Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.apz.20190319
AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING March 19, 2019 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. Minutes - February 19, 2019 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 222 S Cleveland St. - Special Review - Variation to ADU Design Standards VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019 1 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2 Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2 LOT 4 RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION – Design Variations ............................................................. 2 465 &557 NORTH MILL STREET REZONING ........................................................................................ 4 P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Teraissa McGovern called the regular meeting to order with Commission Members Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Rally Dupps, Ryan Walterscheid, Skippy Mesirow and Ruth Carver present. Also present were Andrea Bryan, Jim True and Linda Manning. Staff Comments Jennifer Phelan said the state conference is in Snowmass Village this fall. There is a Commissioner track. She wants to see if anyone has ideas for topics you would like to learn more about. She will send out an email. The conference is at the end of September. Commission Comments None. Minutes Mr. Dupps moved to approve the minutes from February 5, 2019; seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. LOT 4 RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION – Design Variations Kevin Rayes, community development, stated this a residential design standard, RDS, variation request for Lot 4. The property is located in the R6 zone. It is 11,655 square foot and located within the infill area. On the northern part of the lot there is a 20 foot access easement. Since the lot is greater than 9,000 square foot it allows for the development of a single family and duplex or two detached duplexes. The proposal is for two detached houses with a 10 foot separation. Unit A is proposed to face 8th Street. Unit B is proposed to face the easement to the north. He showed renderings. He showed the site plan with the setbacks. Unit A complies with all the RDS. Unit B is requesting seven variations including building orientation, articulation of building mass, build to requirement, one story element, entry connection, entry porch and principle window. For building orientation, unit B is proposed to face the easement and the orientation standard states the front façade shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot both facades shall be parallel to the streets. It does not comply. The orientation requirement is the most important request. All others are contingent upon this one. Next is the build to requirement, based on orientation of B - 60% of the front façade shall be within 5 feet of the minimum setback. None of front façade is within. Articulation of building mass. No greater than 50 feet in depth of front façade to rear wall. If we were to orientate to 8th Street it would be just over 61 feet and not comply. The last variations are related to aesthetes. Unit B incorporates all of these attributes. Since all are orientated towards the easement they would require variations. In order to grant a variation from a RDS, there are two criteria. They need to demonstrate that the variation would provide an alternate design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent standard as well as the general intent statement and be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraint. Staff finds the lot does have an unusual site specific constraint. In R6 a traditional lot was 30 by 100 feet, now it is 60 by 100. A lot with this dimension would allow for the construction of a single family house. Some lots are even larger allowing for two single family homes. These lots do not mimic typical lots. This lot has an abnormal configuration of 70 by 143. It is more narrow from the street than a typical lot. The minimum side yard setback is 15 feet and 10 between the dwellings. Side by side construction would be 30 feet total, very narrow. The proposal to orientate front to back is more P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019 3 consistent with how the lot is configured. This would qualify for a site specific constraint. Staff recommends approval of all the variations. Mr. Walterscheid asked would you consider we look at the alley easement like a street. Ms. Phelan replied yes. If you read our definition of alley it would fall under alley as a secondary access. Mr. Dupps said we recently we looked at Lot 3. Staff memo was not in support. I’m imagining all lots will be coming before us at some point. Ms. Phelan said there are three permits in. Lots 1 and 2 have not come in for variations. They also follow the traditional townsite plotting. Mr. Dupps said it seems like they have specific needs and wants. Staff did not support Lot 3 but supports this. Isn’t this a similar situation. People knew buying the lot it wouldn’t support a duplex. Ms. Phelan said it goes to the lot width. Right now, it is 70 feet wide. If it was more traditional it would be 100 feet wide. Mr. McKnight asked how comfortable are you with the easement as a street. Ms. Phelan said we have another lot by the Mortiz like this and on Francis Street as well. It is not unheard of but not super common. Applicant Stan Clausson, representing the owners, said the land use code treats duplexes and two single family homes as the same. The RDS would say if this were a duplex only one unit would need to meet the RDS. No variations are requested for unit A. We looked at having the units side by side and a connected duplex. It made sense to have the homes front to back as separate residences. For articulation of building mass unit A meets that. Unit B meets it for maximum side wall depth in relationship to the access easement. When it comes to the build to requirement, unit A meets it and unit B meets it with respect to the access easement. When it comes to the one story element, there are those in both consisting of an inset porch. The inset is related to the access easement. The intent of the RDS is to ensure a strong connection between residences and street. Buildings provide articulation, preserve historic neighborhoods scale and character and encourage physical and visual relationships to the streets and residential structures. We think that this is the best solution for the site. It does reduce the perceived mass relative to a duplex. Joseph Spears S2 Architects, said the alley will feel like a secondary street. Ms. McGovern asked why does the RDS treat detached single family differently. Ms. Phelan stated she is not sure. Mr. McKnight opened the public comment. 1. Elise Elliott, 610 north street, asked are you planning on paving the alley or will the city. Ms. Phelan said the alley belongs to the homeowners. It is a private alley with minimum improvement standards that have been worked out with engineers 2. Chris Bendon, neighbor. I support this. It is great architecture. This is terrific. You should approve it as is. Mr. McKnight closed the public comment. Ms. Carver said she has no problem with this. She questioned who will plow the snow. Mr. Dupps said he thinks it is fantastic. The architecture is beautiful. Lot 3 came here and we said no. It had existing site conditions. Is this different. He wants to know if this is different. Ms. McGovern said the increased lot size for Lot 3 could have had a design that met the RDS. The maximum side wall dept, the house looked giant. I don’t think this one is depending much on the site specific except it is much more narrow. It would look really silly with two buildings next to each other. Mr. Mesirow moved to approve Resolution #3, Series of 2019 approving design variations for Lot 3 Ranger Station Subdivision; seconded by Ms. Carver. Roll call vote. Commissioner Carver, yes; Mesirow, yes; Walterscheid, yes; Dupps, yes; McGovern, yes; McKnight, yes. Motion carried. P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019 4 465 &557 NORTH MILL STREET REZONING Mr. McKnight said he has retained legal services from the legal advisor in the past. It will not affect me. Mike Kraemer, community development, said this is a rezoning from SCI to MU. It is only a rezoning application. There is no development or change of use. The process is two step. First is a P&Z recommendation. The second step is City Council. This is a public hearing. Lot 1 is 1.06 acres. It is currently developed with a 20,645 square foot structure. Lot 2 is .145 acres with 7,990 square foot development. There are approximately 21 existing businesses on the property. All are conforming in the SCI zone. The purpose of SCI is to allow for uses not found in other zones including light industrial, manufacturing, production, repair and similar services. This zone allows for heavy maintenance repair. The purpose of MU is to allow for a mix of residential and commercial and provide different economic and residential opportunism for more traditional commercial zones. It is a transition from more intense commercial areas of the CC and C1 zones and residential and lodging zones surrounding Main Street. The purpose of the SCI zone district and MU zone district are not the same and are not intended to be interchangeable. MU zone does not exist near the subject properties and rezoning these properties would create an island of MU zoning in this area. There are some overlap uses between SCI and MU. Service uses is an allowed use in the MU zone district and that includes the ability to have a laundry and dry cleaning service on the property. SCI specifically allows manufacturing and heavy maintenance repair. MU does not allow these uses. MU allows office, multi family, single family duplex, specialty retail and lodging. SCI does not. There is an overall concern from staff that certain allowed MU zone district uses may be more desirable and potentially displace existing SCI uses. This is a statement that is reiterated in the 2018 commercial design guidelines. The 2006 civic master plan contemplates SCI space renovation for underground parking, pedestrian linkages, affordable housing and aesthetic improvements. The MU zone district proposal for the rezoning does not contemplate a redevelop plan. MU allows for alternative uses that may not be consistent with this plan. Today, staff feels that existing SCI zoning is consistent with the 2012 AACP. It is not a regulatory document but encourages a balanced commercial mix. SCI zoned lands are limited and loss of the zoning is inconsistent with the AACP. Subject properties are within the 2018 commercial design