HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20190423
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
April 23, 2019
4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 1011 E Hopkins Ave. - Special Review - Variation to the 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
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2019
Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:32 PM.
Commissioners in attendance: Scott Marcoux, Spencer McKnight, Ruth Carver, Don Love, Brittanie
Rockhill, Jimmy Marcus
Staff present:
Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
STAFF COMMENTS
Ms. Phelan welcomed new commissioners Brittanie Rockhill and Don Love. She stated that she would
schedule a training with the new commissioners to train them on public hearing and legalities. There is
a special meeting next week, due to rescheduling from the runoff election day. This meeting will be a
little different because there are no public hearings.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Mr. McKnight welcomed the new commissioners.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Marcus motioned to approve the minutes from the March 26th meeting. Mr. Marcoux seconded.
All in favor. Motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
PUBLIC HEARING
None.
OTHER BUSINESS
C.J. Oliver introduced himself as the Environmental Health and Sustainability Director for the City. He
thanked the commissioners for having him at the meeting. He stated that his purpose at the meeting is
to make the commissioners aware of the upcoming changes happening with the Rio Grande Recycle
Center. He stated that he is working to get to word out about the survey regarding the Recycling Center
which is at Aspen Community Voice. Environmental Health would like to encourage as many people as
possible to make their voice heard through that survey.
Mr. Oliver gave some historical background on the recycle center. He stated that the County has helped
fund the recycle center since the 1990s. When the City introduced curbside recycling in 2005, the
amount of material collected at the Recycle Center stayed flat. At the beginning of 2019, the County
passed a County-wide ordinance requiring curbside recycling. Because of that, they felt that there was
no longer a strong need to have a community drop off center. On top of that, for the past decade, the
P1
IV.
price available to haulers for recyclable commodities has continually declined. As a result, the County is
no longer offering funding for the recycle center starting September 1st.
Mr. Oliver stated that Council has asked staff to collect community input on what the Community would
like to see there. Environmental Health condensed that into three options and wanted to get a sense of
where the community is on those. The first option is to leave it just like it is today, which would cost the
City more than $250,000. The second option is to close the center and turn it into a park-scape setting.
That comes at an operations cost of $0, though some cost to turn the space back into a park. The third
option is to turn the recycle center into a hybrid collection facility that would target a few harder to
recycle options that have some significant value, plus provide a community drop-off center for compost
and yard waste that’s open year-round. The cost on that would be somewhere between one third to
one half of what it costs to haul single stream recycling out of the recycle center now.
Mr. Oliver stated that staff have reached out to businesses, run ads on Grassroots TV, put adds in the
newspaper, and are doing popup events at the recycle center in order to get the word out. He stated
that, if people want to continue to have a recycle center in that location, there will need to be a
conversation about where that money could come from out of the general fund or if there would be a
tipping fee out of the landfill.
Mr. McKnight asked if the commissioners had any questions for Mr. Oliver.
Mr. Marcoux asked what kind of feedback Mr. Oliver has been getting so far.
Mr. Oliver stated that 325 surveys have come in so far and about 90% of those responses have been in
favor of keeping the recycle center there, with a 50/50 split on keeping it as it is now and moving to the
hybrid recycling. In conversations with businesses, no single person has wanted to close it down.
Mr. Marcoux asked if pickup would fluctuate with busy and quiet times of the week and year.
Mr. Oliver stated that it would.
Mr. McKnight asked if the people who want the recycle center to remain as it is now are giving an idea
of why they want it that way.
Mr. Oliver said that he has heard responses that range from “using the recycle center is my social hour,”
to “I don’t have enough space at my house,” and “I don’t trust that my HOA’s system is working properly
and I want to make sure my stuff gets recycled.”
Ms. Carver asked if there is a value to anything that’s being recycled or if it is just being thrown away.
Mr. Oliver stated that the things dropped at the recycle center is absolutely recycled. They can tolerate
a 20% contamination rate and still recycle the stuff. The average contamination rate at the recycle
center is about 5%. He stated that the saleable value of those commodities is low. Cardboard is the
best. Plastic is worthless. Glass somewhere in the middle. At the recycle center, the stuff makes it back
into the recycling stream regardless of price.
P2
IV.
Ms. Carver stated that, as an eco-friendly community, it’s important to recycle the plastic whether it
makes money or not. She asked for more information on recycling at the landfill if the recycle center
closes.
Mr. Oliver replied that everyone would be able to take recyclable goods to the landfill for free during
their regular open hours.
Ms. Phelan stated that the landfill takes other items for recycling that cannot go to the Rio Grande
Recycle Center, such as textiles.
Mr. Oliver stated that that was correct, though they do charge to recycle some of those things.
Ms. Carver stated her opinion that the City electronic pickup should be moved closer to when people are
in town, like in the middle of May.
Mr. Marcus asked what the current options are for compost.
Mr. Oliver stated that citizens can currently pick up a bin from Environmental Health for free and
contract with waste haulers that haul compost. You can also drop compost off at the Pitkin County
Landfill free of charge. Also, the City currently provides a grass and leaf collection bin at the recycle
center. That bin would be part of the hybrid recycling approach.
Ms. Rockhill asked about infrastructure around composting, seeing that it is likely to smell.
Mr. Oliver stated that staff would make sure that the frequency of hauling for compost prevented an
odor issue. He stated that there won’t be a need for significant improvement. The biggest need would
be to ensure that the bin was adequately wildlife proof. If the City moved to food composting, there
would need to be more infrastructure to house that to ensure that it’s as wildlife-proof as possible.
Mr. Marcoux asked if there is equipment that can be purchased that could compact everything to
reduce the amount of hauling needed.
Mr. Oliver stated that a cardboard bailor would significantly reduce hauling, however, those machines
are dangerous to use and would require a designated person there to operate it.
Mr. Love asked Mr. Oliver if he has any sense of what percentage of total City recycling is collected
there.
Mr. Oliver stated that the recycle center accounts for 40% of the waste diversion from the City of Aspen.
Businesses account for about 80% of the volume, and they are mostly recycling cardboard.
Mr. McKnight asked if there are any studies that show a similar area in a similar situation. He asked if
more recyclables will end up in the trash if the recycle center is closed.
