HomeMy WebLinkAbout0016.2012.ASLU
0016.2012.ASLU/Bleeker St Redevelopment application-final.doc APPLICATION FOR 831-833 W. BLEEKER ST. EXPANSION AND ADDITION OF NON-MITIGATION AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INTRODUCTION
This application seeks approvals for the expansion of the existing and legally established free market duplex residence located at 831-833 W. Bleeker St., Aspen, Lots A, B and C, Block
12, City and Townsite of Aspen. Parcel ID# 273512308002. The property is in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district. The redevelopment involves the addition of one non-mitigation
affordable housing unit and the expansion of the floor area of one of the existing free market residential units.
The duplex was constructed in 1987 in full compliance with the applicable zoning and building codes at that time. The two existing units will be referred to herein as Unit A (with the
address of 831 West Bleeker Street) and Unit B (with the address of 833 West Bleeker Street). Unit A contains approximately 3157 square feet of net livable area, plus a two-car garage.
Unit B contains approximately 657 square feet of net livable area. The proposed non-mitigation affordable housing unit (the “AH Unit”) will contain 401 square feet of net livable
area. The expansion involves the construction of 1142 square feet of new net livable area that includes 401 square feet of new construction for the AH Unit and 741 square feet of new
construction added to Unit B. Thus, approximately 35% of the newly built net livable area is in the non-mitigation AH Unit.
The existing improvements on the property are shown on the Improvement Survey, attached at Exhibit A. The general location of Units A and B and the area on the property where the new
construction will take place is shown on Exhibit B (Sheet 1), attached. The location of the AH Unit, a new garage serving Unit B and the existing garage serving Unit A is shown on
Exhibit C (Sheet 2), attached.
No expansion of Unit A is proposed and some existing space from the upper level of Unit A will be made part of Unit B. This area is shown on Exhibit D (Sheet 3), attached.
Lots A, B and C contain 9000 square feet of land on a corner lot bounded by W. Bleeker Street to the north, 8th Street to the west, the Bavarian Housing project across an alley to the
south and additional Bavarian units on the east.
Neighborhood Description. A brief description of the neighborhood in which the property is located is helpful to an understanding of the compatibility of the project with its surroundings.
The immediate neighborhood is on a block that lies westerly of South 7th street (HWY 82) that separates it from the townsite grid and the more traditional West End. The block is bounded
by W. Main Street, 8th Street, W. Bleeker Street and S. 7th Street. Except for the subject property which is a legal duplex residence, and a single family residence at the corner of
S. 7th Street and W. Main Street, all other development on the block and across both W. Bleeker Street and 8th Street are multi-family residential developments, including both free
market projects (The Villas of Aspen and West Bleeker Place Townhomes) and the Bavarian Affordable Housing project. The single-family residence referred to above at the corner of W.
Main and 7th Street is owned by the City and slated for development as a multi-family affordable housing project.
The subject property is underutilized relative to the neighborhood and will become more conforming as a result of the proposed improvements. Adding a third attached unit qualifies the
property as multi-family which has an allowable floor area of 6,750 square feet for a 9,000 square foot lot with 3 units. The provision of this non-mitigation affordable housing unit
is exempt from GMQS, assists in the community goal of providing affordable housing within the townsite and is fully compatible with the neighborhood.
As a result of amendments to the City Land Use Code (the “Code”) adopted after the construction of duplex in 1987, there are a few requirements that the property is not able to satisfy.
None of these are problematic and the Code has provisions allowing them to be approved by variances that can be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.
They are Alley Access, Net Livable Area for existing Unit A and certain aspects of the Residential Design Standards. These are all addressed in more detail later in this Application.
Process. Insofar as the process for this Application, Growth management review for the development of affordable housing is required by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Creating
a multi-family residential use requires subdivision review by City Council with a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The development of a voluntary affordable
housing unit that meets the criteria listed in Section 26.470.070.4 (a – d) is eligible to apply for a certificate of affordable housing credit. The affordable housing unit must be
category 4 or lower in order to qualify for the housing credit program. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviews the establishment of affordable housing credits. And as mentioned
above, Design Standard review and certain variances are requested of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, as necessary.
Ownership and Authority to process this Application. The property is owned by Herbert S. Klein and Marsha L. Klein, (collectively, “Applicant”) who occupy Unit A as their primary residence.