guidelines river approach area. The MU zoning is not compatible with this character area. Staff recommends denial based on 26.310.90A - proposed rezoning is not compatible with the surrounding zone district and land uses. It does not comply with LUC 26.310.090D -proposed rezoning is inconsistent and not compatible with the character of the city and in harmony of the public interest and intent of this title. We are also asking P&Z to consider that this would represents a fundamental change from the purpose and intent of the SCI zone district. This proposal represents a significant reduction of available SCI zoned area within the City of Aspen. It creates non conforming uses on subject properties and in not in context with the river approach character area. The proposal is inconsistent with the 2006 civic master plan. Mr. Mesirow asked if it were to happen what would happen to existing business that become non conforming. Mr. Kraemer replied they would be legal non-conforming. Ms. McGovern said the other SCI zone has uses that are not consistent with current zoning. Did it change. Are they site specific. Ms. Phelan replied this was before both of us. When Obermeyer was first looked at there were a number of uses that were there. A certain number of non conforming uses were allowed to go back in. There is also NC in there. At one point free market was a conditional use there as well. Applicant P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019 5 Chris Bendon, representing North Mill Street LLC, owned by Mark Hunt. Mr. Bendon stated this will provide parity with other SCI properties. There are five properties in Aspen zoned SCI. Andrews McFarlin, across the street, USPS and Obermeyer place and the lumber yard. Mr. Bendon reviewed these properties. We’ve looked at the surrounding area. There is office, residential, non profit, civic, retail, restaurant. We’ve looked at several options to have some parity with other SCI, R6 and R30. They do not allow for a mix of uses. There is RMF in the area. It doesn’t allow for a mix of uses, specifically commercial. We looked at NC. The types of commercial allowed are more viable. Both the residential allowances are not there. MU provides for a better array of commercial uses and allows for some degree of residential development. This is the closest we thought to other SCI and the civic master plan. For criteria, there are four of them. Is the amendment compatible with the surrounding zoning. We think you can make a positive finding of this. Specifically, the river approach area. We see this as architectural style, persuasion of building development, not uses. The second deals with demands on public facilities. Staff found in favor of this. Once again, this deals with development. We see nothing that would change the demand on this. Third is adverse impact on the natural environment. We don’t see any measurable difference on this. Staff didn’t either. Lastly is if the proposal is consistent with community character and in harmony with the public interest. Staff found against this. We think you can make a positive finding. It asks for a great degree of latitude. The criteria is broad in its approach. We are requesting the MU zone because we think it brings the property in closest proximity to comparable SCI properties. It provides for mix of uses. It provides for an array of commercial uses that are up to today’s market and provides for viable residential uses. Mr. Dupps asked why. Chris Bryan, legal counsel, asked why did the city downzone SCI and only effect this property. That made it more restrictive as to what could be done here. Ordinance 29 only affected this property, not the other SCI properties Chris mentioned. The rezoning would be more suitable in light of the downzoning that occurred. Just because those uses are there now doesn’t mean they will remain there. Ms. McGovern said even if it makes the uses non conforming. Did the property owner purchase this after the downzoning occured. Mr. Bryan replied after the downzoning occurred. There was a legal challenge predating that. Ms. McGovern asked why are offices allowed on Andrews Mcfarlan and Obermeyer. Ms. Phelan said there are certain uses permitted. Mr. Bendon said there were spaces that were added in to the development. Ms. Phelan said she is not sure about Andrews Mcfarlan. Design studio is a term in the code. Mr. Mesirow said harmony with public interest would prohibit some things the community wants. One outcome could be in harmony and one in not. How are we to look at this without knowing what the future is. Mr. Bendon replied it asks you to make a judgement. The answer is not embedded in the question. We think you can make a positive finding just looking at the two zone districts. Mr. McKnight opened the public comment. 1. Elyse Elliott, 610 W North St. I urge you to deny the request. I’m concerned about the neighborhood. I believe the small businesses in these buildings are essential to the community. If they leave there is no other place they can move. Every town needs a laundromat. Where are you going to take your scooter if it needs maintenance. Though not everybody uses these businesses they are essential to a community. The MU zone will allow for housing. We don’t need any high end town homes. The affordable housing units are not worth the trade offs. 2. Toni Kronberg said she supports the rezoning. While some of the businesses may become non conforming they will still be allowed. Those two lots can definitely be improved. MU gives so much more opportunity. Nothing is here forever. Think about how limiting the SCI really is. Mr. McKnight closed the public comment. Mr. Mesirow said if it were to be changed and the applicant came forward with a new development could an existing business stay under a new development. Ms. Phelan said the non conforming section says if a same type of use went in within a certain time frame the non conforming could stay. With a redevelopment it would be pretty tricky with the time frame for a non conforming to come back in. P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019 6 Mr. Waltersheid said in the MU along Main Street there are two gas stations and a car wash, are those non conforming in the MU currently. Ms. Phelan replied they might be a service use. Ms. Carver said she lives in a MU district. My neighborhood looks nothing like SCI. My problem with this is we have no idea what will happen. There could be private homes, a row of townhouses. There could be anything. Yes, I agree the neighborhood needs to be improved. I trust Mark Hunt would do that. I think MU would displace that type of neighborhood. It is a service neighborhood and a lot of those businesses are important to our neighborhood. I would rather see a plan and the rezoning with it. It is so open and something I cannot agree with at this point in time. Ms. McGovern said MU specifically says transition area between CC and C1. This would create an island. The uses allowed in MU are different enough that it isn’t consistent with the neighborhood. SCI specifically says to support locally serving businesses. MU doesn’t say that anywhere. I would be concerned approving a rezone on this side of the round about getting rid of the uses that are there. It is important to have these services. Mr. Mesirow said he is not supportive either. Given the change will have loses for the community with businesses that will not land anywhere. He would like to see a plan. I have misgivings with SCI too. Mr. Walterscheid said he is more on the fence. MU is between CC, C, the residential and lodging. If the site is going to be developed you will need free market surrounding it. I think this is an island anyway. The stuff going on around it falls in MU. I don’t think you will see a redevelopment unless there are assurances. If it stays as SCI I don’t think you will see redevelopment. There is MU going up Mill Street. I don’t see it as an outrageous ask. They will have to come in for an approval to have anything built. Mr. Dupps said I appreciate what Ryan is saying. My problem is I just don’t see enough information. If we had a building or a use I could respond. It is too broad for me at this time to vote in favor. Mr. McKnight said making these changes goes in the face of the AACP. This is the last spot in town providing services. I will be a no as well. Ms. McGovern moved to recommend denial of Resolution #4, Series of 2018 for the rezoning of 465 and 557 North Mill Street; seconded by Mr. Mesirow. Roll call vote. Commissioners Dupps, yes; McGovern, yes; Mesirow, yes; Carver, yes; Walterscheid, no; McKnight, yes. Motion carried. At 6:00 p.m. Ms. Carver moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk P6 IV.A. TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Garrett Larimer, Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: Special Review of 2019 (Continued from 11/20/18) MEETING DATE: March 19, 2019 APPLICANT: Brent and Debbie Sembler Central Ave., St. Petersburg, FL 33707 REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams, 300 S Spring St. #202, Aspen, CO 81611 LOCATION: 222 S. Cleveland St. CURRENT ZONING: Residential Multi-Family (RMF) SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Design Standards to replace an ADU that was removed without the necessary approvals. The ADU was approved under a that allowed subgrade ADUs. The applicant is interested in replacing the unit in the same location, but the current code does not allow for subgrade ADUs. This agenda item was continued from its original hearing date on November 13, 2018. Elements of the ADU have been revised and those changes are reflected in the memo resolution, and review criteria. Revisions and updates from the original application are underlined in the memo. MEMORANDUM City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Garrett Larimer, Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Special Review – ADU Design Standards – 222 S Cleveland St., Resolution No. (Continued from 11/20/18) (Continued from 1/22/19, 11/20/18 and 11/13/18) Brent and Debbie Sembler, 5858 BendonAdams, 300 S Spring St. Family (RMF) The applicant is seeking Special ariation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Design Standards to replace an ADU that was removed without the necessary was approved under a code s. The applicant is interested in replacing the unit in the same the current code does not allow for continued from its original hearing date on November 13, 2018. Elements of the ADU have been revised and those changes are reflected in the memo, Revisions and updates from the original application are STAFF POSITION: Staff recommends either recognizing the circa 1996 ADU design allowances and approving the variations requested via Special Review