Mr. Oliver replied that they will, particularly businesses which don’t have space to store their
recyclables. He stated that successful recycling programs have both a curbside and community drop-off
component.
P3
IV.
Mr. Love asked if it’s true that curbside recycling works less well in multi-family residential situations.
Mr. Oliver agreed that that is true for many reasons.
Mr. McKnight asked Mr. Oliver what he thinks the right move is.
Mr. Oliver stated that his opinion is that the best solution is the hybrid approach. They would get some
interns or temporary staff to do outreach and help people maximize their curbside recycling potential.
Then the hybrid facility would have an additive effect on top of what curbside offers. That is the best
program and costs a lot less than continuing to do the same thing.
Mr. McKnight asked if there is a way to track where the trash and recycling is going under a new
program.
Mr. Oliver stated that there is. He stated that they have a great sense of what the base volume is, and
they could get reports from haulers about Without significant change. Another benefit of the hybrid
approach is that the City can walk it back to what it is now if they see a negative effect.
Ms. Carver asked if single-stream recycling or individual type recycling costs more.
Mr. Oliver stated that single-stream collects more goods, but it does cost more money since somebody
has to separate it.
Mr. Love asked if there is potential for Aspen Skiing Company to fund some recycling efforts.
Mr. Oliver stated that staff have initiated some of those conversations. He stated that they have not
been very interested. Their focus is more on renewable energy than waste reduction.
Ms. Carver asked if newspaper can go into cardboard recycling.
Mr. Oliver stated that newspapers are great for composting or they can be recycled. It is not the same
as cardboard.
Ms. Carver asked where newspapers would go in the hybrid recycling plan.
Mr. Oliver stated that they can go into the single-stream curbside recycling or compost.
Ms. Rockhill asked if there is potential for compost bins around the city, next to the trash and recycling
bins.
Mr. Oliver stated that it is something that the City would be interested in in the future but finding the
right container to guard the compost from wildlife is the big barrier.
Mr. McKnight stated that the meeting was open for public comment.
Ms. Phelan stated that the meeting is not a public hearing, therefore it is at the Commission’s discretion
if they would like to have public comment. She suggested setting parameters around it.
P4
IV.
Mr. McKnight stated that they would hold public comment but would keep it to 1 minute.
Toni Kronberg introduced herself and thanked the Commission. She stated that, in 2006, the
community came forward with a request to have curbside recycling and that one of the benefits is the
reduction in cars driving to the Rio Grande Recycle Center. She stated that the recycle center is not
zoned as a recycle center. She stated that she wants to know where Mr. Oliver gets his statistics from so
that she can validate that. She asked the commissioners to consider why Pitkin County is dropping
funding for the recycle center.
Mr. McKnight thanked Ms. Kronberg for her input and thanked staff for explaining the procedures to
him. He opened the meeting to commissioner discussion.
Ms. Carver stated that her preference would be to keep the recycle center as it is.
Ms. Rockhill stated that it is important to get the word out about the survey at Aspen Community Voice.
Mr. McKnight stated that he is leaning towards Mr. Oliver’s recommendation towards select recycling.
He stated that duplicating efforts is not worth it, but he is worried that people will throw recyclables in
the trash if the center goes away.
Mr. Marcoux asked Mr. Oliver what the most popular options for fund reallocation are.
Mr. Oliver stated that they haven’t jumped into that yet.
Mr. Love stated that he thinks the hybrid solution is the best.
Ms. Rockhill stated that compost collection in the hybrid solution might make up for the people who
don’t make the transition to the new system.
Mr. Love stated that he would like to see a marketing campaign go along with the transition.
Mr. McKnight asked if Ms. Carver is the only one for the full recycling center. He stated that the
majority of commissioners support the plan of hybrid recycling.
Mr. Marcus stated that, for him, the obvious solution Is the hybrid. He stated that he sees the benefit of
compost counterbalancing losing the plastic recycling. He asked what the City can do to reduce the
amount of plastic use in the first place.
Mr. Marcoux asked if there is any way for the City to communicate with the State that they would like
Colorado to be part of the bottle deposit program.
Ms. Carver commented on the amount of waste caused by plastic straws. She asked if the City can sell
metal straws.
Mr. McKnight thanked Mr. Oliver for attending the meeting.
Ms. Phelan asked if the commissioners want to have the follow-up from the Council work session at this
meeting or if they want to put it off until a future meeting.
P5
IV.
Mr. McKnight stated that the new Council coming in June might have different ideas about how they
would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to interact with Council and it might be good to have
another discussion when the new Council comes on. He stated that it’s his opinion that he would like to
push the discussion to another meeting.
Ms. Carver stated that she likes Mr. McKnight’s suggestion of meeting with the new Council.
ADJOURN
Ms. Carver motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Marcoux seconded. Meeting adjourned at 5:26 pm.
Jeannine Stickle
Records Manager
P6
IV.
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Garrett Larimer, Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Special Review
of 2019
MEETING DATE: April 23, 2019 (Continued from
Note: No changes have been made to this memo from the original hearing.
APPLICANT: Witmondt Family Investments LLC,
100 Passaic Avenue #240, Fairfield, NJ 07004
REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams, 300 S Spring St.
#202, Aspen, CO 81611
LOCATION: 1011 E Hopkins
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 original ADU was located in the
closet of the master bedroom. The applicant is
interested in replacing the unit in the basement
but the current code does not allow for
subgrade ADU’s.
MEMORANDUM
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Garrett Larimer, Planner
Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
Special Review – ADU Design Standards – 1011 E Hopkins Ave., Resolution No.
April 23, 2019 (Continued from March 26, 2019)
Note: No changes have been made to this memo from the original hearing.
Family Investments LLC,
100 Passaic Avenue #240, Fairfield, NJ 07004
BendonAdams, 300 S Spring St.
Family (RMF)
The applicant is seeking Special
Review for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) Design Standards to replace an ADU
that was removed without the necessary
original ADU was located in the
applicant is
basement,
the current code does not allow for
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends either recognizing
the circa 1996 ADU design allowances and approving the
variations requested via Special Review or, in the
recognizing that the replacement of the ADU should meet
todays’ design standards, or be vacated
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Page 1 of 7
, Resolution No. __, Series
recommends either recognizing
design allowances and approving the
eview or, in the alternative,
recognizing that the replacement of the ADU should meet
or be vacated pursuant to the code.
