Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20151006 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING October 06, 2015 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. Meeting Minutes for September 15, 2015 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 267 McSkimming Rd. - Special Review VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Miscellaneous Code Amendment Check-In VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 19 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 1 Mr. Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Keith Goode, Jason Elliot, Skippy Mesirow, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Jesse Morris and Spencer McKnight. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn and Jennifer Phelan. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Goode commended Mr. Stan Gibbs for his service with P&Z and presented Mr. Gibbs with a resolution #18, Series 2015, commending his service to the City of Aspen. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Mr. Goode requested his name be corrected on the last page. Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for August 18th with the requested change. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Walterscheid stated he will be recusing himself for the public hearing at tonight’s meeting because he is the architect for the application. 200 S Aspen St – Hotel Lenado – Commercial Design Review – Continued Public Hearing from April 7, 2015 Mr. Goode opened the continued public hearing for 200 S Aspen St – Hotel Lenado and asked if the application had been properly noticed. Ms. Quinn replied she had reviewed the public notice and finds it had been properly provided. Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, opened with a review of the application. She stated the application includes demolishing the hotel and replacing it with a mixed use building containing lodge units, affordable housing units and free market residential units. The application had been tabled in April to allow the applicant to adjust the design based on comments from Staff and P&Z. The applicant provided notice to let the public know about tonight’s hearing. Tonight’s modified proposal includes a four level building containing four lodge units and nine keys, two free market residential units, two affordable housing units and 11 off street parking spaces. Two parking spaces are provided off the alley and there is a lift providing access to the nine parking spaces in the basement. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 2 Overall, setbacks have increased and the building has been reduced in size. Due to the changes there two reviews for P&Z to consider including a conceptual commercial design review for the design of the building and a growth management review for the construction of the lodge units, affordable housing and the free market. In regards to the growth management review, the current application includes nine keys down from the 19 keys offered by the existing hotel. With the new configuration, the lodge mitigation is 1.62 Full Time Employees (FTEs). The mitigation associated with the free market residential units is 2.53 FTEs based on the sf of the proposed units on the top floor. The total requirement totals 4.15 FTEs. The application proposes two affordable housing units, each with two bedrooms. These two units will mitigate 4.5 FTEs which meets the mitigation requirements onsite. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) recommends the affordable housing units be rental units at a category two. Staff reports the size of the units are a bit small for category four units as required by the land use code for mitigation and the units are larger than what is required for category two units. Staff recommends one unit be designated as a for sale unit because it is not part of the mitigation associated with the lodge. Next, she discussed the conceptual commercial design review for the application. The property is located in the Small Lodge Character Area. The key objectives for the area include: 1. Compatibility with neighborhood context 2. Creating a distinctive lodge experience for a sense of being in a neighborhood and to relate to the context with the design of the building 3. Enhancing the street edge 4. Minimizing the visual impact of cars With regard to the street and alley system, the changes minimize the presence of any type of parking. All the parking is along the alley and enclosed. Staff is a bit concerned regarding the wall of garage doors created by the garages along the alley. With regard to public amenity space, Staff realizes the slope of the lot makes it tricky for development. There have been improvements connecting with the natural grade to the building. There are fewer retaining walls on the site. The public amenity space is located along the park as a walkway along Hopkins and also along Aspen St. Staff feels there have been improvements with the topography in the latest design and they would like to see a bit more work to create amenity space connected to the sidewalk and work with the topography more. The entry is still sunken and there could be more work focused on the corner of Hopkins and Aspen to create a more inviting, animated public amenity space. One of the conceptual reviews includes the building height, mass and scale. This includes the building, how it placed on the site and the form it takes. Although the building is smaller in the most recent application, Staff is still concerned the design has an office feel to the design and the height of 32 ft being requested would be granted through the commercial design review. Staff feels the height should remain at 28 ft in height because of the residential character in the neighborhood. Staff also feels the massing and façade along Hopkins does not relate well to the historic structures and residential character across the street. Ms. Phelan then identified the neighborhood context being more residential in character by describing the neighboring buildings by moving around the project along Hopkins, Aspen and the alley which P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 3 include Victorian residences, the Hearthstone lodge, and multi-family buildings. In regards to neighborhood context, there are residences directly across on Hopkins. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions of Staff. Ms. Tygre asked if the zoned district allowances described on p 14 of the packet reflect the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay or only the Mixed Use (MU) zone district. Ms. Phelan confirmed only the MU zone district is considered for the application. Ms. Phelan stated the LP overlay is utilized through the Planned Development process to ask for something beyond. Mr. Morris asked how the maximum height of the existing building relates to the maximum height of the proposed building. Ms. Phelan stated she does not have the information for the existing building. She also stated measurements are different based on the type of roof line. Mr. Mesirow asked what the maximum amount of floor area is allowed for the project. Ms. Phelan replied it is calculated at a 2:1 ratio and for the 9,000 sf lot, 18,000 sf of floor area would be allowed. Mr. Mesirow asked if Staff has any comment regarding the nine parking spaces which is more than what is required. Ms. Phelan stated the parking requirements are met with the underground parking, so the two spaces at the alley level could be a reduction in mass or repurposed for something else. Staff does not have strong feelings regarding the parking, but does feel there is an opportunity to reduce the mass. Mr. Goode turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, is representing the applicant. Mr. Wilson stated they had visited owners of some of the adjacent properties to obtain support of the redevelopment application. He presented a petition signed by some owners which was accepted as Exhibit O. Mr. Wilson stated the application proposes to replace the existing