Mr. Klein is an attorney and able to certify title and the authority to process this application on his and Mrs. Klein’s behalf. Stan Mathis has provided architectural and planning
assistance in the preparation of the application and is also authorized to act as a representative of the owner. A letter certifying title and proof of ownership and providing the consent
of the Applicant to Mr. Mathis’ representation is attached at Exhibit H.
This application addresses the Aspen Land Use Code Sections indicated in the Pre-application conference summary, attached at Exhibit I and provides the code sections, review criteria
and responses to their requirements. In addition, a request for three (3) year statutory vested rights is also provided.
A list of property owners located within three-hundred feet of the property is attached at Exhibit J.
The City’s Land Use Application forms are attached as follows:
An executed application fee agreement is attached at Exhibit K.
The Dimensional Requirements Form is attached at Exhibit N.
The Land Use Application Form is attached at Exhibit O.
A vicinity map is attached at Exhibit L.
All pertinent supporting documents relating to the project (i.e., proof of ownership, etc.) are provided in the various exhibits attached to the application.
While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may
arise which require further information and/or clarification. Such additional information will be provided upon request.
APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE PROVISIONS
PLEASE NOTE: CODE SECTIONS ARE IN ITALICS, RESPONSES ARE IN REGULAR FONT.
SECTION 1. COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
Sec. 26.304.030
B. Application. At a minimum, all development applications shall include the following information and materials.
1. Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicant's name, address and telephone number and the name, address and telephone number of any representative authorized to
act on behalf of the applicant.
Please see attached Exhibit H.
2. The street address, legal description and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development.
831-833 W. Bleeker St., Aspen, Lots A, B and C, Block 12, City and Townsite of Aspen. Parcel ID# 273512308002.
3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company or attorney licensed to practice in the state,
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.
Please see attached Exhibit H.
4. An 81⁄2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen.
Please see attached Exhibit L.
5. A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings.
Please see attached Exhibits B, C and D.
6. A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state, showing the current status of the parcel including the current topography and vegetation.
(This requirement or any part thereof may be waived by the Community Development Director if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.)
Please see attached Exhibit A.
7. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application.
This is provided herein.
8. Additional materials, documentation or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. N/A
SECTION 2. NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE (UNIT A) - VARIANCE FOR NLA LIMITATION.
Sec. 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.
The only non-conformity with respect to dimensional requirements pertains to the Net Livable Area (“NLA”) of existing Unit A. A few years ago the City adopted zoning regulations imposing
a 2000 square foot NLA limit on the size of condominium units in the RMF zone. The expansion of Unit B will satisfy this criteria, however, Unit A, as built in 1987, is in excess of
this limit. An upper bedroom presently in Unit A will become part of Unit B and reduce its NLA by a few hundred feet. However, even after the reduction in its size, Unit A will have
2952 square feet of NLA. We do not perceive this as a problem because the Code allows for changes to a non-conforming structure so long as the non-conformity is not increased. In this
case, no increase in the non-conformity is proposed and a decrease is proposed. As cited above, the applicable code section allows for the development proposed where it states:
Sec. 26.312.030. C. … A nonconforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the nonconformity.
Staff has recommended that a dimensional variance be obtained so that this non-conformity will be recognized and permitted to remain. The applicant does not believe that a variance
is necessary because the Code allows the proposed development. However, without waiving the right to assert that such variance is not necessary, this Application seeks such a variance
and the applicable Code provisions and responses to them for this variance are as follows:
26.314 Variances
Sec. 26.314.010.Purposes.
Variances are deviations from the terms of this Title which would not be contrary to the public interest when, owing to special circumstances or conditions, the literal enforcement of
the provisions of this Title would result in undue and unnecessary hardship. Variances shall only be granted in accordance with the terms of this Chapter.
Sec. 26.314.020.Authority.
The Board of Adjustment, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove a development application for
variances to the terms of this Title. If the application for a variance is part of a consolidated application process authorized by the Community Development Director pursuant to Subsection
26.304.060.B.1, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission may review the application for a variance using the standards and procedures set forth in
this Chapter.
It is requested that the necessary variance be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This dimensional variance is authorized by the following section of the Code.
Sec. 26.314.030.Authorized variances.