P7
VI.A.
Page 2 of 7
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
· Special Review – Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standard Variation
The applicant is requesting approval for variations to the ADU Design Standards related the replacement
of an ADU in the basement of the residence and per section 26.520.080.D. The Code allows the Planning
and Zoning Commission to grant special review approval for variations to the ADU Design Standards. The
Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
LOCATION/BACKGROUND:
The subject property, 1011 E Hopkins Ave., or Unit B of the duplex residence, is located on a lot in the Residential
Multi-Family (RMF) zone district in the Aspen Infill area. The property was developed in the mid-1990s and
received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1996. An ADU was originally approved to be located in the basement as
part of a design review as the duplex was proposed at the maximum allowable Floor Area. Prior to construction of
the duplex, the then owner submitted a building permit showing the ADU for each unit to be on the main level
with a small kitchenette. The redesign also included exterior changes that required a re-review by the city to
ensure compliance with design guidelines at the time. Relocating the ADUs to the ground level made available a
potential Floor Area bonus to the project. Unfortunately, the record is somewhat unclear on the issue. The ground
level floor plan and the basement floor plan are provided for reference in Figure 2, below. A 468 sq. ft. studio ADU
was deed restricted as mitigation for the development per the original approvals. Construction of an ADU was an
acceptable form of mitigation at the time and the ADU was not required to be occupied.
Figure 2: Ground Level ADU Floor Plan
P8
VI.A.
Page 3 of 7
Figure 3 – Current Main Level Floor Plan
Figure 3 is the most recent floor plan, and was included in the application, showing a master bedroom and an
entry area in the location where the ADU was originally shown. Building permit documentation does not track the
changes to the main level showing when the kitchenette was removed, but at some point, it was removed
without necessary city approvals.
Recently a building permit was submitted and issued for the renovation of the residence. During an inspection of
the property for the renovation, it was noted by City staff that the ADU did not exist. Subsequently, staff informed
the applicant of their options: replace the ADU meeting current code standards, 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.
The specific design requirements have changed over time, but since the late-nineties there have been more
prescriptive 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.
CURRENT REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Special Review approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission
to replace and relocate an ADU that was removed without City approval. The proposal is to locate the ADU within
the basement which is not a permitted location under current standards. 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 basement, the following standards that are not met will need to be
varied via Special Review:
Requirements Met Not
Met
Code Requirement Detail
Size Requirement X 300 sq. ft. minimum. Net livable size of unit complies (369 sq.
ft.), but 10% (or 36.9 sq. ft.) is required to be storage.
The storage is undersized at only 8.4% (or 30.8 sq. ft.)
Function as a separate unit X Unit must be separately accessible from the outside; interior
connections are only allowed if approved by P&Z.
P9
VI.A.
Page 4 of 7
Requirements Met Not
Met
Code Requirement Detail
Access is met, interior connection needs P&Z approval
Mechanical/Utility System X Separate access to utility and mechanical systems must exist
The shared mechanical systems do not include separate,
direct access.
Kitchen Parameters X Certain kitchen requirements aren’t met, including, no
provision of a dishwasher, the refrigerator is smaller than
required, counter and storage space is below the minimum, and
the oven is smaller than required.
Bathroom X Proposed ADU meets minimum bathroom requirements.
Washer/Dryer X No washer/dryer hookups are provided.
Above Grade Requirement X The unit is entirely below grade and the code requires 50% or
more the unit be above grade.
Detached from Primary
Residence
X The code requires ADUs be detached from the primary
residence to improve livability and increase the likelihood of the
unit’s occupancy. The unit is proposed to be within the footprint
of the primary residence.
Meets requirements of Zone
District
X The unit complies with requirements of the zone district.
Snow/Ice Shedding X A roof overhang exists above the stairs that provide exterior
access to the unit.
Meet other requirements of
Aspen Municipal Code
X The proposed unit will be required to comply with building code
requirements and a building permit but appears to comply with
all requirements of the title.
Deed Restricted in
accordance with APCHA
X An updated deed restriction will be required, the applicant is
aware of this requirement.
Figure 4 – Existing Basement Level Floor Plan
P10
VI.A.
Page 5 of 7
Figure 5 – Proposed ADU Floor Plan
Issues for Discussion:
The application is reviewed under the current code for replacement purposes. Complying with the all of the
current code requirements, such as above grade and detached requirement, would likely require redeveloping the
entire site. 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.
Additionally, staff recognizes that when the ADU was originally constructed the requirements were less
prescriptive. In 1999 the ADU requirements were updated and included more specifics on what was required in an
ADU. The kitchen requirements, which are important to qualify the unit as a dwelling unit, were more prescriptive
than when the unit was originally constructed. The current proposal, although it doesn’t comply with all the
requirements of the current code would exceed the requirements of the mid-1990’s.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff acknowledges approval was originally granted to construct an ADU within the primary residence, but the unit
was removed without the necessary approvals. 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, in this
situation the house is already constructed and the ADU is proposed to be sited in a new location within the
primary residence. The basement location, although it does not comply with the detached or above grade
requirement of the code, would result in a more private and independent unit than in its previous location on the
main level.
Ideally, the reinstallation of the ADU would not occur and the ADU would be formally vacated. The occupancy
rates of attached ADUs from the early and mid-1990’s ADU program have been low and approving an ADU in a
configuration similar to those of that era may result in a lack of occupancy. If the Planning and Zoning
Commission feels it’s appropriate to replace the ADU on site, considering what was originally required of min
1990’s ADUs, staff believes the basement is a better location as there is a separate entry. If located on site, staff is
supportive of the reduction in storage. Given the size of the unit, requiring more storage than what is proposed
P11
VI.A.
Page 6 of 7
would not result in effective use of the space. In staff’s opinion, the amount of storage provide for the unit is
appropriate for the size of the unit.
The review criteria for Special Review to vary the ADU Design Standards include two items:
1. The ADU should promote the purpose of the ADU program and the zone district and should be a livable
unit.
2. The ADU should be subordinate to the primary residence.
Under the purpose clause of the land use code for ADUs, the code notes that “ADUs and carriage houses
represent viable housing opportunities for working residents,” and that the ADUs provide additional housing
opportunities in town. The purpose section also notes that “detached ADUs and carriage houses are more likely
to be occupied by a local working resident and that “Aspen desires occupied ADUs and carriage houses”.