or, in the alternative, recognizing that the replacement of the ADU should meet todays’ design standards or be vacated pursuant to the code. Page 1 of 6 , Resolution No. __, Series (Continued from 1/22/19, 11/20/18 and 11/13/18) recommends either recognizing the circa design allowances and approving the variations eview or, in the alternative, recognizing that the replacement of the ADU should meet todays’ design pursuant to the code. P7 VI.A. Page 2 of 6 UPDATE FOR HEARING ON 3/19/19: The applicant submitted a second addendum to the original application on 2.13.19 showing an amended floor plan of the ADU. Previous versions had shown the bathroom layout incorrectly. The amended floor plan slightly reduced the storage provided for the ADU. The total storage is roughly 20.2 square feet, or 5.7% of the total square footage of the ADU, the previous version showed 22 square feet or 6.2% of the ADU. Although the proposed storage is below the minimum required, staff is concerned that requiring 10% of the overall square footage of the ADU to be provided as storage would reduce the amount of livable space and would be a less beneficial outcome compared to the current proposal. The applicant submitted the first addendum to the original application showing a four-burner range, additional cabinets above the kitchen counter measuring roughly 12 cubic feet, a larger refrigerator (min. 9.5 cubic feet), washer/dryer hook ups and a stacked washer and dryer in the shared mechanical room, and a new entry door with a minimum 50% glass door to improve natural light. Those proposed changes are included in the most recent addendum. Staff’s position on the request is consistent with our previous stance. The purpose statement and the goal of the ADU program is to provide viable units that are occupied. As proposed, the ADU is attached to the primary residence and has an interior connection which may reduce the likelihood that the unit be occupied. The commission can choose to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Special Review request to vary the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards and allow the ADU to be replaced in the basement. If the Planning and Zoning commission finds replacing the ADU in the basement appropriate, it can choose to include variations for the other standards that have not been met or can require that the applicant comply with as many as of the standards as the commission feels appropriate. If the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts the replacement of the ADU in the proposed configuration, staff recommends the following variations be granted, given the existing construction, all of which are reflected in the resolution. The list of variations that would be granted via Special Review has been updated to reflect the second addendum to the original application. 1. A 100% subgrade location of the ADU is permitted. 2. The mechanical systems of the primary residence and ADU are located in a shared mechanical room. 3. A washer and dryer hookup, with dryer vent rough in, to accommodate a minimum 27” wide washer/dryer unit must be installed in the shared mechanical room. 4. Interior access requirement is varied to allow for direct access between the unit and primary residence to remain. 5. The following kitchen requirements shall be met: an oven with a four-burner stove, a sink, a refrigerator/freezer with a minimum capacity of 9.5 cubic feet, and 12 cubic feet of cabinets. 6. A reduction in the minimum storage or closet space required is granted to allow a minimum twenty square foot closet. 7. The deed restriction shall be updated to comply with Section 26.520.070, which requires lease terms of no less than six months. 8. The ADU exterior door must contain at least 50% glass to allow for increase natural light. REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: · Special Review – Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standard Variation The applicant is requesting approval for a variation to the ADU Design Standards related the replacement of an ADU in the basement of the residence and per section 26.520.080.D. The Code allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant special review approval for variations to the ADU Design Standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. P8 VI.A. Page 3 of 6 LOCATION/BACKGROUND: The subject property, 222 S Cleveland St. is a single-family residence located on a lot in the RMF zone district in the Aspen Infill area. The property was developed in the mid-1990s and received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1996. The land use code at the time allowed for subgrade ADUs, and an ADU was constructed, out of a number of mitigation options, in the basement to mitigate for the affordable housing impact fees generated by the development. Although construction of an ADU is an acceptable form of mitigation, the land use code does not require rental of the unit. Since the property received its Certificate of Occupancy, elements of the ADU were removed without the necessary approval. A building permit was submitted and issued for the renovation of the residence and minor changes to the ADU, which still maintained minimum requirements to be considered an ADU. During an inspection of the property for the renovation, it was noted by City staff that the ADU did not have the required kitchen appliances. The specific design requirements have changed over time, but since the late-nineties there have been defined requirements for the minimum components needed to qualify as an ADU. The current code requires that an ADU contain a full kitchen including a 4-burner stove, a refrigerator, and a sink. The unit must also have storage, a bathroom, and access to the unit’s mechanical systems and electrical panel among other standards. A brief history of ADU requirements is attached as Exhibit D. Once it was discovered the ADU did not exist and was required, staff informed the applicant of their options: to replace the ADU meeting current code standards, to apply for special review to replace the ADU with variations from the current code requirements, or legally remove it. The applicant is interested in replacing the unit with variations from today’s standards. CURRENT REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Special Review approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to replace an ADU that was removed without approval. Special Review is required when the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards are not met. If the Planning and Zoning Commission feels it is appropriate for the unit to be replaced in the previously approved location, the following standards will need to be varied via Special Review: 1. ADUs are required to have more than 50% of the finished floor level above grade and be detached from the primary residence. The proposed ADU would be attached to the primary residence and located entirely below grade. This is the original condition. 2. The amount of storage provided is below the minimum storage requirements of the code. The current code requires 10% of the unit’s square footage be provided for storage. Currently one closet is shown at approximately 22 sq. ft. or 6.2% of the units overall square footage. This is an increase from the original application, the original size was 4.3% of the overall square footage of the unit. 3. The current code requires a full kitchen which includes a sink, dishwasher, 24 square feet of counter space, 15 cubic feet of cabinets, a 30inch wide oven with 4-burner stove top and 20 cubic foot refrigerator with a freezer. o The application does not include a dishwasher. o The refrigerator will be a minimum 9.5 cubic feet. This is an increase from the 6-cubic foot refrigerator in the original application. o An oven with four-burner stove is proposed. The original application only included a two-burner stove. The increase in the number of burners slightly reduces the square footage of counter space provided. o Approximately 4.5 sq. ft. of counter top space is shown. The only cabinets provided in the original application were below the kitchen counter, the revised proposal includes the cabinet below the counter and includes cabinets to be installed above the kitchen counter tops increasing the P9 VI.A. Page 4 of 6 amount of cabinet space to approximately 12 cubic feet, which is still below the minimum required. 4. An interior connection between the primary residence and the ADU exists and is proposed to remain. This appears to be the original condition. In order to allow for an entry connection between the two units, current code requires special review and approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission. 5. The current code requires the ADU have separately accessible utility and mechanical systems. The primary residence and ADU share mechanical equipment, which is located in a mechanical room outside the interior connection between the ADU and primary residence. This appears to be the original condition. 6. The current code requires washer and dryer hookups, which are proposed in the shared mechanical room. The ADU will have access to the washer and dryer and the space appears to be able to accommodate a 27” unit, which is the minimum required by the code. 7. A half glass entry door is proposed to increase the amount of natural light to the unit. Staff and the applicant have discussed the applicability of older ADU regulations given the era the ADU was originally constructed. On November 8th, 1999, which is after the unit was built, the ADU Design Standards were amended and included more detail, especially for the kitchen requirements. Under the 1999 amended code requirements, the earliest available with specific standards, a number of items are also not met. The elements of the ADU that don’t comply with the 1999 Code include: 1. The storage provided must be 10% of the units net livable, the plan shows approximately 6.2 %. 2. The interior connection must have been approved by the P&Z Commission. No approval was originally given, as it was not required at the time the ADU was initially built. It’s important to note that the kitchen complies with all requirements of the 1999 code. Issues for Discussion: The application is reviewed under the current code for replacement purposes but given the unique nature of this situation and the fact that existing infrastructure for an ADU exists, the unit could be replaced essentially in its original condition with certain variations from today’s standards. Staff also recognizes that the ADU was removed without any formal approval and there are other paths in the current code to reestablish or remove the unit. In response to the discussion at the original hearing, the applicant has revised the floor plan. The changes include: an enlarged closet, washer and dryer hook ups in the mechanical room, a larger refrigerator/freezer, cabinets above the kitchen counter, a four-burner stove, and a half glass entry door to increase the amount of natural light in the unit. The four-burner stove slightly reduces the amount of counter space provided. If the commission feels the additional counter space is preferable, the applicant is willing to consider a two-burner stove. The storage provided is an improvement from the original proposal but is still below current standards. The applicant believes, and staff agrees, that increasing the amount of storage to the 10% minimum required by the code is less beneficial in the current unit configuration as it reduces the amount of living space in the unit. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff acknowledges approval was originally granted to place the unit in the basement, but the unit was removed without proper approvals, and a land use application is required to bring the property back into compliance. All land use applications are subject to the current code in which they apply, however, this is a unique situation in that the larger house is already constructed and the ADU is proposed to be located where it was originally. At this time, staff does not recommend the unit be replaced, given the standards in the current code. Under the Purpose clause of the land use code for ADUs, the code notes anticipate that “ADUs and carriage houses represent viable housing opportunities for working residents,” and that the ADUs provide additional housing opportunities in the town. The purpose section also notes that “detached ADUs and carriage houses are P10 VI.A. Page 5 of 6 more likely to be occupied by a local working resident and that “Aspen desires occupied ADUs and carriage houses”. The commission can choose to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Special Review request to vary the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards and allow the ADU to be replaced in the basement. If the Planning and Zoning commission finds replacing the ADU in the basement appropriate, it can choose to include variations for the other standards that have not been met or can require that the applicant comply with as many as of the standards as the commission feels appropriate. If the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts the replacement of the ADU, staff recommends the following variations be granted, given the existing construction, all of which are reflected in the resolution. The list of variations has been updated to reflect the revised application. 1. A 100% subgrade location of the ADU is permitted. 2. The mechanical systems of the primary residence and ADU are located in a shared mechanical room. 3. A washer and dryer hookup, with dryer vent rough in, to accommodate a minimum 27” wide washer/dryer unit must be installed in the shared mechanical room. 4. Interior access requirement is varied to allow for direct access between the unit and primary residence to remain. 5. The following kitchen requirements shall be met: an oven with a four-burner stove, a sink, a refrigerator/freezer with a minimum capacity of 9.5 cubic feet, and 12 cubic feet of cabinets. 6. A reduction in the minimum storage or closet space required is granted to allow a minimum twenty-two square foot closet. 7. The deed restriction shall be updated to comply with Section 26.520.070, which requires lease terms of no less than six months. 8. The ADU exterior door must contain at least 50% glass to allow for increase natural light. Staff recognizes that improvements to the application have been made to improve the livability of the unit. Staff still remains concerned that the unit will not be occupied. The recent renovations removing the window on the west wall of the ADU significantly reduced the amount of natural light, and because of this, the unit is not being replaced as it was. PROPOSED MOTION (WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): The Resolution as written grants approval of a Special Review request of the applicant allowing for a subgrade ADU and certain design variations. If the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to approve the request the following motion can be used: “I move to approve Resolution No.___, Series of 2019 to vary the ADU Design Standards to allow for the ADU at 222 S Cleveland St. to be replaced in the originally approved location in the basement as shown in Exhibit A.” ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS: #1 If the Planning and Zoning Commission does not wish to grant the Special Review request, the Planning and Zoning Commission can make a motion to deny the Resolution and use the following motion: “I move to deny Resolution #___ series of 2019 to grant a variation to the ADU Design Standards via Special Review.” Attachments: P11 VI.A. Page 6 of 6 Exhibit A – Proposed Drawing Exhibit B – ADU Design Standards - Review Criteria Exhibit C – Special Review – Review Criteria Exhibit D – Summary of ADU Code Requirements Exhibit E – Original Application Exhibit F – Addendum 1.8.19 P12 VI.A. RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR VARIATIONS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DESIGN STANDARDS IN ORDER TO REINSTALL AN ADU FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS, LOT 1, FELLMAN LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED OCTOBER 31, 1994 IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT PAGE 67, AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 222 S. CLEVELAND ST. Parcel No. 2737-182-040-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Chris Bendon of BendonAdams LLC, on behalf of Brent and Debbie Sembler, requesting Special Review approval for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards to replace an ADU that had been removed without requisite city approval, in it’s the original location within the basement; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the current applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the Special Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on November 13, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was continued to November 20, 2018 at which point it was opened and continued to January 15, 2019. On January 15, 2019 the hearing was opened and continued to January 22, 2019. On January 22, 2019 the hearing was opened and continued to March 19, 2019; and, WHEREAS, on March 19th the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, P13 VI.A. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution #___, Series of 2019, by a _____ to _____ (___ - ___) vote, granting approval of Special Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Special Review for a Variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design standards via Special Review as identified in the attached Exhibit A, to reinstall the ADU with the following conditions: 1. A 100% subgrade location of the ADU is permitted. 2. The mechanical systems of the primary residence and ADU are located in a shared mechanical room that can be accessed through an interior connection by the ADU. 3. A washer and dryer hookup, with dryer vent rough in, to accommodate a minimum 27” wide washer/dryer unit must be installed in the shared mechanical room. 4. Interior access requirement is varied to allow for direct access between the unit and primary residence to remain. 5. The following kitchen requirements shall be met: an oven with a four-burner stove, a sink, a refrigerator/freezer with a minimum capacity of 9.5 cubic feet, and 12 cubic feet of cabinets. 6. A reduction in the minimum storage or closet space required is granted to allow a minimum twenty square foot closet. 7. The deed restriction shall be updated to comply with Section 26.520.070, which requires lease terms of no less than six months. 8. The ADU exterior door shall contain at least 50% glass to allow for increase natural light. Section 2: This approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning, building, or any other applicable code regulations within the City of Aspen’s Municipal Code, including building codes included in Ordinance 40, Series of 2016. The applicant must submit a building permit application demonstrating compliance with all applicable codes prior to any development on site. Section 3: P14 VI.A. All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on March 19, 2019. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ____________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Attachments: Exhibit A: Proposed Floor Plan of the ADU P15 VI.A. P16VI.A. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 1 of 6 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.520.050 MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY Design Standards: All ADUs and carriage houses shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise approved, pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special Review: 1. An ADU must contain between three hundred (300) and eight hundred (800) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be a closet or storage area. A carriage house must contain between eight hundred (800) and one thousand two hundred (1,200) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be closet or storage area. NOT MET 2. An ADU or carriage house must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes the following: a. An ADU or carriage house must be separately accessible from the exterior. An interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved, pursuant to Special Review; YES b. An ADU or carriage house must have separately accessible utility systems, controls and disconnect panels. This does not preclude shared services; YES Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards P17 VI.A. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 2 of 6 2c. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a full-size kitchen containing at a minimum: i. Minimum 30-inch wide oven, 4-burner stovetop. ii. A sink, dishwasher, and a minimum 20 cubic foot refrigerator with freezer. iii. Minimum 24 square feet of counter space and a minimum of 15 cubic feet of cabinet space. iv. Kitchens may not be located in a closet. NOT MET 2d. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a ¾ or larger bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a toilet and a shower. YES 2e. An ADU or carriage house shall contain washer/dryer hookups, with a dryer vent rough-in, to accommodate minimum 27-inch wide washer/dryer units. YES 3. One (1) parking space for the ADU or carriage house shall be provided on-site and shall remain available for the benefit of the ADU or carriage house resident. The parking space shall not be located in tandem, or “stacked,” with a space for the primary residence. YES 4. The finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit’s net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. NOT MET 5. The ADU or carriage house shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or carriage house located above a detached garage or storage area or connected to the primary residence by an exterior breezeway or trellis shall still qualify as detached. No interior connections to the primary residence, or portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or carriage house as detached. NOT MET P18 VI.A. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 3 of 6 26.520.050 Design standards All ADUs and carriage houses shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise approved, pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special Review: 1. An ADU must contain between three hundred (300) and eight hundred (800) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be a closet or storage area. A carriage house must contain between eight hundred (800) and one thousand two hundred (1,200) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be closet or storage area. Staff Response: The ADU is shown at 355 sq./ft. which complies with the minimum size requirements of the current code and 1999 code (original approval granted under mid- 90’s Land Use Code). The proposed floor plan includes a full height built in storage cabinet that measures 5.4 square feet and a closet that measures 14.8 square feet. The total storage provided in the unit is 20.2 square feet, or 5.7% of the ADU, which is below 6. An ADU or carriage house shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the property is located. DOES NOT APPLY 7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU or carriage house. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided. YES 8. ADUs and carriage houses shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of this Title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not limited to, building code requirements related to adequate natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression and sound attenuation between living units. This standard may not be varied. YES 9. All ADUs and carriage houses shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070, Deed restrictions and enforcement. This standard may not be varied. YES P19 VI.A. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 4 of 6 today’s standards and the 1999 standards. The applicant increased the amount of storage from the original approval, but since the proposed storage is below the minimum size requirements, staff finds this criterion to be not met, and Special Review approval would be required. 2. An ADU or carriage house must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes the following: a. An ADU or carriage house must be separately accessible from the exterior. An interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved, pursuant to Special Review; Staff Response: An exterior stair provides access to the ADU. Interior access is also provided from the primary structure which, along with the subgrade location, requires Special Review and approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This standard has remained unchanged from the 1999 version, attached ADU’s with interior connections weren’t prohibited when the unit was originally approved. Special Review is required for the internal connection, but staff finds this criterion to be met. b. An ADU or carriage house must have separately accessible utility systems, controls and disconnect panels. This does not preclude shared services; Staff Response: The floor plan for the ADU shows an existing mechanical room accessible by both the primary residence and the ADU. The ADU will be required to provide access to a subpanel for the unit. Since shared services are allowed and the ADU has access to this mechanical room, staff finds this criterion to be met. c. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a full-size kitchen containing at a minimum: i. Minimum 30-inch wide oven, 4-burner stovetop. ii. A sink, dishwasher, and a minimum 20 cubic foot refrigerator with freezer. iii. Minimum 24 square feet of counter space and a minimum of 15 cubic feet of cabinet space. iv. Kitchens may not be located in a closet. Staff Response: The proposed kitchen is shown to meet the 1999 code requirements for a kitchen in an ADU. The house was built under a mid-1990’s code and the kitchen standards were silent. It’s been discussed between City Staff and the applicant that the 1999 standards, which adopted more clear guidelines for a kitchen in an ADU, may be used to provide guidance for the kitchen requirements. The applicant revised some of the kitchen elements in response to the first hearing. A four-burner stove top, sink, kitchen cabinets (12 cu. ft.), and “apartment” refrigerator and freezer (minimum 9.5 cubic ft.) are proposed, which would meet these 1999 standards. The proposed kitchen does not meet the current code requirements. Under today’s code the refrigerator is still P20 VI.A. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 5 of 6 below the 20-cubic foot minimum size required, dishwasher, and 24 sq./ft. of counter top space would be required under the current code. Since the proposed kitchen does not meet the current standards, staff finds this criterion to not be met, and Special Review approval would be required. d. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a ¾ or larger bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a toilet and a shower. Staff Response: The code requirements in 1999 are the same as todays requirements. The proposed ADU contains a shower, toilet, and sink. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e. An ADU or carriage house shall contain washer/dryer hookups, with a dryer vent rough-in, to accommodate minimum 27-inch wide washer/dryer units. Staff Response: Washer and dryer hook ups and a stacked washer/dryer system are proposed in the shared mechanical room for the resident of the ADU. No dimensions of the washer dryer unit were provided, however, there appears to be room to accommodate a 27” unit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. One (1) parking space for the ADU or carriage house shall be provided on-site and shall remain available for the benefit of the ADU or carriage house resident. The parking space shall not be located in tandem, or “stacked,” with a space for the primary residence. Staff Response: At least one parking space is provided for use by the resident of the ADU, staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit’s net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Staff Response: ADU is entirely below grade. The code under which this property was approved and built did not prohibit subgrade ADU’s and was in conformance with the applicable code at the time. The applicant is requesting to replace the ADU in the same location, staff finds this criterion to be not met, and Special Review approval would be required. 5. The ADU or carriage house shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or carriage house located above a detached garage or storage area or connected to the primary residence by an exterior breezeway or trellis shall still qualify as detached. No interior connections to the primary residence, or portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or carriage house as detached. Staff Response: The code in which the property was originally built allowed attached ADU’s and did not prohibit interior connections. If the commission determines it’s appropriate to replace the ADU in the originally approved location, it’s impractical given the circumstances to require the applicant to comply with the requirements of this section since the illegal removal of the kitchen triggered the replacement of the ADU process. That being said, the ADU does not comply with the requirements of this P21 VI.A. Exhibit B ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 6 of 6 standard, and therefore, staff finds this criterion to not be met, and Special Review approval would be required. 6. An ADU or carriage house shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the property is located. Staff Response: Accessory dwelling units are an allowed use in the R/MF zone district. An analysis of height, floor area, and other dimensional requirements of this zone district are not included in this review. The applicable dimensional requirements of this zone district are legally established and are not subject to review as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU or carriage house. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided. Staff Response: The stairs are open to above but are snow melted, staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. ADUs and carriage houses shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of this Title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not limited to, building code requirements related to adequate natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression and sound attenuation between living units. This standard may not be varied. Staff Response: Light and ventilation is provided by windows between the unit and the stairwell, the entry door to the unit will be replaced with a half glass door to increase the amount of natural light, and the stairs provide emergency egress from the residence. The assemblies separating the ADU and primary residence are not being altered in this scope of work and are presumed to comply with the requirements of the code at the time the structure was built. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. All ADUs and carriage houses shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070, Deed restrictions and enforcement. This standard may not be varied. Staff Response: The property is deed restricted according to the deed restriction with Reception #383889. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P22 VI.A. Exhibit C Special Review – ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 1 of 3 Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.520.080.D MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY D. Special Review. An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design standards shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted, mailed, and published pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within a Historic Overlay District, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the Zone District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability. NOT MET 2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property. YES Special Reivew - Variation of Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards P23 VI.A. Exhibit C Special Review – ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 2 of 3 D. Special Review. An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design standards shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted, mailed, and published pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within a Historic Overlay District, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the Zone District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability. Staff Response: The ADU was built according to the applicable code requirements of the mid-1990’s. In general, the proposed features of the ADU do allow for general livability; however, the variations may discourage the likelihood of the unit being occupied as it is not detached and is connected to the primary residence, as noted in the purpose statement of the ADU Program below. The ADU is below grade but meets the minimum size requirements, provides natural light to the unit, has storage, an adequate bathroom, and serviceable kitchen, but would need variances to meet the minimum requirements for multiple items in the ADU. Overall the unit is livable, however, given the purpose statement listed below, staff does not find that the ADU promotes the purpose of the ADU and Carriage House Program. Because of this, staff finds this criterion to not be met. 26.520.010 Purpose The purpose of the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and carriage house program is to promote the longstanding community goal of socially, economically and environmentally responsible development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between local working residents and part-time residents. ADUs and carriage houses represent viable housing opportunities for working residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing being easily identifiable as “employee housing.” ADUs and carriage houses support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base within the City and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's character. ADUs and carriage houses allow second homeowners the opportunity to hire an on-site caretaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an environmentally preferred land use pattern, which reduces automobile reliance. P24 VI.A. Exhibit C Special Review – ADU Design Standards Review Criteria Page 3 of 3 Detached ADUs and carriage houses emulate a historic development pattern and maximize the privacy and livability of both the ADU or carriage houses and the primary unit. Detached ADUs and carriage houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a community goal of housing the workforce. Aspen desires occupied ADUs and carriage houses; therefore, detached ADUs and carriage houses which are deed restricted as "for sale" units, according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, and sold according to the procedures established in the guidelines, provide for certain floor area and affordable housing credit incentives. 2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property. Staff Response: The ADU is subordinate to the primary residence in every way. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P25 VI.A. Exhibit D Summary of ADU Design Standards Page 1 of 2 Below is a summary of requirements from the mid-90’s, 1999, and current code: Mid-1990’s code (the original ADU was approved under this code): - Unit Size = 300-700 square feet of net livable - Deed restricted, limited to rental periods of no less than 6 months - One parking space - For attached units (different requirements for detached units) o Subject to dimensional requirements of the zone district 1999 code: - Unit size, between 300-700 square feet - Must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit o Must be separately accessible from the exterior, interior entrance must be approved by P&Z via special review. o Must have separately accessible utilities. o Must contain a kitchen containing at a minimum an over, a two-burner stove, a sink, a refrigerator with a minimum of 6 cu. ft. of capacity and a freezer. o A bathroom containing a minimum sink, toilet, and shower. - One parking space - Must comply with requirements of the zone district - Roof should prevent snow shed on the entrance, and if the entrance is accessed via stairs, a measure to reduce snow accumulation should be provided. - Shall be deed restricted and comply with the other requirements of the code, including building code requirements. Current Code (2015): - Unit size between 300-700 sq. ft., and 10% must be a closet or storage area. - Must function as a separate dwelling unit o Must be separately accessible from the exterior, interior connections must be approved by P&Z via special review. o Must have separate utility systems, does not preclude shared services. o Shall contain a full-sized kitchen including: § 30” over with four-burner stove § Sink, dishwasher, a minimum 20 cu. ft. refrigerator with freezer. § 24 Sq. ft. of counter space and 15 cu. ft. of cabinet space § Kitchens can’t be in closets o Must contain a ¾ or larger bathroom with at least a sink, toilet, and shower o Washer/dryer hookups with dryer vent rough-in to accommodate a minimum 27” wide washer/dryer unit. - One parking space - Must be 50% above grade - Must be detached from primary residence. Can be above a detached garage that’s connected to the primary residence by breezeway counts. No interior connections are allowed. - Must comply with the dimensional requirements of the zone district. P26 VI.A. Exhibit D Summary of ADU Design Standards Page 2 of 2 - Roof should prevent snow and ice shedding on the entrance of the ADU. If accessed via stairs snow and ice accumulation must be reduced. - Must comply with building code requirements. - Must be deed restricted and registered with APCHA. It is important to note, that today the code does not allow new ADUs to be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Existing ADUs are able to stay, and ADUs that have had alterations without a permit are able to request Special Review from P&Z to be restored. Additionally, owners who are interested in full removal of their ADUs are able to pay a cash-in-lieu and/or land a housing certificate to buy out of it. When considering the alternatives, it’s important to understand the cash in lieu option and why it’s provide in the code. The total mitigation required for a development is determined by first calculating the number of full time equivalent employees (FTE’s), or the number of employees housed or generated by the development. For new residential development the number of employees housed in a unit is used as a basis to establish the FTE for that development. For the removal of an ADU, the code requires mitigation for .38 FTE’s. This figure is based on the following methodology: the average ADU is a studio or one- bedroom unit that houses 1.5 FTE’s. ADU’s have an occupancy rate of approximately 25%, so 1.5 (FTEs)x.25=.375, which is rounded up to .38 FTE’s. Once you establish the number of FTE’s generated by a development activity, you multiply the FTE number by the cash-in-lieu rate. The cash-in-lieu rate is based on affordable housing category designation. The cash-in-lieu rate was established by City Council with help from city staff and consultants and is updated every 5 years. The most recent cash-in-lieu rate was updated via Ordinance 5, Series of 2018. The cash- in-lieu rate is established by subtracting the unit sales revenue per FTE from the total cost of development per FTE. The cost of development looked at “hard” and “soft” costs associated with the construction of units in Aspen. The development cost was an average of current construction costs and anticipated future costs of construction. The category designation required for each type of development is established by the land use code. The mitigation for the removal of an ADU requires .38 FTE’s at a Category 2 designation. The category 2 cash in lieu rate is $342,599.02, therefore, the total cash-in-lieu fee for the removal of the ADU is $130,187.63. - P27 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM September 14, 2018 Mr. Ben Anderson Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Sembler ADU – 222 So. Cleveland Avenue M r. Anderson: Please accept this application for Special Review to reinstall an Accessory Dwelling Unit at the 222 South Cleveland Street property. The property was originally developed in the mid-1990s with a single- family home and an Accessory Dwelling Unit. During the course of various owners and use over the following 20+ years, the kitchen of the ADU was removed. The absent kitchen was noted by the City during a recent building code inspection for unrelated remodeling work and the City requested the property owner either reinstall the ADU (by installing a kitchen) or provide a fee-in-lieu payment mandated when an ADU is removed. This application proposes to reinstall the ADU by installing a kitchen. The City’s ADU standards have changed over the years. The Land Use Code section applicable to ADUs in the mid 1990’s, attached as Exhibit 2, provided minimal guidance. ADUs were encouraged to be attached to the primary unit, accessed from an alley if one existed, subtle in their character, and subordinate to the primary residence. The code allowed for subgrade units and internal connections. The code also provided minimal guidance on the minimum kitchen facilities needed for an ADU. The ADU in question was approved and built under this mid-1990s code. Exhibit E- Application P28 VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM The lack of specificity regarding a kitchen was addressed during a 2001 Code update. The revisions provided minimum sizing for kitchen elements among other changes to the ADU program. In discussing this issue with Community Development staff, it was decided to refer to the 2001 code amendment language for guidance regarding kitchen requirements. While the ADU is not subject to these standards, the update provided a much better description of a kitchen and an easier target to agree upon. Due to the ADU being developed under a previous code, the proposed re-installation does not comply with the current ADU standards. Without redeveloping the entire property, adherence to the current standards is physically impractical and an unreasonable request in light of a simple kitchen installation. For example, current standards require an ADU to be detached from the primary residence. Without a complete redevelopment of the property, compliance with this requirement is impractical. Recognizing the existing physical realities and retrofit aspect of re- installing the ADU necessitates a Special Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Special Review criteria are addressed in Exhibit 1. Plans for the ADU are attached along with pictures of existing conditions. We look forward to working with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me for a site visit or additional information that will aid your review. Kind Regards, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC Attachments: 1. Review Criteria 2. 