lodge with a new one having nine units averaging 437 sf per unit which he said relates to the clicker sessions in which people requested larger, more luxurious units not offered in the current hotel. He then reviewed the changes between the previous and current applications. The current application includes two free market residences, down from the previous application. The onsite affordable housing is increased in the current application. The current application adds a new sidewalk along Aspen St and Hopkins Ave respecting the existing cottonwoods based on conversations with the Parks department. The public amenity space has been enhanced from 1,332 sf (about 14%) to 2,319 sf (about 26%). The minimum requirement is 25% or with a nonconformity greater than 10%, can be maintained. A community lounge which walks out to the park is included to encourage mingling between the lodge unit guests and the residential components. The current application also includes nine subgrade parking spaces with the additional two spaces above. They are no longer requesting any variances. He then reviewed the floor area ratios. The lodge component has been reduced, the affordable housing has been increased and the free market is all above grade. He added the total FAR is pretty far under what is allowed. The FAR amounts are documented on page 90 of the agenda packet. P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 4 In regards to the zone district, Mr. Wilson showed slides depicting the zone district of the property and surrounding neighbors, the elevation of the existing Hotel Lenado, elevations of the proposed new hotel. He then showed floor plans of the proposed hotel as described below. Lower level • Parking • Lodge Storage (beds, change outs, etc.) • Employee lounge • Storage for the employee housing units • Mechanical Main level • Main entry – traditionally a sunken entry and is now within a foot to grade • Lower level of employee housing units • Management valet • Library • Lodge units Park level – adjacent to the park • Public amenity space • Main level of the employee housing units • Two free market garages – may also be used for shuffling spaces for lower garage • Car lift • Trash enclosure – no variance requested • Game lounge / bar Upper level • Two free market units under 2,000 sf limit with perimeter decks Rooftop level • Shared deck available to free market units only Mr. Wilson stated each of employee housing units will have two bedrooms. The applicant would prefer to keep these as for rent units. He also noted they are going over on their employee housing unit requirements. The project requires 4.51 units and they do not plan to take cash-in-lieu for the extra .35 units of FTE. The applicant feels it is important to have the employees living onsite. Mr. Wilson remarked the changes to the parking from the previous application which had six spaces. The current application includes 11 spaces. There are no impacts to the street with the current parking plan. Mr. Wilson displayed a slide outlining the minimum and proposed setbacks. The front yard has 10 ft plus another 15 ft of right-of-way before you reach the pavement. This allows room for a sidewalk that should not impact the trees too much. P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 5 Mr. Wilson stated the previous plan provided only 14.8 sf of public amenity space. The new application plans for 26.25 sf even though the code only requires the plan to exceed 14.8%. He further discussed how the area in front of the entry has been flattened out to create a public amenity space distinct from the building. He feels the proposed space provides a nice inviting streetscape environment. He then displayed a landscape plan showing the plans in relation to the topography. Mr. Wilson then displayed an elevation slide of the front of the proposed hotel and discussed the 32 ft height request for the building. The entry corner must be depressed in order to be at street level and this is the portion of the building that reaches 32 ft. From a slide of the elevation of the building facing Hopkins on p 81 of the packet, he also pointed out a lower portion of the building respecting the traditional 60 ft width, then a large vertical element to break up the building followed by another 30 ft width of building. The window patterns identify where the rooms are located and give an idea of the width of the building. Mr. Wilson then provided a slide to compare the proposed buildings to the roof lines of the neighboring buildings. He feels the proposed building respects the neighborhood. Although P&Z previously asked the applicant to consider gable roof lines, the applicant is interested in a contemporary building. He then showed an overlay slide comparing the current hotel to the proposed hotel. The proposed hotel is stepped in all the way around the building which makes the existing building look much larger on the corners. The new design with dropped corners also respects the view planes from the neighboring properties and provides a more residential look to the building. He then showed slides of the neighboring buildings including those zoned mixed use, a small pocket of Commercial (C-1), Lodge, Residential Multi-Family (RMF) and a sliver of Medium-Density Residential (R- 6). He noted the number of stories (1-3) and the general height of the neighboring buildings. He also noted a transition in the neighborhood going from flat roofed buildings to Victorians. He noted the geometric forms and primary colors of the proposed hotel provide something more linear and will match anything in Aspen. In closing he feels the current application addresses the previous comments from P&Z, Staff and the public. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Ms. Tygre asked for a confirmation of the total sf of the allocated to the hotel units, which she calculated at approximately 1,750 sf. Mr. Wilson responded the lodge FAR is 4,333 sf. Ms. Phelan asked Ms. Tygre if she wanted the sf of the actual units themselves at which Ms. Tygre confirmed. Ms. Phelan responded she had included a footnote on page 16 of the memo in the agenda packet stating there is 3,937 sf lodge net livable / 9 lodge units (keys) calculates to 437 sf net livable per unit. Ms. Tygre believed there were only four units. Ms. Phelan stated the units have lock offs and could become nine units or keys. Mr. Mesirow believed the original proposal mentioned utilizing the guidelines or directions from the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) around lodging goals of the community. He asked how the proposal P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 6 upholds the goals and principles of the AACP. Mr. Wilson acknowledged the concerns regarding losing lodge space in Aspen and that creating lodges with larger rooms including the amenities that people desire to increase the overall Aspen experience. He said the team went back and forth regarding what the new building should be including residential mixed-family (RMF), a single family home, or a duplex. The team decided the site wants to have a small lodge built on it that is a boutique hotel with really nice rooms with a mixed experience of free market, visitors and employees. Mr. Mesirow stated he sees a move now for combinable rooms to be rented out a higher dollar and higher floor area, penthouses moving to the top and being inaccessible. He asked if the intangibles of the intent of the AACP and guidelines are being further met in the current iteration of the application. Mr. Wilson stated they received input from P&Z and Staff and felt there was a reasonably large believability issue that the lifestyle lodge presented in the previous application which included even more mix and mingle to embrace Mr. Mesirow’s concerns. They felt in order to overcome the beliefs, they needed to adopt more of a standard Aspen model. Mr. McNellis asked Mr. Wilson to speak to the material being considered even though he realizes the application is only seeking conceptual approval at this time. Mr. Wilson replied