Variances may only be granted from the following requirements of this Title 26:
A. Dimensional requirements.
Sec. 26.314.040.Standards applicable to variances. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make
a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title;
The variance requested is to allow existing Unit A to have a Net Livable Area (“NLA”) in excess of the recently adopted limit of 2000 square feet of NLA for a condominium in the RMF
zone. Unit A presently has 3157 square feet of NLA. One of its rooms will become part of Unit B and as a result Unit A will be reduced to 2952 square feet of NLA. Please see Exhibit
D for the location of this space that will become part of Unit B.
Denying the variance is contrary to the Code and AACP policies. The purpose of the NLA limitation is to encourage the development of “hot beds.” In adopting this limitation, the City’s
concern was that new free market residential units that were larger in size could be purchased only by very wealthy second home owners who were likely to use the units only a few months
of the year, thus reducing the vitality of the town and sales tax revenues. The thought was that smaller units would be more affordable and get more use. In addition, higher densities
in the infill area mean that more of them are likely to be occupied at any given time and thus enhance vitality and sale tax revenues. These goals will be satisfied if the variance
is granted.
Unit A exists and has been the primary residence of a local working family. The neighborhood does not attract very wealthy second home owners. The neighborhood consists of multi-family
condominiums that are both free market and affordable housing. Generally, they range in size from approximately 1500 square feet to approximately 2200 square feet. The fact that Unit
A has some additional square footage is not going to make a difference in its actual use. It will be a modest sized family home even with 2952 square feet of NLA and will not attract
a wealthy second home owner. The goal of the NLA restriction is to increase densities and by granting the variance, an underutilized duplex property will become multifamily and will
add an affordable housing unit to the neighborhood. Clearly creating “hot beds.” It would be ironic if this variance request was denied because to do so will reduce the potential density
and what is now a duplex will have to remain a duplex instead of being able to be expanded to become a multifamily property.
If the variance is not granted, the property either must be demolished in order to reduce the size of Unit A or it must remain as a duplex and cannot add the AH Unit or expand Unit
B. Demolition is not a viable option given the good condition of the improvements and the cost of demolition and waste of existing construction materials. The economics of creating
an affordable housing unit and expanding Unit B as proposed do not warrant such wasteful action. To require that this property, in this RMF zoned neighborhood where all of the other
properties around it are multi-family condominium projects, remain a duplex is inconsistent with the purposes, goals and objectives and policies of the AACP and this Title. In addition
to the foregoing, there are other reasons as well:
a. The community encourages the development of non-mitigation affordable housing. In addition to the many provisions of the AACP and the Code that require or encourage affordable housing,
the City recently adopted a program to reward developers of non-mitigation affordable housing by allowing for the ability to obtain a certificate of affordable housing credit. This
Application seeks such a certificate.
b. The AACP and Code encourage development in areas within the infill area and where existing infrastructure exists. The location of the property is in an area developed exclusively
with multi-family projects. All infrastructure exists and is available. The neighborhood is served by bus stops on Hallam Street (one block away) and on S. 7th Street (1/2 block away).
A bike path runs along 8th Street at the west side of the property.
c. The AACP and Code discourage the demolition of existing properties. The Code penalizes those who do not reuse constructed buildings. Maintaining the existing building instead
of encouraging it to be demolished is consistent with this policy.
d. Additional discussion of compliance with the AACP is found at Section 5 SUBDIVISION below. We incorporate by this reference, those provisions.
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure;
As demonstrated above, the proposed development is a reasonable use of the property and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to allow for the use of the property as proposed.
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district
and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider
whether either of the following conditions apply:
a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same
zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant;
All the other properties in the neighborhood enjoy multifamily status. As a duplex, the subject property is unique in the neighborhood and will be more conforming with the neighborhood
if it is allowed to become multi-family. Unit A was built at a time when the NLA was allowed to be greater than 2000 square feet. The applicant developed the property lawfully and in
full conformance with the rules at the time and will be penalized if the variance is not granted. Because the NLA restriction was adopted by the City, the reason for the variance is
not the result of the actions of the Applicant.
;or
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings or
structures, in the same zone district.