1990s ADU Standards 2.1 2001 ADU Standards 3. Pre-Application Summary 4. Application form 5. Agreement to Pay form 6. HOA form 7. Authorization to represent 8. Proof of ownership 9. Vicinity Map 10. Photos of existing conditions 11. ADU Retrofit Plan P29 VI.A. Exhibit 1 Review Criteria 26.520.080.D. Special Review. An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design standards shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted, mailed, and published pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within a Historic Overlay District, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the Zone District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability. Response – The unit continues the tradition of incorporating small-scale affordable housing opportunities into existing neighborhoods, allowing employees to live within the fabric of the existing community. The unit allows complete independent living for a resident having no caretaker relationship with the property owner. The unit also has the ability to house a caretaker or caregiver with a more direct relationship with the property owner. This flexibility increases the likelihood the unit will house a local working resident. The unit has high (9-foot) ceilings and all interior spaces are finished in a comparable manner as the main house. (the photo to the right shows the bathroom finishes.) The unit is provided with its own dedicated parking space and downtown is a 5-minute walk. The unit’s general livability is very high. The ADU is consistent with the purposes of the zone district. This property is zoned Residential Multi-Family. The purpose of the district is as follows: The purpose of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District is to provide for the use of land for intensive long-term residential purposes, short term vacation rentals, and customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District are typically those found in the Aspen infill area, within walking distance of the center of the City or lands on transit routes and other lands with existing concentrations of attached residential dwellings and mixed attached and detached residential dwellings. P30 VI.A. Exhibit 1 Review Criteria This property is developed with a single-family home (a permitted use) providing housing for long-term residential purposes and an Accessory Dwelling Unit (a permitted use accessory to a primary dwelling) also providing housing for long-term residential purposes. The property and this ADU are reflective of and supported by the purpose of the zone district. 2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property. Response – The Accessory Dwelling Unit is subordinate to the primary residence in every respect. The unit is smaller and is accessed from the alley-side of the property. The ADU has only one of the three parking spaces. The ADU enables either complete independent living or a living situation where internal access to the primary unit is desirable or necessary. This enables the unit to serve an employee with no operational or employment relationship to the primary unit or a caretaker or caregiver with direct access needs to the primary unit. While ADUs are not required to be rented or occupied, this flexibility provides a higher likelihood the unit will be used to house a local working resident. The unit’s access is located along the alley side of the property. The access is simple, providing a code compliant and appropriate front door to the unit while remaining compatible with the architecture and subordinate to the primary house. The primary entrance to the house continues to read as a single-family home. The property is landscaped with mature vegetation and the ADU is treated with the same level of landscape treatment. The property has no historical significance. P31 VI.A. Exhibit 21990s ADU RegsP32VI.A. P33VI.A. P34VI.A. P35VI.A. Exhibit 2.1P36VI.A. P37VI.A. P38VI.A. P39VI.A. P40VI.A. P41VI.A. P42VI.A. P43VI.A. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: August 28, 2018 PLANNER: Ben Anderson, 429.2765 PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 222. S. Cleveland PARCEL ID# 273718204004 REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, BendonAdams DESCRIPTION: (Existing and Proposed Conditions) The home at 222 S. Cleveland contains a deed restricted, “voluntary” Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). When approved with the original development of the property, the ADU was located in the basement. At some point, the kitchen facilities required of the ADU were removed. During a recent zoning inspection for a remodel of the home, the absence of the ADU kitchen was noted and a progressive enforcement process was initiated by Claude Salter, Zoning Enforcement Officer. While the Land Use Code provides a process for the removal of ADUs, the City can find no evidence that such a process has ever been initiated at 222 S. Cleveland. The owner of 222 S. Cleveland has two options to remedy this situation. The first path would pursue administrative approval of the removal of the ADU and associated deed restriction. To remove the deed restriction pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.520.090.C, the applicant shall provide mitigation for 0.38 Category 2 Full-time Equivalent employees in the form of Affordable Housing Certificates or fee-in-lieu. The current fee-in-lieu rate for Category 2 is $342,599.02, per FTE so mitigation by that method would be 0.38 x $342,599.02 = $130,187.62. An inspection to confirm that the space no longer qualifies as a dwelling unit shall be issued prior to the release of the deed restriction. The release shall be accepted by the City Attorney and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The second path would re-establish the physical requirements of the ADU in its previous location. This requires special review of the Planning and Zoning Commission; subject to 26.520.080.D. The requirement for the Board review stems from the fact that the current Land Use Code standards do not allow for subgrade units, and currently require kitchen features that are significantly different than those that were originally installed in this ADU. Staff would be supportive of this outcome with P&Z, but it is an outcome that is not able to be approved administratively. If this outcome were approved by P&Z, the deed restriction for the ADU remains in place. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.520 Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code Exhibit 3 P44 VI.A. REVIEW BY: • Staff for Complete Application Option 1 Community Development Director Option 2 • Planning and Zoning Commission REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): • Option 1 – Amendment of an ADU or Carriage House Development Order • Option 2 – Special Review – for a variation of an ADU design standard PUBLIC HEARING: • Option 1 – No • Option 2 - Yes. It is the responsibility of applicant to coordinate with Planning staff to meet the notice requirements for the public hearing. PLANNING FEES: Option 1 $975 deposit for 3 hours of staff time (Admin Review) Option 2 $3,250 deposit for 10 hours of staff time (P&Z Review) APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should first be submitted in a paper copy. Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement. Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application) A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. Essential to this case is a floor plan and description of the lower level depicting the past, existing, and proposed conditions for the ADU. Written responses to applicable review criteria. P45 VI.A. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: 1 digital PDF copy of the complete application. Total deposit for review of the application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P46 VI.A. Sembler ADU - 222 So. Cleveland Street 2737-182-04-004 Brent and Debbie Sembler 5858 Central Avenue; St Petersburg, FL 33707 727.384.6000 Brent.Sembler@Sembler.com BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St #202 970.925.2855 Chris@BendonAdams.com Re-Installation of an Accessory Dwelling Unit within an existing home. Home previously had an ADU in the proposed location. Replacement ADU is proposed to meet Land Use Code requirements applicable upon its previous installation. Special Review - Variation of ADU design standards n/a n/a 1 (existing) n/a n/a 3,250 Exhibit 4 P47 VI.A. CITY OF ASPEN CoMMuNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENJI Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”)and Please type or print in all capsAddressofProperty:222 So.Cleveland St.;Aspen Property Owner Name:Brent &Debbie Sembler Representative Name (if different from Property Owner)__BendonAdams Billing Name and Address -Send Bills to: Brent Semblec;5858 Central Avenue;St Petersburg,FL 33707 Contact info for billing:e-mail:Brent.Sembler@sembler.com Phone:727.384.6000 I understand that the City has adopted,via Ordinance No.30,Series of 2017,review fees for Land Use applications andpaymentofthesefeesisaconditionprecedenttodeterminingapplicationcompleteness.I understand that as the propertyownerthatIamresponsibleforpayingallfeesforthisdevelopmentapplication. For flat fees and referral fees:I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated.I understand that these flat fees arenon-refundable. $.flat fee for __________________. $.____________ __________________________________________________________ $._____________ _____________________________ For Deposit cases only:The City and I understand that because of the size,nature or scope of the proposed project,it is notpossibleatthistimetoknowthefullextentortotalcostsinvolvedinprocessingtheapplication.I understand that additionalcostsoverandabovethedepositmayaccrue.I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to completeprocessing,review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for projectconsideration,unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned totheCityshallbeconsideredbytheCityasbeingreceivedbyme.I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation ofaninvoicebytheCityforsuchservices. I have read,understood,and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment.I agree to paythefollowinginitialdepositamountsforthespecifiedhoursofstafftime.I understand that payment of a deposit does notrenderandapplicationcompleteorcompliantwithapprovalcriteria.If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit,IagreetopayadditionalmonthlybillingstotheCitytoreimbursetheCityfortheprocessingofmyapplicationatthehourlyrateshereinafterstated. $__3,250 depositfor 10 hoursofCommunityDevelc above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $_________________deposit for ______________ hours of Engineering deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: November 2017 City of Aspen I 130 5.Galena St.1(970)920 5090 $.