The unit as proposed in the basement would satisfy the second review criteria as it would be subordinate in every
way to the primary residence; however, both review criteria must be met in order to meet the requirements for
Special Review approval. Based on occupancy rates of attached ADUs from this era, staff does not feel that the
proposed ADU promotes the purpose of the ADU program which intends to provide units that are 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 grant the necessary
variations via Special Review.
If the Planning and Zoning Commission accepts the replacement of the ADU, staff recommends the following
variations be granted, given the existing construction.
1. Allow for the 100% subgrade location of the ADU.
2. Since the mechanical systems of the primary residence and ADU are located in a shared mechanical room.
3. An internal connection between the primary residence and the ADU.
4. The kitchen shall include: an oven, a stove with four burners, a sink, a refrigerator with a minimum
capacity of 9.5 cubic feet, and a freezer.
5. A reduction in the minimum storage or closet space required to allow a minimum 30 sq. ft. (8.3%) of the
units overall square footage.
6. Waive the washer and dryer hook up requirement.
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 with minimal kitchen facilities and an interior connection, among other items. If the Planning and Zoning
Commission wishes to approve the request, they can use the following motion:
“I move to approve Resolution No.___, Series of 2019 to vary the ADU Design Standards to allow for the ADU at
1011 E Hopkins Ave. to be replaced 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.”
P12
VI.A.
Page 7 of 7
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Proposed Drawing
Exhibit B – ADU Design Standards - Review Criteria
Exhibit C – Special Review – Review Criteria
Exhibit D – Summary of ADU Code Requirements
Exhibit E - Application
P13
VI.A.
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A VARIATION TO THE ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT DESIGN STANDARDS TO REPLACE AN ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT WITHIN THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF A PROPERTY
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNIT B, CIMARRON TOWNHOMES, ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 8, 1996 IN PLAT BOOK 40 AT PAGE
87 AND AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THE DECLARATION FOR CIMARRON
TOWNHOMES RECORDED NOVEMBER 8, 1996 AS RECEPTION NO. 398934,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1011 E HOPKINS AVE.
Parcel No. 2737-182-04-009
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Chris Bendon of BendonAdams LLC, on behalf of Witmondt Family Investments LLC,
requesting Special Review approval for a variation to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design
Standards to reinstall an ADU that had been removed without authorization within the basement
at the property at 1011 E. Hopkins Ave.; and,
WHEREAS, The ADU had originally been located on the main floor and relocation to
the basement was requested; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the applicable review standards; and,
WHEREAS, the original hearing was held on March 26, 2019 and the City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the hearing until April 23, 2019; 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 April 23, 2019; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
P14
VI.A.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution No. __ 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
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, 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.
3. An internal connection between the primary residence and the ADU.
4. The kitchen shall include: an oven, a stove with four burners, a sink, a refrigerator with a
minimum capacity of 9.5 cubic feet, and a freezer.
5. A reduction in the minimum storage or closet space required is granted to allow a
minimum thirty (30) square foot closet.
6. No washer and dryer hook-ups are required.
7. The deed restriction shall be updated to comply with Section 26.520.070, which requires
lease terms of no less than six months.
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. The applicant
must submit a building permit application demonstrating compliance with all applicable codes
prior to any development on site.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals
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:
P15
VI.A.
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 April 23, 2019.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
____________________________ ______________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Jeannine Stickle
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Proposed Floor Plan of the ADU
P16
VI.A.
A201
FLOOR PLANS
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET TITLE1011 E Hopkins304 E Hopkins AveAspen, CO 81611Red Room Design
3134 South Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81623
970.413.3144
369 sq ft
3'-11 3/4"5"2'-6 1/2"5"11'-4 1/2"
18'-8 3/4"5"16'-5 3/4"5"2'-8 1/2"20'-1/4"9 1/2"11'-4 3/4"5"3'-5 1/2"5"3'-11"20'-4 3/4"1'-7"2'-11 1/4"2'-5"5"11'-4 1/2"
18'-8 3/4"
EXISTING EGRESS WINDOW
Closet
Bath
Bedroom
Hall
EXISTING AREA
AREA LEGEND
RF3'-11 3/4"5"2'-6 1/2"5"11'-4 1/2"
18'-8 3/4"5"16'-5 3/4"5"2'-8 1/2"20'-1/4"9 1/2"11'-4 3/4"5"3'-5 1/2"5"3'-11"20'-4 3/4"1'-7"2'-11 1/4"2'-5"5"11'-4 1/2"
18'-8 3/4"
EXISTING EGRESS WINDOW
OVEN BELOW
MIN. 6 CUBIC FEET
Closet
Bath
Bedroom
Kitchen
1 EXISTING 1/2" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED 1/2" = 1'-0"P17VI.A.
P18VI.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;
NOT MET
2.b. An ADU or carriage house must have
separately accessible utility systems, controls and
disconnect panels. This does not preclude shared
services;
NOT MET
Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards
P19
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.
NOT 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.
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
P20
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 369 sq. ft. which complies with the minimum size
requirements for the unit. The closet measures approximately 30.8 sq./ft. which equates
to approximately 8.4% of the overall unit square footage, which is below the minimum
requirement. Since the proposed storage is below the minimum size requirements, staff
finds this criterion to be not met, and Special Review approval is required.
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
P21
VI.A.
Exhibit B
ADU Design Standards Review Criteria
Page 4 of 6
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 between the primary structure and the ADU which requires Special Review
approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff finds this criterion to not 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 utility system utilizes a shared system; no separate utilities exist for
the ADU. The ADU uses the primary structures utilities that are located adjacent to the
unit in the basement, staff finds this criterion to not 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: A four burner stovetop and oven is proposed, the oven measures
approximately 24” wide which is below the minimum size required. No dishwasher is
shown. The refrigerator proposed measures approximately 9.5 sq. ft., which is below the
minimum size required. The amount of counter space provided is below the minimum
required, approximately 4.2 sq. ft. are shown, and 24 sq. ft. must be provided. Since the
proposed kitchen does not meet the current standards, staff finds this criterion to not be
met, and Special Review approval is 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 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.
P22
VI.A.