Again, without the variance, the subject property is penalized and cannot be used or developed as are the other properties in the neighborhood. No gain or advantage is sought over the
other properties in the RMF zone district. Rather, the variance will allow the subject property to enjoy the same benefits as the other multi-family properties in the neighborhood.
SECTION 3. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS – COMPLIANCE AND VARIANCE REQUESTS.
26.410.010.B.1 Residential Design Standards for Multi-family housing
Residential Design Guidelines. The City adopted residential design guidelines after construction of the duplex. Due to the physical configuration of the existing building and the mature
trees on the property, it is not feasible to comply with all of those that apply to multi-family buildings. The Applicant has done as much as possible to satisfy the guidelines and
a variance is requested for the few elements that are not fully in compliance with the guidelines.
Because Unit A is not being redeveloped and the proposed development involves expanding Unit B and adding the AH Unit, we will address the design guidelines as they pertain to Unit
B and the AH Unit, except where the design guidelines state that somewhere on the exterior of the building “at least one” specified design element will be required (for example 26.410.040D.1).
In such case, we may, if applicable, refer to an element on the exterior of Unit A as the complying element. Where a variance is needed for an “at least one” type design guideline,
we will seek a variance for the one that requires the least degree of variation, even if it involves Unit A. Please note that Unit A is allowed to remain as a non-conforming structure
and because none of its exterior features that are referred to in the Design Standards are being changed, it is exempt from compliance with the Design Standards, however, to achieve
compliance to the greatest degree possible and to avoid misunderstandings with the building department in their review of construction drawings, we request that either a variance be
granted or a statement that such variance is not necessary be made where the existing elements are allowed for a non-conforming structure.
In addressing those elements of the Design Guidelines that require variances, we wish to emphasize two points for your consideration that are also the primary factors that the Code
establishes for determining variance requests:
1. The existing development pattern in the neighborhood is not at all consistent with the typical West End street grid. Please see Exhibit M which shows the existing layout and pattern
of buildings in the neighborhood. The difference between this neighborhood and the nearby West End street grid is clearly shown. The Villas of Aspen street frontage on 8th Street is
a landscaped parking lot. The exterior facades of the units are far from the street and are set at various angles. The West Bleeker Street Townhomes project has the rear, two-story
portion of the units fronting on West Bleeker Street and the parking lot entrance is prominently in the center of the block. Both projects have parking lots visible from the street.
The Bavarian Housing Project has various design elements facing on West Bleeker Street and also on 8th Street that do not follow many of the design guidelines. There are no other
buildings on this block of 8th Street or West Bleeker Street other than the subject property and these three multi-unit condominium projects.
2. Because Unit A exists and the changes to its exterior (which involve adding space to Unit B and creating the AH Unit) do not involve any elements that are referred to in the design
standards and given the constraints of the site, there are circumstances where strict application of the Design Guidelines may not be practical, feasible or aesthetically desirable.
We will explain these where applicable below. We believe that the plans presented, even where variances are necessary, are fully consistent with the intent and purposes of the Design
Standards and we are confident that you will agree that the proposed design of Unit B and the AH Unit are attractive and compatible with the neighborhood.
The purpose of the standards for variances from the Residential Design Standards is to avoid a mechanical application of them when the above conditions exist. The variance criteria
expressly anticipate the situation at hand. Those provisions state:
26.410.020.
D. Variances.
2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or
the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the
Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing
the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted
would:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or
a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
As will be demonstrated below, the variances requested fit squarely into one or both of the two criteria for the granting of variances from the Design Standards.
The following discussion tracks the applicable Residential Design Standards as organized in the Code and indicates those that are satisfied and those for which a variance is necessary
along with an explanation of how the standards for the variance are satisfied.
26.410.010.B.1 Residential Design Standards for Multi-family housing
B. Applicability. Except as outline below, this Section applies to all residential development in the City requiring a building permit, except for residential development within the
R-15B Zone District:
1. Only the following standards shall apply to multi-family housing: Subsection 26.410.040.A.1, Building orientation, Paragraph 26.410.040.C.1.a, Access or, if not applicable, Paragraph
26.410.040.C.2.b, Garage setback and Subsection 26.410.040D, Building elements, as outlined in said Section for multi-family buildings.
26.410.040.A.1, Building orientation
26.410.040. Residential design standards.
A. Site design. The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "façade line" and defines the
public and semi-public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without
eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street.