___________flat fee for flat fee for flat fee for Additional time Signature: Jessica Garrow,AICP PRINT Name:Brent SemblerCommunityDevelopmentDirector Owner;222 So.Cleveland St;AspenCityUse: Title: ______________________________________________ Fees Due:$Received $_______ Case #_________________________ Exhibit 5 P48 VI.A. Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner ("I"): Name: Brent Sembler Email: Brent.Sembler@sembler.com Address of 222 So. Cleveland; Aspen, CO 81611 Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) Phone No.: 727.384.6000 @ This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. D This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. D This property is subject to a horn owners association rivate covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use ap Ii proved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy an applicability, meaning or understand that this docu d the c· of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the 1 ate enants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I cument. Owner signature: Owner printed name: =B.;..re""'n"""t"""S:;..;e=m"""b"""l""'e.;...r _____ _ or, Attorney signature: ____________ date: ____ _ Attorney printed name: ___________ _ Exhibit 6 P49 VI.A. September 101 2018 Jessica Garrow,AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So.Galena St. Aspen,Colorado 81611 BendonAdams RE:222 So.Cleveland Street;Aspen,CO. Ms.Garrow: Please accept this letter authorizing and BendonAdams,LLC,to represent our ownership interests in 222 South Cleveland Street and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I contact me. can assist,please do not hesitate to Property —222 So.Cleveland Street;Aspen,CO 81611 300 SO SPRING ST I 202 I ASPEN,CO 81611 970.925.2855 1 BENDONADAMS.COM Legal Description —Lot 1,Fellman Lot Split Parcel ID —7 -182-04-004 Debbie Sembler Br 5858 St.Petersburg,FJ3707 727.384.6000 Brent.Sembler@sembler.com Exhibit 7 P50 VI.A. MEMORANDUM OF OWNERSHIP-ACCOMMODATION NO LIABILITY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., A DULY LICENSED TITLE INSURANCE AGENT IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. BY EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DISCLOSES THE FOLLOWING: GRANTEE IN THE LAST INSTRUMENT OF CONVEYANCE BRENT SEMBLER and DEBBIE SEMBLER LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1, FELLMAN LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat thereof recorded October 31, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 67. DEED OF TRUST APPARENTLY UNRELEASED DEED OF TRUST FROM : BRENT W. SEMBLER and DEBBIE N. SEMBLER TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF THE COUNTY OF FOR THE USE OF : BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. TO SECURE : $3,500,000.00 DATED : DECEMBER 10, 2015 RECORDED : DECEMBER 23, 2015 RECEPTION NO. : 625823 LIENS AND JUDGMENTS (AGAINST LAST GRANTEE) APPARENTLY UNRELEASED NONE THIS INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR SOLE USE AND BENEFIT AND IS FURNISHED AS AN ACCOMMODATION. THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE PUBLIC RECORDS, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO, OR EXAMINATION OF, INSTRUMENTS WHICH PURPORTS TO AFFECT THE REAL PROPERTY. THE INFORMATION IS NEITHER GUARANTEED NOR CERTIFIED, AND IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, OPINION OF TITLE, NOR A GUARANTY OF TITLE, AND OUR LIABILITY IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT CHARGED FOR THIS REPORT. EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: Authorized Officer JOB NO: ACCOM2840 Exhibit 8 P51 VI.A. P52 VI.A. P53 VI.A. P54 VI.A. Exhibit 9 222 South Cleveland Street – Vicinity Map P55 VI.A. 222 South Clevelandvisuals of home and exisƟ ng conditionsaspen | colorado123Exhibit 10Site photos from northwest property corner and from southwest corner looking along alleyExisting access to ADUfrom alley side of propertyInterior pictures showing entry, bathroom, interior connection, kitchen locationP56 VI.A. Exhibit 11 P57VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM January 8, 2019 Mr. Garrett Larimer Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Sembler ADU – 222 So. Cleveland Avenue Mr. Larimer: Please accept this addendum to the 222 So. Cleveland application. We have made some changes to the ADU in response to P&Z Commissioner comments at the prior hearing. A revised plan is attached. The changes are summarized as follows: Storage – We have moved and expanded the closet/storage area to fit along the entire western wall of the ADU. We propose a normal depth for the closet and built-ins even though this is still below the 10% storage marker of today’s code. We explored a deeper closet and feel it takes too much away from the living space. The 25.5 square feet of closet/storage equates to 7.2% of the ADU. Four-Burner Range – We propose a 4-burner range with oven and a vent hood. Counter and Cabinet Space – We don't have an opportunity to expand counter space. But we do propose cabinets above the kitchen. The area above the stove will need to accommodate a range vent. A minimum of 12 cubic feet of cabinet area can be accommodated. Refrigerator – We are proposing an apartment-size refrigerator. This is larger than the under-counter versions with a typical height of roughly 5.5 feet. A final specification is not set but will be a minimum of 9.5 cubic feet in size, including the freezer. Washer/Dryer – We have space for these in the mechanical room and will provide the hook-ups and a stacked washer/dryer system for use by the ADU tenant. Natural light – We will replace the entry door, currently a solid panel, with either a half- or full-light door. This will enhance the natural light condition of the interior of the ADU. Kind Regards, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC Attachments: 1. Updated Plan P58 VI.A. 0----0----- 0---- �---- 0----- I I --t I ----�--- I ,( � EXISTING EGRESS I I 7'-7" WINDOW I 2'-0' ,( -- EXISTING BA-,_----1 c·-,1rJ•, ''>;--d,·:c_:� ---=-1 ==--==--0�] I .- NEW T.S. COLUMN 1, REF, STRUCTURAL I 11 __ !\I_�. EXISTING BATH. EXISTING ,-----EXISTING EGRESS WINDOW EXISTINCl BEDROOM EX[STING BATH 11-11 I I I I ,_c ·'\I_-�, ,---'/'\ \---. <'--7_ \ ' .. BASEMENT ' STACKED W/D I I ----LIGHTING ANDVENTltl\TION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET THROUGH EXISTING\WIN,DOWS FOR THE FAMILY ROO,M ___ i EXISTt� MECH. ___ _ 8'-1" I I I r-1--REF./ FREEZER MIN. ' EXISTING WINDOW RANGE HOOD JI -0 en -0 ----© / FULL HEIGHT BUILT-IN STORAGE CABINETS ABOVE jFOUR BURNER RANGE SINK-/; UPPER -----LIGHTING AND VENTILATION � REQUIREMENTS AR�ET BY 4 DOOR AND WINDOW!l;fOR TH A202 ADU. ...... CLOSET 2'-4 1/2' \__ 5 1/211 CABINETS LAMINATE-�' \ COU NTERTOP1------------;;;F--/ ---------__ ,-,- . 11 ,- -11•�1 1/�1 , __ 1, __\ 21'-2 1/2" 33'-o· EXISTING ADU 355 SQJFT. 12'-2 1/2"1 ,( ,( ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'NEW GLASS EGRESS DOOR EXISTING STAIRWAY 1 Al04 LEGEND II NOT IN SCOPE c::::J EXISTING WALLS GENERAL NOTES, 1.EXISTING CONDITIONSMUST BE FIELD VERIFIED FOREXACT DIMENSIONS 2.DIMENSIONS ARE FROMGRID, FACE OF STUD, ORCONCRETE WALL3.DOORS AND WINDOWS AREDIMENSIONED TO CENTERLINE4.COLUMNS ARE DIMENSIONEDTO CENTERLINE LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN 1/4"=1'-0' I :l 605 EAST MAIN ST REET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (T) 970 / 925 4755 {Fl 970 I 920 2950 Consultant Issue: 01-07-2019 Final Set SEMBLER RESIDENCE ADU RESTORATION 222 S. CLEVEIAND ST. ASPEN, COLCRADO C) NORTH PROJECT NO, 21546.0 DWG Fil[ 21541.00A104ADU.dwg SHEET TITLE LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN A104 Ce) 2019 �M��fl1llW��Jroo, P.C TilE INFORMATION AND DESI� INTENT CONTAINED ON 11-ISOOCI.NENTISTilE PROPERTY OF Bill POSS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTIJRE NII PLANNING, P,C, NO PART [JflHIS ltfilRMAllON MAY BE USEDWITtO./TlfE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF Bill POSSAtll ASS{ICIATES, NlCHITICTUREAND PLANNNG, PC BILL POSSANOASS{ICIATES, ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNlt«:, P,C. SHALlRETAIN All COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGITS, IM::t.lOltl. COPYRIGKT lHERETO, Exhibit 1 P59VI.A. 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM February 13, 2019 Mr. Garrett Larimer Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Sembler ADU – 222 So. Cleveland Avenue Mr. Larimer: Please accept this addendum to the 222 So. Cleveland application. We have made changes to the ADU in response to P&Z Commissioner comments at the prior hearing. We also adjusted the plan to account for the current bathroom layout. A revised plan is attached. The changes are summarized as follows: Storage – We have moved and expanded the closet/storage area to fit along the entire western wall of the ADU. We propose a normal depth for the closet and built-ins even though this is still below the 10% storage marker of today’s code. We explored a deeper closet and feel it takes too much away from the living space. The 20.2 square feet of closet/storage equates to 5.7% of the ADU. Four-Burner Range – We propose a 4-burner range with oven and a vent hood. Counter and Cabinet Space – We don't have an opportunity to expand counter space. But we do propose cabinets above the kitchen. The area above the stove will need to accommodate a range vent. A minimum of 12 cubic feet of cabinet area can be accommodated. Refrigerator – We are proposing an apartment-size refrigerator. This is larger than the under-counter versions with a typical height of roughly 5.5 feet. A final specification is not set but will be a minimum of 9.5 cubic feet in size, including the freezer. Washer/Dryer – We have space for these in the mechanical room and will provide the hook-ups and a stacked washer/dryer system for use by the ADU tenant. Natural light – We will replace the entry door, currently a solid panel, with either a half- or full-light door. This will enhance the natural light condition of the interior of the ADU. Kind Regards, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC Attachments: 1. Updated Plan P60 VI.A. P61VI.A.