Foster requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Map Amendment to the Official Zone District Map from Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) to Medium - Density Residential (R -6) for the property commonly described as 217 and 219 S. Third Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Land Use Code, an amendment to the official zone district map may be reviewed by the Planning and by Z e n g y Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considerine o Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider 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; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the amendment to the official zone district map with a vote of six to one (6 to 1). Section I: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the ma Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends ty Council de the ate-Density zone Re dd tr (ap amendment to rezone the following described property = 15) to Medium - Density Residential (R -6) and recommends the applicant to considerresubmission for rezoning concurrent with submission of a specific development plan that would address the expressed concerns of the public. The subject property is legally described as Lots , P, Q, R, and S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, excepting therefrom that portion of Lots 0, P, and Q that lies south Page 1 of 2 r81 • of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8.5 feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628 and commonly described as 217 and 219 S. Third Street Section 2: 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 3: 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 regular meeting on February 2, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONIN COMMISSION: C tes R. True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: ' Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 2 of 2 P82 LXftC\ City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING: 217/219 S Third St — Rezoning Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Notice was provided. Jennifer Phelan stated that the request before P &Z was submitted by YLP West Inc represented by Suzanne Foster. Phelan said the request is with regard to the property commonly known as 217 and 219 South Third Street to rezone the property from moderate density residential R -15 to medium density residential R -6.. Phelan said that currently the 9, 942 square foot lot contains a chalet style duplex. Phelan said the staff presentational covered permitted uses, dimensional standards, neighborhood character. Permitted and conditional uses of the R -15 and the R -6 zone districts permit the same permitted uses, which are uses by right and also almost the same conditional uses, which are uses that have to go through a public hearing process to be approved in the zone district. Phelan said the only difference in the two zone districts is that the R -15 zone allows for agricultural uses as a conditional use; that is the only difference in uses in the two zone districts. Permitted uses in both zone districts are primarily residential allowing for single family dwellings, duplex dwellings and also two detached residential dwellings. Phelan said with regards to dimensional standards, the applicant is wishing to develop the property with two detached residences. The existing R -15 lot is • considered a non - conforming lot with regard to size because the minimum lot size in this zone is 15,000 square feet and this is just about 9500 square feet. The property is developed with a legally established duplex. Phelan said if the property is redeveloped in this zone district the applicant is allowed to keep that density on the lot; they just need to meet the minimum setback standards, heights and floor area allowances for a single family home but the density is allowed to remain. Phelan said the rezoning to R -6 the minimum lot size is 9000 square feet so this would create a conforming lot and the zoning with the minimum lot size would allow for a single family home, a duplex or two detached residences, which is what the applicant is interested in. Phelan said with regards to setbacks and height; height in both zone districts is the same, 25 feet. The minimum setbacks for the rear and side for developing a duplex or two detached residences on this lot are the same at 10 feet. The front yard setback in the R -6 zone district is a minimum of 10 foot verses 25 feet in the R -15 zone. Floor area is very similar also currently the allowable floor area in the R -1.5 zone district whether a single family house is developed on this property or a duplex is redeveloped on this property is 4,1.45 square feet is the maximum that 10 P83 Cit Plannin• & Zonin• Meetin: — Minutes — Febru. 02 2010 could be allowed on this site. Phelan said with the R -6 zone for a duplex or two detached residences are developed it's about 9 square feet less at 4,136 square feet. If in the R -6 zone district a single family home was developed it's actually quite a bit lower and that is shown in the memo. was whether there duplex is allowed l on the lot or two detached residences; difference idences attached versus detached. Phelan said with regard to neighborhood character and the subject property to the south and to the west the property is surrounded by city owned property that east zoned Public. The Midland Trail is on the south side of this property; to you have R -6 zoning, which includes a number of single family homes and the St. Moritz Lodge; to the north across the alley you have 3 properties that are zoned R- 15. Phelan said in the neighborhood the lot range from 3,000 to approximately 18,000 square feet; in general the neighborhood contains single family, duplex, multifamily units and lodging. Phelan noted that other properties are also nn- conforming because none of them meet the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet in the neighborhood and it tends to be a denser neighborhood. Phelan said that if the property is rezoned to R -6 staff feels that it is more compatible; it meets the minimum lot size requirements of the R -6 zone district rather than the R -15. This property is part of the original town site and is within walking distance of the Core. Phelan said that staff feels that this complies with the land use code, it meets the elements of the AACP, it's compatible with the surrounding land uses, it will not make a traffic generation issues since a duplex is already there and that's the maximum density permitted on that site and it would not adversely affect the natural environment. Staff recommends the application be permitted in a recommendation from R -15 to R -6 be granted. Phelan entered a map into the record as Exhibit 1) and goes over lot sizes and what's on the property. Jasmine Tygre said the P &Z in the past had taken a stand that these non - conformities were likely to eventually go away and that would be a good thing but there is no official policy. Tygre asked if there was an official policy on the benefits of eliminating non - conformities. Phelan replied• no; there is a big difference between having a grandfathered something versus a lot that has a non- conforming with r °city; if you look at the neighborhood pattern where you have smaller lots and densi f t1-e R would actually fit for this property . 11 P84 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes —February 02, 2010 Tygre asked if this would actually lift the non - conformity. Phelan replied yes it would create a conforming lot. LJ Erspamer asked Jennifer to point out the other R -6 lots in the neighborhood. Phelan replied that the staff memo page 5 the color zone district map showed anything in the darker yellow. Cliff Weiss asked about specific lot sizes in relation to house sizes. Phelan replied they varied by the lot size. Michael Wampler asked if the applicant came with the zoning change or did community development suggest it. Phelan replied the applicant came and requested it. Stan Gibbs asked the square footage of the current duplex. Phelan replied that she didn't know what the current duplex was. Bert Myrin asked if the Third Street side would 1ppe the front. Phelan replied the Third Street side would be the front. Gibbs asked if the alleyway has not been vacated at all. Phelan replied that it has not and she would check on the unimproved portion of that alleyway. Gibbs asked if anything that was built closer to the alleyway would have an alleyway address. Phelan answered no it would have a Third Street Address. Weiss asked the lot width difference between R -15 and R -6. Phelan responded that it currently doesn't matter because for R -15 k would be considered part of the non - conformity. Wampler said whether we approve the lot rezone or not she can still do a duplex or single family whichever way P &Z goes. Phelan replied that was right if it stayed as R -15, the allowable floor area, whether you do a duplex or a single family is 4,145 square feet. Phelan said the only change is if you rezone as R -6 the floor area a single home would have 3, 716 square feet and if you do either a duplex or 2 detached on the lot in R -6 it would go down about 9 square feet to 4,136 square feet. Gibbs said they were not asking for a lot split it was a simply a rezoning. Weiss asked the motivation was from going from one. zone to another. Suzanne Foster, applicant, stated that the motivation was they have a little boy that is going to be 6 on Friday and when he was born they decidsd that they wanted to leave the east coast and move out somewhere to have more nature. Foster said pretty much right away they started coming out to Aspen and had been here several years before and they love everything about Aspen. Foster said that they looked at properties and identified this property because it had historic designation potential, which meant that you could possibly lot split it and make two smaller masses of the structure, one of which they would like to live in. The motivation is to have 2 smaller structures instead of having one large structure; they want a small house and want to raise their son here. Foster said that she was okay with a half of a duplex and if they don't get the rezoning they will build a duplex and keep half of it and somebody else will live in the other half. Forster said it seemed more consistent with the neighborhood since it was basically the same amount of 12 P85 Ci Plannin• & Zonine Meath'. — Minutes - Febru• 02 2010 building footprint; you only have so much square footage so you are just separating it out instead of having it have to be connected. Forster said that Jennifer was pretty clear. Foster said there was not a determination of FAR for this property because m it's going to be about were some a 2200 square f 2200 structure. Foster said that with the R-15 zone the front yard setback was 25 feet and 10 feet rear yard and that would impact the neighbors across 10 foot front yard setback to get a nice streets ape for the existing x hird Stree� setbacks. Cliff Weiss asked if the 2200 square feet was FAR that included basement, decks and garage. Foster replied that the FAR for this property was about 4140 square feet total that would.be divided between the 2 structures. Forster said the little models were pretty much to scale of what a structure might look like; either it would be 2 separate or 1 attached. Gibbs reminded the an at this pot P and had a very narrow scope of rezoning and it wasn't really b enn needs to decide whether this property ' is being rezoned according to the code. Gibbs asked the commission to focus on the rezoning. Stan Gibbs opened the public testimony. Jennifer Phelan said that the letters received were Exhibit E. Public Comments: 1. Mita Barton called Jennifer Phelan opposing the rezoning, 2. Jake Vickery, architect and consultant with the neighbors, stated that he added a rebuttal statement that was the reason for creating the R -15 and not undermining it for changing zoning to R -6. the Vickery said Sit was on the periphery of the urban growth boundary and Mountain and the R -15 was meant to be a mitigating lower density transition zone from the higher density. Vickery said that he didn't see any compelling reason from the public's interest to rezone this whatsoever. Vickery said that you have to look at the ramifications in zoning of what a person can or cannot do on that property because they are going to have different potential impacts then what they would have had if the zoning remained the same. Vickery said what was being proposed there is in direct conflict with section 26.410.040, which is the -.! "tia1 design standards; this section requires that each house have a telationsriip to the street, a principal window, porch and a one story mass. 13 P86 • City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 3. Jordie Gerber, public, said this rezoning was only self - serving for one person; he said the parameters of the building were the same and it doesn't benefit the public. Gerber opposed this rezoning. 4. Paul Young, public, handed out a packet and asked that P &Z take a minute to look it over. Stan Gibbs replied that if the City had received this ahead of time it would have been part of the packet; he asked Paul Young to give his testimony on it. Young said that Suzanne Foster bought this parcel of land knowing it was zoned R -15; the opposing neighbors and he was one of them asked only for Foster to go forward under R -15 zoning and build what allowable without variances, rezoning, exc. Young said that Mr. Vickery in his 3 minutes provided that this application as it pertains to the standards of review and the Aspen Design Standards that this application has shortcomings and is inconsistent with those two documents. Young reiterated that the R -15 zone is a buffer of low density between the Midland Trail and there was a letter from the Midland Trail Board that opposes this within that path. Young said that he supports only one structure with the front entrance facing Third Street. Young said that simply stated 2 detached dwellings on this small lot calls for denial of an up zone R -6. 5. David Bentley, public, lives across the alley from this proposed project and said that there was a lot of traffic congestion. 6. Cheryl Goldenberg, public, stated she lived at 430 West Hopkins that they have an R -6 lot with a duplex on it and it went through the Historic • Preservation which Mrs. Foster wanted a lot of things that the rest of the neighborhood didn't have and Goldenberg wanted a guarantee that all the exceptions that go with this property would go with all the other R -6 properties. 7. Steve Goldenberg, public, stated that they live in a duplex and it has been lived in by locals for 25 years. Goldenberg said he didn't like the way the process was working and said the closest neighbors that were most impacted were against this rezoning; he was opposed to the up- zoning. 8. Angela Young, public, stated that she lived at 413 West Hopkins and the community development department with HPC has worked with Mrs. Foster tirelessly for over a year for a menu of options and special considerations. Young said at the end of that process it is still was not enough and despite the pleas of all of the neighbors and City Council for her to compromise; she chose not to. Young said she is now back asking for a rezone to get the same special considerations; this rezone absolutely benefits no one but Mss. Foster. Mrs. Young asked that P &Z deny this application for an up -zone. 14 P87 City Plannin• & Zoninu Meetin_ — Minutes — Febru. 02 2010 Stan Gibbs closed the public hearing. Jennifer Phelan cl nceed this pro et s is allowed to have 2 dwelling units on it; the biggest is not being up-zoned to dttacho a hid or whether it's detached. if you artechnical about it density e floor area is less in R -6 than digh density and in R -15. applicant if Jennifer Phelan said that with regards to special 5 o si rid did or p wanpl meet R-I5 or Ms. Foster was developing this property the rdjuusttm e nt a d setbacks re q uest aher dimensional ariance nthe hearing minimum setbacks of A that's djsmnt and request available to any propel in the City of Aspen. Jim DeFrancia said that he hears what Jennifer is saying that you can build 2 dwellng i units and tho rest ° Phelan responded that right across asked the street the is R -6; public benefit r changing -6 zone gave across from the applicant on Third Street. e have 2 detached units rather than 2 more flexibility. Phelan replied that y ou can attached units and the setback was 10 feet between the two buildings so you could actually break up the mass. Cliff Weiss said that he was confused by some of the public comments. Weiss said that the minimum rear yard setback was 10 foot, no change between the 2 zones so the applicant was not asking for a variance when it comes against the Midland Trail or that buffer• because of the Midland Trakl; when she explai Department that the because of the rezoning a c ks wg and the he setbacks were same Parks ha lm ° there s less square feet; this was really all really doesn't ivi n't her a little and if anything about giving her ittle flexibility to have 2 detached units. Phelan said they were similar bre ak - u f t he ma didn't a strong Weiss said there were denial a and the bre P couple pockets th this R-15 lot sPze being that pockets an R 15 zoned loti�ple of poc and none m Bert Myrin asked if the green space on the map on page 5 was parks. Phelan responded that it was City owned property. he asked could the owner Jim DeFrancia asked if this was justQ rerezoning quest one went with a specific of the property not submit a rezoning q development plan. „-=elan said they were not required to. DeFrancia said that they 15 P88 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 could, which would address in detail some of the concems that have been expressed. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to extend the meeting to 7:15pra; Brian Speck seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mike Wampler thanked the public for coming and it shows that you are passionate about your neighborhood; he said the fact that you got signatures speaks volumes. Wampler said that every time P &Z get hit with something like this there is some kind of motive by the applicant and he said he was going td listen to the public and this just doesn't pass the test for him. Jasmine Tygre asked if the rezoning went through would the applicant then have to go through any other further review processes to develop the property. Phelan said that they would need to submit a building permit application; there has been some discussion on the site if there are natural steep slopes or manmade slopes on the property there could be a reduction in floor area but the setbacks would be the same. DeFrancia said that he was somewhere in Mike's camp and he didn't care to speculate on either the applicant's motivations or what might occur in the rezoning but there has been ample expression of concern about the character of the development that might occur and it seems that all parties would be better satisfied if a rezoning request were accompanied with a specific development plan. Bert Myrin said the resolution required code standards and the final whereas was that it was consistent with the AACP. Myrin says the current AACP says the government needs some improvement and that seems pretty clear that the relationship is not there and he probably will not vote for the approval. LJ Erspamer asked if duplexes could be split up. Phelan replied that duplexes were required to have a common wall of a certain length above grade. Erspamer thanked the applicant and respected the neighbors for corning forth. Erspamer said as Stan said this was only one thing to look at which was a zoning review and he wasn't sure of the character of the neighborhood. Erspamer asked if this is denied and recommended by community development do we have to site a specific ruling why we vote against it. Jim True replied no, it was discretionary action on your part. True said that it was non- conforming property and she's asking that it be rezoned to the conforming zone district. Erspamer asked if there were other non- conforming lots. Phelan replied there were non - conforming. IS P89 Ci Plannin° & Zoo• Meetin• — Minutes — February 02 2010 Jasmine Tygre said that she didn't know why the density kept coming up when the density did not change. Weiss asked what was going on with the manmade versus natural slope. Jennifer present. Phelan said the allowable floor area would be reduced if slopes slopes are and if they The determination of whether the property contains steep are natural or manmade has not been determined; so included in the pa c ke ket is the maximum allowable floor area if it was a_ completely flat prop erty reduction if there were lots of steep slopes on it. Cliff Weiss said it was odd r to him that this has not and exactly what n can be developed and yet P &Z major has t o de if it manmade a new element to emene t thawhether perplexed not it can at that t de enminat on hasn't been specific to new ts peplexed by he said that the cart and this particular lot and here P &Z was looking at a rezoning; the horse got a little mixed. Phelan replied that that's staff looks the surveying submitted and handled at buildin permit; information, maybe geotechnical information; so what you are looking at is what can be the maximum density on this property, which whether it is R -15 or R -6 are two dlln p ty . Phelan sa'id know the maximum max maximum and it d could potentially ally be on this property• less. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to recommend to City Council that the application for 217/219 S Third Street be denied with direction to the applicant to consider d address development plan that woul the expressed concerns seconded by Bert d yes; Wan ler, yes; Speck, yes; Weiss, yes; Myrin. Roll call vote: Brspamer, y P Myrin, yes; DeFrancia, yes Gibbs, no. Motion to deny the recommendation to City Council was approved 6 -1. Discussion of the above motion prior to vote: Cliff Weiss said that a rejection means that they cannot reapply. Jennifer Phelan said that this was a recorrunendation to City Council. Bert Myrin said that R -15 was sort of the periphery of the city limits and why not zone all these properties R -6. Jennifer Phelan replied sure but the periphery 100 years ago and 2010 still make the argurrient that this is in walking distance to ae 1 rba n e an ri al own o site and the lots may not have been appropriate y zoned. Bert Myrin asked if there should be one zone. Jennifer Phelan replied that 17 P90 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 R -15 on Cemetery Lane with 15,000 square foot lots was quite appropriate but when you are talking about no minimum lot size in an R -15 zone district and look at the surrounding density there might have been a problem when they originally zoned this property. LJ Erspamer asked a procedural question you would link this with a building application. Jim DeFrancia said a development application. LJ Erspamer asked if that was appropriate for P &Z to do. Jim True responded that it was a recommendation. Cliff Weiss said the neighborhood was organized up in arms and it was the unknown that everyone is afraid of and he would weigh in behind Jim on his motion. Suzanne Foster asked if there was a plan then P &Z would approve the R -6 zone. Cliff Weiss replied that there would be less neighborhood objection; it is . the unknown that's bothering everyone. Jim DeFrancia said that Cliff has stated it correctly; he thought it was the issue of the unknown. Bert Myrin asked if there was a process to track things that there were issues like this and set a calendar to address them. Adjourned at 7:15 pm. A. - - ea /ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 18 _ P91 "VW Jennifer Phelan From: Chris Bendon Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:56 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: FW: Foster Re- zoning at 219 S. Third Street Cheers, Chris From: Jennifer Sherwin [mailto:Jennifer.Sherwin @self help.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:44 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Foster Re- zoning at 219 S. Third Street Dear Mr. Bendon and P and Z Members. I'm writing this e -mail to address the re- zoning request made by Ms. Foster at 219 S. Third street property. Ian the member manager of Sherwin Enterprises, LLC which owns the historic properties located at 205 and 211 S. Third Street. The 211 S. Third property is a small historic building at the edge of the alley" and closest to the property in question. Ms. Foster's request concerns me unless the following issues are addressed: There should be one dedicated parking space per bedroom. The applicant Foster's plans call for a total of 9 bedrooms for Unit A & Unit B & this does NOT include bedroom count if she also builds a carriage house! While City Code only requires 2 onsite parking spaces Third Streeg light of feel our a alley cant congestion, and the recent damage to the roof of my property at 211 should have one dedicated parking space per bedroom. Note: just this past December, significant damage was caused to the roof of 211 S. Third : Street and the City of Aspen paid for the repairs as they determined the roof damage was most likely caused by a City snow plow, plowing in a very tight alley. 2. Applicant should be required to have a 20' setback from alley as opposed to 10 -again because of alley congestion, parking problems. 3. Building height of proposed development should be kept lower on alley side. Thank you for your consideration. - Jennifer Sherwin Menber Manager, Sherwin Enterprises, LLC 1714 Vista Street Durham, NC 27701 919= 308 -1145 1 P 9 2 Page 1 of 1 David Bentley t� To: David Bentley n VE f Subject: RE: About: Foster Re- zoning 217 -219 S. 3rd St City IW o 208 4a C ' il ly OP qSp - - -- Original Message - -- � " From: David Bentley [ mailto :davidebentley @comcast.net] Ei' clppPL-� Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 9:56 AM To: jenniferp @ci.aspen.co.us Sherwin; Angela Young Cc: Jennifer DavidMilkereit Sherwin; Mark home Sherwin; Kitty 9 g Subject: About: Foster Re- zoning 217 -219 S. 3rd St To: Jennifer Phelan Community Development — (and P and Z members) From: David E Bentley, occupant of 211 So. 3 St, next door to 219 So. 3rd Jennifer and Mark Sherwin own 205 and 211 South 3rd St) Date: Tuesday 08 march 2011 Re: the request for re- zoning from the Foster family at 219 South 3rd St Claud Delivered to 3rd Floor - City Hall - Tues 10:30 am)? Dear MS Phelan, •J! I have lived across the alley from MS Foster's duplex for 39 years. I've said to the full council and perhaps, also, to the P & Z, Historical Preservation, whatever, that there will never be less than one car per bedroom. It's very easy when someone is tired and has an armload of groceries to forego parking on the street by parking in the alley "illegally." The South 200 block of Third has the St Moritz taking up one whole quadrant. The snowplows have to make a blind sharp curve as they pass the corner of the Third St side of the Foster property. The St Moritz has head -in parking and sometimes big pickups and even trucks are parked askew in the comer spaces, extending into curve of 3rd and W. Hyman. About 5 years ago, one renter of the 219 half, a New Zealander, used his carport to rebuild the engine of his muscle car while parking his little pickup in the alley against the house. His fellow - Kiwi housemate had two vehicles of his own . They was subletting it from "Sandy," who stored her little jeep in the sunken courtyard on the uphill side of the house while she was back in Chicago helping her mother die slowly. The vacant lot the Fosters want to build on looked like a field that had been used for a county fair. The 217 half of the duplex was occupied in an uninterrupted (apostolic ?) succession of Jehovah's Witnesses from about 1975 to about the mid -90s, when the owner, Tom Cleary died. They never threw loud parties but there were often many cars there. Property management of the two units (217 -219) in the interregnum between Tom Cleary's death and the Fosters acquiring it, wasn't as strict. The Fosters surely investigate the backgrounds of potential renters. Of course, I wouldn't mind if there were a 20' setback to provide garage apron that would be on -site parking for the renters. Snow will be a probem if Aspen receives as little as 3" /each day many days in succession with continuously cloudy weather. Each new layer protects the one below from sublimating, as it does in full sunlight. A couple spells like that and the snowpack settled depth can be 3x or 4x normal, even though the "ski area totals" of snow are just average. You see crews all over downtown shoveling roofs. From my window, I have seen snowpack on the roof of 217 -219 South Third St. become over 48" deep. If it had fallen over in my direction, it would crush my house. Any engineering specs for a parking structure have to take into account relatively rare snow accumulations and where will they put it if they can't put it in the alley, even temporarily? People will live there and need to park their cars there, too. Thank you, pavid E Bentley, (home fax = 925 -4443) (e -mail = ) PO Box 30 Aspen CO 81612y� c� Sen J) RS :I° a-1-, opeo5eel Ill n,•Zut,;, '3 forlret"S kJ,,at. peg TABLE OF CONTENTS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ASPEN MARCH 8, 2011 RECEIVED Gl Y OF ASPEN I. March 7, 2011- Paul Young letter C DEVELOPMENT II. April 23, 2010 - Paul Young letter III. Resolution 89 IV. March 7, 2011- Jake Vickery letter V. March 7, 2011- Angela Young letter w/ attachments VI. February 2, 2010 opposition packet VII. February 2, 2010 P & Z Meeting Minutes P94 PAUL YOUNG March 7, 2011 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen RE: REZONE AND MAP AMMENDMENT FOR 21.9 SOUTH 3 STREET — FOSTER Dear ladies and Gentlemen, On Feb. 2, 2010 the P&Z voted 6 to 1 to recommend denial of the application to rezone and directed the applicant to resubmit with a specific development plan that would address the express concerns of the public. This has clearly not been accomplished. The architectural plans recently provided represent a scheme the applicant might be entitled to build under the current R15 zoning if granted future approvals for a carriage horse and, more importantly, incorrectly overstate the lot area and allowable FAR for the property. (Plea se see attached my April 23, 2010 letter to Suzanne Foster and Resolution 89 Series 2009 minutes.) Applicant's non- compliance with City Code plus being in conflict with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan prompts my request for P&Z to uphold their denial of this rezoning request To the best of my knowledge there has been no community outreach by the applicant. There are still too many tmlowwns. These unknowns coupled with this property being put up for sale this summer reinforce my request that P&Z uphold its denial of this rezone request. On a positive note, my wit and I are encouraged by Mn. Foster providing plans along with her willingness to deed restrict the development of the property. if an agreeable development plan can be incorporated into restrict ions, we would be willing to compromise with Mrs. Foster by withdrawing our objections and support her rezoning during the City Council review and final approval of her 219 S. Third Street project. Sincerely, eat_ auk . Paul Yo g PS: 1 have attached and resubmitted my original packet that 20 individual neighbors and Friends of Shadow Mountain 1000+ members that oppose this rezone. Also attached are the minutes from the Feb. 2, 2010 P&Z meeting. 413 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611 P95 PAUL YOUNG April 23,2010 Suzanne Foster 7 S. Main Street Yardley, PA 19067 RE: 219 South Third St. Rezone to R6 Dear Suzanne, We have considered your letter of April 8, 2010 in detail. Before we can support your rezone we need the following: I. We concur with John Staton's letter dated April 19 regarding the threshold importance of completing the site testing to address the slope reduction FAR issue on your site. This is important for 2 reasons: (1) without proof otherwise, your survey indicates that 2,470 sf of lot area are in slopes of 30% or more and that the actual lot area as define by the code is 7,472sf. If this is true, even under R -6 zoning, you do not have enough lot area for 2 single family residences (minimum required is 4,500 sf/unit = 9,000 sf). (2) Also on this basis, under R -15, the allowable FAR on your lot would be 3,652 FARsf. You are representing in your application that you are allowed 4,145 FARsf, which is 493 more than allowed on this basis. 