they are considering a painted metal or stone, vertical barn board with residential character, and a durable finish around the edge which may be a tile that is a negative cast of a barn board. They are also consider plaster on the top sections and using glass railings to visually minimize the height of the building. Mr. Mesirow asked about the change in materials from the previous application. Mr. Wilson stated there was a bit of community feedback and felt they were pretty monolithic in their material palette and they wanted to modulate the façade so the larger core section would be stone or metal to help modulate façade component. He felt the current materials are more appropriate for the area. Mr. Morris asked why the applicant wants two rental units vs one rental and one for sale unit. Mr. Wilson stated the applicant would like to keep both units as rentals for their staff. Mr. Morris stated he personally likes to see innovating applications eliminating parking, but understands it is not feasible. He asked if they were to drop down to nine spaces from eleven spaces, where would they drop the two spaces. Mr. Wilson stated lodges and hotels are never at a loss for storage areas. He stated the two spaces would probably become storage spaces. Mr. Morris asked to see the elevation slide depicting Ajax Mountain in the background. In Staff’s memo, he felt this was the façade not treated with the character of the neighborhood. He said he wanted to flag this for the other P&Z members. Mr. Goode then closed the questions for the applicant and opened for public comment. Ms. Ruth Carver lives directly across the street on the corner of Aspen and Hopkins. She questions the use of the building with so few units. They are asking for commercial zoning, but they only have seven hotel rooms which is less than half than what is allowed. She does not see this a viable hotel. She really cares about the height and exterior of the building. Particularly on the Hopkins St side, her house was built in 1976 and the other houses built there have a nod to Victorian design. She doesn’t feel the building matches with the context of the neighborhood. She would prefer a lower height part on the park side. She does not feel this area is residential and not commercial. P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 7 Ms. Barbara Young lives across the alley on the south side in Park Central West Condominiums. She is happy the parking spaces have been redesigned. She does not feel the roof top deck needs to be as large as it is for so many people (approximately 30). She also asked what would happen to the property when it is sold. Could it be reconfigured? Mr. Ernie Fyrwald has lived in Aspen for 35 years and was in the ski and tourism business for 28 years. He stated there is no secret Aspen needs lodging. He feels this is an incredibly great location for a lodge and implored P&Z to get it passed as quickly as possible. He feels it is walkable location so there should not be any cars going in and out. The public amenity is wonderful and the Limelight has proven to be a really nice resource for those staying there. The garage doors look a bit stark but feels they can be dealt with from a design perspective. He also agrees the elevation from Hopkins is not too exciting and will draw attention at night with all the windows and lights. Overall, he feels it is a great concept and endorses the project. Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode asked the applicant for any rebuttal. In regards to reducing the corner of the building towards the park, Mr. Wilson stated they tried to move the mass as much as possible from the sides to the middle of the building. In regards to the capacity of the upper floor roof deck, Mr. Wilson stated the initial application had a capacity near 80. With it adjusted to residential only space, the capacity was lowered to approximately 30. Mr. Wilson stated they could address the garage doors with materials to make it disappear. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner comments and discussion. Mr. McNellis likes the improvements on the application, especially the parking. He wonders if it would be possible to raise the public amenity space to address Staff’s concerns. The sunken space privatizes it and was wondering if it could be raised to the height of the retaining wall. He likes the corner space across from the park. He does not feel the need to micro design the proposal and recognizes it is a transitional area. He feels it is most important the building is a product of its time. He does not care for buildings that are not old, but made to look old. He likes the mass in the middle of the building as well as the modern contemporary design of this day and age. He generally approves the project. Ms. Tygre feels the application has been greatly improved from the previous application. She does like the additional parking and feels the garage doors are a minor thing that could be addressed. In regards to the four principles of the design guidelines, she has problems with items one and two as listed on p 18 of the packet: 1. New development should be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located. She feels additional modifications to the application could make this happen. 2. Create a distinctive experience for lodging with a sense of being in a neighborhood. She feels it will be challenging to have a contemporary design in a neighborhood with non-contemporary designed buildings. P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 8 She feels the Hopkins side presents a monolithic experience and is not compatible with the neighborhood context. Her major concern is the entrance on Aspen. It looks like a medical clinic with a modern look associated with hi-tech medical clinics and does not provide a hotel experience. She doesn’t feel they are major issues but cannot approve a project that is supposed to be a hotel that doesn’t say hotel. Mr. Mesirow appreciates the changes made with the new proposal. In regards to guidelines, he finds a lot of difficulty with same guidelines identified by Ms. Tygre. He struggles with the mass and scale of the building as well as the interaction within the building. He also feels this iteration of the building is a significant step back in regards to providing lodge units. He also wanted to note the wood materials from the previous application softened the touch and gave the building more of a mountain feel. He also agrees with Mr. Morris in regards to the parking and would like to see the two extra spaces repurposed as something of value to the lodge or a reduction in the mass. Mr. Morris understands parking is a bigger issue than just this one building. He agrees with Ms. Tygre and Mr. Mesirow and feels there is tension around the one façade of the building. Mr. McKnight stated his thoughts follow along with the others. He understands the difficulty with the site essentially on the line of the transitional area. Parking is not as big of a deal, but would like to see creative solutions for the two extra spaces. He feels the building is beautifully designed and unique, but so unique that it does not match the other buildings in the area. He also agrees with Ms. Tygre that it looks a bit like an office building and doesn’t see it as a lodge. Mr. Goode asked Staff if they had any rebuttal. Mr. McKnight asked if Staff could respond regarding the differences between the options for the two affordable units. Ms. Phelan wanted to respond to Ms. Young’s comments. If someone wanted to do something different in regards to the use of the building in the future, they may need to apply and be granted approval for change to the use. For example, if they wanted to change it into duplex which has a much lower floor area allowance, they would need to have the land use approval amended. In regards to uses of the affordable housing unit, Ms. Phelan stated she would not speak for APCHA, but Staff’s interpretation of the land use code includes a provision for design, location and housing units