1. Building orientation. The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street-facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting
streets.
This standard is satisfied. Both street-facing facades are parallel to the intersecting Streets. Please see Exhibits E, F and G.
26.410.040.C.1.a, Access or, if not applicable, C.2.b
C. Parking, garages and carports. The intent of the following parking, garages and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic
by placing parking, garages and carports on alleys or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist.
1. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply:
a. Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road.
There are two approved existing curb cuts providing access and parking for each of Units A and B, one is on W. Bleeker Street and one is on 8th Street. Several years ago, after the
construction of the duplex was completed, the City adopted design guidelines and zoning amendments that encouraged access for parking and garages to be from alleys for properties with
such access. Because the duplex was constructed before these guidelines were adopted, access for parking or a garage from the alley is not possible due to the presence of several large
trees and the presence of the existing building which separates Unit B and the AH Unit from any possible access from the alley. Please see the attached survey at Exhibit A and the
Site Plan at Exhibit B and note the location of existing improvements, landscaping and the narrow setbacks.
Because of this existing condition, Unit B and the AH Unit do not have access to the alley and are treated in this application as a property without the ability to be served by an alley.
Parking for Unit B and the AH Unit must be accessed from the streets and will utilize the existing curb cuts and parking areas. Access from the alley is impossible since on the
east side of Unit A, there is only 5’+/- between the existing structure and the east property line and there is also a required window well in the 5’ set back. The west side of Unit
A fronts 8th Street and there are mature trees in the backyard of Unit A and along 8th Street.
Additionally, it is important to note that there is a playground for the children residing in the Bavarian Housing project that is directly on the alley along the rear of Unit A and
the children play in the playground area as well as in the alley. Any additional vehicular traffic in the alley raises safety issues and contradicts the goal of minimizing pedestrian-vehicular
conflicts. The alley is fairly constrained. In fact, cars backing out of existing parking stalls serving the Bavarian units often hit the fence that is along the rear property line
of Unit A, necessitating the installation of a bumper along the backyard fence. Therefore, even if it were feasible to serve Unit B and the AH Unit from the alley (which it is not)
such would not be a good outcome. We believe that no variance is necessary since Unit B cannot be accessed from the alley, however, if you feel that a variance is necessary, we request
that it be granted.
Both criteria for a variance are present here. The most compelling is the impossibility of providing access for parking from the alley to Unit B and the AH Unit due to the existing
site conditions. For this reason alone, it makes sense to treat Unit B and the AH Unit as not having access to an alley or if somehow you determine that there is such access, then
it is appropriate to provide the variance.
In addition, the conditions present warrant a variance from this standard “considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard.
In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood
setting.”
Both the Villas of Aspen Townhomes and the West Bleeker Place Townhomes are accessed from 8th Street and West Bleeker Street respectively since there is no alley. The Bavarian Housing
Project has both alley access for parking and street access directly off of West Bleeker Street to its parking areas. The existing curb cuts for the subject property are across the
street from the curb cuts for the Villas of Aspen Townhomes and the West Bleeker Place Townhomes. The curb cut for the Bavarian Housing Project is on Bleeker Street, approximately
110 feet to the East of the subject’s existing curb cut on West Bleeker Street. Therefore, there is no pattern or context in the neighborhood warranting a strict application of a requirement
to have parking access from the alley and there are no conficts with pedestrian usage since no new curb cuts are proposed.
26.410.040.C.2.b, Garage setback.
2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standards shall be (sic) apply:
b. The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house.
The garage for Unit A exists and complies with this standard. It is set back approximately 15 feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house facing 8th street.
The garage for Unit B is accessed from West Bleeker Street and is set back approximately 5’ 6” further from the street than the front-most wall of the house facing West Bleeker Street.
Please see Exhibit E showing this elevation. We request that a variance be granted to allow this minimal difference. If the garage was set back 10 feet it would create an awkward
recess in the building façade which, as presently designed, has a rhythm and symmetry that breaks up the ground level building elements and gives visual organization to the exterior
of Unit B, the garage and the AH Unit. Because the garage is recessed below an overhang from the floor above, it appears deeper than 5’6” and will appear to be recessed to approximately
8 feet.