2. We need to see preliminary plans and elevations showing the building locations, massing, parking, entry and access, setbacks and roof forms you are proposing. Otherwise we feel there are too many unknowns. These drawings will make it much easier for the neighbors to support your application and will be useful formalizing your proposed deed restrictions. Such a development plan was also requested by the P &Z membersat the February 2, 2010 hearing. Pleasee let us know of your response to these requests in a timely manner so that we may move forward on your time flame.. Sin erely, Paul Y u ng cc: Jody Edwards Bart Johnson John Staton Neighbors of Shadow Mountain & Midland Trail 413 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, ASPEN, CO 81611 P96 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council October 27. 2009 Mayor Ireland called the continued meeting to order at 4:12 p.m. with Councilmembers Romero and Johnson present. RESOLUTION #89. SERIES OF 2009 — Code Interpretation Appeal — Man -made Landforrns Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council this is an appeal of a land use code interpretation made by the community development staff on lot area and man made land forms. Bendon said one of the tasks of the community development director is to interpret the land use code, which is a formal process at the request of an applicant. The interpretation affords the applicant the right to appeal the decision Bendon noted there is a section in the land use code that outlines the details and the time frames for code interpretations. Bendon explained this is because the code is not always clear, there are differences of opinion. This is a process of determining what the codes says. Bendon noted there are also conversations about what the code should say and there is a separate process for amending the land use code. Bendon reminded Council this appeal is of the record. Bendon said this interpretation deals with how man made landfonns affect development rights. Bendon said the city reduces development rights for conditions existing on a property, which comes down te'a calculation called lot area. Lot area is reduced for areas under high water, areas within former rights -of -way, and areas that are affected by slopes. This particular appeal is about slopes. Bendon said the definition of lot area mentions slopes, high water lines, rights -of -way. There is not a definition of slope, which is what this appeal comes down to, what is the meaning of slope. Bendon noted this interpretation cites a term that is defined, structure, which describes what can be constructed on one's site and one of those is a berm, which can be constructed on site. Technically a berm is a structure. Bendon said this interpretation allows the planning office to accept an assumed natural grade when there is clear evidence there is an unnatural condition. Bendon said property owners are allowed to go back to what was originally there prior to man having an affect • on site. Bendon said this particular appeal is in regard to 219 south Third, which had a lengthy review in front of Council. Hendon pointed out a portion of the property is impacted by a railroad right -of -way with a significant change in topography related to the railroad right-of-way on the south side of the property. Bendon said if the interpretation stands, it will allow the planning department to work with the land owner to come up with a pre - railroad grade which may add up to 500 square feet of additional floor area. Bendon told Council this interpretation could apply to many sites in town. There are two ways to look at this issue; one is the way in which the planning department has traditionally looked at this, to allow property owners to go back to a virgin landscape and assume the scope prior to the affect of man. The other is to look at the condition of the site right now, which includes all the things that have happened to the site. Bendon said property owners could change their landscape and flatten out steep topography in order to increase the development rights. Bendon stated - there are several places in the land use code where that activity is specifically prohibited. 1 P97 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council October 27, 2009 The best example is height which is measured to a natural or developed grade, the lower of the two. A property owner cannot mound up their property in order to develop and increase the allowable heights. Bendon said this is an example of not allowing property owners to affect their property in order to increase development rights. Bendon noted there ate 3 standards.on which Council needs make their decision; these are contained in the code. The standards are whether-.there was a denial of due process, - the administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction, or -the administrative body abused its discretion. Bendon said due process is about the process up to this point issuing this opinion. Bendon reiterated the land use code describes as one of the tasks of the community development director to issue interpretations. Bendon stated whether the administrative body abused its discretion is the heart of this discussion. Bendon noted the community development director needs to use discretion when faced with terms that are not defined, one needs to look to other terms in the code and use judgment in rendering an interpretation. Bendon told Council his interpretation is consistent with how the city has applied the issue of manmade topography in the past and is a technical analysis of the terms in the code, what other terms that can be relied on, the history of the policy and the analysis of the effects of various decisions. There is a resolution to support the decision of staff and one to overturn that decision. If Council overturns the interpretation, they will need to set out policy going forward. John Worcester, city attorney, told Council the appellant has stated there was an abuse of discretion not a violation of due process so Council can focus on that standard. Worcester pointed out a decision of the administrative body that is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority is an abuse of discretion. Worcester said Council must determine whether Bendon's determination was a proper one, whether they agree with it is not relevant. Council should not determine whether the decision was correct but only whether it was an abuse of discretion, a violation of due process or exceeding one's jurisdiction. Jody Edwards stated his is withdrawing the second appeal. Edwards said he will focus on definition of lot area. Edwards said the appellants have no complaints regarding due process or concerning jurisdiction or ethical behavior. The only basis for the appeal is whether the community development director abused his discretion by reading words into the code that are not presently there. Edwards pointed out page 3 of staffs memo and quoted "the_question in a code interpretation is what doetthesode say" not what should the code say. The memorandum points out the appropriate venue for what the code should say are a code amendment through that process. This appeal is only looking at what the code does say. Edwards said practically, the public has to be able to read the code, to read the law, and to know what it means. The public should not have to imagine what words should be added or subtracted to meet the desires of the governing body. Edwards noted people „o erned by what the law says, not what people believe it should say even if one does not agree. The principle is wit at the law says; the fundamental rule of statutory interpretation is that if the law is clear as written, then no interpretation is necessary. 2 P98 Continued MeetinE Aspen City Council October 27, 2009 Edwards noted Courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says. Edwards noted the defmition of "lot area" in the code which states "areas with slopes of greater than 30% shall be excluded ". Edwards said this is a simple statement with no ambiguity. It does not matter whether the slope was created by the formation of the Rocky Mountains, by a mudslide or by a group of men building a railroad. No distinctions are made by the language in the code and making any distinctions is to add language to the code. Edwards said if the lack of language results in hardships, a land owner can appeal to the Board of Adjustment or appeal to Council to amend the code. Edwards stated it is an abuse of discretion for staff to add words to the code that are not there, such as man made or natural. Edwards said in the interpretation, staff expresses concern that a property owner could regrade steep slopes in a benched or terrace fashion and increase the allowable floor area on the site. Edwards pointed out the city's code states anything other than Landscaping is defined as development and therefore requires a permit. Any such permit could be granted with a note that it is not granting additional floor area. Edwards said staff and the attorney for the owner at 219 S. Third street state that staff previously interpreted the term slope so as to not include man made slopes. Edwards said this provides a course of conduct, it does not justify the interpretation. Edwards stated the fact that there have been informal, unappealed staff determinations that man made slopes are excluded from the deductions from lot area does not justify further areas in the applications of what is clear and simple language. Edwards pointed out in the memo the community development director notes that other provisions of the code do not allow a property owner to artificially elevate the land to increase heights or to add a vacated right -of -way to lot area in order to increase floor area and the code does not penalize a lot owner by reducing area lot area for dedicated public trails. Each of these assertions is correct and is provided for with existing language in the code. The code specifically states that height is to be measured from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower at any point around the perimeter of the building. The definition of lot area specifically excludes areas that are vacated rights -of -way and specifically includes trails. Edwards said this is different from the present case where language states steep slopes are to be excluded. Edwards noted staff believes that means "natural terrain prior to being affected by development ", which language does not appear in the code. Edwards said the measurement for height, natural or finished, is covered in the code but slopes are not which indicates that slopes, manmade or natural, should be excluded from lot area. Edwards reiterated the issue is what the code says; not what it should say. The code contains a clear statement that slopes in excess of 30% must be excluded from lot area for purposes of calculating floor area with no qualifiers like natural or man made. Mayor Ireland said the suggestion by Edwards is that the people who created the code intended a one -way effect on development, to decrease a property's developability by putting a berm on it but one cannot increase by flattening it. Edwards told Council that is not what he is saying; he asserts that slope is slope. Councilman Romero asked if staff 3 P99 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council October 27, 2009 has had code interpretations relating to slope and calculating lot area. Bendon said not regarding slope. Councilman Romero said in calculating lot areas, staff has treated man made forms as part of the lot on which to calculate floor area. Councilman Romero noted there is an operating precedence but no actual interpretation or appeal. Bart Johnson, representing the owner of 219 South Third subject of the appeal, noted Council asked if there was any evidence of legislative intent. Johnson pointed out staff wrote that Council minutes from hearing on this provision do not reference slope and staff believes that by slope the drafters meant the natural terrain prior to being affected by development. There is in the record a statement of what staff believes what the intent was. Johnson clarified there is one official request for interpretation on this issue, which did not result in an official interpretation from staff. Johnson said this request was made in 2006 by the owner of the property at the southwest corner of Midland Avenue and east Hopkins and is referenced in the record. Johnson provided materials that show the applicant was permitted to move forward based on interpolated natural slopes. There is some precedence that that policy goes back years. (Councilman Skadron came into the meeting) Johnson said slope is not defined in the city's land use code. The land use code does have rules of construction, 26.104.080 which states when a word or phrase has acquired a technical or particular meaning whether by ordinance, definition or otherwise, it should be construed accordingly. Johnson said in this case, it is clear through prior interpretation and staff policy, the term slope has acquired a particular meaning — natural slopes prior to man's interference with them. Johnson said the code also provides when one is reading the code, one has to read all provisions as a whole to fulfill legislative intent. Johnson said the logical conclusion of Edwards' argument is that slope is a forever changing thing and what matters is the slope that exists on a site the day of applying for a building permit. Johnson pointed out the city code does not prohibit interference with slopes in the 20 -30% zone. The county code has a provision that one cannot modify slopes; there is nothing in the city code that would present someone walking in with a building permit for earthmoving and flatten out their complete site to maximize their site before applying for a building permit. Johnson said that is not the intent of the city code. Johnson said the community development director needs to be able to read some common sense into the code and Council should follow his interpretation that slope must have meant the naturatland forms that existed. Johnson said the argument against that is that in granting a permit for grading, a condition could be attached stating the land can be re- graded but not to the benefit of the property owner. Johnson stated there is no authority in the city's code to place that type of condition on a grading permit. The community development director should be allowed to interpret slope to mean natural landforms and to read the code in a larger context. John Worcester, city attorney, said Councilman Skadron should not participate unless the rarties waive that. Johnson stated they would prefer the Councilmembers present for the entire argument r ^c pate. 4 41 -00 v_..._...__ .- Continued Meeting Aspen City Council October 27, 2009 Councilman Romero asked about the reference to general rules of construction. Johnson said that refers to principles used to interpret the code. Councilman Romero asked for an explanation of "acquired a meaning ". Johnson quoted from Section 26.104.080(a) general rules of construction and application, `words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by ordinance definition or otherwise, shall be construed and applied accordingly ". Johnson argued that the term slope is not defined in the code and one needs to look outside the code unless there is a clearly defined common - meaning that is undisputable. The code's rules of construction also state that words should be given their plain meaning. Johnson said the term slope is questionable about what it means; it can be a technical term, and it is not defined in the city code. Johnson said he read the general rules of construction and then tried to determine how to figure out what slopes means. The community development director is charged with interpreting the city code. Johnson noted that state statute also says the person charged with enforcing the code is given the task of interpreting it. Johnson said he looked into how the community development department has interpreted slope in the past. Johnson said he found that the term slope has been defined for the property at Hopkins and Midland Avenue, that slope means the natural terrain not manmade terrain. Otherwise one would end up with constantly changing landscape and people can regrade their lots. Mayor Ireland said if the assertion is that slope is natural terrain prior to man's action, the question is when, when does land acquire its natural terrain. Johnson said "when" is when humans starting developing in Aspen's townsite. Johnson said for this particular lot, it can be pinpointed to when the railroad came into Aspen, about 1889. The city's engineer has concluded, based on investigation of the site, that it is a manmade landform. Johnson stated his argument is not that manmade landforms should be excluded but that Chris Hendon, community development department, did not abuse his discretion in reaching his conclusion. Johnson pointed out in order for Council to reverse the interpretation, they have to find there is no evidence to support his conclusion. Mayor Ireland asked how much of the berm is manmade. Johnson said they do not know that. Mayor Ireland said there is nothing in the record to show that all or part of this berm did not exist and it is reasonable to assume that if a railroad is being built, one would put it where the natural land forms support it. Johnson said this case is about how one interprets the land use code and beyond that, the separate issue is how the land code is enforced. Johnson said his client will submit information that provides evidence on what is natural and what is manmade in this berm. Johnson noted the city engineer pointed out it may be necessary to do borings in this -area. Mayor Ireland said he believes every body of law requires interpretation because words change in meaning and use over time. Councilman Johnson asked if the community development director has discretion in interpreting the land use code. Worcester said he does have discretion; there is a section of the land use code giving the director the 5 PTDI - -_ Continued Meetina Aspen City Council October 27, 2009 authority and anyone can ask the director to make a land use code interpretation to help them in their planning. Edwards said it is a stretch to state that the word "slope" has acquired a meaning when there are one or two instances where this has been interpreted to be man made_ Edwards said that has not acquired a meaning in the community at large or among the land use community. Edwards said the "when" issue is important because slopes will change both by man made and by natural changes, like avalanches, earth, mud, earthquakes. Edwards asserted it should be the slope as existed at the time the code was adopted, which time makes sense. Edwards said there is the question of what is natural and what is man made. Edwards said the community development director and city engineer went to the site; the engineer said it is probably man made but to know for sure, test borings have to be done. Councilman Johnson noted staffs memo states, the slope has been altered from its original condition; why then are boring samples necessary. Bendon said that will address what the natural slope is, that the berm is constructed, how far down the man made slope is. Councilman Romero said he is not sufficiently swayed by the arguments that the community development director stepped outside his realm of discretion in performing the duties of reasonable interpretation. Councilman Romero said although there is only one decision in the record regarding this issue, there is a historical common application of the code, specifically to grades and the motion of pre - existing "natural" grades and slopes. Councilman Romero said the measurement for heights between pre- existing and reconstruction is in the code, which is reference for the construction industry and has acquired meaning and this indicates the community development director stayed within his realm in rendering his decision, taking in precedence and taking the entire land use code to apply a reasonable result. Councilman Romero said the community development director did not violate his discretion. Councilman Johnson said the community development director has, as one of his duties, the task of interpreting the code and has discretion to do that. Councilman Johnson said there will always be things in the code that are not clear. Councilman Johnson stated the community development director has not abused his discretion. Mayor Ireland proposed this be modified to incorporate the principle that it is the burden of the applicant to show what the original natural slope was and in the absence of that showing, the natural slope is what one sees. The applicant should have the opportunity through a public process what that man made portion is. Mayor Ireland said he would like this modified that it is the burden of the applicant to reasonably show to what degree the original slope was. Mayor Ireland said that should be a public hearing where evidence can be presented. Worcester said the motion to approve the resolution should be arnended in the 4 WHERAS clause "the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument G P102 Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council October 27, 2009 from counsel for the appellant, counsel for the owners of the subject property and the community development director and has found that the director provided due process and neither exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authority in rendering the interpretation ". Councilman Romero moved to .adopt Resolution #89, Series of 2009, with the amendment outlined above; seconded by Councihnan Johnson. Mayor Ireland said the code needs to be amended in the future to know when the natural grade was so the community knows from when this is dated. All in favor, motion carried. Bendon said staff needs to see reasonable and credible information provided by the applicant to determine what is man made and what is natural. This can be soil borings, site inspection or technical information. That is the burden of the applicant to provide these and to make an argument to staff. Bendon said this can include old surveys, old flyovers, or a report from a geotechnical engineer. Johnson requested clarification that this is to be done in a public hearing process. Johnson said this can be done with staff in the building permit process. Bendon said there is no remaining public process on this property. Mayor Ireland said the Council has been asked to grant variations and exceptions. Bendon noted that process is concluded. Councilman Romero said this is now back to normal course of business within the land use code. Councilman Romero agreed the applicant_will submit technical and reasonable evidence to the community development department. This will not come back to Council for a public process. Councilman Romero moved to adjourn at 5:25 p.m.; seconded b Mayor Ireland. All in favor, motion carried. AL. agar Ka . ' . Koch, City Clerk 7 P103 Jake Vickery Architect 202 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 309 -7722 jakevickery@comcast.net March 7, 2011 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen RE: REZONE AND MAP AMMENDMENT FOR 219 SOUTH 3" STREET — FOSTER Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, I have been retained to advise the neighbors on this matter. The neighbors continue to care deeply about property: 3 major impacts of the proposed rezone and development under R6 of this 1. Setback, architectural massing and height, and entry and service activity on the alley side 2. Rear yard open space 3. Increased construction impacts Other things may crop up as the conversation progresses, but if these things can be successfully addressed then the neighbors seem open to withdrawing their opposition to the rezone. A deed restriction and development agreement have been offered to memorialize any agreement. In review of the applicant's recently submitted drawings, there are 2 big issues that are still unresolved by the applicant that have a major effect on the impacts of the proposed rezone and development under R6: 1. Formal determination and certification of `original grade" if it is to be different than "existing grade ". The burden of proof is on the applicant. Until this is completed, the current survey stands and the slope reduction of lot area and maximum allowable FARsf remain in force. This has two important effects on the plans: a. Maximum FAR is currently set be code at 3642sf for this property in the R6 zone. We anticipate that the applicant may gain between 100sf— 494sf of additional FAR from the slope reduction testing. b. Lot size of this property is 9,942 sf. Lot area is currently determined by applicant's survey to be 7,472sf. This is less than the 9,000 needed for 2 detached houses in R6. We anticipate that the applicant may gain between 500sf — 2470sf of additional site area from the slope reduction testing. 2. The unit floor plans from the applicant will need to be reduced by 600 FARsf (plans currently show approximately 4,740 FARsf) to reflect deletion of the carriage house bonus. Please note: Site coverage also appears to exceed the allowable by approximately 450 sf for this property in R6 zone. We are somewhat encouraged by the applicant's current efforts and believe that resolution of remaining issues may be possible if we can work together. Sincerely, Jake Vickery Jake Vickery P104 March 7, 2011 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Re- hearing of Re -zone request, 219 South Third St. (Suzanne Foster) Dear Members: The subject matter of this letter is applicant Foster's repeated use and reference to the term "detached" duplex. I have not been able to find this term in the Aspen Land Use Code or related building guidelines. Indeed, the web.Princeton.edu definition of a duplex is "a house with 2 units sharing a COMMON wall." Mrs. Foster, the applicant, marketed the 219 South Third St. property as a Morris & Fyrwald /Sotheby's listing in mid 2010. (See listing offer attachment). Mrs. Foster's schematic design used in this listing very clearly shows 2 detached dwellings which is not permitted in the current R15 zone! This misrepresentation of fact to a potential buyer continues to be of concern for several reasons. One of the most egregious to the neighborhood is that Mrs. Foster also offered in this listing to "develop remaining half of duplex" i.e, [either Unit A or Unit B) at different construction times. Of particular concern to the neighborhood is the possibility of Unit A (closest to Third St) being developed before and not at the same time as Unit B (dead end alley Unit). This dead end alley to the west, the Midland Trail and its pedestrian users to the south, the historic log cabin property and residences to the north, encumbered by an already constructed Unit A on Third St to the east would create a construction "bottleneck" of the first order! There has been NO community outreach from Mrs. Foster since filing this re- hearing of re -zone request on December 2, 2010. On behalf of what is in the best interest of the neighborhood as a whole, I respectfully request that any future development /construction by the applicant at 219 South Third St. be accomplished in one orderly construction phase and be legally formalized along with any other deed restrictions if she is to be granted a re -zone to R6. Respectfully submitted, Angela Yo ung / 413 W. Hopkins Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 attachments P105 orris & Sotheby ,a : crIc ynv d , La•efCNAL RLA ,T 1 'IC'E info - once 1 Our Properties I .tI, Prcp °rties 1 E ro l. I - - per Y ,.r' r k, } _ `! ., : . w . Yr � ;CI; -.�,� „1 �- ''- w -AJ.q ?aft # "r'._ y ' w,s,ce. i #t � .s f # € #it Y _ fir.. -eSGr IL 7, 7 _._____-_ , :_____ : _-- # 3_ � , { ----_---- l + �iq , _ or. "4 i 1" -i � l r r S]tf ny 5 r a F s I r F E v.. 1 „L c am . _ ; . l e I ^:< nm F =. J i_ P106 - ¶orris S • Sotheby's 1 y-r„ald ..4.— Cr+.:sc I I I r " . `' , a c 1 } . . .– mss{ 1 }� - `=^ F;j >4 � ^... -4. A ` mom r r ,�,: ; ice s . ? ' h j . i , � J � • ki r 1, Eli C P _ - ' r I , ? y, m � 2 _ i J 1 �,v ;ci ;. - ' .s. i1 =� 1;4"..41`.',- _4A... Lz J .4' r :Y-'. ` _.".- ._:r�c . — . r �&' `4 S S , _ a ". z ..2th u, 34 , r _ it w = ,. — _ _ :672 . - ^ -i r0.' z r. < k fib ' r a . - _ .-, L L 4- p �, - 1 .4 a 2 .( �i O S e fiES; E t 3 i c t1 1 ON0j3 . j = i " $ �l - g F 1SOHOJ3SS t 3 +�0 • - 2 a3SS _J 1 3. -- 3 ----3 � 3 (, E 3 ° \ - 1 S ONpJ3S s:: � � i 7 ( C S C rl .. , HQ : =. . / 'IX ., - / i c -___„, I • 1 i ;,,,, . / t er 7;: 7 ' , L CO U / F---.4 , i` .a • ji ! j � \ o eF r c 3 < @ , 1 s va s N I f ° al p s o N ifir 1 41 filio. ),-- ----- / .. / ''''' , . : I : ' " ._ [ -- , -__I r i _ ..._., , is. , ______, _....,,_____,,,,, kissaH.c)* a 9 - , A _ i C� ° = m o m Klanod s _ any s ._ 1S Hl � ®� .- -. z e e • 214 4 ay I m A § 12 1 r-- m 2 " P108 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF 219 SOUTH THIRD STREET, OPPOSE THE UPZONE OF THIS PROPERTY FROM R15 TO R6. WE OPPOSE THE INCREASED DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SEPARATE HOMES, AS PROPOSED, THE REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND INCREASED IMPACTS ON THE DEAD -END ALLEY AND THE MIDLAND TRAIL. NAME • ADDRESS a / {c = A ' ! '�'Zgrlk y/ 7/ <��L , CCf-1 /,, 0 14 r L`, IUN 93 0 - 14 {-(u Pk- ,1 5 t L Liesi 1 ---(0Yk ,1 A v L ___42 7 ,C,....„ li k4-t,iccsc-pcs ik%-Y- - �,1�,, / '/,/, 3 , i. }�y nn aN f�v� i cy w7�z i "Z 2 i 10. *Wit 41.z 3 4 13 5 3- 5/ Lij -�,�i 1 1 3 S 3'- 5 f-- ,,,,, -,7-7 Ail i\i\-/I'l,i( - 1 1/V 7L 1/4471-- '46 . affiel:— .c t.....-ky- 0 \ . J J AI '23. 1-k o ne ` -_-,, f".__ c,:c /7 D4) J In W toP((r 4 /6/ ) 2. / _C . r � c ,. _ . _I. -- . Pik `� vL/#ns.,l FEB OZ, 2010 Oh: %Or 000 -000 -00000 F M M 9 1 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF 219 SOUTH THIRD SKEET. OPPOSE THE UP'LONE:OF TH IS PROPERTY FROM R15 TO R6. WE OPPOSE THE INCREASED DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SEPARATE HOMES, AS PROPOSED, THE REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND INCREASED IMPACTS ON THE DEAD - END ALLEY AND THE MIDLAND TRAIL. O NAME / ADDRESS / p e CSC II r 5 d u — . 5-nd v 2>74--- P110 Conclusion We believe that a re-zoning of 219 S. Third Street to R- 6 zoning fulfills the following goals: 1. R-6 brings parcel into conformity 2. R -6 allows for the development of two smaller detached structures instead of one longer, larger single building mass. 3. R -6 decreases allowable FAR by 10'. 4. R -6 allows better views of Shadow Mountain for the neighborhood through separated building mass. 5. R -6 allows less impact on hiking trail views through separated building mass 6. R-6 allows less impact on wildlife and allows wildlife and neighborhood pets a more natural movement on this parcel through separated building mass. 7. R -6 allows for improved now storage between the detached structures_ 8. R - zoning has a 10' front yard set back. The existing structure has a non - conforming 10' front yard set back R -6 zoning aligns any new structure with the existing log cabin on the block (which has a conforming 10' side yard set back) creating a unified streetscape (see exhibit 9, Page 30). R -15 would push any new construction back 25 feet creating a disjointed streetscape. Unified streetscapes are in keeping with Aspen's Residential Design Standards. 9. Recent changes in the neighborhood - including R -6 re- zoning for the Boomerang parcel on nearby West Hopkins, which resulted in three smaller detached dwellings instead of one larger duplex or single family home; the completion of a new two story modest sized single family home at 218 S. Third Street, which replaced a single story cabin; and the completion of a two story structure at 413 W. Hopkins, which replaced a single story cabin -have helped redefine the neighborhood and are consistent with two smaller R -6 zoned structures rather than one larger R -15 structure. 10. There are no known adverse affects from re- zoning and no known increased demand Oil services. -( LI C ATS (CNCLUJ cm 1 C5P, IN AL- - P? LC C ATieN FOT, 2 g010 P111 LC( Akk?:= Mad -- C.A. &.