Exhibit B
ADU Design Standards Review Criteria
Page 5 of 6
Staff Response: The proposed ADU does not contain a washer and dryer and no
hookups or venting rough-ins are shown. The ADU does not meet the current code
requirements, staff finds this criterion to be not met, and Special Review approval is
required.
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: The proposed ADU is entirely below grade. The original ADU was located
on the main level. Since the ADU was removed without authorization, the applicant is
interested in replacing the required ADU in a subgrade location to bring the property
back into compliance. Although replacing the ADU in the original location would allow
for an above grade location, staff does not feel that replacing the ADU on the main
level creates a more desirable and livable unit that’s likely to be occupied. Although
the proposed location is an improvement from the previous location, it does not meet
the design guideline requirements, so staff finds this criterion to be not met, and Special
Review approval is 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 under 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 basement, attached to the primary structure,
it’s impractical given the circumstances to require the applicant to comply with the
requirements of this section. That being said, the ADU does not comply with the
requirements of this standard, and therefore, staff finds this criterion to not be met, and
Special Review approval is 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.
P23
VI.A.
Exhibit B
ADU Design Standards Review Criteria
Page 6 of 6
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: A roof overhang exists above the stairs that provide access to the unit,
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, and the stairs provide emergency egress from the residence. The assemblies
separating the ADU and primary residence will be required to comply with fire
separation and sound attenuation requirements in the building code. Other elements of
the ADU 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 #383890 and the Amended Deed Restriction with Reception #387999. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
P24
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
P25
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 purpose statement of Section 26.520 – Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage
Houses states that ADU’s support the community by providing “viable housing opportunities for
working residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community.” Attached ADUs
have experienced low occupancy rates. The unit is below grade with limited natural light, storage,
kitchen facilities, and shared utility controls and mechanical systems. Staff is concerned if the
proposed unit is a “viable housing opportunity” that’s likely to be occupied.
The ADU does promote the purpose of the Zone District. It’s within walking distance of downtown and
transit routes, provides for” long term residential purposes,” and provides for a mix of attached
residential dwellings.
Although the proposed ADU complies with the purpose of the Zone District, it does not comply with
the Purpose of the ADU standards, and because the ADU standards are not met, and 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.
P26
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.
P27
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.
P28
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.
P29
VI.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
October 13, 2018
Ms. Jessica Garrow
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 1011 E Hopkins – Re-establishment of ADU
Mr. Garrow:
Please accept this application for a Special
Review to reinstall an Accessory Dwelling Unit
at the 1011 East Hopkins Street property. The
property was originally developed in the mid-
1990s with a single-family home and a
voluntary Accessory Dwelling Unit located
upstairs. A zoning inspection was recently
conducted for remodel work of the home – it
was at this time that City staff noted that the
kitchen facilities had been removed from the
upstairs unit.
The City has provided the applicant with three
different pathways forward to remedy the
removal of the ADU kitchen: removing the deed restriction and paying a cash -in-lieu fee, re-
establish the unit on the ground floor of the home, or re-establish the unit in the basement of
the home.
We are aware that the latter two options require Special Review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. In speaking with Staff, the preferred option is to re-establish the ADU in the
basement of the home. This application is following Staff’s direction and will install the ADU in
the basement triggering the Board review.
P30
VI.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
The City’s ADU standards have evolved since their initial implementation. The Land Use Code
section applicable to ADUs in the mid 1990’s, is attached as Exhibit 2. ADUs were encouraged to
be attached to the primary unit, be accessed from an alley if possible, be subordinate in their
character, and be subordinate to the primary residence. This early version of the Code allowed
for internal connections between the primary residence and the ADU and it allowed for units to
be placed subgrade. However, the Code did not provide guidance – to the extent that is included
in today’s Code – on what the minimum requirements were for the ADU kitchen facilities. Our
understanding is that the subject property constructed their ADU under this mid -1990s Code.
The requirements for ADUs including minimum sizing for kitchen elements/facilities was updated
in a 2001 Code. It is our understanding that the while the ADU is not subject to these standards,
we can use them for guidance specific to the kitchen requirements. Due to the ADU being
developed under a previous code, the proposed re-installation does not comply with the current
ADU standards – adherence with the current standards is not possible without redeveloping the
whole property. We feel that this is an unreasonable ask of the applicant and propose to re -install
the ADU downstairs in the basement at the recommendation of staff, recognizing this
necessitates a Special Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The downstairs is separately accessible and has
generous closet/storage space, a 3/4 bathroom,
and will convert the current hall space into the
kitchen area. There are existing egress windows
located along the exterior wall butting the staircase
as seen in the picture to the right and the floor plan
below.
P31
VI.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
We have attached photographs and plans for your reference, in addition to the Special Review
criteria in Exhibit 1. We look forward to working with you on this project. Please do not hesitate
to contact us for additional information that will assist in your review.
Kind Regards,
Reilly Thimons
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
P32
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 – This unit will continue 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 will be reinstalled in the lower (basement) level of
the existing residence with separate staircase and entry – allowing for complete independent
living.
Being located in the basement adjacent to a large stairwell the unit has ample natural light,
closet /storage space, and has interior finishes comparable to the main residence. The main
residence has a two-car garage and room for up to four additional cars in the driveway off of
the alley. The ADU is consistent with the purposes of the Residential Multi-Family zone district
which states:
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.
The property has been developed with a single-family residence and an Accessory Dwelling
Unit, both are permitted uses by underlying zoning and both meet the intent of the purpose
statement by providing housing for long-term residential purposes.
P33
VI.A.
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
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 within the allotted size requirements and will be accessed from the alley-
side of the property. The ADU enables either complete independent living or a living situation
where internal access to the primary unit is desirable or necessary. 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 property is
landscaped with mature vegetation consistently across the lot, granting the same level of
privacy to the ADU as the main residence. The property has no historical significance.
P34
VI.A.
Exhibit 21990s ADU RegsP35VI.A.
P36VI.A.
P37VI.A.
P38VI.A.
Exhibit 2.1P39VI.A.
P40VI.A.
P41VI.A.
P42VI.A.
P43VI.A.
P44VI.A.
P45VI.A.
P46VI.A.