being for sale units unless it is for a lodge. Lodges are encouraged to use units as employee housing. In the past, the units were always rentals. Staff has seen instances where owners of mixed use buildings wanted to use the units for nannies or other hired help and therefore the unit is not utilized for the purpose for which it was created. The code was changed to have more for sale units so the intent would be the units would actually be used for local working residents. Because there was a reduction in the number of lodging units, basically one unit mitigates for the lodging component and the other unit mitigates for the free market component. Based on the mitigation split, Staff is taking the position the unit mitigating the free market component should be a for sale unit. Mr. Mesirow also wanted to commend the applicant for including the units on site with the development. P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission September 15, 2015 9 Mr. Goode prefers gabled roof lines, but feels the context with the neighborhood is most important. He echoes Ms. Tygre’s comments. He also commends the applicant for including the parking and affordable housing onsite. He would like to see more work on the design. Mr. Goode stated based on the commissioners’ comments, P&Z recommends continuing the application. Mr. Wilson felt they came in with a reduction in mass and an overabundance of things lacking in the first application and seemed disappointed they are being asked to shell it down further. He feels they will not be able to come in with the same perks next time if being asked to reduce the mass again. Mr. Wilson stated they would take the continuation over a denial. Mr. Goode wanted to make sure Mr. Wilson heard that most of the commission did not speak of issues regarding the request for the 32 ft in height. Mr. Goode reiterated most pointed out issues with the neighborhood context and asked Mr. Wilson to keep that in mind. Ms. Phelan offered September 29th or October 26th as continuation dates. Mr. Wilson felt the October 26th date would be better. Ms. Tygre moved to continue the application until October 26th, seconded by Mr. Elliot. Ms. Phelan corrected the date available to October 20th. Ms. Tygre amended her motion to have the hearing continued until October 20th, seconded by Mr. Elliot. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Goode then closed the public hearing. Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P9 IV.A. Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Board of Adjustment FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director RE: 267 McSkimming Rd – Special Review MEETING DATE: October 6, 2015 APPLICANT/OWNERS: Andrew H. Firman Revocable Trust, 1050 Matchless Drive Unit 1, Aspen CO 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: Dylan Johns, Zone 4 Architects LOCATION: 267 McSkimming Rd, Aspen CO 81611 CURRENT ZONING & USE: Moderate-Density Residential (R-15B) zone district, contains a single-family residence PROPOSED LAND USE: The parcel will continue to be used for a single-family residence. SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Special Review approval to allow the replacement of a non- conforming structure after demolition. When a structure is demolished any existing nonconformity is expected to be brought into compliance. The home’s attached garage encroaches into the property’s front yard set- back. The applicant is requesting Special Review approval to be allowed to maintain the garage in this location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has considered this request in conjunction with the relevent review criteria, and found the request to not fully meet the required criteria. Specifically, the literal enforcement of the setback requirements of the R-15B zone district does not prevent the reasonable use of the property. Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment deny the applicant’s request for Special Review approval for the garage location at 267 McSkimming Rd. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approval: • Special Review - Replacement of nonconforming structures pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.430.040. Board of Adjustment is the final review authority for this request. Figure A: Image of subject site as seen from McSkimming Rd. P10 VI.A. Page 2 of 4 Figure B: Structure’s current placement on the site. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND: The subject site is located in the R-15B zone district and is Lot 16 of the Aspen Grove Subdivision. The Aspen Grove Subdivision was first platted in 1958 (Book 2, Pg 246). The R-15B zone district first appears in the City’s 1987 Municipal Code, and is exempt from Residential Design Standards. The subject site contains a single-family home that was constructed in 1980. The existing structure is non- conforming as it encroaches approximately 10’6” into the site’s 30’ front yard setback. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing a remodel of the existing home which will include an addition to the rear and the full replacement of the structure’s roof. The new addition will meet all setback requirements. The remodel will trigger demolition of the structure. The Code defines demolition as “To raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy forty percent (40%) or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof area above finished grade and associated assembly and components necessary for the structural integrity of such wall and roof area.” When a structure is demolished and rebuilt all non- conformities are expected to be brought into compliance. The garage is attached to the primary residence, and is therefore part of the same structure. Demolition calculations will be applied to the structure as a whole. The applicant is seeking approval to maintain the existing location of the garage, which extends within the front yard setback by approximately 10’6”. The applicant is not proposing to expand the nonconformity any further than it exists currently. Through Special Review the Board of Adjustment may choose to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the replacement of this nonconforming structure. STAFF COMMENTS: There are two sections of Special Review criteria that are relevant to this application which pertain to dimensional requirements and replacement of nonconforming structures. Approval of the application depends on meeting all of the relevant review criteria. The proposal meets the dimensional requirements of the R-15B zone district in regards to mass, height and density; however, the structure does not meet the required 30’ front yard setback requirement. The criteria may be met if the development is designed in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purpose of the R-15B zone district. To this end the applicant has made the case that this nonconforming condition is consistent with the pattern of development found P11 VI.A. Page 3 of 4 Figure D: Topo map of R-15B zone district with 2’ topographic lines. Subject site accented with star. Figure C: Aerial shows area of unimproved ROW throughout the immediate neighborhood, citing 11 examples of residences along McSkimming Rd. where the front yard setback is not met (Exhibit C). The applicant also calls attention to the twelve foot area of unimproved right-of-way between the property’s front lot boundary and McSkimming Rd. Setbacks are intended to serve as an area of relief from development, and the right-of-way enhances this relief. The measurement taken from the furthest encroaching point of the garage to McSkimming Rd. is 31’8” (See Exhibit B above). With the aforementioned neighborhood context combined with the purpose of the front yard setback, Staff finds the criteria to be met. There is no change in how the property will be used if Special Review approval is granted; a single-family residence will remain on-site. No changes are proposed that would lead to excess traffic or impact the availability of parking in the neighborhood, and there is no designated view plane in this area that would be impacted by the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. The criteria for the replacement of nonconforming structures require the subject site to have unique characteristics differentiating it from other properties in the same zone district. The subject site contains considerable slopes at the rear and both sides of the property. Although this is unusual for many areas of town it is not a unique condition for properties within the R-15B zone district, as evidenced by Figure D. Unlike other areas of town, the net lot area for the site is not reduced due to steep slopes. Properties within the R-15B zone district further benefit by being exempt from 8040 Greenline Review, which would limit development in steep areas. The garage may be placed in another location fully on-site. Staff does not find any characteristics unique to this property that differentiates it from other properties located in the same zone district. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. The applicant is not requesting any increase in dimensional variations associated with this proposal. Maintaining the garage in its current location represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reuse of the garage without its replacement in another location. However, the requested variation is not necessary to ensure reasonable use of the property. Furthermore, the literal enforcement of the setback requirement does not preclude the property owners from reasonable use of the property. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. P12 VI.A. Page 4 of 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As stated earlier, all relevant criteria for Special Review must be met in order for approval to be granted. Staff was unable to find that this application met all necessary criteria for the replacement of this nonconforming structure after demolition. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the applicant’s Special Review request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): If the Board of Adjustment chooses to approve the applicant’s request, the following motion may be used: “I move to approve the request for Special Review approval as noted in Resolution ___, Series of 2015.” If the request is not approved, the resolution will need to be modified. Attachments: Exhibit A – Site Plan Exhibit B – Review Standards Exhibit C – Application P13 VI.A. 1 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 16, BLOCK 1 OF THE ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 267 McSKIMMING RD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 273718104005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Andrew H. Firman Revocable Trust (Applicant), represented by Zone 4 Architects, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Special Review at 267 McSkimming Rd; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.430.040 of the Land Use Code, Special Review approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of the application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for Special Review to allow the replacement of a nonconforming structure after demolition, as illustrated in Exhibit A, attached. Specifically, the approved design allows the applicant to maintain the garage portion of the structure as currently exists – with this feature encroaching 10’6” into the front yard setback at its furthest point. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. P14 VI.A. 2 Section 3: 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 4: 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 Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6th day of October, 2015. ______________________________ Ryan Walterscheid, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: _______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Exhibit A: Site Plan P15 VI.A. Exhibit A Site Plan P16 VI.A. 1 Exhibit B Review Criteria 26.430.040. Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. Staff Response: This proposal meets the dimensional requirements related to mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space and landscaping; however, the structure does not meet the 30’ front yard setback requirement of the R-15B zone district. The applicant has made the case this condition is consistent with the pattern of development found throughout the immediate neighborhood, citing 11 residences along McSkimming Rd. where residences do not meet the front yard setback. There is a twelve foot area of land between the front lot boundary and McSkimming Rd. This area serves as an increased area of relief from development. The measurement taken from the furthest point of the encroaching garage to McSkimming Rd. is 31’8”. With the combined factors of the neighborhood context and the purpose of the front yard setback, Staff finds the criterion to be met 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. Staff Response: There is no change in how the property will be used if granted Special Review approval as compared to how it is currently used; the property will remain used as a single-family residence. There are no changes proposed that would lead to excess traffic, change the availability of parking in the neighborhood, nor is there any designated view plane that would be impacted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Replacement of nonconforming structures. Whenever a structure or portion thereof, which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located is proposed to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection 26.430.040.A above; P17 VI.A. 2 Staff Response: Refer to Staff response to criteria A1, above. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from other properties located in the same zone district; Staff Response: The subject site measures 19,800 sq. ft. and has considerable slopes at the site’s rear and both sides. Although this is unusual for most areas of town it is a common condition for properties within the R-15B zone district. Furthermore, unlike other areas of town, the net lot area for the site is not reduced due to steep slopes. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 3. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property; and Staff Response: There is no request for an increase in dimensional variations associated with this proposal. Maintaining the garage where it is, representing the replacement of the non-conforming structure in this instance, represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reuse of the garage without its replacement in another location. However, the variation is not necessary for the applicants to have reasonable use of the property for a single-family residence, as proposed. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property. Staff Response: Removing the garage from the front yard setback does not preclude the property owners from reasonable use of the property. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. P18 VI.A. August 19, 2015 HAND DELIVERY Ms. Sara Nadolny City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 267 McSkimming Road – Special Review Dear Sara: This is an application to consider a special review related to an existing garage encroachment into a front yard setback, and being able to maintain the existing garage footprint location if the 40% demolition threshold is surpassed and demolition is technically triggered due to a remodel on the residence and garage roof. The property’s address is 267 McSkimming Road, the property ID is 273718104005, and is in the Aspen Grove subdivision as Block 1, Lot 16. In general, the existing residence was constructed in 1980 and appears to be in overall conformance with all dimensional requirements of the zone district, with the exception that the front most corner of the garage is 19’-4” from the property line and the zoning requires a minimum 30’-0” setback from the property line. If a measurement is taken from the edge of the road to the garage, that distance is 31’- 8” due to a fairly large offset of the property line and road. There are two exhibits included with this proposal which illustrate the general conditions of the neighborhood with respect to residence’s proximity to property lines and a more detailed site plan of 267 McSkimming illustrating the site dimensions just described. Overall, as a neighborhood, there are many examples of properties being very close to their property lines, and in most cases being much closer than the subject property. The pattern of development would seem to indicate that most buildings meet the front yard setback requirements if measured from the edge of pavement, but not from their property lines. The property was recently purchased by a young couple who has recently started a family, and has lived full time in Aspen for 3 years. It is their intention to remodel this property to better accommodate their growing family, however there are some basic problems with the configuration of the house. As an example, there are four bedrooms in the residence, two larger rooms upstairs and two smaller rooms downstairs. Both of the upstairs bedrooms have their bathrooms integrated into the bedroom (old motel style), and the lower bedrooms are so small that a queen beds will not even fit into the rooms without nightstands. It is very straightforward to reconfigure the upper bedrooms to a more current style of living, and there is ample additional FAR available to expand the lower bedrooms by 5 P19 VI.A. or 6 feet in order to make them more functional, however there is an unintended consequence to doing those moves. Because the house has a relatively small footprint and is partially buried in the hillside, the surface area for walls which is used to calculate demolition is much less than it otherwise would be (only above grade wall surfaces may be used). In addition, the roof (illustrated by the attached existing elevations) has a very unique and non-typical design. Once the upper story rooms are reconfigured, the interior volumes become very oddly shaped, and would lead the design towards inclusion of reconfiguring the roofs as part of the remodel, in order to make the rooms feel more comfortable. The problem arises in that less than ½ of the roof can be disturbed (with any other changes to the wall surfaces) before the 40% threshold for demolition is triggered, and hopefully it is fairly easy to see how difficult it would be to disturb less than ½ of the roof surface and have a building which does not look like the architectural equivalent of Frankenstein’s monster. Our request is to obtain a special review approval for the Ability to Restore a Non-Conforming Structure which has been purposefully demolished (per the code definition of that term) with the sole purpose of being able to maintain the existing location of the garage footprint (in the event that the threshold for demolition is triggered while undergoing a remodel to improve the functionality and aesthetics of the house). As the staff memo points out, the footprint of the house will be maintained and the general mass of the house will also be retained. Any remodel will fully comply with the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district (with the exception of the front yard setback to the garage). We believe that requiring the complete relocation and reconfiguration of the garage and vehicular access due to a remodel of a 35 year old residence is an unfair burden to the property owner, especially when the development pattern of the neighborhood appears to be very similar to this property. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.312.030 Non-conforming structures 26.312.030.F Ability to restore 26.430.040.B Replacement of nonconforming structure 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.312.030. Non-conforming structures. A. Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the zone district in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. B. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance to nonconforming structures may be performed without affecting the authorization to continue as a nonconforming structure. C. Extensions. A nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. A nonconforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the nonconformity. F. Ability to restore. 2. Purposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure which is purposefully demolished or destroyed may be replaced with a different structure only if the replacement structure is in conformance with the current provisions of this Title or unless replacement of the nonconformity is approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Any structure which is nonconforming in regards to the permitted density of the underlying zone district may maintain that specific nonconformity only if a building permit for the replacement structure is issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition or destruction.* *A duplex or two single-family residences on a substandard parcel in a zone district permitting such use is a nonconforming structure and subject to nonconforming structure replacement provisions. Density on a substandard parcel is permitted to be maintained but the structure must comply with the dimensional requirements of the Code including single-family floor area requirements. P20 VI.A. Response: Section 26.312.030.F.2 allows for the replacement of a non-conformity in the event of purposeful demolition provided a special review is obtained (purpose of this application). Other than the garage encroachment, the property is otherwise conforming to the permitted density of the underlying zone district. The current plan for construction is to have construction commence as soon as the necessary demolition is completed. 26.430.040.Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. Response: 1. With the exception of the garage projection into the front setback, the existing residence is within the dimensional requirements of the zone district, and any modifications or additions made as part of the remodel will conform with those requirements. The purpose of this special review is to ask that the garage not have to change as a result to other changes occurring as part of renovating the house. 2. There is currently fairly extensive landscaping between the garage and edge of road, and given the property line setback from the edge of the road, the existing structure would more than conform with the requirements of the underlying zone district code requirements. There will be no change of use or impact to the neighborhood in a way which is any more impactful than the existing structure currently is. B. Replacement of nonconforming structures. Whenever a structure or portion thereof, which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located is proposed to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection 26.430.040.A above; 2. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from other properties located in the same zone district; 3. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property; and 4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property Response: 1. Any renovations or additions to the property will comply with the conditions of Subsection 26.430.040.A except relative to the location of the garage relative to the front yard setback 2. This property has a relatively unique feature in that the property line is setback from the roadway by 13 feet. The closest corner of the garage is over 19 feet from the property line, making the actual setback of the garage from the road 31’- 8” and if the property line was at the edge of the road, and the setback was measured from that relationship; this property would be more than in compliance with the front yard setback for the underlying zoning. 3. This special review application is only seeking to allow the existing garage footprint which sits in the front yard setback to remain in its current configuration, regardless of whether demolition on the entire structure is triggered. This P21 VI.A. application is seeking the minimum level of variance necessary to maintain the existing footprint of the garage, which is the only reason the special review is necessary. 