\— . ITO: ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION a / / �� �� FROM: JAKE VICKERY, ARCHITECT, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSULTANT RE: 219 SOUTH THIRD ST. — REZONE REQUEST A) AND REBUTTAL TO APPLICATION, STAFF FINDINGS (EXHIBIT STANDARDS OF REVIEW 1 -31 -10 JHV REBUTTAL TO APPLICATION The applicant states she is seeking an upzone of the property to do the following: 1. Make the lot "conform" in terms of size and intended use a. Size: The Land Use Code provisions for both the R -15 and the R-6 zone districts contemplate and have explicit provisions for a spectrum of substandard sized pre - existing lots. All of these substandard sized lots are legitimatized by the fact that they existed prior to the enactment of the zoning code and are therefore technically conforming. The provisions of minimum lot size pertain principally to the creation of new lots and lot splits. There are many substandard sized lots in both zones. b. Use: The applicant has the option to create a single family residence here and thereby bring the use on this property into conformity with the existing zone. She is trying to parlay a non - conforming use into a higher level of non- conformity by creating two residences that are not currently allowed in the e xisting R -15 zone. The attempt to legitimatize a pre- existing use by upzone is inappropriate. c. Shape: The lot is an atypical, irregularly shaped lot that tapers to 47 feet toward the rear and is substantially impacted by 30% slopes, especially on the rear (west end) of the property where she proposes a second single family residence. d. Open n Lot: The size of the structure is similar in both zones (approximately 4,140 sf). The biggest difference between R -15 and R -6 zones is the amount of open area left on the lot Per R-15: there would be at least 11,000 sf of open area Per R -6 there would be only 2 -3000 sf of open area. 2. Create 2 smaller single family structures rather than a duplex a. Placing a second single family residence behind a front residence in an inferior position is an inappropriate development strategy which is in direct and clear conflict with Section 26.410.040 of the Aspen Land Use Code, "Residential Design Standards ". It does not support "Resign Quality" required by that chapter of 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). J. Aough the applicant is not committing to any development plan or development agreemetl, she has proposed 2 scenarios as "examples " - a worse case per R -15 (page 20) and a best case per R-6 (page 21). Both of these examples are in severe non - compliance and conflict with "Residential Design Standards ". The rear or westerly residence does not P112 C. We believe that the construction of an appropriately designed, medium sized residence similar to others in the immediate vicinity on this lot is the development scenario most compatible with the immediate neighborhood and would conform to the requirements of the R -15 zone district, Section 26.410.040, and the intent and provisions of the 2000 AACP listed above. If a new duplex is to be built, a side by side duplex with both units oriented toward Third Street would also comply and be a good member of the neighborhood. We heartily disagree with the applicant's statement on page 24 that there is "no significant change in the look of the streetscape will be achieved by allowing a 10' front yard setback. Clearly a 25' setback provides additional landscaped area to the streetscape. The next door property to the north, 211 S. Third St, has an approximate 25' setback and further supports the same 25' setback for any new construction at 219 S. Third Street This 25' streetscape is in keeping with the AACP and Design Guidelines. D. It is required and preferable to place all entry activity to both units (if a duplex) directly from Third Street and reserve the alley for typical alley functions of garage access and services. This includes front door, porches; etc_ This reduces noise and congestion impacts on the neighbors. E. Placement of the units side by side and visible from the street is preferable from a police, fire, and security access. F. The penetration of development deep into the property destroys open area for animals and amenities for the users of the Midland RR trail. Primary development on the property should be held forward on the site and connected to the street G. As mentioned in A & B above the proposed development is in marked conflict with the community character. Please refer A & B above. IL There has been no significant change to the immediate vicinity of this property to support any change in zoning. The existing neighborhood has enjoyed equilibrium for a long time with recent new construction being . sensitive to and consistent with the immediate context. Placing a house on the rear of the property is intrusive and unnecessary and undesirable and does not support the community's best interest. Open areas on lots serve to link and mitigate overcrowding. All of the neighbors agree and oppose this rezone and development with a tandem house. There is no compelling reason to cha ge this balance for this individual parcel simply for the increased economic benefit of this one property owner. Specific rebuttals follow: a. The houses on the Boomerang parcel (south side of Hopkins) all directly face the street and consist of affordable housing and a duplex. b. The new small house at 218 S. Third is an infill unit that faces the street on the back of a corner lot c. This is a medium sized house on a 75 foot wide lot which faces the skeet I. Again, referring to the points made above, the proposed amendment and development is in marked conflict with the public interest, the Land Use Code, and the Design Character section of the AACP. The immediate neighborhood will not be improved by this map amendment and, in fact, will be negatively impacted. P113 have a relationship to the street, no street frontage, and does not provide a street facing entry, a primary window, a porch and/or one story form facing the street, or secondary mass requirements. Clearly the intent of this Section and the Neighborhood Character Guidelines (HIPC) for Shadow Mountain Neighborhood are in conflict. A side by side duplex is mandated by the shape of this lot. This use is not allowed under current R -15 for this lot because it would impart a privileged benefit to this property owner. This use is in direct conflict with section 26. c. The applicant is seeking to benefit from the bonus allowed for historic preservation without preservation of the existing structure. 3. Reduce the front yard setback a. Reducing the front yard to the 10' minimum allowed in the R -6 zone on this lot will provide less yard and landscaped area on the front of the property and diminish its contribution to the streetscape and "public realm ". b. The combined side yard setback in the R -6 zone (approximately 35' for this lot) begins to make a successful side by side unit development more difficult. 4. In summary, the property should remain in the R -15 zone and be developed as a side by side duplex with both units having the required and desirable street presence and character elements. SPECIFIC REBUTTAL TO STANDARDS OF REVIEW Regarding applicant's statements on pages 24 -26 of the applicant's packet and the staff findings listed in Exhibit A of staffs memo for this project: A. The upzone and proposed development as shown on pages 21&22 (as well as page 20) of the applicant's packet is in direct conflict with Section 26.410.010 and 26.410.040 of the Aspen Land Use Code including but not limited to the following: 1. Each home shall contribute to the streetscape and neighborhood character 2. Street oriented entry 3. Principle street facing window 4. Covered entry porch 5. First story element 6. Inflection B. The upzone and proposed development as shown on page 21 &22 (as well as page 20) of the applicant's packet is in direct conflict with the Design Quality of the AACP (Maintaining community Character and Design )and the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines namely: "Promote a standard of design that is of the highest quality and is compatible with historic features of the community and the environment." P114 All of the surrounding property owners oppose this rezone and all feel it is an unwarranted and inappropriate change. It creates more problems than it solves. TO 'q7215275747 P.5 P 1 15 HIY 1J bb: LMH FKUI`I: ■ 1 514'50'49'W 47.00' __ I _ rr 1 / / _ 1 b I I I 1 i I It 4 I / t 1 to -oy , l 5 1 � • i. Iy p� I O/ til 1 221 I p / I t o t “! 1 La/ - / p / R I I 1 1 I LL 1 1 1 W D h 1 1/ 1.1\::,:i. 1 5 1 I / / Iiii en i i , , , o` i y O I W -` I 1 / D- l 4i. / 1. i l t > I i 1 I h-"- -? 2 4 I I Iri VS / c I 1 31 g I I I °I z l EXISTING LOT g 1 1 1 (PROPOSED F.A.R.= 4.145 sq -ft N 7 I - -- EMS flNL PROPERTY LINE (TTP.1 L_ "_ - _� -_ - -_ N 14'50'49 "E ?S.DD' - -_ —__ EDGE OF PAVEMENT 1 SOUTH THIRD STREET _ - - -_ - - " -" DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT PLAN V Nfl .(-2_ A -la S�LE.1i7m-I_D FOSTER R -i5" tont n DATE: 10 -to -D9 219 53RD STREET, ASPEN CO 87611 n a C `l C) r k' a 2i � \,c (�V \C) V. L 4 A . I P116 TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission - 312/977 V -eGVb V■.` FROM: Paul Young Family RE: 219 S. Third St re -zone application REBUTTAL TO APPLICANT'S 10 POINTS AS FOUND ON PAGE 29 OF APPLICATION: 1. CONFORMITY is not the issue today. The goal of the developer is to increase development to medium residential density. If conformity was the goal, the developer could build a single - family residence, abide by the 25' front yard setback requirement which would bring the parcel into conformity. • 2. Within our block all four properties have R -15 zoning and to grant R -6 allows TWO structures instead of one structure. All four of these immediate neighbors, as well as others are in opposition to this isolated re- zoning application. R -15 zoning requires a lot size of 30,000 sq.ft. for two detached dwellings: THREE TIMES the amount of land that the applicant owns. There is a strong and compelling reason why Aspen's zoning officials zoned our block R -15. It was to establish a maximum transition between more densely populated areas such as found in R -6 and the historic Midland Trail, and in this case, Shadow Mountain which is R -15. 3. NON -ISSUE 4. This is just not TRUE. We, the neighbors, are the best judges of this. ONE structure instead of TWO structures allows for the better view. Two structures, as proposed, have a larger building envelope which decreases the open space. The applicant has presented the worst case scenario for the proposed structure in the current R -15 and the best case scenario for their proposed R -6. This is a mute point since the Fosters can completely re- design any and everything if re- zoning is granted by City Council. The solution would be to NOT grant approval of a change to R -6 and for the developer to join the two structures with a common wall, making it a duplex, orientated to Third St. allowing for the required 25' front yard setback and adding additional back yard for snow storage. 5. The above stated in #4 truly allows better views and imposes less impact for Midland Trail users, as well as neighbors: David Bentley, Young's, Callahan's and John Stators 6. Wildlife authorities refer to this as the "Zone of Influence." Two separate buildings allow for a larger Zone of Influence which is, in actuality, a greater detriment to wildlife than the lesser zone created by ONE structure. 7. No, what allows for improved snow storage is if the original duplex is demolished, to rebuild with a single -family residence which would be consistent with the surrounding properties especially since this lot is located on a dead -end alley with no actual street frontage. Neighbors should not have to suffer the negative impacts and associated problems caused by a P117 re -zone to R -6 that creates over - development and results in safety and parking issues. 8. Another negative to re- zoning to R -6 is that it allows a minimum 10' front yard setback. Mrs. Foster turned down the HPC designation that allowed for only a 10' setback from Third St. that did not align with the historic miner's cabin at 211 S. Third St. It should be noted that the Foster's existing structure has a conforming 27' front yard setback as delineated by Amy Guthrie, since the front of the structure is oriented to Shadow Mountain. A required 25' front yard setback for the new structure would be in keeping with the other R -15 structures in the block, with the exception being the historic log cabin located at 205 S. Third Steet David Bentley's historic designated home next door has an approximate25' front yard setback that supports the same 25' setback with any new structure at 219 S. Third, creating a better, more unified streetscape which is in keeping with Aspen's Residential Design Standards, as well as the AACP. 9. Our home at 413 W. Hopkins was consistent with neighbors' properties and developed to R -15 standards that allowed for a duplex or a single - family residence. The neighboring parcels are already developed to R- 15 standards or historic designated standards, and it is unfair and inconsistent to allow this property owner, the last to develop in the neighborhood, to develop to a higher level. Why should these neighbors have to suffer the over - development impacts of two detached homes instead of one so this applicant can make more money? The Aspen City Council has already determined that two units on this property is too much development for this site as proposed in this application. After turning down historic designation, Mrs. foster still wants one of the major benefits of HPC designation -- -two single family residences!! This, without the corresponding trade -offs of historic designation. 10. The adverse effects from re- zoning to R -6 are numerous and negatively impact the right of way, front yard setback and amounts to nothing more than PRIVATIZING THE PUBLIC DOMAIN! A variance from the standard R- 15 front yard setback is an example of privatizing the public domain. This is a public privilege and priority worth preserving and protecting from encroachment and is in keeping with Aspen Area Community Plan. The public trail users and neighbors urge P & Z to protect our neighborhood and public spaces and NOT APPROVE a re -zone to R -6 that would create greater density and over- development at the base of Shadow Mountain. THANK YOU P 1 1 H KING & SPALDING LLP 15:09:40 02 -07 -2010 7 t3 404 577 5134 king & spalding Ilp RING & SPALDING King & Spalding LLP 1 l00 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta. Georgia 30309 -3521 wvnv.kslaw.com John C. Staton Retired Partner • Direct Dial: (4044) 5724985 Direct Fax: (404) 572 -5134 jstaton(a?.lsl aw.com • February 2, 2010 • • Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen, Colorado Re: 217 & 219 S. Third Street Proposed Rezoning - R15 to R6 • Ladies and Gentlemen: 1. My name is John Staton. I am the owner of the house at 431 W. Hopkins (comer of 4 Street). I have owned this property since November, 1993. 2. Applicant has been unsuccessful during the past year in obtaining a historic designation for this property including overly aggressive FAR's. 3. Applicant now seeks to obtain similar relief by coming through the backdoor with a request for a zoning change. • • 4. Applicant was well aware of the zoning in the neighborhood when she purchased the - Third Street property. 5. The burden is on Applicant to conclusively show that zoning change would not adversely impact the neighborhood. Applicant tries to address this issue by saying that changed conditions over the last number of years support their amendment. 6. The three changed conditions Applicant refers to (Paragraph 14, Page 26) do not support their amendment: A. The Boomerang mountainside was zoned to R -6 based on negotiations between . the neighbors and Charlie Patterson, owner of the Boomerang. The initial project had underground parking and other changes that would protect the neighborhood. It should also be noted that the proposed buildings would only impact the P119 9 & 401 572 5134 kin s aldin II KING & SPALDING LLP 15:09:59 02 -02 -2010 3 /3 P 9 P Planning and Zoning Commission • February 2, 2010 Page 2 Boomerang and not the other neighbors. Further, the access was West Hopkins, not an alley. B. The house at 219 S. Third Street was an original house that predated Aspen zoning. The new house has the Same footprint as the original house and its line of sight is blocked by the St. Moritz and condos on West Hopkins as it has been since the St. Moritz was built. C. The house at 413 S. Hopkins (Applicant has the wrong address. The house is at 413 W. Hopkins and is my next door neighbor). This house was built according to the zoning code and without any variances. . 7. Summary a. Applicant was aware of the R -15 zoning when the lot was purchased. b. Applicant's filing materials don't support a zoning change. c. The Planning and Zoning Commission should REJECT Applicant's request. Respectfully submitted, John C. Staten, Jr. 431 W. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado JCS /ds • • P120 February 2, 2010 The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 219 SOUTH THIRD STREET APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE FROM R -15 TO R -6 Dear Commission members, We write this third letter (HPC, March 10, 2009 and City Council, August 7, 2009) to again express our concerns regarding development plans at 219 South Third Street, this time in regard to the request for rezoning. As the Board of the 1,000+ member "Friends of Shadow Mountain" organization, we are concerned about the request to increase the zoning and build -out of this lot adjacent to the historic Midland Trail. Zoning all along the trail is at a lower density to provide a zone of transition from the higher density urban lots to the wilderness of Shadow Mountain. The lower zoning provides a necessary transition to a popular trail and valued open space. We respectfully request any development on land adjoining the trail to adhere to the full and complete setbacks. With any approval, please include planting requirements to screen the development from the trail and restore any vegetation that may have been cleared from the trail. A "star - friendly" lighting plan is urged, which would require all outside lighting to point downward, so as not to interfere with the night time sky. We suggest appropriate consideration for wildlife, since bears live near -by. Any new development, including this one, must not diminish the community investment and ongoing efforts to maintain and enhance the Midland Trail and Shadow Mountain Open Space. Sincerely, FRIENDS OF SHADOW MOUNTAIN Board member / Carol Blomquist ;4,/ - ' Donna Fisher Fonda Paterson Martha Madsen I / I j Michael Behrendt / / r e,' nr rif4' P121 • March 10, 2009 Mb: Sara Adams Aspen 1 iIs;cric Pra ac radon Cornm;ssbn Re: 219 S. Third Street, Aspen, CO petition S E�uiol: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 Dear Historic Preservation Commission members: As you review the Third Street development appllcabon, please consider all possible negative ramincatlons it will have on an Important Aspen miring at landmark. The historic 1880'SMldiand railroad right - of - way Is a success story of converting "rails to balls. Together with the Rlo Grande railroad right -err -way on the north side of Aspen, It is the southern half in Fritz oencdces " necdace trail system encircling Aspen," envisioned and advocated by trim. HIS vision, along with Al Bloornquirs and others, helped Aspen lay the foundation for this trall "necklace" around the perimeter of town. Any new htstodc designation should not compromise or degrade the quality of this vital pedestrian/Wet and cross country trail linkage to and from town. Although neither time nor resources allow us to contact the over 1,000 members of "Friends of Shadow Mountain" on this individual Issue; one of the three key tenants we guard Is "preservation of the Integrity of the Midland Trail.° Any new development, including this one, should not diminish the community Investment and on -going efforts to expand the trail and open space experience on Shadow Mountain. Allowing any greater density, reducing sat back requirements or allowing budding heights above two stories will have an A adverse Impact. 5lncerely, • FRIENDS of SHADOW MOUNTAIN Board members Carole Blaomqulst Martha Madsen Donna Fisher Michael Behrendt Fonda Paterson • • P122 From DEAD E b ay, (davtdebrartley@con'cast.na) 211 South Third St Date: Femur{ 01, 2010 TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission RE: 2195. 3rd St, Application to re -zone to R6 I do NOT support the request for upzoning from R.15 to R6 as it pertains to 219 S. 3rd St. The current R1S zoning in our block serves to protect the transitional buffer between Shadow Mountain and the neighborhood. 1 support ONE structure being but at 219 5. Third St. with the front entrance oriented to 3rd St. Beginning In November, 1971, 1 have lived in a 220 s.f. shack dating to the early 1090s just across the alley from the existing duplex. The Foster's second house would surely be occupied by renters rather than buyers. There will never be less than one car per bedroom, whether couples or housemates. This Is my 30th winter in this shack. There are ALWAYS a renters car jammed against the wall of the duplex because the carports are single, tilted by the snowbank. • The Foster's second house would make this even more of a blight. Thank you, David E Bentley P123 To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission From: Jennifer Sherwin, member of Sherwin Enterprise. 1:LC (Owner of 205 and 217 S. 'Third Street properties) Date: 212/1010 Re: 219 South Third Street — Rezone Request: - This memo is to state that I am against the re- zoning of the 219 5. Third Street property and that 1 agree with the statements made by Jake Vickery, Architect and Neighborhood Consultant concerning the rebuttal to the application for request to rezone 219 S. Third Street. As the owner of a truly historical property, the log cabin and small shack at 205 and 217 S. Third Street, 1 would like to say that 1 have NEVER received any kind of leniency when requesting to maintain or upgrade these properties. flven when 1 was making some repairs to.the small shack where David Bentley lives (217 S. Third Street), I was forced • to spend additional money in order to please the historical preservation society. Example: 'here was a significant sag in the old roof structure of the shack, which was required to be left in place. This caused additional expenditure and complications, as fixing the sag, would have been much easier. When putting on a new roof on main log • cabin at 205 S. Third Street, I was required to use cedar - shakes, a product that is much . more expensive than other material. 'There are cheaper products with a similar look and quality that could have been used. As a result of the historical society's requirements, I always end up spending double what a non - historic property would require. • 1 don't see any reason to allow the owner of 219 S. Third Street to get the re-zoning or the variances she's requesting. According to the attached memo, these changes clearly don't follow current Land Use Code or Design Quality Codes. I:f a truly historic property can't get a variance to maintain the property, I don't understand why the owner of the 219 S. Third street property should be allowed her re- zoning and variance requests. If you would like to contact me directly, I can be reached at: 919 -30S -1145. Sincerely,_ - L. 1/ . ..... : I nnifer Sherwin ember Manager, Sherwin Enterprises, LLC P124 January 31, 2010 TO: Members of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Re- zoning application from R -15 to R -6, 219 S. Third St We do not support the 219 S Third St proposed re- zoning change to R -6 which creates a higher density. Any increased development will adversely affect an already congested dead -end alley in our neighborhood block as it pertains to the safety of our children and the operation of city services. Sincerely, John and Kathleen Callahan 205 S. Third St Aspen • P125 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING: 217/219 S Third St — Rezoning Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Notice was. provided. Jennifer Phelan stated that the request before P &Z was submitted by YLP West Inc represented by Suzanne Foster. Phelan said the request is with regard to the property commonly known as 217 and 219 South Third Street to rezone the property from moderate density residential R -15 to medium density residential R -6. Phelan said that currently the 9, 942 square foot lot contains a chalet style duplex. Phelan said the staff presentational covered permitted uses, dimensional standards, neighborhood character. Permitted and conditional uses of the R -15 and the R -6 zone districts permit the same permitted uses, which are uses by right and also almost the same conditional uses, which are uses that have to go through a public hearing process to be approved in the zone district. Phelan said the only difference in the two zone districts is that the R -15 zone allows for agricultural uses as a conditional use; that is the only difference in uses in the two zone districts. Permitted uses in both zone districts are primarily residential allowing for single family dwellings, duplex dwellings and also two detached residential dwellings. Phelan said with regards to dimensional standards, the applicant is wishing to develop the property with two detached residences. The existing R -15 lot is considered a non - conforming lot with regard to size because the minimum lot size in this zone is 15,000 square feet and this is just about 9500 square feet. The property is developed with a legally established duplex. Phelan said if the property is redeveloped in this zone district the applicant is allowed to keep that density on the lot; they just need to meet the minimum setback standards, heights and floor area allowances for a single family home but the density is allowed to remain. Phelan said the rezoning to R -6 the minimum lot size is 9000 square feet so this would create a conforming lot and the zoning with the minimum lot size would allow for a single family home, a duplex or two detached residences, which is what the applicant is interested in. Phelan said with regards to setbacks and height; height in both zone districts is the same, 25 feet. The minimum setbacks for the rear and side for developing a duplex or two detached residences on this lot are the same at 10 feet. The front yard setback in the R -6 zone district is a minimum of 10 foot verses 25 feet in the R -1: zone. Floor area is very similar also currently the allowable floor area in the R -15 zone district whether a single family house is developed on this property or a duplex is redeveloped on this property is 4,145 square feet is the maximum that 10 P126 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 could be allowed on this site. Phelan said with the R -6 zone for a duplex or two detached residences are developed it's about 9 square feet less at 4,136 square feet. If in the R -6 zone district a single family home was developed it's actually quite a bit lower and that is shown in the memo. Phelan said there were very similar development allowances; the biggest difference was whether a duplex is allowed on the lot or two detached residences; attached versus detached. Phelan said with regard to neighborhood character and the subject property to the south and to the west the property is surrounded by city owned property that's zoned Public. The Midland Trail is on the south side of this property; to the east you have R -6 zoning, which includes a number of single family homes and the St. Moritz Lodge; to the north across the alley you have 3 properties that are zoned R- 15. Phelan said in the neighborhood the lot range from 3,000 to approximately 18,000 square feet; in general the neighborhood contains single family, duplex, multifamily units and lodging. Phelan noted that other properties are also non- conforming because none of them meet the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet in the neighborhood and it tends to be a denser neighborhood. Phelan said that if the property is rezoned to R -6 staff feels that it is more compatible; it meets the minimum lot size requirements of the R -6 zone district rather than the R -15. This property is part of the original town site and is within walking distance of the Core. Phelan said that staff feels that this complies with the land use code, it meets the elements of the AACP, it's compatible with the surrounding land uses, it will not make a traffic generation issues since a duplex is already there and that's the maximum density permitted on that site and it would not adversely affect the natural environment. Staff recommends the application be permitted in a recommendation from R -15 to R -6 be granted. Phelan entered a map into the record as Exhibit D and goes over lot sizes and what's on the property. Jasmine Tygre said the P &Z in the past had taken a stand that these non - conformities were likely to eventually go away and that would be a good thing but there is no official policy. Tygre asked if there was an official policy on the benefits of eliminating non - conformities. Phelan replied no; there is a big difference between having a grandfathered something versus a lot that has a non- conforming with regard to density; if you look at the neighborhood pattern where you have smaller lots and density the R -6 would actually fit for this property. 11 P127 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 Tygre asked if this would actually lift the non - conformity. Phelan replied yes it would create a conforming lot. LJ Erspamer asked Jennifer to point out the other R -6 lots in the neighborhood. Phelan replied that the staff memo page 5 the color zone district map showed anything in the darker yellow. Cliff Weiss asked about specific lot sizes in relation to house sizes. Phelan replied they varied by the lot size. Michael Wampler asked if the applicant came with the zoning change or did community development suggest it. Phelan replied the applicant came and requested it. Stan Gibbs asked the square footage of the current duplex. Phelan replied that she didn't know what the current duplex was. Bert Myrin asked if the Third Street side would be the front. Phelan replied the Third Street side would be the front. Gibbs asked if the alleyway has not been vacated at all. Phelan replied that it has not and she would check on the unimproved portion of that alleyway. Gibbs asked if anything that was built closer to the alleyway would have an alleyway address. Phelan answered no it would have a Third Street Address. Weiss asked the lot width difference between R -15 and R -6. Phelan responded that it currently doesn't matter because for R -15 it would be considered part of the non - conformity. Wampler said whether we approve the lot rezone or not she can still do a duplex or single family whichever way P &Z goes. Phelan replied that was right if it stayed as R -15, the allowable floor area, whether you do a duplex or a single family is 4,145 square feet. Phelan said the only change is if you rezone as R -6 the floor area a single home would have 3, 716 square feet and if you do either a duplex or 2 detached on the lot in R -6 it would go down about 9 square feet to 4,136 square feet. Gibbs said they were not asking for a lot split it was a simply a rezoning. Weiss asked the motivation was from going from one zone to another. Suzanne Foster, applicant, stated that the motivation was they have a little boy that is going to be 6 on Friday and when he was born they decided that they wanted to leave the east coast and move out somewhere to have more nature. Foster said pretty much right away they started coming out to Aspen and had been here several years before and they love everything about Aspen. Foster said that they looked at properties and identified this property because it had historic designation potential, which meant that you could possibly lot split it and make two smaller masses of the structure, one of which they would like to live in. The motivation is to have 2 smaller structures instead of having one large structure; they want a. small house and want to raise their son here. Foster said that she was okay with a half of a duplex and if they don't get the rezoning they will build a duplex and keep half of it and somebody else will live in the other half. Forster said it seemed more consistent with the neighborhood since it was basically the same amount of P128 Ci Plannin• & Zoni.n• Meetin• — Minutes — Februa 02 2010 building footprint; you only have so much square footage so you are just separating it out instead of having it have to be connected. Forster said that Jennifer was pretty clear. Foster said there was not a determination of FAR for this property yet because there were some manmade slope questions. Foster said if they get the maximum it's going to be about 2200 square feet per structure. Foster said that with the R -15 zone the front yard setback was 25 feet and 10 feet rear yard and that would impact the neighbors across the alley; so she would like to line up with that 10 foot front yard setback to get a nice streetscape for the existing Third Street setbacks. Cliff Weiss asked if the 2200 square feet was FAR that inclded basem 4 e sque and garage. Foster replied that the FAR for this property u feet total that would be divided between the 2 structures. Forster said the little models were pretty much to scale of what a structure might look like; either it would be 2 separate or 1 attached. Gibbs reminded the commission that P &Z had a very narrow scope of rezoning and it wasn't really germane at this point and P &Z needs to decide whether this property is being rezoned according to the code. Gibbs asked the commission to focus on the rezoning. Stan Gibbs opened the public testimony. Jennifer Phelan said that the letters received were Exhibit E. Public Comments: 1. Mita Barton called Jennifer Phelan opposing the rezoning. 