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
DATE: September 10, 2018
PLANNER: Ben Anderson, 429.2765
PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 1011 E. Hopkins
PARCEL ID# 273718204009
REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, BendonAdams
DESCRIPTION: (Existing and Proposed Conditions)
The home at 1011 E. Hopkins contains a deed restricted, “voluntary” Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). When
approved with the original development of the property, the ADU was located on the ground floor. 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 by a 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 1011 E Hopkins. The owner of the home has three 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. The third
path would establish the ADU in the basement of the home. Both of these options require 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. Special Review with P&Z is provided as a remedy for ADUs that do not meet the current
standards. Staff would be supportive of either location for the reestablishment of the ADU with P&Z, but
the subgrade location seems much more practical and would be more likely to be used as an ADU in the
future. If either of these two outcomes 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
P47
VI.A.
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code
REVIEW BY:
• Staff for Complete Application
Option 1
Community Development Director
Options 2 and 3
• Planning and Zoning Commission
REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S):
• Option 1 – Amendment of an ADU or Carriage House Development Order
• Options 2 and 3 – Special Review – for a variation of an ADU design standard
PUBLIC HEARING:
• Option 1 – No
• Option 2 and 3 - 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)
Options 2 and 3 $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 depicting the past, existing, and proposed conditions for the ADU.
Written responses to applicable review criteria.
P48
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.
P49
VI.A.
November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LAND USE APPLICATION
Project Name and Address:_________________________________________________________________________
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) _____________________________
APPLICANT:
Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone #: ___________________________ email: __________________________________
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone#: _____________________________ email:___________________________________
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Have you included the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage _________ Lodge Pillows______ Free Market dwelling units ______
Affordable Housing dwelling units_____ Essential Public Facility square footage ________
1011 East Hopkins ADU Re-installation
273718204009
Witmondt Family Investments LLC
100 Passaic Avenue #240
973-487-1800 ewitmondt@woodmontproperties.com
BendonAdams
300 South Spring Street
970-925.2855 Ext. 3 reilly@bendonadams.com
Property was approved in 1996 for a single family residence and a voluntary ADU upstairs on the ground floor. Over time the
kitchen facilities for the original ADU were removed. The Applicant is proposing to re-install the ADU facilities in the basement
which is separately accessed based upon direction from City Staff. This placement requires a Special Review before the PLanning
and Zoning Commission.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Review
X
X
X
X
P50
VI.A.
P51
VI.A.
P52
VI.A.
P53
VI.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
October 23, 2018
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 1011 East Hopkins Avenue; Aspen, CO.
Ms. Garrow:
Please accept this letter authorizing BendonAdams, LLC, and Eric Witmondt, Manager of
Witmondt Family Investments, to represent our ownership interests in 1011 East Hopkins
Avenue 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 we can assist, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Property – 1011 East Hopkins Avenue; Aspen, CO 81611
Legal Description – Cimarron Townhomes Unit B
Parcel ID – 2737-182-04-009
Owners – Witmondt Family Investments, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability
Company; Eric Witmondt, Manager.
Dana Tycher 2012 Irrevocable Trust
Jack Tycher 2012 Irrevocable Trust
Kate Tycher Dratch 2012 Irrevocable Trust
Marshall B. Tycher and Sally K Tycher
P54
VI.A.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Sincerely,
Eric Witmondt, Manager
Witmondt Family Investments, LLC
100 Passaic Avenue #240 Signature
Fairfield, NJ 07004
973-487-1800
ewitmondt@woodmontproperties.com ___________________________________
Dana Tycher Signature
Dana Tycher 2012 Irrevocable Trust
100 Passaic Avenue #240
Fairfield, NJ 07004 ___________________________________
Kate Tycher Dratch Signature
Kate Tycher Dratch 2012 Irrevocable Trust
100 Passaic Avenue #240 ___________________________________
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Jack Tycher Signature
Jack Tycher 2012 Irrevocable Trust
100 Passaic Avenue #240
Fairfield, NJ 07004 ___________________________________
Marshall B. Tycher Signature
100 Passaic Avenue #240
Fairfield, NJ 07004 ___________________________________
Sally K Tycher Signature
100 Passaic Avenue #240
Fairfield, NJ 07004 _____________________________________
P55
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
Witmondt Family Investments, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, as to an undivided 43.632% tenant in common
interest, the Dana Tycher 2012 Irrevocable Trust, as to an undivided 18.7874% tenant in common interest, the Jack
Tycher 2012 Irrevocable Trust, as to an undivided 18.7874% tenant in common interest, the Kate Tycher Dratch 2012
Irrevocable Trust, as to an undivided 18.7874% tenant in common interest and Marshall B. Tycher and Sally K. Tycher, as
to an undivided 0.0058% tenant in common interest
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
UNIT B,
CIMARRON TOWNHOMES, according to the Plat thereof recorded November 8, 1996 in Plat Book 40 at
Page 87 and as defined and described in the Declaration for Cimarron Townhomes recorded November 8,
1996 as Reception No. 398934.
DEED OF TRUST APPARENTLY UNRELEASED
NONE
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: 10/11/2018
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
BY:
Authorized Officer
JOB NO: ACCOM-WITMONDT
P56
VI.A.
Exhibit 9
1011 East Hopkins Street – Vicinity Map
P57
VI.A.
1011 E Hopkinsvisuals 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, location of new kitchen, bathroom, closet, and bedroomP58
VI.A.
A201
FLOOR PLANS
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET TITLE1011 E Hopkins304 E Hopkins AveAspen, CO 81611Red Room Design
3134 South Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81623
970.413.3144
369 sq ft
3'-11 3/4"5"2'-6 1/2"5"11'-4 1/2"
18'-8 3/4"5"16'-5 3/4"5"2'-8 1/2"20'-1/4"9 1/2"11'-4 3/4"5"3'-5 1/2"5"3'-11"20'-4 3/4"1'-7"2'-11 1/4"2'-5"5"11'-4 1/2"
18'-8 3/4"
EXISTING EGRESS WINDOW
Closet
Bath
Bedroom
Hall
EXISTING AREA
AREA LEGEND
RF3'-11 3/4"5"2'-6 1/2"5"11'-4 1/2"
18'-8 3/4"5"16'-5 3/4"5"2'-8 1/2"20'-1/4"9 1/2"11'-4 3/4"5"3'-5 1/2"5"3'-11"20'-4 3/4"1'-7"2'-11 1/4"2'-5"5"11'-4 1/2"
18'-8 3/4"
EXISTING EGRESS WINDOW
OVEN BELOW
MIN. 6 CUBIC FEET
Closet
Bath
Bedroom
Kitchen
1 EXISTING 1/2" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED 1/2" = 1'-0"P59VI.A.
From:Reilly Thimons
To:"MarshallTycher@canoebrook.com"
Cc:Chris Bendon
Subject:Supplemental Letter of Authorization for 1011 E Hopkins project
Date:Monday, November 12, 2018 3:52:00 PM
Hi Marshall,
I am assisting Chris Bendon with your land use application for 1011 E Hopkins.