4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of this zone district would require the complete removal and relocation of the garage, adding retaining walls to reconfigure the driveway, and adapt the house’s floor plan to accommodate the revised garage placement and grading. We believe that this would constitute an unnecessary hardship for the property owner, especially as the trigger for these actions pertain more to the relationship of the property line to the road than the effect that the structure has on the neighborhood. 26.575.020 B. Limitations. The prescribed allowances and limitations, such as height, setbacks etc., of distinct structural components shall not be aggregated or combined in a manner that supersedes the dimensional limitations of an individual structural component. For example, if a deck is permitted to be developed within five feet of a property boundary and a garage must be a minimum of ten feet from the same property boundary, a garage with a deck on top of it may not be developed any closer than ten feet from the property boundary or otherwise produce an aggregated structural component that extends beyond the setback limit of a garage. Non-conforming aspects of a property or structure are limited to the specific physical nature of the non-conformity. For example, a one-story structure which extends into the setback may not be developed with a second-story addition unless the second story complies with the required setback. Specific non-conforming aspects of a property cannot be converted or exchanged in a manner that creates or extends a different specific non-conforming aspect of a property. For example, a property that exceeds the allowable floor area and contains deck area that exceeds the amount which may be exempted from floor area cannot convert deck space into additional interior space. Response: There are no changes contemplated to the footprint of the garage within the encroachment area. Because of the existing roof shapes, if the roof of the house changes, the roof of the garage will likely need to change to reflect a coherent design, however adding an additional design element such as a second story is not being contemplated. H. Measurement of Demolition. The City Zoning Officer shall determine if a building is intended to be or has been demolished by applying the following process of calculation: At the request of the Zoning Officer, the applicant shall prepare and submit a diagram showing the following: 4. The surface area of all existing (prior to commencing development) exterior wall assemblies above finished grade and all existing roof assemblies. Not counted in the existing exterior surface area calculations shall be all existing fenestration (doors, windows, skylights, etc.). 5. The exterior surface area, as described above, to be removed. Wall area or roof area being removed to accommodate new or relocated fenestration shall be counted as exterior surface area being removed. 6. The diagram shall depict each exterior wall and roof segment as a flat plane with an area tabulation. Exterior wall assembly and roof assembly shall constitute the exterior surface of that element in addition to the necessary subsurface components for its structural integrity, including such items as studs, joists, rafters etc. If a portion of a wall or roof structural capacity is to be removed, the associated exterior surface area shall be diagrammed as being removed. If a portion of a wall or roof involuntarily collapses, regardless of the developer's intent, that portion shall be calculated as removed. Recalculation may be necessary during the process of development and the Zoning Officer may require updated calculations as a project progresses. Replacement of fenestration shall not be calculated as wall area to be removed. New, relocated or expanded fenestration shall be counted as wall area to be removed. Only exterior surface area above finished grade shall be used in the determination of demolition. Sub-grade elements and interior wall elements, while potentially necessary for a building's integrity, shall not be counted in the computation of exterior surface area. P22 VI.A. According to the prepared diagram and area tabulation, the surface area of all portions of the exterior to be removed shall be divided by the surface area of all portions of the exterior of the existing structure and expressed as a percentage. The Zoning Officer shall use this percentage to determine if the building is to be or has been demolished according to the definition in Section 26.104.100, Demolition. If portions of the building involuntarily collapse, regardless of the developer's intent, that portion shall be calculated as removed. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to accurately understand the structural capabilities of the building prior to undertaking a remodel. Failure to properly understand the structural capacity of elements intended to remain may result in an involuntary collapse of those portions and a requirement to recalculate the extent of demolition. Landowner's intent or unforeseen circumstances shall not affect the calculation of actual physical demolition. Additional requirements or restrictions of this Title may result upon actual demolition Response: Because of the nature of how the demolition calculation is performed, structures which are built into hillsides are effectively penalized because they have less wall area to include in the baseline calculation. While this does not necessarily mean that this property would not still trigger demolition under a remodel, it does mean that there is much less latitude available before major ramifications are triggered. Thank you for your consideration, Dylan Johns Zone 4 Architects Cc: File Applicant P23 VI.A. P24 V I . A . 2 6 7 M c S K I M M I N G R O A D R E S I D E N C E 0 8 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 5 S P E C I A L R E V I E W A-01 | NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT DIAGRAM | SCALE AS NOTED N 27.2' 19.0' 12.0' 6.8' 14.7' 19.3' 21.6' 25.0'9.9' 3.2' 7.6' 13.8' 13.0' NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ESTIMATED AND ROUNDED OFF TO THE NEAREST TENTH OF A FOOT. THESE ESTIMATED DISTANCES WERE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN GIS INTERACTIVE WEBSITE. LEGEND 267 McSKIMMING ROAD RESIDENCES THAT ENCROACH UPON THEIR 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG McSKIMMING ROAD DISTANCE OF BUILDING [ENCROACHMENT] TO THEIR FRONT YARD PROPERTY BOUNDARY P 2 5 V I . A . 2 6 7 M c S K I M M I N G R O A D R E S I D E N C E 0 8 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 5 S P E C I A L R E V I E W 3 0 '-0 " 1 9 '-4 "3 1 '-8 " AUTO COURT McSKIMMING ROAD SKIMMING LANE DECK HOT TUB 30' ROAD + IMPROVEMENT EASEMENT10' BUILDING SETBACKLOT BOUNDARY L O T B O U N D A R Y L O T B O U N D A R Y 5 ' B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K 1 5 ' [C O M B I N E D ] U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 5 ' B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K 1 5 ' [C O M B I N E D ] U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T LOT BOUNDARY 30' BUILDING SETBACK DN EXISTING DRIVEWAY / AUTO COURT EXISTING GARAGE ENCROACHMENT [ENTRY LEVEL] [LOWER LEVEL] EXISTING 2 STORY HOUSE EXISTING GARAGE A-02 | SITE PLAN DIAGRAM | 1/8" = 1'-0" N P 2 6 V I . A . 2 6 7 M c S K I M M I N G R O A D R E S I D E N C E 0 8 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 5 S P E C I A L R E V I E W A-03 | EXISTING CONDITIONS - PHOTOGRAPHS | NOT TO SCALE A B C A B C PHOTOGRAPH KEY PLAN M c S K I M M I N G 267 R O A D N NOTE: PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT EXISTING TREES AND VEGETATION [TO REMAIN] CURRENTLY SCREENING THE EXISITNG GARAGE. P 2 7 V I . A . 