2. Jake Vickery, architect and consultant with the neighbors, stated that he added a rebuttal statement that was the reason for creating the R -15 and not undermining it for changing zoning to R -6. Vickery said it was on the periphery of the urban growth boundary and the base of Shadow Mountain and the R -15 was meant to be a mitigating lower density transition zone from the higher density. Vickery said that he didn't see any compelling reason from the public's interest to rezone this whatsoever. Vickery said that you have to look at the ramifications in zoning of what a person can or cannot do on that property because they are going to have different potential impacts then what they would have had if the zoning remained the same. Vickery said what was being proposed there is in direct conflict with section 26.410.040, which is the residential design standards; this section requires that each house have relationship to the street, a principal window, porch and a one story mass. 13 P129 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 3. Jordie Gerber, public, said this rezoning was only self - serving for one person; he said the parameters of the building were the same and it doesn't benefit the public. Gerber opposed this rezoning. 4. Paul Young, public, handed out a packet and asked that P &Z take a minute to look it over. Stan Gibbs replied that if the City had received this ahead of time it would have been part of the packet; he asked Paul Young to give his testimony on it. Young said that Suzanne Foster bought this parcel of land knowing it was zoned R -15; the opposing neighbors and he was one of them asked only for Foster to go forward under R -15 zoning and build what is allowable without variances, rezoning, exc. Young said that Mr. Vickery in his 3 minutes provided that this application as it pertains to the standards of review and the Aspen Design Standards that this application has shortcomings and is inconsistent with those two documents. Young reiterated that the R -15 zone is a buffer of low density between the Midland Trail and there was a letter from the Midland Trail Board that opposes this within that path. Young said that he supports only one structure with the front entrance facing Third Street. Young said that simply stated 2 detached dwellings on this small lot calls for denial of an up zone R -6. 5. David Bentley, public, lives across the alley from this proposed project and said that there was a lot of traffic congestion. 6. Cheryl Goldenberg, public, stated she lived at 430 West Hopkins that they have an R -6 lot with a duplex on it and it went through the Historic Preservation which Mrs. Foster wanted a lot of things that the rest of the neighborhood didn't have and Goldenberg wanted a guarantee that all the exceptions that go with this property would go with all the other R -6 properties. 7. Steve Goldenberg, public, stated that they live in a duplex and it has been lived in by locals for 25 years. Goldenberg said he didn't like the way the process was working and said the closest neighbors that were most impacted were against this rezoning; he was opposed to the up- zoning. 8. Angela Young, public, stated that she lived at 413 West Hopkins and the community development department with HPC has worked with Mrs. Foster tirelessly for over a year for a menu of options and special considerations. Young said at the end of that process it is still was not enough and despite the pleas of all of the neighbors and City Council for her to compromise; she chose not to. Young said she is now back asking for a rezone to get the same special considerations; - s rezone absolutely benefits no one but Mrs. Foster. Mrs. Young asked that P &Z deny this application for an up -zone. 14 P130 Ci Plannin• & Zonin• Meetin• — Minutes — Febru. 02 2010 Stan Gibbs closed the public hearing. Jennifer Phelan clarified this property is allowed to have 2 dwelling units on it; the biggest difference is whether it's attached or whether it's detached. Phelan said the density is not being up -zoned to do a high density and if you are technical about it the floor area is less in R -6 than in R -15. Jennifer Phelan said that with regards to special considerations for an applicant if Ms. Foster was developing this property at R -15 or R -6 and did not want to meet the required yard setbacks her option is to go to a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment and request a dimensional variance in the minimum setbacks that's available to any property in the City of Aspen. Jim DeFrancia said that he hears what Jennifer is saying that you can build 2 dwelling units and the rest of the neighborhood is R -15 he asked what's the public benefit in changing to R -6. Phelan responded that right across the street is R -6; across from the applicant on Third Street. DeFrancia asked if the R -6 zone gave more flexibility. Phelan replied that you can have 2 detached units rather than 2 attached units and the setback was 10 feet between the two buildings so you could actually break up the mass. Cliff Weiss said that he was confused by some of the public comments. Weiss said that the minimum rear yard setback was 10 foot, no change between the 2 zones so the applicant was not asking for a variance when it comes against the Midland Trail or that buffer. Phelan said that she spoke to the Parks Department because of the rezoning and because of the Midland Trail; when she explained that the setbacks were the same Parks had no comments on it. Weiss said that the FAR really doesn't change and if anything there is 10 less square feet; this was really all about giving her a little flexibility to have 2 detached units. Phelan said they were similar zone districts so staff didn't have strong feelings of recommending denial and the break- up of the mass was a better option. Weiss said there were just a couple pockets of this R -15 left. Phelan said that there were a couple of pockets and none meet the minimum lot size for being an R -15 zoned lot. Bert Myrin asked if the green space on the map on page 5 was parks. Phelan responded that it was City owned property. Jim DeFrancia asked if this was just a rezoning request; he asked could the owner of the property not submit a rezoning request concurrent with a specific development plan. Phelan said they were not required to. DeFrancia said that they 15 P131 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 • could, which would address in detail some of the concerns that have been expressed. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to extend the meeting to 7:15pm; Brian Speck seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mike Wampler thanked the public for coming and it shows that you are passionate about your neighborhood; he said the fact that you got signatures speaks volumes. Wampler said that every time P &Z get hit with something Iike this there is some kind of motive by the applicant and he said he was going to listen to the public and this just doesn't pass the test for him. Jasmine Tygre asked if the reionmg went through would the applicant then have to go through any other further review processes to develop the property. Phelan said that they would need to submit a building permit application; there has been some discussion on the site if there are natural steep slopes or manmade slopes on the property there could be a reduction in floor area but the setbacks would be the same. DeFrancia said that he was somewhere in Mike's camp and he didn't care to speculate on either the applicant's motivations or what might occur in the rezoning but there has been ample expression of concern about the character of the development that might occur and it seems that all parties would be better satisfied if a rezoning request were accompanied with a specific development plan. Bert Myrin said the resolution required code standards and the final whereas was that it was consistent with the AACP. Myrin says the current AACP says the government needs some improvement and that seems pretty clear that the relationship is not there and he probably will not vote for the approval. LJ Erspamer asked if duplexes could be split up. Phelan replied that duplexes were required to have a common wall of a certain length above grade. Erspamer thanked the applicant and respected the neighbors for coming forth. Erspamer said as Stan said this was only one thing to look at which was a zoning review and he wasn't sure of the character of the neighborhood. Erspamer asked if this is denied and recommended by community development do we have to site a specific ruling why we vote against it. Jim True replied no, it was discretionary action on your part. True said that it was r.on-conforming property and she's asking that it be rezoned to the conforming zone district. Erspamer asked if there were other non- conforming lots. Phelan replied there were non - conforming. P132 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 Jasmine Tygre said that she didn't know why the density kept coming up when the density did not change. Weiss asked what was going on with the manmade versus natural slope. Jennifer Phelan said the allowable floor area would be reduced if steep slopes are present. . The determination of whether the property contains steep slopes period and if they are natural or manmade has not been determined; so included in the packet is the maximum allowable floor area if it was a completely flat property and the 25% reduction if there were lots of steep slopes on it. Cliff Weiss said it was odd to him that this has come to P &Z and there's this major grey area if it's manmade or not and exactly what can be developed and yet P &Z has to determine whether or not it can be rezoned. Weiss said that this is a whole new element that he is perplexed by that that determination hasn't been specific to this particular lot and here P &Z was looking at a rezoning; he said that the cart and the horse got a little mixed. Phelan replied that determination of steep slopes was submitted and handled at building permit; that's when staff looks at the surveying information, maybe geotechnical information; so what you are looking at is what can be the maximum density on this property, which whether it is R -15 or R -6 are two dwelling units and then again the maximum floor area that would be permitted on this property. Phelan said you know the maximum and it could potentially be less. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to recommend to City Council that the application for 217/219 S Third Street be denied with direction to the applicant to consider resubmission for rezoning concurrent with submission of a specific development plan that would address the expressed concerns; seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll call vote: Erspamer, yes; Wampler, yes; Speck, yes; Weiss, yes; Myrin, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, no. Motion to deny the recommendation to City Council was approved 6 -1. Discussion of the above motion prior to vote: Cliff Weiss said that a rejection means that they cannot reapply. Jennifer Phelan said that this was a recommendation to City Council. Bert Myrin said that R -15 was sort of the periphery of the city limits and why not zone all these properties R -6. Jennifer Phelan replied sure but the periphery 100 years ago and 2010 still make the argument that this is in walking distance to the urban core and the original town site and the lots may not have been appropriately zoned at the time they were zoned. Bert Myrin asked if there should be one zone. Jennifer Phelan replied that 17 P133 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 R -15 on Cemetery Lane with 15,000 square foot lots was quite appropriate but when you are talking about no minimum lot size in an R -15 zone district and look at the surrounding density there might have been a problem when they originally zoned this property. LJ Erspamer asked a procedural question you would link this with a building application. Jim DeFrancia said a development application. LJ Erspamer asked if that was appropriate for P &Z to do. Jim True responded that it was a recommendation. Cliff Weiss said the neighborhood was organized up in arms and it was the unknown that everyone is afraid of and he would weigh in behind Jim on his motion. Suzanne Foster asked if there was a plan then P &Z would approve. the R -6 zone. Cliff Weiss replied that there would be less neighborhood objection; it is the unknown that's bothering everyone. Jim DeFrancia said that Cliff has stated it correctly; he thought it was the issue of the unknown. Bert Myrin asked if there was a process to track things that there were issues like this and set a calendar to address them. Adjoumed at 7:15 pm. - / ,/.....__ /A ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P134 - - RECEPTION#: 687702, 03116/2010 at 104.211:011 AM, 1 OF 2, R $11.00 Qcc Cade RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pithm County. CO [ ESOLUTION P40. 5 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL DENY A MAP AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP (REZONING) FROM MODERATE- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -15) TO MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -6) FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 217 AND 219 S. THIRD STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-124-65-005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recei ved an application from YLP West, Inc. represented by Suzanne Foster requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Map Amendment to the Official Zone District Map from Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) to Medium - Density Residential (R-6) for the property commonly described as 217 and 219 S. Third Street; and, • WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Land Use Code, an amendment to the official zone district map may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies: and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider 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: and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the amendment to the official zone district map with a vote of six to one (6to 1). Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council deny the zone district map amendment to rezone the following described property from Moderate- Density Residential (R- 15) to Medium - Density Residential (R-6) and recommends the applicant to considenesubmisaion for rezoning concurrent with submission of a specific development plan that would address the expressed concerns of the public. The subject property is legally described as Lots , P. Q, R, and S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, excepting therefrom that portion of Lots O, P, and Q that lies south Page I of P135 of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8.5 feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628 and commonly described as 217 and 219 S. Third Street Section 2: 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 3: 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 regular meeting on February 2, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZON N COMMISSION: es R True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P136 L itCY- N\ Conduston CfA.A 0\ A. *A We believe that a re- zoning of 219 S. Third Street to R- 6 zoning fulfills the following �� ,tt 11 goals: (MI"— 1. R -6 brings parcel into conformity 2. R -6 allows for the development of two smaller detached structures instead of one longer, larger single building mass. 3. R -6 decreases allowable FAR by 10'. 4. R -6 allows better views of Shadow Mountain for the neighborhood through separated building mass_ 5. R -6 allows less impact on hiking trait views through separated building mass 6. R-6 allows less impact on wildlife and allows wildlife and neighborhood pets a more natural movement on this parcel through separated building mass. 7. R -6 allows for improved snow storage between the detached structures_ 8. R -6 zoning has a 10' front yard set back. The existing structure has a non - conforming 10' front yard set back. R -6 zoning aligns any new structure with the existing log cabin on the block (which has a conforming 10' side yard set back) creating a unified streetscape (see exhibit 9, Page 30). R -15 would push any new construction back 25 feet creating a disjointed streetscape. Unified streetscapes are in keeping with Aspen's Residential Design Standards. 9. Recent changes in the neighborhood – including R -6 re- zoning for the Boomerang parcel on nearby West Hopkins, which resulted in three smaller detached dwellings instead of one larger duplex or single family home; the completion of a new two story modest sized single family home at 218 S. Third Street, which replaced a single story cabin; and the completion of a two story structure et.413 W. Hopkins, which - replaced a single story cabin – have helped redefine the neighborhood and are consistent with two smaller R -6 zoned structures rather than one larger R -I5 structure. 10. There are no known adverse affects from re- zoning and no known increased demand on services. • J ,) P137 TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Paul Young Family RE: 219 S. Third St. re -zone application REBUTTAL TO APPLICANT'S 10 POINTS AS FOUND ON PAGE 29 OF APPLICATION: 1. CONFORMITY is not the issue today. The goal of the developer is to increase development to medium residential density. If conformity was the goal, the developer could build a single - family residence, abide by the 25' front yard setback requirement which would bring the parcel into conformity. 2. Within our block all four properties have R -15 zoning and to grant R -6 allows TWO structures instead of one structure. All four of these immediate neighbors, as well as others are in opposition to this isolated re- zoning application. R -15 zoning requires a lot size of 30,000 sq.ft. for two detached dwellings: THREE TIMES the amount of land that the applicant owns. There is a strong and compelling reason why Aspen's zoning officials zoned our block R -15. It was to establish a maximum transition between more densely populated areas such as found in R -6 and the historic Midland Trail, and in this case, Shadow Mountain which is R -15. 3. NON -ISSUE it This is just not TRUE. We, the neighbors, are the best judges of this. ONE structure instead of TWO structures allows for the better view. Two structures, as proposed, have a larger building envelope which decreases the open space. The applicant has presented the worst case scenario for the proposed structure in the current R -15 and the best case scenario for their proposed R -6. This is a mute point since the Foster's can completely re- design any and everything if re- zoning is granted by City Council. The solution would be to NOT grant approval -of a change to R -6 and for the developer to join the two structures with a common wall, making it a duplex, orientated to Third St. allowing for the required 25' front yard setback and adding additional back yard for snow storage. 5. The above stated in #4 truly allows better views and imposes less impact for Midland Trail users, as well as neighbors: David Bentley, Young's, Callahan's and John Stat&n. 6. Wildlife authorities refer to this as the "Zone of Influence." Two separate buildings allow for a larger Zone of Influence which is, in actuality, a greater detriment to wildlife than the lesser zone created by ONE structure. 7. No, what allows for improved snow storage is if the original duplex is demolished, to rebuild with a single - family residence which would be consistent with the surrounding properties especially since this lot is !:sated on a dead -end alley with no actual street frontage. Neighbors should not have to suffer the negative impacts and associated problems caused by a P138 re -zone to R -6 that creates over - development and results in safety and parking issues. Another negative to re- zoning to R -6 is that it allows a minimum 10' front - yard setback. Mrs. Foster turned down the HPC designation that allowed for only a 10' setback from Third St. that did not align with the historic miner's cabin at 211 S. Third St. It should be noted that the Foster's existing structure has a conforming 27' front yard setback as delineated by Amy Guthrie, since the front of the structure is oriented to Shadow Mountain. A required 25' • front yard setback for the new structure would be in keeping with the other R -15 structures in the block, with the exception being the historic log cabin located at 205 S. Third Steet David Bentley's historic designated home next door has an approximate25' front yard setback that supports the same 25' setback with any new structure at 219 S. Third, creating a better, more unified streetscape which is in keeping with Aspen's Residential Design Standards, as well as the AACP. 9. Our home at 413 W. Hopkins was consistent with neighbors' properties and developed to R -15 standards that allowed for a duplex or a single- family residence. The neighboring parcels are already developed to R- 15 standards or historic designated standards, and it is unfair and inconsistent to allow this property owner, the last to develop in the neighborhood, to develop to a higher level. Why should these neighbors have to suffer the over - development impacts of two detached homes instead of one so this applicant can make more money? The Aspen City Council has already determined that two units on this property is too much development for this site as proposed in this application. After turning down historic designation, Mrs. foster still wants one of the major benefits of HPC designation - - -two single family residences!! This, without the corresponding trade -offs of historic designation. 10. The adverse effects from re- zoning to R -6 are numerous and negatively impact the right of way, front yard setback and amounts to nothing more than PRIVATIZING THE PUBLIC DOMAIN! A variance from the standard R- 15 front yard setback is an example of privatizing the public domain. This is a public privilege and priority worth preserving and protecting from encroachment and is in keeping with Aspen Area Community Plan. The public trail users and neighbors urge P & Z to protect our neighborhood and public spaces and NOT APPROVE a re -zone to R -6 that would create greater density and over- development at the base of Shadow Mountain. • THANK YOU P139 ITO: ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FROM: JAKE VICKERY, ARCHITECT, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSULTANT RE: 219 SOUTH THIRD ST. — REZONE REQUEST - REBUTTAL TO APPLICATION, STAFF FINDINGS (EXHIBIT A) AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW 1 -31 -10 JHV REBUTTAL TO APPLICATION The applicant states she is seeking an upzone of the property to do the following: 1. Make the lot "conform" in terms of size and intended use a. Size: The Land Use Code provisions for both the R -15 and the R -6 zone districts contemplate and have explicit provisions for a spectrum of substandard sized pre - existing lots. All of these substandard sized lots are egi.timatized by the fact that they existed prior to the ena ac ctm ut of the of 'zoning code and are therefore technically conforming. provisions minimum lot size pertain principally to the creation of new lots and lot splits. There are many substandard sized lots in both zones. b. Use: The applicant has the option to create a single family residence here and thereby bring the use on this property into conformity with existing zone. She is trying to parlay a non - conforming use into a higher level of non - conformity by creating two residences that are not currently allowed in the existing R -15 zone. The attempt to legitimatize a pre- existing use by upzone is inappropriate. c. Shape: The lot is an atypical, irregularly shaped lot that tapers to 47 feet toward the rear and is substantially impacted by 30% slopes, especially on the rear (west end) of the property where she proposes a second single family residence. d. Open Area on Lot: The size of the structure is similar in both zones (approximately 4,140 sf). The biggest difference between R -15 and R -6 zones is the amount of open area left on the lot. Per R -15: there would be at least 11,000 sf of open area Per R -6 there would be only 2 -3000 sf of open area. 2. Create 2 smaller single family structures rather than a duplex a- Placing a second single family residence behind a front residence in an inferior position is an inappropriate development strategy which is in direct and clear conflict with Section 26.410.040 of the Aspen Land Use Code, "Residential Design Standards ". It does not support "Design Quality" required by that chapter of 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan • (AACP). b. Although the applicant is not committing to any development plan or development agreement, she has proposed 2 scenarios as "examples " - a worse case per R -15 (page 20) and a best case per R -6 (page 21). Both of then - •• - - e non - compliance and conflict with (esidential Design Stait as "- The rear or westerly residence does not P140 have a relationship to the street, no street frontage, and does not provide a street facing entry, a primary window, a porch and/or one story form facing the street, or secondary mass requirements. Clearly the intent of this Section and the Neighborhood Character Guidelines (HPC) for Shadow Mountain Neighborhood are in conflict. A side by side duplex is mandated by the shape of this lot. This use is not allowed under current R -15 for this lot because it would impart a privileged benefit to this property owner. This use is in direct conflict with section 26. c. The applicant is seeking to benefit from the bonus allowed for historic preservation without preservation of the existing structure. 3. Reduce the front yard setback a. Reducing the front yard to the 10' minimum allowed in the R -6 zone on this lot will provide less yard and landscaped area on the front of the property and diminish its contribution to the streetscape and "public realm ". b. The combined side yard setback in the R -6 zone (approximately 35' for this lot) begins to make a successful side by side unit development more difficult. 4. In summary, the property should remain in the R -15 zone and be developed as a side by side duplex with both units having the required and desirable street presence and character elements. SPECIFIC REBUTTAL TO STANDARDS OF REVIEW Regarding applicant's statements on pages 24 -26 of the applicant's packet and the staff findings listed in Exhibit A of staff's memo for this project: A. The upzone and proposed development as shown on pages 21&22 (as well as page 20) of the applicant's packet is in direct conflict with Section 26.410.010 and 26.410.040 of the Aspen Land Use Code including but not limited to the following: 1. Each home shall contribute to the streetscape and neighborhood character 2. Street oriented entry 3. Principle street facing window 4. Covered entry porch 5. First story element 6. Inflection • B. The upzone and proposed development as shown on page 21&22 (as well as page 20) of the applicant's packet is in direct conflict with the Design Quality of the AACP (Maintaining community Character and Design )and the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines namely: "Promote a standard of design that is of the highest quality and is compatible with historic features of the community and the environment." P141 C. We believe that the construction of an appropriately designed, medium sized residence similar to others in the immediate vicinity on this lot is the development scenario most compatible with the immediate neighborhood and would conform to the requirements of the R -15 zone district, Section 26.410.040, and the intent and provisions of the 2000 AACP listed above. If a new duplex is to be built, a side by side duplex with both units oriented toward Third Street would also comply and be a good member of the neighborhood. We heartily disagree with the applicant's statement on page 24 that there is "no significant change in the look of the streetscape will be achieved by allowing a 10' front yard setback. Clearly a 25' setback provides additional landscaped area to the streetscape. The next door property to the north, 211 S. Third St, has an approximate 25' setback and further supports the same 25' setback for any new construction at 219 S. Third Street. This 25' streetscape is in keeping with the AACP and Design uidelines. D. It is required and preferable to place all entry activity to both units (if a duplex) ectly from Third Street and reserve the alley for typical alley functions of garage access and services. This includes front door, porches; etc. This reduces noise and congestion impacts n the neighbors. E. Placement of the uni rde by sidjand visible from the street is preferable from a police, fire, and security access. F. The penetration of development deep into the property destroys open area for animals and amenities for the users of the Midl... RR trail. Primary development on the property should b . eld forwaru on the site and connected to the street G. As mentioned in A & B above the proposed development is in marked conflict with the community character. Please refer A & B above. H. There has been no significant change to the immediate vicinity of this property to support any change in zoning. The existing neighborhood has enjoyed equilrbnum for a long time with recent new construction being sensitive to and consistent with the immediate context. Placing a house on the rear of the property is intrusive and unnecessary and undesirable and does not support the community's best interest. Open areas on lots serve to link and mitigate overcrowding. All of the neighbors agree and oppose this rezone and development with a tandem house. There is no compelling reason to change this balance for this individual parcel simply for the increased economic benefit of this one property owner. Specific rebuttals follow: a- The houses on the Boomerang parcel (south side of Hopkins) all directly face the street and consist of affordable housing and a duplex. b. The new small house at 218 S. Third is an infill unit that faces the street on the back of a corner lot. c. This is a medium sized house on a 75 foot wide lot which faces the street. I. Again, referring to the points made above, the proposed amendment and development is in marked conflict with the public interest, the Land Use Code, and the Design Character section of the AACP. The immediate neighborhood will not be improved by this map amendment and, in fact, will be negatively impacted. All of the surrounding property owners oppose this rezone and all feel it is an unwarranted and inappropriate change. It creates more problems than it solves. �. CVN1Z • O a. la, 0 w -_I r;1 r 5 r O O, Co O ..^. m w n X 0 0 R. N O p O y i co C O O H O O N ' c w w o r* w D M N P U, M C r M O N 0 � O e CD N N ' G O a �h N �r K ... O N 'b 5 K � K in (c y .- M " O CD . t ° y M- K � d R w w , Oi, r P. • r+, ✓ CO o (- .b G y O M N O r M Co O rt p a + ,fl O O G r o o y °o w i: t a t v `.. o R w o 2 0 PD 0 PD 0 3 o w w t i . % 1 . - a g ' P. w d G D O . N' N O - C O '3 r+ A ' O VD O .-T O N O O V\ O w v.. A N O Vr 00 h O . O o`\ Z ` ti »1 •a E 16,ti 43 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: 26.410 — Residential Design Standards • • EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 2010 WRITTEN BY: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Chris Bendon, Corrununity Development Director • The applicant for this code interpretation is contemplating the redevelopment of a residential property, 219 So. 3 Street. In preparation for design, the applicant requested clarification on specific residential design standards. Street- Oriented Entrance — The requirement in the Residential Design Standards Chapter for a street- oriented entrance and principal window reads as follows: 26.410.040.D.I. "Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.8.4 shall have a street - oriented entrance and a street facing principal window...." The singular article "a" is intentional and countable. For a duplex structure, only one entrance and one principal window facing the street is required. The entrance to an Accessory Dwelling Unit or a Carriage House does not need to face the street as this type of dwelling unit is not cited in the Residential Design Standards. .. - .FEB. 5. 