As part of the application, we sent an letter for signatures to verify ownership of the property. Sally
signed on behalf of the Tycher trustees, and the City of Aspen is now requesting a supplemental
letter that confirms she is an authorized representative.
As we do not have the trust documents, I wanted to reach out to confirm whether Sally is legally
authorized to sign on behalf of the other trustees and if she has a title. If she is not authorized, we
will need to update the previous ownership letter and provide the supplemental letter authorizing
the correct party.
Please feel free to call me with any questions.
Cheers,
Reilly
Reilly Thimons
BendonAdams
300 So. Spring St. #202
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925.2855 Ext. 3
www.BendonAdams.com
P60
VI.A.
EXHIBIT
t �
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
AD 2 O PROPERT
Z . Sjg' 14—. , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
�l NJ 21 , 20L
1J
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, /,- ? l L---q (name, please print)
being or representingApplicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have co lied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method ofpublic notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more
than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice
requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
Com'
Signature
The fore Mn "Affidavit of Notice" was ac owleed be me thisoay
of1 , 201, by Q
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING i
RE:412 N.8th Street WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
Public Hearing:May 21,2019;4:30 PM
Meeting Location:City Hall,Sister Cities Room
130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO 81611 �h
Project Location:412 N.8th Street O
Legal Description: Legally Described as:Lot 5, My commission expires.
as described on the Amended and Restated Plat of
- Ranger Station Subdivision recorded May 25.2018
in Plat Book 122 at Page 022 as Reception No.
1 647625.City of Aspen.County of Pitkin.State of
Colorado.
Description:This application proposes a variation -
-to the Residential Design Standards for the develop- Notary Public
ment of a new,single family residence.
Land Use Reviews:Variation to a Residential (
Design Standard MARIA RENEE ESPINO --
.7, _
Decision Making Body: Planning and Zoning
Commission l NOTARY PUBLIC
r Applicant: Forest Lookout I.LLC,605 W.Main I
St.42,Aspen.CO 81611
More Information: For further information related I STATE OF COLORADY'
to the project,contact Ben Anderson at the City of NOTARY ID 201
Aspen Community Development Department, 130 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE• aao2802P
S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO.(970)429.2765, MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY
ben.anderson@cityofaspen.com. PVDL CATION
00004097 in the Aspen Times on April 18.2019
0000409728 F OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 412 N. 8th, Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 21st, 2019
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, Heather MacDonald being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado,
hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of
Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
_N/A_ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
X_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on the 24 day of April, 2019, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
X_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
_N/A_ Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
_N/A_ Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more
than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice
requirement.
N/A_ Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 24 day
Of April, 2019, by Heather MacDonald.
----�— WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
PATRICK S. RAWLEY
NOTARY PUBLIC
NATE OF COLORADO My commission expires: CD
NOTARY 0 41,09991012259
10y Commission Expires.;uiv 23.2070 J
: 15� C c c
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
CITY OF ASPEN
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611
phone: (970)920-5090
www.cityofaspen.com
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: 412 N. 8th Street
Public Hearing: May 21, 2019, 4:30 PM
Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities Room
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611
Project Location: 412 N. 8th Street
Legal Description: Legally Described as: Lot 5, as described on the Amended and Restated Plat of
Ranger Station Subdivision recorded May 25, 2018 in Plat Book 122 at Page 022
as Reception No. 647625, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Description: This application proposes a variation to the Residential Design Standards for
the development of a new, single family residence.
Land Use Review: Variation to a Residential Design Standard
Decision Making Body: Planning and Zoning Commission
Applicant: Forest Lookout I, LLC, 605 W. Main St. #2, Aspen, CO 81611
More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Ben Anderson at the
City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen,
CO, (970) 429.2765, ben.anderson@cityofaspen.com
�r.r
f
\e
r
'a F":"Rr' �. +�.r• ,may t ! 1{
E O U
c 0O 'N J Z ` E 3
JM E
W U7 � O O Y N w C W m V 0
:,. (n U U O a O c N :� Urn
to C Q N N U
O ti
Z cv = tA oar o > ICo
MM0iQrn.��
:3 U)U U) ilii=co C v -02 0 a) E co n m �.
O C �, 0 7 `-
W co O �i N C
WLIJV � � n � �lrn > 'rnca) c Y
0.