2 6 7 M c S K I M M I N G R O A D R E S I D E N C E 0 8 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 5 S P E C I A L R E V I E W EL. 102'-6" EL. 92'-6 1/2" EL. 102'-8 1/4" EL. 92'-8" EL. 102'-9" CONC. SLAB GARAGE LEVEL CONC. SLAB LOWER LEVEL T.O. PLY ENTRY LEVEL T.O. F.F. LOWER LEVEL T.O. F.F. ENTRY LEVEL [E] H.T. BRACES 12 7 12 7 7 1212 7 EL. 102'-6" EL. 92'-6 1/2" EL. 102'-8 1/4" EL. 92'-8" EL. 102'-9" T.O. F.F. LOWER LEVEL T.O. F.F. ENTRY LEVEL CONC. SLAB GARAGE LEVEL CONC. SLAB LOWER LEVEL T.O. PLY ENTRY LEVEL [E] H.T. BRACES [E] RETAINING WALL OUTLINE OFFOUNDATION BEYOND 712712 7 12 EL. 102'-6" EL. 92'-6 1/2" EL. 102'-8 1/4" EL. 92'-8" EL. 102'-9" T.O. F.F. LOWER LEVEL T.O. F.F. ENTRY LEVEL CONC. SLAB GARAGE LEVEL CONC. SLAB LOWER LEVEL T.O. PLY ENTRY LEVEL 7 12 7 12 7 12 712 EL. 102'-6" EL. 92'-6 1/2" EL. 102'-8 1/4" EL. 92'-8" EL. 102'-9" T.O. F.F. LOWER LEVEL T.O. F.F. ENTRY LEVEL CONC. SLAB GARAGE LEVEL CONC. SLAB LOWER LEVEL T.O. PLY ENTRY LEVEL ELECTRICAL PANEL OUTLINE OFFOUNDATION BEYOND 712712 7 12 01 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 04 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 03 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 02 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION A-04 | EXISTING ELEVATIONS | 1/8" = 1'-0" P 2 8 V I . A . 2 6 7 M c S K I M M I N G R O A D R E S I D E N C E 0 8 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 5 S P E C I A L R E V I E W A-05 | PROPOSED [CONCEPTUAL] SOUTH ELEVATION | NOT TO SCALE NOTE: THIS CONCEPTUAL ELEVATION DEPICTS THE CURRENT PROPOSED DESIGN AND IS TO BE USED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. ROOF FORMS PROVIDED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES MAY BE MODIFIED AS DESIGN PROCESS EVOLVES. 30' BUILDING SETBACK LOT BOUNDARY CURB EXISTING GARAGE [FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN UNDER THIS PROPOSAL] EXISTING GARAGE ENCROACHMENT [FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN UNDER THIS PROPOSAL]RE: SITE PLAN DRIVEWAY / AUTO COURT [EXISTING TO REMAIN] P 2 9 V I . A . P&Z Check-In 10.6.2015 Miscellaneous Regulations Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Planner Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: October 6, 2015 RE: Miscellaneous Code Amendment SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on potential code amendments to the City’s Miscellaneous Regulations (Chapter 26.575) related to Calculations and Measurements. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT: The City’s Calculations and Measurements section of the Land Use Code is very technical and very specific. It explains what does and does not count toward floor area, how to count internal spaces, how to measure height, what is allowed in setbacks, etc. Every few years this section of the Code needs updating to remain relevant to current building practice, to create more predictability in zoning review, and to ensure that the purpose of the requirement is met. City Planning Staff maintain a “redline” version of the Land Use Code, largely for the calculations and measurements section, which highlight areas that need to be updated, clarified or rewritten. These highlights are largely informed by complex projects that expose existing loopholes or confusing language. The “redline” changes and recent Code interpretations are incorporated into the proposed Code amendment. There are very few policy changes proposed. Most of the changes are clarifications and slight adjustments. The proposed changes to current zoning policy include: clarifying dwelling types, cleaning up measurements from grade, clarifying allowed projections into setbacks, and simplifying building envelope requirements. Dwelling Units: No substantive changes are proposed to the definition of dwelling units. However, staff is proposing to clean up and clarify the definitions. The current definition of dwelling unit states it is a structure or unit that in intended for living with a kitchen. This is a fairly broad definition. The proposed changes provide more detail, including stating that a dwelling unit has no internal connection to another residential or commercial use. The code amendment also amends the size requirements related to dorm units. The current language in the Land Use Code conflicts with the language in the APCHA Guidelines. Because housing policy should be established by the Housing Board, staff proposes to refer all dorm size requirements to the APCHA Guidelines. P30 VII.A. P&Z Check-In 10.6.2015 Miscellaneous Regulations Page 2 of 4 The current code does not state how requirements such as Residential Design standards and parking apply to dormitory units. The code amendment classifies dorms as multi-family dwelling units for such calculations, which is consistent with how they have been treated in the past. Measurements from Grade: Staff is proposing to clarify measurements from grade. This includes adding new language around the measurement of finished grade, stating that for finished grade to be used it must be continuous for at least five feet. This is proposed to address a recent trend of “planter boxes” being pushed up against a building and artificially raising the height of a building. Internal Skylights: Recently the Community Development Department has seen a number of homes add internal skylights to a subgrade portion of the structure. The code does not currently address this issue, but staff has determined that these skylights are not counted in the basement subgrade calculation. Staff proposed adding language that clearly states this current calculation methodology. Net Leasable and Net Livable Area: There are a few buildings in town that span two or more property lines. When a property owner attempts to calculate their net leasable or net livable space, they often ask Planning staff how to complete that calculation. The code is clear that floor area is counted on the parcel in which it is developed. Staff has used this language to state that net livable or net leasable is counted on the parcel in which it is developed. Staff proposed to codify this policy in the code amendment. Building Envelopes: There are a number of Planned Developments in Aspen that rely on Building Envelopes. These have site specific requirements that for the most part require areas outside of the envelope to remain in a pristine, untouched condition. Other properties have building envelopes because of when they were annexed into the city or because of a Stream Margin Review. These building envelopes function more as setbacks than to preserve untouched landscape. Staff proposed to amend the Building Envelope requirements to reflect this current condition. All building envelopes would be treated like setbacks, unless otherwise specified in a site-specific development plan. Development in Setbacks: The code currently allows a number of projections in required setbacks. This includes fences, landscaping, renewable energy systems, and stormwater improvements. Hot tubs, pools, water features, and permanently affixed outdoor grills and similar features are allowed within a setback that does not face a street if it is no more than 30 inches above or below grade. Staff is proposing clarifications on the rules related to hot tubs and similar features to address unique site conditions, as there seems to be confusion about how this regulation is applied. Development of such elements would be expressly prohibited between a structure and a public street. This is consistent with the code today. The proposed change would allow these items in side yards visible from the street if the element is screened by a fence or landscaping. Diagram 1 below illustrates where hot tubs and similar features can be located under the clarified language. Areas in white are where hot tubs and similar features could be located. P31 VII.A. P&Z Check-In 10.6.2015 Miscellaneous Regulations Page 3 of 4 P32 VII.A. P&Z Check-In 10.6.2015 Miscellaneous Regulations Page 4 of 4 Diagram 1 REQUEST OF P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code amendment. All comments will be passed on to City Council as part of their review of the code amendment. P33 VII.A.