2010 12:49PM '"^MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT O. 7363 P. 2 P144 u n,- WE, O THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY THIRD STREET, OPPOSE THE UP ONE OF THIS PROPERTY FROM R15 TO R6, WE SOUTH OPPOSE THE INCASED DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SEPARATE HOMES, AS THE DEAD-END END REDUCED AND INCREASED IMPACTS ON ALLEY AND THE MIDLAND TRAIL. NAME ADDRESS ali t 7/. 1 413A 77 /67 1A, (132- l„ /esi -1-f ark ,ts A ✓f- . e T e ..,—.\le -ii A eAl �` I3 L• t SS 4v - . ,_„4---EN-0.,_ . ✓;7 ` , fil . 2 , Oa Ai 3 Apc 13 5 3 Ll01 S- 3 S 3 St 6‘ , 2 ,c4.7 - .2 ,.. -3 )5 e 3 Svc iw *r, Cm-4km- D5-& /NJ, 12-2- W to Pi6r , \I S i ' 2/E- co TA.. ap � ij alb J-t cc 1 fin' ct, FEB. 5. 2010 12:49PM MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEB DZ,ZULU 06:2UA C00-000 -00000 N0.7363 P. 4 PP145 eyh,�, is 3 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF 219 SOUTH THIRD STREET, OPPOSE THE UPZONE OF THIS PROPERTY FROM R1S TO R6. WE OPPOSE THE INCREASED DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SEPARATE HOMES, AS PROPOSED, THE REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND INCREASED IMPACTS ON THE DEAD -END ALLEY AND THE MIDLAND TRAIL fir NAME ADDRESS y , I , - . s-n. w ,bn • if f f g am } tip .. ,� f � d ' R F c a - l + ' 7 ti i• t..:. t l L , • , T' 1. . , _ #A _ FP 14 7 Right of way information Suzanne, Here is a link to our permit application which describes the City's Right of way (ROW) process: http: / /www.aspe npitki n.com /Portals /0 /dots /City /engineers na /R fight -of- way -pe rm it. pdf Also for the work that you are proposing (ie alley extension) we will need to see a detailed survey and a proposed grading plan. Depending on the grading we may require a drainage plan to ensure there is no negative impact on the neighboring properties. Additionally the alley extension my impact a nearby tree, as a result, the Parks dept will weigh in on this too and may require a tree removal permit (along with tree mitigation). Typically for this type of work, (ie extending an alley within the ROW) neighbor approval is not needed. If grading will occur on neighboring properties or if trees are affected on neighboring properties, then we may require neighbor approval. Please let me know if you need additional information. Trish Aragon, P.E. City Engineer City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 429 -2785 Fax: (970) 920 -5081 ___ ...... . 1- I 4 d . . S 34' sr Er w CMS 'T>drde \T"Cr n 3 ...---, --- 7.--/--r -----,------.7_ ,..„._ . k I Ait ./cs - •/ _ _ _ , ‘ _ , , / • i , ..- f i I " tart 2 I , A. ; ". I / : , _ _ _1 ---/ \ k—r- / is 'T , - 1 tal - I . • / / I E, - 1 i Er 1 ,- - 1 S i / - LI 1 ..„..._•._....r I I • . - / , a / . _3 3 • 1 I r , k r r 4, ------4 t / . 1----t s 1 t i t 1 t . , - fine - ca. 1 / / / - . • -1 , , ......, i at a S. r • / / / S s z., 1 : lc. g t , , i _ - .1 ' / / 4 ." _ - ' ' I _ ( ':- . , • . I 1 I . 4: I . I I '' .... I i 7 1 i 4 We .1 b I ..z I / es I I --I t , . . . t 1 kr I 1 t -. . . ..- • 1 I . •, : • 1 tl Lai .1 I .: .t. . . r r EltatIlIGIVAIMMITSIIIECIal , -- . - • a. — ---.1 - n lcsrei' . . - - - EDGE OF MIRMIENT - • - . • . . ' . . Sfi rnP DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT PLAN v lk.) °sat - • A-1 a ,.... . FOSTER 9 -IS 'tont n ia SCP.I a ire - ar-fr . • I 219 S3RD.SIREEr. ASPEN CO N1611 - \ DKIM I0-10-119 . . / META PACKARD BARTON E-' y 11�V�� ` _ 4475 N. OCEAN BLVD. 43 -A, DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 To-. Servs av- Phelan ptn �+munt )e►nelop/ndl l a o 1. Galcrc. t }. Aspen ca so 1) Dca % Jcnvi rfe.n. : am wg eK azi opposili an �o Ne 17.exiing 4 cn+ Nreo )cl b& WI u ernic c»engc h.Aom tyvtl PS.2. tb tytellom lolr P cnQ 5, r3lock 3q GN d )A-trA }No° 1 4j I4ct'ma end $cwet t ea� cnN s oiaold mum c,{ lk M q_ /41-pen , Gnd aiU can - bG Oco d,a 2.ee,r y tmp ltA0A -0 de-0 lAcue is o JaccL dR 4 a.reA° o- d a PM. 5'JZ °ne RxM- •� cpp co 4 sign S) cn st.avad he o)cs,ied w, sielirMere . Idduus. s ?r? , P150 ftn- City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting, Tuesday, March 15, 2011 to order at 4:34 in Sister Cities meeting Room. P &Z member excused was Jasmine Tygre and Jim DeFrancia. P &Z Commissioners in attendance were Michael Wampler, Bert Myrin, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Cliff Weiss arrived at 5:45. Staff in attendance Jim True, Special City Counsel; Sara Adams, Community Development; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Bert Myrin thanked Jackie for scanning the enormous packet. Myrin said that he was working on a memo for the 29 MINUTES MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes of March 1 seconded by L I Erspamer. All in favor APPROVED. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 217/219 South Third, Amendment to the Official Zone District Mau Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on 217/219 South Third, amendment to the official zone district map. Notice was provided. Jennifer Phelan said that she would provide an overview of the application, the commission can ask questions and the applicant has a chance to provide an overview, the commission can ask questions then the hearing will be open to the public. Phelan said the applicant was requesting rezoning of the property from Moderate Density R -15 to Medium Density Residential R -6. Currently the property contains a legally established duplex. Phelan said this isn't the first time that we have been here on this property; the process is the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to City Council and the Council is the final decision on this request to rezone the property. Phelan noted on February 22, 2010 the Planning & Zoning Commission heard the same request to rezone the property from R -15 to R- - 6 and they made a recommendation of denial but in that resolution they made a recommendation of resubmitting for rezoning concurrent with a site specific development plan that would addre$s the concerns of the neighbors. The applicant has since that hearing submitted schematic developments of that site both as a property zoned R -15 and R -6, Exhibit G in the packet, page 23 shows after demolition of the existing structure the duplex and the carriage house. Also 2 P151 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 submitted is Exhibit H in the packet 60 showing 2 detached single family homes on the site. Phelan said the applicant was only seeking a recommendation for rezoning. Phelan said the scope of review for rezoning; the commission has adopted criteria in the land use code, Exhibit A, page 11 in the packet; the compatibility of surrounding zone districts; are there changed conditions within the neighborhood. Phelan said there was adopted criteria to be considered also in the memo is a comparison of the permitted uses under R -15 versus if it were R -6; it also includes dimensional requirements on the height allowed under either zone district, minimum setback from property lines; to assist and understand the differences between the R -15 and the R -6 zone district. This is not a venue to debate specifics of whether floor area is reduced by steep slopes or to which schematics meet site coverage requirements; this is the big picture what could happen in this project not the debatable issues. Is the schematic right with the floor area or a setback or lot coverage because those issues are reviewed and approved or disapproved at building permit. That all gets approved at building permit. Phelan said she would talk about three things: comparison of the uses in the zone district; dimensional standards of R -15 versus R -6; the schematics that were provided and end up with a recommendation to the commission. Page 3 of the staff memo is a table comparing R -15 and R -6; the permitted uses are identical and residential; conditional uses are identical except Agricultural uses in the R -15 zone district. Phelan said the subject lot is a 9,942 square foot lot with a legally established but non - conforming structure on it; currently in R -15 the lot size is too small to have a duplex on it but since it was legally established it is allowed to stay. Also currently under the R -I5 zoning, if this duplex was demolished the applicant has the right within a year of demolishing the building to replace the duplex but on a single family home floor area. The difference on an R -6 lot the minimum lot size would be met at 6,000 square feet for a single family home; you need 9,000 square feet for a duplex or you could do two detached residences on an R -6 lot. In either zone district you can build an accessory dwelling unit. Phelan noted on page 5 there was a table that talks about the comparison of building either a duplex or 2 detached residences on an R -15 or an R -6 lot. If there are steep slopes on this property the floor area is decreased by 25. Phelan said the r-3plicant is proposing a private deed restriction to prohibit the development of an ADU or Carriage House. This is a private deal so the City does not want to get 3 rise City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 involved in the deed restriction. Phelan said the neighborhood is a mix of single family, duplex and multi - family units and a lodge across the street from the subject property. The property across the street is zoned R -6 and there was a map on page 6 showing the different zone districts. The purpose statement for the R -6 zone district states that lands are generally limited to the original Aspen town site, which this is in; contains predominately detached and duplex residences, would only be allowed if this was rezoned and that it is within walking distance to the downtown core. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning; the rezoning would create a conforming lot. LJ Erspamer asked the maximum floor area on page 5. Jennifer Phelan replied that was the maximum and was based on the lot size included. Phelan said that you could land a TDR on the property, which would be an extra 250 square feet; the floor area is a net not a gross number because a lot of basement space is exempted. Erspamer asked if this was in a subdivision. Phelan replied no it is part of the original town site. Erspamer asked if R -15 was made to be a buffer between the mountain and the rest of the community. Phelan answered the zoning was pretty loose and you would see a lot of development and multi - family in this neighborhood so that the property was down zoned to prohibit the multi - family development to continue. Erspamer asked if they were spot zoning this property. Phelan replied they were not spot zoning this property; there is R -6 across the street and you would be creating a conforming lot. Bert Myrin asked if page 11 and 12 were the only 2 pages with the criteria to rely on. Phelan said that was the criteria and you need to make those decisions on the character of the neighborhood. Myrin said there was no recommendation of a lot split or discussion of one; is there any reason we wouldn't recommend a lot split to Council. Phelan replied they wouldn't be able to as R -6 because it is not a historical lot at 6.000 square feet per lot in that zone district. Suzanne Foster, applicant/owner, showed comparisons for R -15 and R -6 and the building department told her that what she has is a realistic build out for R -15 property. Jennifer Phelan said that all of the drawings appear to be exhibits in the packet; Exhibits G, H and I. Suzanne Foster replied they were all exhibits in the packet. Foster said the goal was to separate the mass on the property. Foster read the article about the Boomerang from the newspaper. Foster said that they share the goal in keeping the buildings smaller. Foster said under R -15 zoning we planned to build a 1200 square foot affordable housing, Carriage House, and they will receive a 600 square foot bonus for that; they have hired architects that show the carriage house and the reconstructed duplex. The addition of the carriage 4 ___Ilk 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 house under R -15 accomplishes 3 very important goals: it mitigates for affordable housing; it fulfills the 10% detached mass requirement and they get a 600 square foot free - market bonus. Foster said if R -6 zoning is achieved there will be a net reduction of 10 feet of FAR, in addition we have stipulated that the land would carry a deed restriction for no carriage house and a deed restriction limiting building height in the rear of the building. There are plans to build a detached duplex with a minimum of 10 feet between the structures and this accomplishes these goals: a reduction of 1810 square feet for the parcel, 25 feet of open space between the neighbors house and shadow mountain, it fulfills the 10% detached mass requirement and it brings the parcel permanently into conformity. Foster distributed exhibits. Phelan said they were Exhibits M 1 -6. Forster addressed the Young's letter and Jake Vickery's letter. Forster said that the Young's have given the neighbors information based on their opinions and interpretations of the code in a way that has swayed them to voice opposition to the zoning change. In Exhibit 3B the 2 petitions that basically says is "opposition to the increased development of 2 separate homes, the reduced front yard setback, and increased impacts on the dead end alley and the Midland Trail ". From the plans submitted under R -6 they would accomplish the following goals: it would have the same side yard setbacks as R -15 but with less density and smaller structures; it would have a significantly decreased impact on the Midland Trail. R- 6 would decrease the developmental impact of one large duplex and one carriage house by creating 2 smaller structures and maintain a unified streetscape. R -6 rezoning actually supports all of the goals this petition wants to achieve. LJ Erspamer asked if Ms. Foster would memorialize this. Suzanne Foster replied yes, prior to going to City Council the attorney's would draft out a deed restriction. Foster said the answer would be no. Erspamer asked who owned the alley right -of- way. Foster replied the City owns it. Public Comments: 1. Jake Vickery, architect, said he was working with the Young's. This issue came through about a year ago with extensive public input, deliberation, presentation of facts, and the board voted 6 -1 for denial to City Council. Vickery said what has changed is that the applicant has done a lot of work and come forward with very nice drawings and are encouraged by that and would like to move this along to a positive. Vickery said the applicant is gaining significant value by being able to do 2 detached units. Vickery said they would like the applicant to increase the alley setback to 20 feet and add 5 I'Ib4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 some landscaping. Vickery said there has to be some public benefit to do the rezone. 2. Cheryl Goldenberg said they have a wonderful neighborhood and wanted to support the Young's and if they think this is better but she said that she was tired of developers coming into our neighborhood and wanting to change the zoning. Cheryl Goldenberg said she didn't want any zoning changes. 3. Angela Young said she lived at 413 West Hopkins and just as a procedural thing she was asked by 3 neighbors Scott Stewart, Rusty Scott and Tammie Scott, they were not procedurally noticed and they would have been here with their opposition had they been noticed. Angela Young said that it was not the neighbor's responsibility to provide a more profitable development project to Mrs. Foster. Young said the increased development with 2 separate construction times and the major concerns are the alley setback and rear yard setback. Young said at the last City Council meeting Mayor Ireland begged her to compromise with the neighbors and she was unwavering in her refusal to do. so. 4. Steve Goldenberg said it was very important that these sketches be memorialized otherwise the zoning should remain. 5. Jody Edwards stated that he represented John Staten who couldn't be here tonight. Edwards said it was denied Last time because of unknowns; this time you have some pretty pictures but you still have unknowns. The borings have not been done to where there are steep slopes. There has never been any public outreach with regards to the rezoning application. Edwards read from the court order page 251 in the Weinerstube case. Edwards said for those reasons we request you deny the application. 6. David Bentley said there is never 1 car per bedroom; this is the shadiest part of town and the snow is hard to remove. Bentley said don't change the zoning. 7. Peter Thomas said that he was counsel for the applicant Suzanne Foster; he was encouraged by Mr. Vickery's comments. Thomas said that they will have a reach out to the neighbors and it is important to understand that a site specific development plan has no place in a rezoning. Thomas said your discretion is constrained by what the code tells you have to consider and what you have to consider is what Jennifer pointed out on page 11 and 12 the code standards; it talks about making sure this patchwork of zoning that we have here is consistent and provides for orderly development with the code. This is really a simple application to create conformity. 8. Tita McCarthy said that she lived across Third Street and asked Mr. True to speak to this voluntary deed restriction. McCarthy asked if Mrs. Foster sold the property would this deed restriction hold in perpetuity. Jim True replied 6 P155 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 that it was difficult to give legal opinions in this kind of context staff does not recommend the City's participation in this proposed deed restriction; from a general standpoint an owner of a property can in perpetuity restrict their own property to this type of action. True said it wasn't necessarily appropriate to consider in a rezoning application. 9. Paul Young stated that he and his family lived at 401 East Hopkins directly across the alley from Mrs. Foster's land. Young said after the last P &Z meeting he felt like p&Z needed a better understanding as to why there is opposition to a rezone to R -6; while he disagreed with some of the things that he heard the R -15 was established to provide a buffer and a transition zone between the R-6 and the Midland Trail and the Shadow Mountain. To rezone the applicant's property is in direct conflict with the logic of our founding fathers; in the R -15 block the applicant's property is the only one that abuts the Midland Trail. Young suggested the setback to the alley and a sidewalk in the alley to the Third Street as it pertains to Unit B since it has an alley entrance. Stan Gibbs closed the public comments section of the hearing and opened the commissioner comments portion. Bert Myrin said that he has gone back to the land use code 26.104.020 talks about the purpose of the code. Myrin said his view was R -15 provides a transitional buffer between the R -6 and the edge of Shadow Mountain. Myrin said that he can't imagine trying to sell a property and have no idea what the zoning is going to be around it or as a property owner not being able to rely on the zoning around it. So he said he can't support the rezoning for those reasons. LJ Erspamer said the presentation was very thorough and detailed. Erspamer said that he was not in favor of changing the zoning however there may be some ideas from the public; there is symmetry of the zoning however it is a difficult lot. Erspamer asked Jim True if we can leave the zoning the same yet approve the setbacks. Jim True replied that you couldn't because this was a rezoning application; it is not a site specific development plan. Michael Wampler said he looked at this as a common sense point of view; this was a rezoning application. Wampler said that he had no problem with the zoning change. Stan Gibbs said that he voted no the last time but he believed this was an appropriate zoning and he said that he behaved to make lots conforming in the city. 7 P156 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 Gibbs said that he believed that R -6 would allow less development in the neighborhood and less coverage and it was consistent with the neighborhood. Gibbs said he didn't believe that it was part of a buffer area to the city; this neighborhood is sufficiently mixed up that we could go one way or the other. Gibbs said that he was going to vote for this rezoning. Gibbs said making something conforming was a good principal to uphold. MOTION: Michael Wampler moved to approve Resolution #008 -1 1 recommending the property commonly known as 217/291 South Third Street is rezoned from R -15 to R -6; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll call vote: Myrin, no; Erspamer, no; Wampler, yes; Gibbs, yes. No action 2 -2. Discussion prior to the vote: Erspamer proposed an amendment to the setback. Jim True responded that he did not think that was correct on a zoning change. Erspamer summarized that he could vote and liked what the public said about the 20 foot setback and the Unit B side memorialized and the public outreach. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Walk 404 Park/414 Park Circle Final PUD Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing on 404 Park 414 Park Circle. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to extend the meeting until 7:30; seconded by LJ Erspamer. APPROVED 3 -1 (Wampler, no). Sara Adams said this was the Aspen Walk Proposal for Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle; P &Z is asked to make a recommendation to City Council on Subdivision, final PUD Review. P &Z to review Growth Management Housing for free - market and deed restrict units and Growth Management for the development of Affordable and some Residential Design Standard Variances. Adams said the applicant went back to the drawing board and redesigned the skin of the buildings taking into account what P &Z mentioned in February; they have proposed flat roofs, added a street facing entrance for the free - market building, added where the entrance would be for the affordable housing building; added a parking space in the sub -grade garage for an affordable housing unit. Adams said French Balconies were added to all the affordable units and a detailed patio plan located at the rear. The Housing Board wanted to change the Affordable housing categories from 2 to 3; there is no change to the floor plans which means by changing the categories the size of the units net livable would be 20% under the requirement. Community Development is still concerned with the perceived mass 8 P157 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 518 West Main Street: Subdivision, Growth Management for the Development of Affordable Housing, and Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits MEETING DATE: May 17, 2011 APPLICANT /OWNER: feet of floor area (or 0.9:1 FAR) is proposed. Fat City Holdings, LLC, 402 Midland Park Place, Aspen, CO. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning REPRESENTATIVE: Commission approve Growth Management Peter Fornell. review, approve the Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits and recommend Subdivision LOCATION: approval to City Council with conditions. 518 West Main Street, Lots V2 0, P, and Q, Block 30, City and Townsite of SUMMARY: Aspen, Colorado The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of Growth CURRENT ZONING & USE: Management review for the Development of Located in the Main Street Historic Affordable Housing, approval for the District within the Mixed Use zone Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits for district. 518 West Main Street currently 24.0 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). contains a 19 century residence that was gutted by an internal fire and a circa • 1950s detached garage. The lot is approximately 7,500 square feet in size. PROPOSED LAND USE: _ The Applicant is requesting to re- - A; habilitate the historic home, demolish the k garage, and construct 2 new detached { multifamily structures. The entire project is 100% affordable housing and the applicant requests approval to establish .. affordable housing credits for 24.0 full time equivalents. 11 deed restricted for Image 1: 518 West Main Street, subject property sale affordable housing units are proposed. Approximately 7,100 square Staff Memo 518 West Main Street 05/17/2011 Page 1 of 6 P158 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to develop 518 West Main Street: Planning and Zoning Commission Approvals: • Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing (Subsection 26.470.070.4). The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. • Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit (Subsection 26.540.050). The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. City Council Approvals: • Subdivision Review (Section 26.480) for the development of multi- family units. City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. ** *Note: the project requires HPC Final Review after Subdivision Review which includes review of materials, architectural details, landscape, lighting, and the roof forms of the new buildings. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: • �., 518 West Main Street is a A designated historic property and is a contributing resource within - the Main Street Historic ; a District. Pursuant to the Land i �, sT. Use Code, the Historic ,400 ,041110 Preservation Commission HPC reviewed and approved Mr1IN sr _ ° �` - - •�.. ' —' - (HPC) pp L. Conceptual Major Development , .: r related to site plan, mass, form, -`i. __ . ter height and scale of the project; granted a reduction in the Image 2: Historic photograph of 518 West Main Street (at center) parking requirement from the required 11 spaces, or 1 space per unit, to 8 required onsite spaces; granted a reduction in the Trash/Utility requirement related to height and depth; and granted a side yard setback variance for light wells proposed adjacent to the Ullr Commons (west side yard). HPC included a condition of approval that the roof forms for the two new detached buildings be changed to a sloped roof and further developed for review and approval during Final Review (in addition to the typical Final Review items - materials, landscape, lighting, windows, architectural details, etc.). The HPC Resolution is attached as Exhibit F. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant proposes the following: Staff Memo 518 West Main Street 05/17/2011 Page 2 of 6 P159 • Relocate the historic home toward the southeast on the lot and construct two new detached buildings: one fronting Main Street and one behind the historic resource. • 100% affordable housing project with 11 affordable housing units the majority of which are 2- bedroom Category 2 units, a breakdown of the units is below. • The historic home is proposed to be divided down the middle to create 2 units that each occupies the basement and first floor. A total of 2 units are proposed. • The new Main Street building proposes 3 units that span the basement and first floors and 3 units that occupy the second and third floors, and a studio unit located on the first floor. A total of 7 units are proposed. • The new building located behind the historic home is proposed to have an accessible unit located entirely on the first floor; and a unit that spans the second and third floor. A total of 2 units are proposed. • 8 onsite parking spaces accessed off of the rear alley are proposed. As mentioned previously, HPC reduced the parking requirement from 11 spaces to 8 onsite spaces. Table 1: Mixed Use Zone District Requirements vs. Proposed Dimensions for 518 W. Main St. Underly M Use Zone Proposed Dimensions Di Dimensional Requirement P strict Requirements Minimum Gross Lot Area 3,000 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. Minimum Net Lot Area Not applicable for Multi- n/a per dwelling unit family housing development. Minimum Lot Width 30 ft. 75 ft. Minimum Front Yard 10 ft. 10 ft. for both buildings. • Setback Minimum Side Yard East side yard = 5 ft. Setback 5 ft ' West side yard = 1.5 ft. Minimum Rear Yard 5 ft 5 ft. Setback 28 ft., may be increased to 32 Maximum Height ft. through Commercial Design Approximately 28 ft. Review. Minimum Distance 10 ft. Approximately 10 ft. between Buildings 'RFC granted a setback varia::e `: r e 1. 0 - lit wells in the west side yard, adjacent to the Ullr Commons. Staff Memo 518 West Main Street 05/17/2011 Page 3 of 6 P160 Underlying Mixed Use Zone Dimensional Requirement Proposed Dimensions District Requirements Minimum 20 ft. wide x 8 ft. deep x Utility/trash/recycle area, 20 ft wide x 10 ft. deep x 8 ft. high accessed off of 10 ft. high t he alley (Pursuant to Section 26.575.060) y Pedestrian Amenity Space Not applicable to multi - family n/a housing development Maximum Floor Area Approx. 0.9:1 or 7,100 sq. ft. Ratio for Affordable 1:1 or 7,500 sq. ft. of floor area of floor area Housing 1 The applicant proposes a mix of affordable housing unit Categories ranging from 2 to 4. All of the units with the exception of units 8 and 9 exceed the minimum net livable area specified in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Guidelines. The Housing Office recommends approval of the 2% reduction for units 8 and 9. Referral comments from the Housing Office request that Unit #11, which is proposed to be a 3 bedroom, Category 2 be changed to Category 3. The APCHA Guidelines list priorities for family- oriented sales at the Category 3 and 4 levels; however the Land Use Code does not require specific categories for non - mitigation affordable housing development. Additionally if the category is changed, the unit will not meet the minimum net livable required for a Category 3 unit. Table 2: Breakdown of Proposed Affordable Housing Units Minimum; " Pro net Unit site # of FTEs Unit # Bedroo c ateg o ry livable area site difference generated .* a . required � _ 1 2 4 1,013 950 63 2.25 2 2 2 912 850 62 2.25 3 2 2 926 850 76 2.25 4 2 2 980 950 30 2.25 5 2 3 980 950 30 2.25 6 1 2 647 600 47 1.75 7 studio 2 446 400 46 1.25 8 2 2 836 850 (14) 2.25 9 2 2 836 850 (14) 2.25 10 2 2 858 850 8 2.25 11 3 2 1,175 1,000 175 3.00 Totals 21 9,609 24 2 HPC granted a reduction of the trash/utility /recycle area. Staff Memo 518 West Main Street 05/17/2011 Page 4 of 6 P161 STAFF COMMENTS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW: The proposed affordable housing units are not for mitigation purposes. The Housing Board was unable to render a formal decision before May 17, 2011 due to quorum issues. The meeting is rescheduled to June 1, 2011. An informal recommendation from the Housing Office was submitted that recommends approval of the project as presented with conditions (Exhibit E). Staff finds that the review criteria for the Development of Affordable Housing are met and recommends approval of Growth Management Review with the condition that the Housing Board approves a reduction of the minimum net livable unit sizes of Units 8 and 9 as shown in Table 2. Staff is not in favor of increasing the three bedroom, Category 2 unit to a Category 3 unit as proposed in the Housing Office memo because it would require a reduction in the minimum size requirement, and the Land Use Code does not specify categories related to non - mitigation affordable housing. CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT: The applicant requests approval to establish Affordable Housing Credits for 24 full time equivalents (FTEs) upon obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the units. Staff finds that the review criteria are met as outlined in Exhibit C and recommends approval with conditions. SUBDIVISION: Generally, there are two different types of subdivision: the actual division of land into two or more lots or parcels, or the creation of separate legal interests in one parcel. The development proposal before the Planning and Zoning Commission is to create separate legal interests in one parcel. HPC had detailed discussions during Conceptual Review about the proposed mass of the new structures on the lot and appropriate building placement that preserves the integrity of the historic resource and the Main Street Historic District. As illustrated in Exhibit A, Staff finds that the Subdivision Review Criteria are met and the project is consistent with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Utilities Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, Environmental Health, Transportation, the Building Department and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. To address concerns about possible changes to the project that may result during building permit review, Staff included a condition of approval that any physical changes to the project that are required to comply with site drainage standards, for example, may require a land use review to amend the approvals. A detailed site plan including proposed drainage and storm water mitigation is required to be submitted to the Engineering Department for review prior to Final HPC approval. Staff Memo 518 West Main Street 05/17/2011 Page 5 of 6 P162 The Environmental Health Department brought up some concerns about the reduction in size of the trash/utility /recycle area and the "tradeoff between the community goal of keeping the trash area small and unobtrusive, and the community goal of encouraging recycling (making sure they can do the recycling they will want to do)." They stressed that "the residents may have problems in the future fitting in all the containers they wish to use — but the environmental section of the code doesn't require them to have more room than HPC recommends." The project is required meet Municipal Code Chapter 12.06 Waste Reduction. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP and the applicable review standards in the City Land Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the project. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No._, Series of 2011, approving with conditions, Growth Management Review for the Development of Affordable Housing, the Establishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits for 24 full time equivalents, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, Subdivision Review for the redevelopment of 518 West Main Street " ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A — Subdivision Review Criteria. EXHIBIT B — Growth Management Review Criteria. EXHIBIT C — Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit Review Criteria. EXHIBIT D — Development Review Committee comments from April 20, 2011. EXHIBIT E — Housing Office Referral comments dated May 4, 2011. EXHIBIT F — HPC Resolution number 4, Series of 2011. EXHIBIT G - HPC Minutes dated February 23, 2011 and March 23, 2011. EXHIBIT H - Application Staff Memo 518 West Main Street 05/17/2011 Page 6 of 6 P163 RESOLUTION NO. SERIES OF 2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS, AND A RECOMMENDATION OF A SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 518 WEST MAIN STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS P, Q, AND % OF LOT 0, ORIGINAL TOWNSITE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2735 -12- 443 -006 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Fat City Holdings manager Peter Fomell requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Growth Management review for the development of affordable housing, Establishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, and a recommendation of approval of Subdivision to the Aspen City Council to redeveloped 518 West Main Street by rehabilitating the historic home and constructing two (2) new detached multi- family structures with the entire project containing eleven (11) affordable housing units equivalent to twenty-four (24) full time equivalents; and, WHEREAS, the property is located is within the Mixed Use (MU) Zone District and is included on the Aspen Inventory of Sites and Structures as a local historic landmark and a contributing resource within the Main Street Historic District; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Transportation Department, Utilities Department, Fire Protection District, Environmental Health and Parks Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the Growth Management Allotments for the Development of Affordable Housing, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits and recommendation of approval for Subdivision Review; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 17, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of P &Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 518 West Main Street Page 1 of 7 P164 the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fords that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Affordable Housing a. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves eleven (11) Affordable Housing Growth Management Allotments from the 2011 Growth Management Year, conditioned upon the reduction of the minimum net livable unit sizes of Units 8 and 9, both two bedroom Category 2 units, to 836 square feet each. The units, described in Table 1 below, shall be deed restricted for -sale ownership units pursuant to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority's Guidelines. Table 1: Affordable Housin. Unit Breakdown :#ofFTEs Vnit# Bedrooms Category , .,g ner'ated.' i ,_, 2 4 2.25 2 2 2 2.25 3 2 2 2.25 4 2 2 2.25 5 2 3 2.25 6 1 2 1.75 7 studio 2 1.25 8 2 2 2.25 9 2 2 2.25 10 2 2 2.25 11 3 2 3.00 Totals 21 24 b. Affordable Housing Credits: The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the establishment of affordable housing credits for 24.0 Full Time Equivalents upon receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable housing units pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.540 Affordable Housing Credits. Prior to establishment of Affordable Housing Credits the units shall be deed restricted pursuant to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority' s Guidelines. Section 2: Subdivision The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council grant Subdivision approval as described in Table 2: P &Z Resolution #_, Series of 2011 518 West Main Street Page 2 of' 7 P165 Table 2: Proposed Dimensions for 518 West Main Street Redevelopment 1) imenswitatRequirement � �i Y d ma,�llSi< = I��str��ieYqu�reii>I�nts � � _ Minimum Gross Lot Area 3,000 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. Minimum Net Lot Area Not applicable for Multi- n/a per dwelling unit family housing development. Minimum Lot Width 30 ft. 75 ft. Minimum Front Yard 10 ft. 10 ft. for both buildings. Setback Minimum Side Yard East side yard = 5 ft. Setback 5 ft. West side yard = 1.5 ft. Minimum Rear Yard 5 ft. 5 ft. Setback 28 ft., may be increased to 32 Maximum Height ft. through Commercial Design Approximately 28 ft. Review. Minimum Distance 10 ft. Approximately 10 ft. between Buildings 20 ft wide x 8 ft. deep x 8.5 Minimum 20 ft. wide x 10 ft. deep x 10 ft high accessed off of the Utility/trash /recycle area ft, high g , (Pursuant to Section 26.575.060) alley Pedestrian Amenity Space Not applicable to multi - family n/a housing development Maximum Floor Area Approximately 0.9:1 or 7,100 Ratio for Affordable 1:1 or 7,500 sq. ft. of floor area sq. ft. of floor area Housing Section 3: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P &Z and HPC Resolutions. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. HPC granted a setback variance for three lightwells in the west side yard, via HPC Resolution number 4 Series of 2011. 2 HPC granted a reduction of the trash/utility /recycle area via HPC Resolution number 4, Series of 2011. P &Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 518 West Main Street Page 3 of 7 P166 d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which meets adopted city standards. e. An excavation stabilization plan and drainage report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements and construction management plan (CMP). The CMP shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging /encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. f. A detailed excavation plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. h. A formal site plan indicating the location of the tree protection. i. A landscape plan proposing improvements for the Right of Way subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20 as described in Section 7 below. Section 4: Engineering Final design and analysis shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. A site drainage design and storm water runoff mitigation measures shall be conceptually approved by the Engineering Department prior to Final HPC approval. If the drainage design cannot meet city standards, the design will need to be amended and may require review and approval by City Council and/or the Historic Preservation Commission. Due to the current condition of the curb and gutter abutting the property the curb and gutter shall be replaced prior to granting of a Certificate of Occupancy pursuant to city standards. Additional detailed comments are included in the Referral Agency Comments dated April 20, 2011 and attached to the Planning and Zoning Commission staff memo dated May 17, 2011 as Exhibit D. Section 5: Environmental Health Prior to remodel or demolition, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. The project shall meet Aspen Municipal Code Section 12.06 Waste Reduction. If the project cannot meet city standards, the design will need to be amended and may require review and approval by City Council and/or the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 6: Parks Tree permit: The tree permit shall be submitted for approval prior to building permit submittal. Said permit shall outline protection of existing trees, drip line excavations and mitigation for any removals as referenced in Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. P &Z Resolution # Series of 2011 518 West Main Street Page 4 of 7 P167 A, vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section 13.20. Irrigation of trees is required throughout the entire length of the project. Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all times. Additional detailed comments are included in the Referral Agency Comments dated April 20, 2011 and attached to the Planning and Zoning Commission staff memo dated May 17, 2011 as Exhibit D. Protection for existing lilacs: Tree protection is required for the existing Lilacs located on the property. These protection measures shall meet the standards of the Parks Department and goals of the Historical Preservation Committee to be approved by the City Forester. ROW Improvements: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved first by the City Parks Department. Final plans shall show compliance with these requirements by way of new street trees, irrigation and sod, all of which is subject to approval by the City Forester. Concurrent with changes to the alignment of the Main Street sidewalk, as specified in Section 4: Engineering, the exposed area will need to be re- vegetated and irrigated for a new parkway with sod. Coordination with the Parks Department will be required to protect roots during installation of the irrigation system. An irrigation system is required the entire length of the ROW. Section 7: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. The old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements, before any and all soil stabilization measures are attempted and prior to ACSD releasing any and all permits. A separate ACSD permit is required. Additional detailed comments are included in the Referral Agency Comments dated April 20, 2011 and attached to the Planning and Zoning Commission staff memo dated May 17, 2011 as Exhibit D. Section 8: Fire Department All structures, regardless of size, shall have installed approved life safety systems (i.e. fire sprinklers and fire alarms), and meet adopted city standards. Section 9: Utilities Department Requirements The Applicant shall cr-: lv wfth the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 of the Aspen Municipal Code, as raii: by the City of Aspen Water Department. P &Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 518 West Main Street Page 5 of 7 P16 Section 10: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance for the excavation/stabilization permit. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 11: Impact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development impact fee and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) /Air Quality impact fee assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance for the excavation/stabilization permit. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 12: Any changes to the proposal adopted by the Aspen City Council that are in conflict with the approved growth management allotments specified herein shall supersede the Planning and Zoning Commission's adopted resolution. Section 13: 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 plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 14: 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 15: 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. [signatures on following page] P &Z Resolution #_, Series of 2011 518 West Main Street Page 6 of 7 P16 APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 17 day of May, 2011. Stan Gibbs, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R. True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P &Z Resolution # , Series of 2011 518 West Main Street Page 7 of 7 P170 Exhibit A Subdivision Review Sec. 26.480.050.Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. • 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan as described below: Managing Growth: • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Goal D, pg 18) • "Foster a well - balanced community through integrated design that promotes economic diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles, and the mixing of people from different backgrounds." (Goal E, pg 19) The project is located on Main Street within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary which encourages transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles and contributes to diversity along Main Street. The Main Street Historic District historically represented a mix of residential properties along with commercial uses. The proposed residential multi - family project contributes to the residential aspects of the historic district. Transportation: • "The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters that reduced congestion and air pollution. Walking, Bicycling and transit use is promoted to help us reach that goal." (Intent, pg 21) • "Structure new growth in the community on compact, mixed -use patterns that enable and support travel by foot, bicycle, and public transportation for all types of trips." (Policies, pg 22 ) The location of the project on Main Street fully supports community goals to promote alternative methods of transportation: a RFTA bus stop is already located in front of the project; sidewalks are located along Main Street, and bicycling routes are abundant. Housing: • "Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods..." (Intent, pg 25) 518 West Main Street, 05/17/2011 Exhibit A- Subdivision Review Page 1 of 4 P171 • "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community and should emphasize quality construction and design even though that emphasis necessarily increases costs and lessens production." (Philosophy, pg 25) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "Consideration should be given to minimize the development footprint of all affordable housing projects without compromising the appropriate density or the livability of the project." (Policies, pg 26) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Goal E, pg 27) Historic Preservation: • "Do not approve `copytecture' solutions. Encourage sensitive additions and talk about compatibility in terms of `sympathetic, subservient, and contextual'." (Goal C, pg 40) • "Protect all buildings and sites of historic significance." (Goal F, pg 40) Design Quality: • "We wish to encourage creativity that results in design solutions that are fresh and innovative, yet are net additions to the built environment by being contextually appropriate and harmonious without being copies of that which already exists." (Philosophy, pg 43) The 100% affordable housing project meets the goals of the Housing Chapter of the AACP by developing housing that is within the traditional townsite. The Historic Preservation, Housing and Design Quality goals are met through the balance of density, sensitive development and rehabilitation of a historic 19 century Miner's residence. The proposed development combines these goals into one project that promotes the Housing program and contributes to town's history by resurrecting a historic resource. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved the conceptual design of the project (massing, scale, proportion) with specific conditions related to the architecture to be addressed during Final HPC Review. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Response: The proposed project is consistent with the requirements and uses of the Mixed Use Zone District and existing land uses in the area. Staff finds this criterion is met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Response: The proposed subdivision is technical in nature and as such shall not adversely affect future development. Staff finds this criterion is met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. 518 West Main Street, 05/17/2011 Exhibit A- Subdivision Review Page 2 of 4 P172 Staff Response: The applicant represents that the project is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. Any conflicts with the project meeting the requirement of this Title may result in the project requiring an amendment pursuant to the requirement in the Land Use Code, as described in the draft conditions of approval. Staff finds that this criterion is met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: The subject prorerty is a generally flat site located on Main Street that is currently developed with a 19 century Miner' s cottage. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Response: Not applicable. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and /or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Response: The applicant represents that the relevant improvements described at Chapter 26.580 are met in the proposed project. As mentioned previously, any changes that result from the project meeting the required standards listed in Chapter 26.580 may require an amendment to the project and associated land use reviews. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. 518 West Main Street, 05/17/2011 Exhibit A- Subdivision Review Page 3 of 4 P173 Staff Response: The applicant proposes a 100% affordable housing project and requests Growth Management approval for the development of affordable housing concurrent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of Subdivision. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. Staff Response: The applicant agrees to comply with the applicable school land dedication standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44 -2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, § §29, 30) Staff Response: Growth Management review for the development of affordable housing is concurrently processed with Subdivision review at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 518 West Main Street, 05/17/2011 Exhibit A- Subdivision Review Page 4 of 4 P174 Exhibit B GMQS Review for Affordable Housing Sec. 26.470.050. General requirements. A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and meet. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Response: The project is 100% affordable housing, which does not have an annual limit for growth management allotments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: Staff finds that the goals of the 2000 AACP are met in this application, as described in Exhibit A, Subdivision Review. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Response: The development conforms to the requirements of the Mixed Use Zone District, with the exception of a sideyard setback variance, a reduction of the trash utility /recycle area, and a reduction of the required parking spaces onsite all of which were granted by the Historic Preservation Commission via Resolution number 4, series of 2011. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. Staff Response: The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, Resolution number 4, series of 2011. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60 %) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to 518 West Main Street- 5/17/2011 Exhibit B — GMQS Review Page 1 of 4 P175 Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Staff Response: Not applicable. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30 %) of the additional free - market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ( "voluntary units ") may be deed - restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee /Square Footage Conversion. Staff Response: Not applicable. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Response: The applicant represents that any additional demand on the public infrastructure shall be mitigated as part of the project. Specific conditions of approval are included in the draft resolution that require preliminary approval of drainage plans by the Engineering Department, for example, prior to the project applying for Final HPC approval. Any changes to I -; an of the project that result from compliance with other departmental standards may rega e n - _mendment to the approvals, depending on the scope of the changes. 518 West Main Street- 5/17/2011 Exhibit B — GMQS Review Page 2 of 4 P176 Sec. 26.470.070.Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed - restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Response: The Housing Authority submitted referral comments for the project. The Housing Board of Directors was unable to meet on May 4, 2011 due to quorum issues and rescheduled the hearing for June 1, 2011. The Housing Office recommends in favor of the project with conditions. Staff included a condition of approval in the draft resolution that the Board of Directors reduces the minimum net livable unit sizes of units 8 and 9 by 2% (from 850 square feet net livable area to 836 square feet net livable area). b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Oft site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash -in -lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash - in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Response: The proposed affordable housing units are not for mitigation purposes. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that 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. 518 West Main Street- 5/17/2011 Exhibit B — GMQS Review Page 3 of 4 P1 77 Staff Response: All of the proposed units satisfy this requirement. d. The proposed units shall be deed - restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long -term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi- municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Response: The 11 units are proposed to deed restricted for sale units. The applicant requests approval to select qualified purchasers for the proposed units as specified in the APCHA guidelines. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e. Non - Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a -d). The owner of such non - mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Staff Response: All 11 of the proposed units are for non - mitigation purposes with the intent of creating affordable housing credits. 518 West Main Street- 5/17/2011 Exhibit B — GMQS Review Page 4 of 4 P178 Exhibit C Affordable Housing Credit Establishment 26.540.040 Review criteria for Planning and Zoning Commission. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to the adoption of a Resolution, if all of the following criteria are met: A. A Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for affordable housing units that have been deed - restricted subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2010, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a -d). Staff Response: This criterion is included as a condition of approval in the draft resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. The affordable housing units are not for the purpose of mitigating impacts of development, or a requirement or obligation of a Development Order. Staff Response: The proposed housing units are not for the purpose of mitigation or to satisfy a requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. A recommendation of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors has been made, establishing the number of Full - Time - Equivalents (FTEs) accommodated by the affordable housing units, pursuant to Affordable Housing Guidelines, as amended. Staff Response: A referral from the Housing Office is included as an exhibit that establishes the number of FTEs accommodated by the housing units to be 24.0 FTEs. A formal recommendation from APCHA shall be rendered on June 1, 2011. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P179 DRC Comments for 518 West Main Street Exhibit D Meeting Date: April 20, 2011 1-irr 1)0,11 ink Contact: Ed Van Walraven, 970/925 -5532 Comments: All structures, regardless of size, shall have installed approved life safety systems (i.e. fire sprinklers and fire alarms). L.ncironmrntal 11•a1th Contact: Lee Cassin, 970/920 -5075 Comments: The City of Aspen's Environmental Health Department has reviewed the referenced land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments. AIR QUALITY: This proposed project consists of 11 affordable housing units with 8 onsite parking spaces, which will replace one existing home. This represents a reduction in parking spaces and is conditioned on pursuing other alternatives or providing 3 additional offsite parking spaces. HPC also recommended reducing the required trash/utility area size to 20' X 8' X 8.5' high. The site is within easy walking distance of bus stops. The application addresses the requirement that projects must have only a minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, including solid waste disposal, transit and others. The application also notes that the subdivision does not have any condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision Findings: • This project increases the volume of traffic on streets in and into Aspen by 80 additional trips /day, using standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates. These trips are not just trips made by residents, but include all trips generated by the project: residents, visitors, deliveries, maintenance personnel, and so on. This creates an additional 402 vehicle miles travelled (using Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment standards) which emits 11 pounds of PM -10 emissions into Aspen's air per day. Those figures are calculated after taking a reduction in trip generation rates for proximity to mass transit. • The project encourages alternative transportation use by the reduction in parking spaces and location close to bus service. • The project is in a location that allows residents to walk to nearby places of employment and shops and restaurants. Residents' trips represent a small proportion of the trips generated by the project, but the location of the project allows that portion of the trips to be _Cade on foot or by bus. 518 West Main Street Exhibit D - DRC Comments Page 1 of 7 P180 • We have no information about construction practices or impacts, so are unable to evaluate air pollution or traffic impacts of construction. ASBESTOS Prior to remodel or demolition, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. RECYCLING: The proposed reduction in size of the trash/recycling area is a concern and may be in conflict with the city's recycling ordinance. That is due to the fact that the ordinance requires all trash haulers to. provide (and include in the basic trash service and rate) pickup of the following recyclables: comingled containers (glass, plastic, cans), office paper, newspaper and magazines, and cardboard. In addition, the ordinance prohibits putting grass clippings and leaves in trash, so associations generally make accommodation for those items as well. Other similarly -sized affordable housing projects devote significantly more space to recycling. Enough containers must be provided to prevent overflow. Cardboard in particular generally requires a larger container similar in size to a trash dumpster. Careful consideration should be given to ensuring the space provided is adequate and wildlife- proof. The applicant may be considering sharing trash and/or recycling containers with neighboring properties. A consideration should be the fact that one or the other party may wish to discontinue this arrangement in the future, so this project would still need to be able to have space at that time for all of their trash and recycling containers. NOISE: We recommend that the applicant carefully consider the noise impacts from traffic on Main St. in the sound- proofing and window design of the units. If these design issues are not considered at the initial stages, solving potential problems in the future may be difficult or impossible. t ti1ities )ch<<runcnt Contact: Andy Rossello, 970/429 -1999 Comments: This is within our service area and we have capacity in our system to supply this project with water and electric. As there are no site plans yet it is very difficult to determine how this would be accomplished. We will comment and direct at Building permit review. We require all standards for water and electric distribution systems be met. :Asfcn t S.mitation I)i ict Contact: Tom Bracewell, tom@aspensan.com Comments: Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. 518 West Main Street Exhibit D - DRC Comments Page 2 of 7 P181 On -site utility plans are required with approval by ACSD before the District can commit to serving this application. The old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements, before any and all soil stabilization measures are attempted and prior to ACSD releasing any and all permits. A separate ACSD permit is required. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stub - outs prior to building permit. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. Ln!�inccrin llcjartmcnt Contact: Tricia Aragon, 970/429 -2785 Comments: These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. Drainage: General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. 518 West Main Street Exhibit D - DRC Comments Page 3 of 7 P182 Below is a partial list: (a full review will be completed when there is enough information to review) Of particular concern is how the site will drain. For example if the Alley drains onto the property how will the property protect itself from this drainage. Additionally the site may need to protect itself from the 100 yr storm on Main Street. Not sure how this will be accomplished. Lastly the property will not be allowed to drain (greater than historical drainage) onto the neighboring properties there by negatively affecting them. Not sure how this will be accomplished. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: General note: All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21. Below is a partial list: (a full review will be completed when there is enough information to review) • Construction and Excavation Standards III F(3): Requires that the sidewalk is placed along the property line to provide adequate snow storage. As a result the sidewalk will need to be relocated. The sidewalk must be a minimum of 5 feet in width. • 21.16.090: Due to the current condition of the curb and gutter abutting the property the engineering dept will require that the curb and gutter be replaced prior to CO. Site: Curbing or curb stops along parking space 5, 6, and 7 will be required to protect the walkway areas from the parking. Note if curbing is used keep in mind that Parking space 5, 6, and 7 will reduce the 3.8 foot walkway in front of the spaces down to 2.3 feet by the trash service area. As a result this area will not be accessible. Construction Management — A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. Because this building is located in the main street corridor, the encroachments that will be allowed will be limited to the off season. Excavation Stabilization — Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building the City will require an excavation stabilization plan prior to building permit submittal. System Development Fee or Fee in Lieu —The system development fee is $2.88 per square foot of impervious area. The fee is assessed against the total impervious area of the development, not simply the increased impervious area. However, the Fee in lieu is 518 West Main Street Exhibit D - DRC Comments Page 4 of 7 P183 currently before Council and may be in affect when this project submits for building permit. I uildind I)cpmIntent Contact: Denis Murray, 970/429 -2761 Comments: The project at 518 West Main Street, plan set date 2/28/11. We have done a preliminary review for compliance on this project to the policies and codes as currently adopted and amended per Title 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code. http:/ /www.aspenpitkin.com/Depattments /Community- Develonment/Building/ http: / /www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals /0 /docs/ City /clerk/municode /coasnent08.pdf The comments are intended to provide the applicant with corrections or concems that may require further development or be re drawn to show compliance. We are available to schedule a meeting to discuss these items at your earliest convenience. Please either email me at denism @ci.aspen.co.us or call at 970 - 429 -2761. 