yx CD
;No
4'WO.r,[P`,
.,4,
t:...tt }�y,��,. ,4. h \1�.�rrVU�e• � 7(�`^3..•4'`ri E.k•'\[Ir; ,�;1e��)
l I
JJWJ > -•'+7i/f.'r� `'.�1,�•.:l�r.yY^311.'i���j }Rk�' s• W`{i� L'-...E
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
From Parcel: 273512428005 on 04/16/2019
tTKIN
OUNT'
Instructions:
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
Disclaimer:
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
ECKART CHARLES F WEST HALLAM HOLDINGS LLC SANZONE SHERI A
910 W HALLAM ST APT 5 2001 N HALSTED#304 920 W HALLAM ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 81611
MICROPLAS MGMT CO FRANCIS STREET TOWNHOMES CONDO AS! SANCHEZ ANDY L&MICHELLE MAINS
542 PALM CIRCLE W COMMON AREA PO BOX 1801
NAPLES, FL 34102 901 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN,CO 81612
ASPEN,CO 81611
GOLD RUSH LLC BIXBY NINA GSS SMUGGLER LLC
204 PARK AVE#1 K 4128 RHODES AVE PO BOX 66
BASALT,CO 81621 STUDIO CITY,CA 91604 CARBONDALE, CO 81623
WEINGART JAMES B&PATRICIA L GSS SMUGGLER LLC FRANCIS STREET CONDO ASSOC
55 GREENTREE PO BOX 66 COMMON AREA
CHAGRIN FALLS,OH 44022 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 733 W FRANCIS ST
ASPEN,CO 81611
WATERS SOMERSET&WIESLAWA BRENK SEIDNER-JOSEPH ELYSE SMUGGLER LLC
155 W 68TH ST#1510 529 WILLIAM EBBS LN 1044 OLIVE ST
NEW YORK, NY 10023 WEST CHESTER, PA 19380 DENVER,CO 80220
SCHWAB ROBERT&LOUISE FAM TRUST SCHUMACHER JENNIFER BLANZ JAMES M
10940 WILSHIRE BLVD#2250 PO BOX 445 6344 NW 50TH ST
LOS ANGELES,CA 90024 WOODY CREEK,CO 81656 CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33067
MANCINI DUSTIN MATKIN SALOISE IRREV TRUST MCTAMANEY ROBERT A III TRUST
PO BOX 445 6701 AVONDALE DR 2652 CHESTNUT ST
WOODY CREEK,CO 81656 OKLAHOMA,OK 73116 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94123
MARKEY PETER&CHRISTINE BRADY KAREN KAY NALADHU LLC
922 W HALLAM 15 CASTLE HARBOR IS 901 W FRANCIS ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 333086011 ASPEN,CO 81611
ANDERSON ANGUS A AEB REALTY CROSSROADS CHURCH OF ASPEN
277 WILLITS LN 239 GREENWICH AVE 726 W FRANCIS ST
BASALT,CO 81621 GREENWICH,CT 06830 ASPEN,CO 81611
POMA MAURICIO ERNESTO REV TRUST BOSKO DANIEL A GORTAN TIZIANO&ENRICA USSEGLIO
2121 SW 3RD AVE#800 PO BOX 9171 260 COLUMBINE CT
MIAMI, FL 33129 ASPEN,CO 81612 BASALT,CO 81621
BOURKE JANINE L REV TRUST MCBRIDE JOHN P JR&SUNNI S BOYE CAROL
716 W FRANCIS ST 320 N 7TH ST 7 TEPEE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 HAMPTON BAYS, NY 119461736
SHARP DESIGNS INC SCHUHMACHER JOHN W TRUST DRAMATIC VIEW HOLDINGS LLC
936 W FRANCIS 505 N 8TH ST 2400 WASHINGTON ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80205
FRANCIS STREET LLC POWELL WILLIAM E TRUST ASPEN WEST END CONDO ASSOC
PO BOX 1365 11 LYNN BATTS LN#100 COMMON AREA
ASPEN,CO 81612 SAN ANTONIO,TX 78218 790 W HALLAM ST
ASPEN,CO 816113105
FARRELL EMILY SHANE STEVEN DAVID&CLARE EVERT GRUTA LIVING TRUST
600 E MAIN ST#201 117 S MONARCH ST 8570 EGRET LAKES LANE
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 WEST PALM BEACH , FL 33412
WYATT TERESA MARIE TRUST BRADLEY LARA-ANNE S&CHANDLER W WAGAR RICHARD H
790 W HALLAM ST#9 910 W HALLAM ST#11 PO BOX 9063
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612
SAXON FAMILY DELTA TRUST SIMMONS W JUNE TRUST SAXON BRUCE CHARLES
6677 S EVANSTON CIR 4128 RHODES AVE 6677 S EVANSTON CIR
TULSA,OK 74136 STUDIO CITY,CA 91604 TULSA,OK 74136
FOREST LOOKOUT II LLC TREEHOUSE CONDO ASSOC SAGEWOOD CONDO ASSOC
605 W MAIN ST#2 COMMON AREA 910 W HALLAM ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 822 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN,CO 81611
ASEPN, CO 81611
JOSEPH KENNETH CRITERION HOLDING CO LLC GOLD RUSH LLC
520 WILLIAM EBBS LN 542 PALM CIRCLE W 204 PARK AVE#1 K
WEST CHESTER, PA 19380 NAPLES, FL 34102 BASALT,CO 81621
OTT JOHN&CAROL M 949 WEST SMUGGLER ST LLC PATEL VAISHALI N
129 LITTLE ELK CREEK AVE 3489 W 62 AVE 910 W HALLAM ST#10
SNOWMASS,CO 81654-9318 DENVER,CO 80221 ASPEN,CO 81611
KOSFIELD ASPEN LC BENDON CHRISTOPHER J GILES NATHAN R
600 BRICKELL AVE STE 3100 920 W HALLAM ST 40 W BASELINE RD STE 219
MIAMI, FL 33131 ASPEN,CO 81611 TEMPE,AZ 852831260
POWELL WILLIAM E TRUST FOREST SERVICE ASPEN HEADQUARTERS RUBEY ROBERT
11 LYNN BATTS LN#100 806 HALLAM ST 3465 BELCARO DR
SAN ANTONIO,TX 78218 ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80209
TALENFELD ELIZABETH G WEST HALLAM STREET LLC SMUGG LLC
915 W FRANCIS ST 210 AABC STE MM PO BOX 10521
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816113513 ASPEN,CO 816127344
5 STRING LLC SCHUHMACHER MARIANNE H TRUST MG DUPLEX LLC
PO BOX 1709 505 N 8TH ST 825 W NORTH ST
GATLINBURG,TN 37738 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
GOLD RUSH CONDO ASSOC
COMMON AREA
729 W FRANCIS ST
ASPEN,CO 81611
i
m m
0O
c o o s c o
0 U
y •' r. T c d a Z• o 0 _
• — m UE v h
C U C O O
i ir S, z c E u Z a c dY m [i
n n N ti S m° -6m cn Z)
o m f > > [313 ll K I F lL U)
J '' Z
ui
1 ` co
m
2)o
a o >
J > U
N d ac):J
l Q C2—Z a
O U 5
O J '� Q CL
O y N
O O O
C O N C
Olt E
O � o
+ r Qom
� d O
U
CD
Q
0
ar O to S�+1 b
m
OI
1I1 m
f•� z
1 J
C QI
f' n
NI
WSJ
P 1 ` -A
f-6
� �LANx Rv
IN
I
irtF RY.;'�N