1) The project will be reviewed to the 2009 International Codes. 2) The reviews of the current plans do not comply with the exiting requirements of the IBC from the upper levels. a. We have met with the Design team and have discussed a couple options to show compliance. We will review those options when submitted. Parks Deportment Contact: Brian Flynn, 970/429 -2035 Comments: A) Site plan: 1) The current plan does not represent accurate or up to date site conditions, specifically vegetation. The applicant will need an up to date plan for tree permits and final approval. 2) The City will need a site plan that shows or identifies the areas of impact — where will excavation take place, how deep, type of machinery, storage of materials, etc..... 3) Parks is concerned with the significant potential of impacts and conflicts with the installation of new utilities. Water lines from main street will be required to be bored under the sidewalk are to prevent excavation under the drip line of trees and root damage. 13) Tree Permit: Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to submission of any permit, building, demo, access or land permit. Please contact the City Forester at 429 -2026. The tree permit should outline protection of existing trees, drip line excavations and mitigation for any removals. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. C) Tree Protection: 518 West Main Street Exhibit D - DRC Comments Page 5 of 7 P184 1) A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920 -5120) before any construction activities are to commence. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 2) Tree protection is required for the historical Lilacs located on the property. These protection measures shall meet the standards of the Parks Department and goals of the Historical Preservation Committee. 3) Irrigation of trees is required throughout the entire length of the project. The Contractor will supply water to the trees at a rate which is appropriate for proper health. Additional watering will take place along the edge of the roots cutting. The contractor will be required to place a burlap protection cover over the cut roots. The contractor will irrigate the burlap with an appropriate amount of water in order to keep the burlap moist. 4) Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all times. D) Right of Way improvements: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved first by the City Parks Department. Final plans shall show compliance with these requirements by wav of new street trees, irrigation and sod. Designs will be subject to approval from the City Forester, 920 -5120. A plan is required for review and approval. Main Street sidewalk should be removed and repaired to city standards and moved 2 feet closer to the property line, the exposed area will need to be re- vegetated and irrigated for a new parkway with sod. Coordination with the Parks Department will be required to protect roots during installation of the irrigation system. An irrigation system is required the entire length of the ROW. 1 nins poi Union 1)eour Contact: John Krueger Comments: We like the project as it is in town, on a transit route on Main St, and shouldn't add much to the traffic congestion and number of vehicles on Main Street. The applicant should be given credit for this. We would suggest that the applicant calculate and provide a brief analysis of the number of trips projected to be generated by the project (or not), how many might use transit, and the net impact (if any) to traffic. While this is a smaller project, every trip counts in the bigger picture. We would also suggest that they obtain and provide the basic information on transit and other alternative forms of transpc Cation to the purchasers of the units. 518 West Main Street. Exhibit D - DRC Comments Page 6 of 7 P185 We would also, recommend that the applicant get in touch with the Parking Department and/or get comments from them on the parking mitigation plan. 518 West Main Street Exhibit D - DRC Comments Page 7 of 7 P186 Exhibit E Housing Referral MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Adams FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Department DATE: May 4, 2011 RE: REDEVELOPMENT OF 518 WEST MAIN STREET ISSUE: The Historic Preservation Committee reviewed the application to redevelop 518 West Main Street into 100% affordable housing, utilizing the FTE credits for future mitigation. BACKGROUND: The Board reviewed a preliminary project at the February 16, 2011 Regular Meeting. The applicant Peter Fomell with Fat City Holdings, LLC, is interested in relocating the historic home forward on the lot and constructing two new detached buildings. The structures will contain 11 affordable housing units, mainly Category 2 and 3, with eight on -site parking spaces. The common storage and utility area has been removed from the development. HPC reviewed the project and recommended one less unit due to parking constraints. The HPC granted a waiver of three on -site parking spaces. The P &Z and City Council will review the application whereby the HPC has final approval status due to the historic nature of the existing structure. Attached are the proposed floor plans and elevations. The property is located between Ullr Commons and the Mesa Store. The units are broken down as follows: Unit # Category Sq. Ft. # Of Bedrooms Layout 1 4 1,013 2 1 in basement and 1 on ground floor 2 2 912 2 1 in basement and 1 on ground floor 3 2 926 2 2 in basement 4 3 980 2 2 in basement 5 3 980 2 2 in basement 6 2 647 1 1 on ground level 7 2 446 Studio On ground level 8 2 836 2 2 on 1" level, kitchen/living area 2" level 9 2 836 2 2 on 1" level, kitchen/living area 2nd level 10 2 858 2 2 on l" level, kitchen/living area ta level 11 2 1,175 3 1 on 1" level, 2 on 2 level with kitchen/living area The project will house at least 21 individuals with 8 proposed parking spaces on site. The requirement under the Land Use Code is one space per unit. The minimum square footages as stated in the Guidelines are listed below: 518 West Main Street Redevelopment Page 1 EXHIBIT E P187 Exhibit E Housing Referral Categories 1 2 Categories 3& 4 Categories 5& 6 Category 7 Unit Type Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Studio 400 500 600 700 1 Bedroom 600 700 800 900 2Bedroom 850 950 1,000 1,100 3 Bedroom 1,000 1,200 1,300 1,400 Single - Family Detached 1,100 1,400 1,700 1,900 Based on the proposed square footages, most of the units are to be Category 2; the Guidelines allow for a 20% reduction under the following conditions: • Significant storage — additional storage outside the unit; • Above average natural light — more windows than the Code requires; • Efficient and flexible layout — limit to space used for halls and staircases; • Site amenities — pool, near to park or open space, etc.; • Location within the project — above ground versus ground level or below ground; • If the applicant can achieve higher density of deed restricted units with this variance. If the project was approved as is, the number of FTE's the project would mitigate would be as follows: 1 Studio X 1.25 = 1.25 1 One- bedroom X 1.75 = 1.75 8 Two - bedrooms X 2.25 = 18.00 1 Three- bedroom X 3.00 = 3.00 TOTAL 24.0 FTE's Attached are reduced copies of the floor plans and elevations. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board reviewed the application in February and recommended approval of the preliminary application. The Housing Board has not had a chance to review the revised application, but will do so on June 1, 2011. Staff; however, is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. Although the three- bedroom is 25 feet below the minimum for a Category 3 designation, staff would recommend, under the 20% reduction allowable, for the three- bedroom to be designated as Category 3. 2. The units shall be ownership units and sold through the Aspen/Pitkin Count, Housing Authority lottery system upon certificate of occupancy. 3. The applicant, upon Certificate of Occupancy, shall receive the use of 24 mitigation credits, as specified above, in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit (CAHC) with the category specified in the CAHC. 518 West Main Street Redevelopment Page 2 EXHIBIT E P188 Exhibit E Housing Referral 4. The units shall be classified as specified above with the three - bedroom . designation changed to Category 3. 5. That the language allowing for the use of the 100% privately constructed affordable housing development be able to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits to sell to future developers to be approved. 6. The Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits shall be required to describe the dimensions of the affordable housing units (size, number of bedrooms) as well as the category, and shall be recorded with APCHA and with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 518 West Main Street Redevelopment Page 3 EXHIBIT E P189 Exhibit F A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, A SETBACK VARIANCE, PARKING REDUCTION, AND REDUCTION OF TRASH/IJTILITY/RECYCLE SERVICE AREA DIMENSIONS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 518 WEST MAIN STREET LOTS P, Q AND1/2 OF LOT 0, BLOCK 30, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # 4, SERIES OF 2011 PARCEL ID: 2735 -12- 443 -006 WHEREAS, the applicant, Fat City Holdings manager Peter Fomell, has requested Major Development (Conceptual) for a Historic Landmark Property, Demolition, Relocation, a Setback Variances, a Parking Reduction and Waiver, and a Reduction of the Trash/Utility/Recycle service Area Dimension for the property located at 518 West Main Street, Lots P, Q and V2 of 0, Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 518 West Main Street is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, 518 West Main Street is located within the Main Street Historic District and is a considered a contributing building to the integrity of the Historic District; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety z::d the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound 2 --- pi`e evidence of the owner's efforts to 518 West Main Street RECEPTION#: 578767, 03/30/2011 at 10:11:00 O HPC Resolution 1/4, Series of 2011 1 O F 6, 6, R $3 $3 Page 1 of 5 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Exhibit F Exhibit F properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, for approval of relocation, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: 1. It is considered a non - contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. WHEREAS, for approval of parking reductions, HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that: 518 West Main Street HPC Resolution #4, Series of 2011 Page 2 of 5 Exhibit F P191 Exhibit F 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of' a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district; and 2. Pursuant to Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards: A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off - street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account the potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on to the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking; and, WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that the setback variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, for approval of reduction of trash/utility /service area dimensions, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.575.060.B and Section 26.430 of the Municipal Code, that the reduction: 1. There is a demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility /trash/recycle service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. 2. Access to the utility /trash/recycle service area is adequate. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other development in the block. 518 West Main Street HPC Resolution #4, Series of 2011 Page 3 of 5 Exhibit F Exhibit F 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area. WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated March 23, 2011 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 23, 2011 continued to March 9, 2011 and continued again to March 23, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of four to three (4 — 3). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, Relocation, Setback Variance, Parking Waiver, and a Reduction of Trash, Utility and Recycle Area Dimensions for the property located at 518 West Main Street, Lots P, Q and / of 0, Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Conceptual Major Development approval is granted with the following to be submitted in the Final Major Development application, in addition to the Land Use Code requirements: a. A sloped roof is approved for both new buildings with further refinement and approval during HPC Final Review. b. A flat roof with deck access will replace the shed roof on the second story of the new building located behind the historic resource for review during Final Review. c. Provide circulation diagram and hardscape materials in addition to specific plantings proposed for the landscape. d. Provide details on front porch rehabilitation (the Aspen Historical Society may have a photograph to aid in the rehabilitation). e. Provide actual material samples for the all proposed materials (i.e. roof, siding dimensions, foundation, window components etc). f. Provide a detail for all of the front doors, specifically for the historic resource to match a typical 19 century front door on a modest miner's cottage. 2. Demolition of the 1968 garage and 2 non - historic additions to the historic landmark are approved as proposed. 3. Relocation of the historic home is approved with the following to be submitted with the initial building permit application: a. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not the existing floor structure will be maintained and the advantages and disadvantages s of the decision for review and approval by staff and monitor. 518 West Main Street HPC Resolution #4, Series of 2011 Page 4 of 5 Exhibit F PT93 Exhibit F b. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. c. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 4. Parking is reduced to 8 parking spaces provided on site, as shown in Exhibit A to the Resolution. 3 dedicated offsite spaces or other alternatives, one of which may be cash in lieu payment for the 3 spaces, are to be reviewed and approved during Final HPC Review. 5. Utilitv/Trash/Recycle Service Area is reduced to 20' wide by 8' deep by 8.5' high. 6. Setback Variance is granted pursuant to the attached site plan, Exhibit A to the Resolution, for the following: a. 3.5' west side yard setback for lightwells where 5' is required and 1.5' is provided. 7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23` day of March, 2011. 4 rah Broughton, air Approved as to Form: /Jim True, Special Counsel / ATTEST: ttedta .4/ Kathy Stric and, Chief Deputy Clerk Exhibit A: Approved Conceptual site plan 518 West Main Street HPC Resolution #4, Series of 2011 Page 5 of 5 Exhibit F .SL 3NIl l0 7 MS`r="=I"r gi, red IA I � a • � • L H . r g'i m R i I II i 0 N 1 ° I W 1 I I nail I I I ■■ , ,,,,:::, .. .... w d KAI 1 ■o■ ■ ■�,11.■1 CAD i .. r l I I a lir. cp i R IZIr C _ e ' l IL ' - 111 1111 _ ono .o I ammo • • A i III 1 _ __ • I s � � I m...� • it of r p' „ii ti ,._.. _. 8 - - s . yam a a d” .m 2 ,SL 3NI1 101 ° ` e Z j C C ^ D -n M4114 a 1 1r • F--1 Z � Exhibit F r1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2011 Vice- chair, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Jason Lasser, Jamie McLeod, Jay Maytin, Brian McNellis and Willis Pember. Excused was Sarah Broughton. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of Februaty 9 2011; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Ann moved to approve the minutes of February 2611' second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried. 610 E. Hyman — Landmark Designation, Major development and Commercial Design Review, Ord. #48 negotiation MOTION: Jay moved to continue the public hearing on 610 E. Hyman to March 23 second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure: Brian disclosed that Peter Fomell was a client of his when he worked for Blue Green but he feels this in no way will influence his decision. Peter agreed. 518 W. Main — Conceptual Historic Review for Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, Residential Design Standard Review, Parking Reduction and Setback Variances — Public Hearing Exhibit I — proof of publication Exhibit II — Sanborn maps Site visit at NOON Sara said the building is a modest 1880's miner's building located on Main Street. About ten years ago there was an internal fire; however, the exterior form did remain intact. The owner is interested in doing a total rehabilitation of the historic home. Two non - historic additions would be removed on'L e z , ::_. __ :. ;2:^: t p orch would be opened back up. There is Exhibit G HPC minutes 02/23/2011 1 P196 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2011 a late 1960's garage on the property that will be demolished. The historic home would be picked up and moved toward the east and Mesa building. A basement would be built underneath it and they would build two detached multi - family dwelling units, one behind the historic house and the other adjacent to it on Main Street. The project is 100% affordable housing; 12 deed restricted units and 8 on -site parking spaces. The project is just under the maximum FAR. There was a work session last fall on the project. There are six reviews before HPC tonight: 1.Major Development Conceptual review. 2. Demolition of the shed and rear addition to the historic home. 3. Relocation of the historic home. 4. Residential Design Standard variances for multi - family buildings. 5. Parking Reduction/Waiver for 4 parking spaces cash- in- lieu(8 are provided and 12 are required). 6. Setback variances for the front yard of the relocated historic home. Site design and building alignment Sam said all three units will be detached and there is no addition proposed to the historic resource. The lot is 7,500 square feet. In terms of setbacks the historic home is proposed to be moved five feet off the front lot line and ten is required. The new building will have a ten foot setback. Staggering the front yard setbacks does meet the design guidelines and in a good way pushes the development to the rear of the lot. The walkways should be addressed at final and should be straight to the front doors. Building form, height mass and scale Sara explained that the applicant is proposing a mix of gable, flat and shed forms for the new construction and we feel they do relate to the context and what is going on in the district. The exterior stairway helps break up the mass and helps fit in the context of the block. Height Sara said all three of the buildings are below the maximum height limit which is 28 feet. They are about 27.11 feet. The historic home is one story and the building beside it is two story and steps up to three. Staff feels the open space between the buildings is appropriate instead of having a linking element. All the buildings have sub -grade spaces. Overall we feel the height is appropriate and there is an appropriate trade -off having detached construction. The integrity of the historic district is preserved. The roof Exhibit G HPC minutes 02/23/2011 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23.2011 forms and mass work well in the district. Staff recommended 5 conditions for final. They are proposing to rehabilitate the front porch and bring the front doors back to normal. Demolition Sara said the 1960's constructed concrete garage is requested for demolition and the two rear additions. Relocation Sara said the historic resource is in its original location. We feel the criteria are met for relocation. The historic building is in a central location which makes it hard for any development which if not relocated would envelope the house. It is an important trade off for preservation to move the historic home forward on the lot so there is much more prominence and you can see it more and it helps move the development toward the rear. We find that the criteria for relocation are met. Setback variances Sara said there is a side yard variance requested closest to the Ullr that needs to be discussed at final for light wells. The front yard setback is requested for the historic resource. It is supposed to be ten and they are proposing five. Parking waivers Sara explained that HPC can reduce the required parking for a landmark site and also waive the cash -in -lieu. They are required to have one space per unit and they can only fit 8 spaces. The spaces are head in spaces at the rear of the lot. Finding four more spots on this site will have an adverse impact on the historic resource into the context of the site design. We feel it is appropriate for HPC to reduce the parking requirement and to grant the waiver since the applicant is doing so much rehabilitation to the home. Design standards Street oriented entrances Sara said you are supposed to provide one street oriented entrance per four units. They are proposing 12 units so you need three street entrances and they have two. Staff feels it is appropriate to grant a variance. The other variance has to do with a one -story eh::._ it. There is no one -story element proposed for the building directly behind the historic resource. Staff finds this is an appropriate trade off because it maximumizes the unobstructed Exhibit G HPC minutes 02/23/2011 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23. 2011 distance between the historic resource and new construction and it keeps the site as open as it can be by not having a porch or something like that. Next steps Growth management for affordable housing before Planning & Zoning, Council review for subdivision and then back to HPC for final review. Peter Fornell said he is the applicant representing his brother -in -law for the project. We were instrumental in creating the affordable housing credit program where new development will be mitigated through the housing that we create now. There were three structures on the property at one time and we are almost bringing the project back to what it was. We are moving the cabin to the east and when I go down Main Street I would like to see the historic asset. The Mesa Store building is on the lot line. Peter said all 12 of the affordable housing units will have decks, on property storage and are quite a bit larger than what is required by the code. The units meet category 5 and 6 of the affordable housing guidelines and I am stipulating that the units be sold at the category 3 and 4 level because I am concerned about the future users as anyone is. 15 years ago I was the recipient of the housing lottery with my two daughters when they were young. If that product was not out there in the market I might not have had the opportunity to raise two kids here. I hold that close to me to make sure we make the units nice. We could have made the units smaller instead we are making sure the category drops so that it is a more affordable price. Inside the units are things like closets, washer /dryer/ dish washer. I am making these units extremely livable for the people coming in and once they get in making it affordable. There have been so many projects in the valley that have not considered the cost of ownership and those numbers have gotten blown out of proportion. The people who win them can hardly own them. I am keeping that directly in mind as we go forward. With regard to the parking we are undemeath our allowable floor area ratio. We are allowed to have 7,500 square feet above grade and we have 7,125. We aren't looking to pack this lot up. I could change the mix of units and make them all three bedrooms. I could get the same number of FTE credits and the same number of sales dollars from the recipients but there would be less units and less of a parking requirement. I am trying to respond from a community standpoint to what is missing in inventory for affordable housing. Traditionally affordable housing has been built in the higher category and the larger bedroom types. We are loaded with three bedrooms and four bedrooms, categories six and seven. The Boomerang is predominantly one bedroom and studios. We reviewed our Exhibit G 4 1-IPC minutes 02/23/2011 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23. 2011 proposal with Housing and they liked the idea of two bedrooms. Twelve units is better than 8 for our overall community. Willis mentioned that he thinks storage units are a requirement of the housing authority. Willis asked about the construction material. Frank Reynolds, general contractor said the material has not yet been determined. Sam said P &Z will review the configuration of the units as part of the growth management review. Vice -chair Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. Doug Allen said he has lived in Aspen for 38 years and is an attorney and has property on the other side of Main Street. His client Sistie Fischer has one of the most historically important houses in Aspen in the 400 Block of West Bleeker. I am troubled by the fact that everyone thinks the West End can absorb the parking that is not being provided by this project. People don't give up their cars and it is a problem at 7 and Main. The West End can't keep absorbing all the cars for projects that don't provide enough parking. There has to be an innovative way to solve the parking on this project and the applicant is putting the historic resource where it should be and separating it from the new building is great. Molly McGuire, neighbor that lives at the Ullr Lodge. There are 27 units there and there are not 27 cars. At the Gant there are four units there and there are four cars for each unit. Not everyone who lives in employee housing has a car. I don't see this area as having a parking problem. It is a great project and I am supportive of it and there isn't enough affordable housing for people to apply that just move here. We need to keep having new projects. Most seasonal workers don't even bring a car. The Ullr has 8 spaces on 5 and in the back there are four parking spots. Elizabeth Ferguson asked if the city has any plans to do with street parking? Anyone who had a unit could have a guaranteed place nearby. The city does rent parking spaces on Bleeker. The traffic and noise on Main Street is bad. The City needs to address and have a planned thought for parking and not just think that they can find a spot. Exhibit G HPC minutes 02/23/2011 5 P200 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2011 Jay mentioned that this project has come so far from the work session. There is a lot less mass than the previous proposal. Jay suggested that each place have their own window well. The five foot setback on the historic house accomplishes its prominence and splitting the buildings up is an excellent idea and you can see through. Restoring the building is truly what preservation is about. You should be commended taking on a project of restoring the house after there was a fire and for that reason I feel the parking waivers should be granted. Parking offers residential stickers and possibly the other four units that are deed restricted aren't supposed to have cars and they wouldn't be allowed to get a residential permit. Maybe their place becomes a little cheaper not having a car. Jamie said she disagrees about the individual window wells because bedroom A &B are the same units. I wouldn't recommend splitting them apart. Jay agreed. Brian also said that would mean less cutting of the landscape in which he is in favor of. Jason said the changes are in the right direction but he is still struggling to find the design guidelines that address the issues. I want more design and more creativity and a better looking building. We are asked to designate buildings and sacrifice open space and aesthetics of neighborhoods and to me the project needs to be exemplary. We are giving away millions of dollars every time we do a lot split and every time we do something like this. I get frustrated we only have a certain amount of standards to go by and design is a subjective thing. You are on the right track but you have a ways to go. Guideline 7.12 step down in scale. The building behind the historic resource needs to have that and be sensitive to the mass. Guideline 7.13 range in variation and guideline 7.14 similar in scale. The new building on Main Street could step down in scale and could have a one -story front porch to meet guideline 7.15. Jason commended the applicant for doing an affordable housing project. This is Aspen and if we are giving this stuff away we need to have great looking buildings and we might not have any standards for that. Ann went over the conditions for final: A) Relocation of the kitchen counters B) Provide circulation diagram and hardscape materials. C) Provide front porch rehabilitation. Exhibit G 6 HPC minutes 02/23/2011 �_.. ...__ rzu ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2011 D) Provide material samples. E) Provide details of the front doors. Ann added for final to have a landscape plan for the existing plant material, what is being removed and what is being retained specifically the lilacs. The plant materials are important to the historic site. Nora said at one point HPC among themselves needs to discuss parking in general in Aspen. Nora said her concern are the lilacs on the east side next to Mesa store. Peter said those bushes are just about on the lot line. Jay said those decisions for final are good but they should not affect conceptual. Ann asked if everyone is in agreement of condition #1 for final. All agreed. Nora said condition #3 for final should respect the lilacs. Brian said the historic house should be brought up to a more prominence on the street. Ann agreed and having the buildings staggered across on Main Street is successful. Jason mentioned 7.5 settlement patterns. I would rather see the reduction in the size of the units and have it pulled back and not ask for a variance. Peter said he can do that and not affect the other elements of the project but the movement of the historic building forward was to benefit the building. Brian said bringing it forward is a gesture to have more prominence on the historic building. Jason said he prefers that everything else recede behind the historic house. Jason said historically he is not sure staggering patterns occurred. Ann said the question is, is it OK to relocate the house on -site and allow sympathetic development. Exhibit G 7 HPC minutes 02/23/2011 P202 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23. 2011 Brian said if we are lifting up the building and going to the effort to restore the historic resource let's bring it forward to give it prominence and attention. Jason said there are not many places left in town with a lawn. I would keep it at 18 feet and keep everything else around it. Willis said in general he agrees with Jason. Amy pointed out that on the Sanborn map setbacks are different all over the city. Ann asked for comments on the setback five foot vs. ten feet. Jamie agreed on the 10 foot to give the yard more prominence. Jay disagreed and prefers the five foot setback. Jay said he would prefer to see the historic building coming up to the lot line. Jay pointed out that the house on the west is very large. With the five feet you get a little yard. Jason said he prefers the 10 foot setback. You could put a porch on the new building to the west so the entire facade can be pulled back six feet so that the mass is perceived to be pulled back. We then get a little streetscape to add to our Main Street character. We have the opportunity to ask for a great design. Brian said he is OK with the five foot setback. Ann said she would prefer the ten foot because it would be difficult to do landscaping with five feet. Nora and Willis preferred the ten foot setback. Sara tallied — 5 for a ten foot setback and 2 for a five foot setback. Parking: Jay said the amount of bedrooms has nothing to do with the amount of cars that are parked there. He could reconfigure this and make 8 units with the same amount of density. ,Would should consider giving the waiver and that the deed restrictions for the four units are not allowed to have cars and they are not permitted residential permits. Exhibit G 8 HPC minutes 02/23/2011 vzu3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2011 Sara also mentioned car share memberships. Jay mentioned the electric car that they are using at Aspen Walk. The only issue is that you lose a spot because the car is in it. Possibly the applicant and housing authority can alleviate individuals from owning a car. Jay said it is one car per unit in this area. There is a deficiency in two bedroom units. Peter said he can build a larger building and get more FTE credits and have less units and therefore satisfy the parking requirement but that is not the best community benefit for us. The best community benefit is to put inventory into the two bedroom category. It is not in the interest of the community to change this project. I am concerned about the livability for people. I am trying to be sensitive to the people coming into these units. All of the different remarks on mass make sense but we have to keep in context the scope of what we are doing. Jason said he is keeping the community in context and we have heard from neighbors that parking is an issue and I am trying to be sensitive. Nora said we need a discussion about the parking culture in town. Pushing parking in to the West End also changes the character of Bleeker street. Nora asked the applicant if he could go underground for parking. Peter said not without great expense to the project. I have been in contact with the parking department, APCHA and discussed this notion of a discounted rate in our underutilized city parking garage for somebody who is willing to put their car there for a month and not move it. If I could put my car in the parking garage for $75. a month I would do that. This would take interdepartmental discussion. Brian asked how much a parking space is worth? Sara said $30,000 each. The money is used for transportation. Jamie said she is in favor of the parking waivers but have the four units tied somehow to the garage or the parking permit system that you can't get one if you live in one of the four units. The issue is how do you enforce people not having cars and parking is always going to be an issue. I am not in favor of waiving the cash -in -lieu. We need to -start thinlcing about project and parking and possibly have a meeting with the parking department. What happens if th raxt project a block over wants to waive six spaces. We need to be careful as a board and think about i ;, rddress these concerns. : iL °.t c 9 HPC minutes 02/23/2011 P204 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2011 Peter said if you pull in a parking space and it is full then you get a permit and park on the street. You can go to a lot of employee housing projects that had parking requirements placed on them and what you find is that they are not full. Brian said the reality is that these are two bedrooms and possibly we will have two cars per unit. I also don't want to make the parking worse by having the overflow into the West End. I am in favor of the parking waiver and the cash -in -lieu request for $120,000 could sink the project. Nora said the cash -in -lieu goes to help solve the problem. Willis asked if the applicant tried to get 12 spots on the site and if you do you don't have 12 units. Peter said the only way to get 12 cars is to park underground. To do underground we would have to add a half million to the project. The only easy answer is to increase the size of the units to three bedrooms and reduce the number of units to 8. You would have four less owners but the number of people living there will be about the same. The size and massing will be about the same and the number of credits I get will be about the same. All we are doing is satisfying a concern that is a real unknow at the expense of the best product based on the current inventory. Ann said this is a new type of housing development, these bankable employee units such as the Boomerang and now this one. We need to stick to what is required one to one. Maybe the unit number gets reduced. I think the idea about the parking garage is great. I cannot support the reduced parking and it is setting a precedent and this will snowball. Peter said Benedict Commons is in the core downtown and they a parking garage and it is more than half empty. The City of Aspen owns 15 or 18 parking spaces and they are trying to rent them out for $150 a month and can't get them rented. The parking issue is a false problem created by opponents of development. Amy pointed out that surrounding home owner have no limitations on the amount of cars they can have. Exhibit G 10 HPC minutes 02/23/2011 rcu5 ASPEN (HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2011 Willis asked about guest parking. Peter said there is no guest requirement. Jay said the bottom line is that you are trying to control the amount of cars and by making him be within code you are increasing the density and with the three bedrooms you are probably going to have four people living there. The code fails us because it shouldn't be based on units it should be based on how many bedrooms there are. I feel that the parking spots should be deeded to the eight units. Ann said the discussion is are we waiving four parking spots. Nora, Jason, Ann and Willis are not in favor of waiving the parking spots. Brian and Jamie are in favor of waiving the parking spots . Jamie is in favor of the cashe -in -lieu and Brian feels that some mitigation should occur but not the total, $130,000. Jay said he is in favor of waiving the parking spots and the cash -in -lieu. Peter said he feels he has a great project for the community of Aspen and a great benefit for those who end up in the affordable housing. It would be a shame to see the project get changed over the type of inventory over a parking issue. I also feel it is too much to ask of an applicant to try to make everyone happy from a design standpoint. I don't necessarily like the employee housing on West Hopkins but other people seem to like it. When I did the project at 301 E. Hyman we drew it up, went to P &Z and they said change it, we looked at it again and they said change it, we looked at it again and I laid out three versions and there were six members on the board two liked the first design, two liked the second design and two liked the third. I believe there are too many available opinions about the architecture. We need to look at the historical asset. I am building within the setbacks and height limits and under the FAR . You need to think about the requirements that are imposed on me and judge those and not take me any further than that. MOTION: Jason moved to continue the meeting until 7:30 p.m. second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. - Arai rc::Ged out that the board needs to give direction to the applicant. Exhibit G HPC minutes 02/23/2011 11 P206 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2011 Jamie said we need to break down the issues and discuss them and give input. Design comments: Jamie addressed mass and scale. Jamie said her concern is the height of the three story building behind the historic building. Another concern is the deck next to the historic resource on Main Street. It seems like you are adding a deck just so everyone can have a deck. Another concern is the alley side with the three story exposed element; how does that building feel in the context of the alley. At final physical materials should be submitted and explain how they relate to the historic house. Another concern is the access to the site. Possibly there could be a little more room around the designated property. Willis said the gable entry on the westem front door element is smaller than anything on the historic resource. On the roof plans they are smaller than the historic resource and the piece behind the historic resource looks fussier than it needs to be. There are too many roof types on this architecture. A thought would be that the new construction come up to the face of the Ullr building in exchange for pushing back the historic resource. You could also entertain a flat or shed roof. Peter said at the work session this summer it was recommended that the flat roof be removed. Willis said the roof elements are fussier than the historic resource and somewhat distracting. They should be simple. The split down the middle and breezeway are great. Nora said making the historic resource prominent is important. Keeping the lilacs is important and keeping the entry to the new building to the west and a little less prominent is important. Parking in the west end is important. Jay said he listens to his fellow commissioners and I can't imagine how confused you are. I'm impressed with the mass and scale and the comments that were taken from the work session. Splitting the buildings into multiple buildings is good and bringing the historic building forward is a good idea. The sidewalk to the historic building should enter from the front. I like the fact that the FAR is below the allowable and you aren't asking for a 500 square foot bonus. I also like the fact that this is a private /public partnership Exhibit G HPC minutes 02/23/2011 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23. 2011 with APCHA and the fact that the historic house is being renovated back to its original condition. I also support the parlcing and front yard variance and the cash -in -lieu and I hope the project stays 12 units. Ann said she feels there are too many roof' lines. The roof lines and the entire project needs simplified. There is also too much hard surface for circulation, i.e. paving. I am concerned about storm runoff. The height also works well. Jason addressed guideline 7.12 step down in scale. The building behind the historic resource should be treated differently. On the west building there are two staircases and maybe there is a way to only have one. On the front facade of the west building it needs to be a product of its own time. I would be comfortable with pulling it forward to match the Ullr and the historic building pulled back. The overall perceived height can be reduced with slightly pitched roofs. Guideline 7.15 talks about breaking up the modules. There are a lot of inefficient staircases. Brian said he is OK with mass and scale. The way it is drawn you won't see the roof lines from Main Street. On the new building on Main Street I would recommend looking at extending a front porch at street level. Peter said he is going to make the changes but I don't know that each change is going to satisfy each of you to the same extent. I have been in the property management for over ten years and every property that had a flat • roof leaked and had problems. I am thinking about the people that will have ownership. Ann said she would like to see one parking space per unit. Jay said we had a meeting about flat roofs and you clearly took our direction and made them gable and now we are here telling you to make them flat again. I am getting frustrated sitting on this commission. Brian said we are not saying to go a flat roof we are saying simplify the roof. Peter said he thinks he can come up with a hybrid of the two. I am going to have the hardest time with the parking spaces. I will have ideas and new thoughts. The plans do look a little cookie cutter. The building behind the historic asset should not look the same as the building on the west side. Exhibit G HPC minutes 02/23/2011 13 - - - - g ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2011 MOTION: Jason moved to continue 518 W. Main until March 9 second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried 6 -1. Jay opposed. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. / athleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Exhibit G HPC minutes 02/23/2011 14 P209 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Chairperson, Sarah Broughton called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Ann Mullins, Nora Berko, Jason Lasser, Jamie McLeod, Jay Maytin and Brian McNellis. Excused was Willis Pember. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preserv. Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief D•;;; y Clerk MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes o eb. econd by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jason moved to continue • ym• • venue, Co ;'tual, public hearing until May 25, 2011, second in favor, otion carried. 518 W. Main — Conceptual Ma H ' opment ' esidential Design Standard Review, Demolition, _' elo r ' a ng Reduction and S k Varian E ubl aring Exhibit I proo' = blica ;' +n Exhibit II exhibits , , 1 ession July Exhibit I e of °� d ` . ' �;'" rr Exhib' I par r'ho '��ti� Sara A• ?s ,; said in • I'on. ' conceptual etc. as listed above the applicant is requests E , reducti • in the size of the trash recycling area This hearing was continue' .m F :. 23rd and the applicant re- noticed the hearing to tonight to captu w >, ;t , o • e yard setback variance and the trash/utility recycle service area that ;' s requested. Peter has eliminated one unit, 12 to 11 which also reduces the number of parking spaces that need waived. You are required to have one parking space per unit so 11 on -site parking spaces are required. The applicant is providing 8 spaces and requesting a waiver of 3 spaces. The roof forms of the detached building on Main Street and the building behind the historic resource have been changed and there are two different options proposed. The applicant has also worked on the front porch of the ncv `r skiing that fronts Main Street to make it more substantial. The historic home will sit on the ten foot front yard setback and 1 Exhibit G DRAFT HPC minutes 03/23/2011 P210 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 previously it was to be five feet. The existing lilacs and cottonwoods will be maintained on -site. Overall staff is supportive of the project and it meets the guidelines for conceptual review. In terms of mass there are two roof options. Staff feels the flat roof is more simpler and relates to the false front of the 02 building next door. Staff is also recommending that the stepped roof behind the historic resource be changed to a flat roof with decks. The three story building at the rear is appropriate and the plate heights are eight feet and the project is within the height limit. Staff feels the scale is appropriate for the property and the proposed modules . to what you find in the district. Parking: ��' ii HPC has the purview to reduce the parking i e ent . , ,,.ssibly waive the fee of the parking spaces. It is $30,01 s ' `'ter parking space = :c the are asking for three which would amount . ' 000. ' °,,, e parking r. s'' tion and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be app . ! ''.o a finding py the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate • adverse imp. «. ,in the historic significance of architectural character of a de : :.ted historic erty, an adjoining designated property or a historic A fter revs g parking with the parking department etc, there seem o be 1 . • ''ng in the area to support the reductio • paces. - •i is 7, ,, ''square feet and the parking is propos 3;,, ay across Jay asked if we can ,. , *-nts at W. Main from getting a residenti • .., pe � ' Jim - special co 1 . 1 sal. r 1 oesn't feel that would be appropriate and how it . , ; d be enfo i . Y , ' are asking that the deed restriction for any resident i i; project ` ;t be allowed to apply for something that other residents in 'ty ar:.11owed to apply for I do not feel this is appropriate or under HPC's ity. Utility trash recycling area: Sara said the requirement is that the area be 20 feet long, ten feet deep and ten feet high. The applicant is proposing 20 feet long, 8 feet deep and 8 '/z feet high. The Env. Health Dept. feels confident that the proposed dimensions were adequate for the project and they will work with the applicant to determine what composting/recycling will work on the property. Setback variances: 2 Exhibit G DRAFT HPC minutes 03/23/2011 P211 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Sara said there is a side yard variance closest to the Ullr and it is for two light wells. They will stick 3 1.2 feet in to the side yard where five feet is required. You will not see them from the street. If you required them to meet the setback it would bring all the buildings closer together and we don't feel that would be a positive outcome on the preservation of the historic resource. Residential design variances: The requirement is for a 50 square foot entrance porch ,k;, he new building. The front porch is measuring 39 square feet and it n- to ie 50 square feet. They need direction as to how to meet that requir , ': - Peter Fornell, applicant thanked Sara for do } _ . trough `';,: Last July was our first work session and we came ,;f °' ith an idea that t> ,over the height and it was one large attached b , t° It r , ly didn't ha '1 y consideration to the historic asset. We then . ; t Oac ` in Febru.• which posed the new structure which i„ corporated the cerns of HPC and the design was three separate buildi P ,, he roof fo i ere a single slope and we reduced the size of the units so 'I - _ • e unde a llowable FAR. The new design is around 7,200 sq - r • are' 'g the affordable housing there is a ne •; *, category • ousm_ Peter said with r'rd se' plans we . ► ged the walkways to coincide with the cabin and , e • 0 7,050 : uare feet. We have expanded the variety of - u s ;i e a i= , =t '' g everyone liked the idea of a flat roof. ;< f also ec o hoice. We have reduced the units from 12 to 11 `, e of the roe ?1 s F „� ` at roofs with patio decks. The historic • asset is "',yt„ ed back toil e to oot lot line. Regarding the height we wanted to make s v ;,;;„ e had a i! 'duct that matched the goals of having varying heights. We , i ;• one . ory, two story and three stories on the property. The three story is 51 «;Eta ,' e overall building. The two story is 251/4 of the building element .' d the one story is 25 to 301/4 of the overall building envelope. We have a good mix of varying building heights. I would like to compare myself to the work that was done on 7 and Main affordable housing project. Chapter 7 in the guidelines 7.2 talks about alleys and uses 7th and Main as an example. Ann asked how many square feet are on .;., :'♦ front porch. Amus said it is 60 square feet but has an overhang. 3 Exhibit G DRAFT HI'C minutes 03/23/2011 P212 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Chair - person Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. Doug Allen Doug said he has been an Aspen resident for 30 years and a property owner in the neighborhood. Your job is historic preservation. Historic preservation consists of more than just saving the small house. This project is totally changing the context of the house and impacts the neighborhood. This is not a charity project, it is a for profit venture with the potential of making millions of dollars and it should be allowed onl the context of maintaining the historic context of the house. When > > pi all these buildings onto the lot and then in addition don't p r . . dequate parking the project is not appropriate. Staff said the nei ee i .orhoar.an absorb all the parking but it can't. The Jewish Center has , :' :. se built. ' r.,rple don't give up their car and cars need to be stor -. . d these things in. ignored way too much. Steve Goldenberg I live across Main Street on Hop' II. . • ve. and w- also going through parking problems with the Boom -'h .. eryone g- : o parking permits plus a guest permit if you want it. 1 , - the number you come up with If the statut. : ,-quiremen e spa -.er unit there are a number of two be.. ,s om , }. they wi :; enerate more than one space per unit. It is at le. • d space:; +.er unit. • i..1, ing that to 11 units you need 16 spaces and we are o 'r,,.o ( 1 e ave 8 .ces. We looked at the parking study for c h C- an 8 I .: 1 eir requirements are met from the north ' ' - of . ii , eet. Paul T. ,':, q e, attorne I am here e. , ehalf of Christiania and I own 523 W. Main. I agree with the comment' It par. g is an issue for both sides of Main Street. The reduction in par t • symptomatic and there is a problem with the development as a , ole. The aesthetics of the project I am impressed with. What we are not focusing on is the density. Historically you should concern yourself with the use. We are going from the use of one unit to 11. There should be a proportion between the size of the unit and the use of it. As an observation I'm not a big fan of flat roofs. The sloping roof is a much better treatment. This is not a perpetuation of an historic use, it is actually working against it when you have so many units vs. the one unit that was there before. 4 Exhibit G DRAFT 11PC minutes 03/23/2011 P213 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Cheryl Goldenberg, 430 W. Hopkins I'm concerned about the parking. The Christiania when it was developed got away with very little parking because we were worried about the historic lodges. The Christiania doesn't have enough space to park. These people will be my neighbors and I just want them to have a nice place but they will need places to park their cars. I walk everywhere but we still need a car to pick up groceries etc. The people that have two bedroom places will have two cars. These people need a place to park. Little Ajax has 14 units and 24 parking spaces. Chairperson, Sarah Broughton closed the public Jamie addressed the flat roof I am not a hut : scate o oofs. I like how you have broken up a lot of the fo om the last time • is time On the front building the previous opt z • ed t• se more ins • I am also in favor of deck space and Ok with de : '' . relocati • . I'm not in favor of the parking waivers. I am concern- ;,:. out the access to the utility and trash area and can su • the height . c • epth reduction. I can support the west side yard setbac - for the It ells. Brian said the flat ro• ,; - not the cti. design but from a mass and scale it fits bey ` � .;,, <:.ly some : <Ind of pi ch could be incorporated that would be 1P : t was pres,•t:.• at the last meeting. I am also concerned with the % h acce •ility. I am concerned about the parking. . bui :I • . ' units and 8 parking spaces and we have s•r:'' e on "- t<< et t• ' ; , . Given the area I am not sure 8 spaces will wo • I am in fa' E; • f th ' -in -lieu. Ann said " it •preciat the public comment and it helps to hear what people have , .,_ . I rms of the flat it works with all the gables. The ten foot setback is a,;`�, ° ated on the historic house. I cannot support the parking waivers . the parking should be the code at least one to one. The west setback and trash recommendation are appropriate. Jason said the flat roofs seem to increase the mass as one big volume. The decks help to relate to the historic mass. The proposal is to move the historic building to add development and is that appropriate. The bigger question is this the right amount of development on this property. Having the affordable housing on lvtain Street is commendable. Hopefully 11 parking spaces can fit on the property. I am concerned about the livability 5 Exhibit G DRAFT HPC minutes 03/23/2011 P214 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 and the floor plan and I couldn't live in these units. Is it our purview to be talking about floor plans and livability and the parking is somewhat tied in. Sarah said the land use code is one space per unit. Jim said basing parking to the livability of the units might not be appropriate. It needs to be tied to the criteria. Jason referenced criteria 26.515.040 (A) 1,2,3 — for a s *al review for waiving parking. The criteria has not been met. Jas R €'`` aid e has no problem with the dimensional changes of the tras r • s long as it is approved by the Environmental Health Dept. T •; front F;,,_, h is workable. f Jay commented that he feels the parking � e is incorrect, it . , ; hort of the need but none the less that is what we r • " • wor.;,with. The p., " g code should talk about bedrooms. You want one Be it and .t doesn't change the amount of drivers in the building, I s ? , o one doesn't solve the problem. The argument is that °< _r eve the abili ' , ake changes to a bad rule. I would give the waiver in ► .. 1 famili = , ive in affordable housing rather than 8 families. We - ou ' ommunity by only allowing 8 units or h- re commun v give a e waiver and having 11 units. The comm , ; on to grant tie waiv-" to get more units. Nora said the guide •s I • -:rlty o ' e historic district and when you have this , If p. i5 • • of the historic district is being erode. , ' is a e an code needs to be changed. Every time we gr....; =' aiver we . acks to the root problem which is the code. of suppo n e c. -in -lieu because that money goes to help solve tran , 3 ation pr. ems. The flat roofs look out of scale with all the gables. The . ?: ' e co v : ents were good as you are going from a one family lot to 11 units estion is how much housing. The front porch should be 60 feet. Sara thanked the applicant for the model because it helps the HPC to understand what is going on. Regarding the roofs and mass there still needs to be more study. The width of the addition to the west should be restudied to bring in the full size of the deck. It is nice to have people on Main Street sitting out on the porches. As a direction I am in support of the flat roof and the density on this lot can work. On a dense lot you need to look at snow, ice and where it can go and how you deal with it to make it safe. I am in 6 Exhibit G DRAFT HPC minutes 03/23/2011 P215 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 agreement about the parking waiver. I live in an 8 unit building and we have 8 spaces. All of us only have one car. I feel the code is appropriate and I am in favor of one car per unit. I would be interested in some creative solution for this project. Someone brought up paid off -site parking which could be an interesting solution. I am ok with the utility trash area and the variance. Sara mentioned that she met with parking and transportation for options for this project. Finding off -site parking spaces doesn't work. Sarah said we all need to work together to get a par '; ;_ sol ion so that a project like this can move forward and that we ar fortable with Jason mentioned the car share program. S. . • • arking ,� transportation see that as taking up a parking space on of and are oppos 'I • it Peter said if we are going to promote affor• s'in g and pr• ote people living inside the S curves insteas of people go , ough the S curves twice a day we need to decide what is iflLt ,; important l -ople or 3 parking spaces. This project is a need in t .aunty. I .t der the FAR and so many people come in here and • do snt e ` everyone and they start 2 -1 hoping you ,,' widdle th-<<s 'wn t• and what they should have done is com, • . },roject th•' the co unity is needing in the first place. I could ild ` bedroom.' •u we have enough of those in the inventory. It serves f z. co E, • bett= o have 11 units rather than 8. The work fore « E e i :: e p ng. Why wouldn't we offer to a home • er to `' p "`° iy,• garage at a better price and then we are inc - ;zing that p ���; to • -ir car away. Jay said a 'IL - e bedroo 0 inventory is not what is needed in affordable housing righ iv *g e l . 1 Peter said he too • otos at 4 Street and Bleeker and there is plenty of parking. 1102 Waters Ave. which was a free market product that isn't doing anybody any good except the person building it and his requirement was three parking spaces and he got a waiver for all three of them. Waters Ave. is where day skiers park and it is a dead end street. Sarah said we need to focus on what needs to get solved and give commendations. 7 Exhibit G DRAFT HPC minutes 03/23/2011 P 2 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Ann also agreed that we need to give the applicant direction. Peter said the useful life of a flat roof is less than a sloped roof. What is the ongoing cost for these people. I don't want them to have to pay four or five hundred dollars in association fees. Vote - sloped roof vs. flat 5 sloped — 2 flat Brian said we aren't necessarily accepting the desig _r esen ed tonight. Sarah said it could be a sloped roof with further r; i;t- t. The board agreed that the sloped roof needs refinement. ! ;. Sarah said she is comfortable with looki :t the roof at fina , ;:.use Council and P &Z will look at the prof kno at the roo 1 massing are still being refined and that incl p• ch. HPC ill review everything at final. Sara asked if P &Z should be loo "1_ re -desi ah said HPC should see the design not P &Z oth- < , •e ce fusing. Jamie said she is i r ` avo ' ? ; 1 units we jus' need to develop the parking. "'rl. ;, 1 Jason sail i r [ i ' rst• e ".: u,= • amt but every time a project comes back i 2 s mas - an .roved. I feel we need one more meeting. MOTI0' 1 nn move. �; ap• ove resolution #4 as written with the following . .� :es Roof to be re ; 'ed a i r the project goes to P &Z and Council for approval at final. Parking: The ap!`cant will continue to work with the city to find a solution to provide the 3 additional required parking spaces. Sara said the parking requirement needs to be nailed down on this property due to growth management etc. Sarah said it sounds like we are approving 8 onsite - parking spots and three off -site. 8 Exhibit G DRAFT HPC minutes 03/23/2011 P217 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Jason said you aren't going to put them in the parking garage and we are avoiding the decision and we need another meeting to make sure all our recommendation are clear for P &Z and Council. Peter said there are places in town that parking is an issue and places in town where it is not an issue. Ann said her motion regarding the parking is per the code, if you have 11 units you have 11 spaces and if you have 8 units you h. <' spaces. That is the motion. Brian and Ann said the requirement for parkin, s on , 1 ff -site. Sara clarified to meet the requirement yo ave to have one s. .• per unit on -site and it has to be the dimensiona `" ' d. Nora said if we pass this, it's m ddy and we s • have a resolution with total approval. ! ° Peter said by building this affordab . hou- ar- educing the number of trips in and out the S - s. 1 Motion died for ,;;• a s st and. MOTION rjI , ' ov ° ;sue apt olution #4 for 518 W Main as stated in sta ' emo e • * ing changes: A sloped is as 1a;,�'=d for the new development with further -ment and , 4r.rov » at final. (both buildings) 4. Par' � Waiver : e three additional required on -site parking spaces be prove. ' ,i site; a dedicated parking spot or other alternatives, one of which ma ' tsh -in -lieu payment for the 3 spaces. The parking for the total projet?'will meet code either on -site or off -site, one per unit and to be reviewed and approved at final. Clarification: Brian said we need 11 spaces mitigated for. Sara said the mitigation in the code is $30,000 for each space. Sarah said she ;acu.:Id rather have penplP have the ability to park their car instead of the cash -in -lieu. 9 Exhibit G DRAFT HPC minutes 03/23/2011 P218 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 Sara said the code does recognize these situations and it says it is $30,000 per space of mitigation and it goes toward the big bucket that the City, RFTA and other groups decide to disperse. Peter said he is not opposed to paying the cash -in -lieu and we will hope that the best thing happens with those dollars and Council can make that decision. Peter said if it comes up with a solution can it be r``ende• at final? Jim said you are approving 8 spots on -site an aivi 1 - y additional requirement but recommending that the . .• t explo her alternatives to the three off -site. At fi; ' you could accep c ; < alternative. Sarah said he can come back and say he !a' esbthe soluti. s and can pay the cash -in -lieu or he c. • say he four• -e spots or he could say he found an alternative solution. it Jay said we have the authority te . cc the cash -in -lieu but we can't force hi • ,., , ome in wi zL oluti. . f there is no alternative he can pay the r i '�,w. - u. , I Sarah said we w u .1; r • en for i.• alternate solution for the three spots .e t - can' ''' ' tha • - , < e needs to be the cash -in -lieu. 4.' ' ; _ONsecon.'� r. am 1 1if Vote: Jamie, ye zan, :' ; Sarah, yes; Jay, yes; Ann, no; Nora, no; Jason, no Motion ' , a • 4 -3. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 10 Exhibit G DRAFT HPC minutes 03/23/2011