The physical location of Unit A limits the depth of the garage and it is already proposed to be setback as far as practical while remaining fully functional. Extending the front façade
of Unit B or the AH Unit further to the North to create a greater depth for the garage is not possible because they are already at the setback line.
Due to the use of the existing curb cut and the large trees everywhere else along the West Bleeker Street frontage, the garage for Unit B has to be located where it is as there is no
other accessible location. The depth is limited by existing Unit A and compliance with the setbacks on West Bleeker Street. Its location is somewhat in the middle of the façade, to
the west of the AH unit and to the east of the entry level of Unit B. Because all the parking in the neighborhood is on the surface and exposed, there is no neighborhood character
of architecture to which the garage recess relates. In this circumstance, the overall architectural design and pattern should be considered rather than a rigid application of a numerical
design standard. The intent stated in 26.410.040.A as: ‘The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates
a consistent "façade line" and defines the public and semi-public realms” is satisfied by the proposed architecture of this façade of Unit B and the AH Unit.
Therefore the minor variance requested will allow for a pleasing and balanced design for the West Bleeker Street facing elevation of Unit B.
Subsection 26.410.040D, Building elements.
D. Building elements. The intent of the following building element standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide
human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions.
1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street
facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window.
On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length.
This section has two standards: 1) “at least” one street oriented entrance; and 2) front units must have a street facing a principal window – facing whichever street has a greater block
length.
The second standard is satisfied as both Unit A and Unit B have a principal window facing 8th Street and West Bleeker Street respectively.
The first standard which calls for “at least” one street oriented entrance needs a minor variance for two of the street oriented guidelines in subparagraph b below. Under the standards,
a street oriented entrance should have the following characteristics:
a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet.
Because this is a corner lot, both entrances to Unit B and Unit A have an orientation to each street respectively. The existing structure has the front door for Unit A facing 8th street.
This door is not more than 10 feet back from the front-most wall of the house and is not taller than 8 feet in height. This standard is satisfied.
b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than
one (1) story in height.
The covered entry porch for Unit A is 40 square feet with a depth of 4’ and is not more than one story in height. The design and physical components of the existing improvements do
not lend themselves to modification to achieve the additional 10 feet of square footage for the porch or 2 feet of depth. Therefore, a variance is requested for these two minor elements.
As previously mentioned, the neighborhood does not have street oriented entrances and the existing site conditions limit the ability to fully meet this standard. Please see Exhibit
G.
A brief discussion of the entry to Unit B is appropriate so that you will understand why we suggest that the variance be granted for Unit A as the “at least one” street oriented entrance.
Unit B, with an entry porch of 55 square feet and a depth of 6’1” meets the standard for the size and depth of the entry porch. However, because the living space is on the second floor,
the entry must be more than one-story in height in order to reach the second floor. In addition, although the approach to the front door and steps leading up to it face West Bleeker
Street, the front door itself, is perpendicular to West Bleeker Street. This is because of the physical limitations posed by the setback and height changes that are necessary to get
to the second floor living space. As a practical matter, the extensive tree cover obscures the much of the entry to Unit B from West Bleeker Street. Since these Design Standards are
of the “at least one” variety, a variance for either Unit A’s or Unit B’s entry is necessary. We believe the variance requested for Unit A involves a bit less variation from the standards
than those for Unit B. Please see Exhibit F.
2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall
width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space,
the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether
it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall
not be precluded.
This is an “at least one” standard since it states “All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element…” For Unit A, the first story faces 8th street and comprises
at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. However the
roof over the entry slopes upward from north to south with the plate height at the north side of the element at 8’ and the plate height to the south rising to 13’. A variance for this
standard is necessary. Viewing this elevation at Exhibit G reveals the varied nature of the front façade that faces 8th Street. The overall impression captures the one-story concept
and aesthetically satisfies this standard. The façade of Unit A is partially one story for more than 20% of the building’s overall width and the two story elements are recessed behind
the one-story façade.
Unit B is not able to meet this standard, so it cannot be the “at least one” elevation. The existing portion of Unit B is located on the second floor above the existing garage that
serves Unit A. The expanded portion of Unit B must have its living space on the second floor in order to provide parking on the ground level.
The standards for a variance recognize that the neighborhood context is given great weight. The Bavarian Housing project’s townhouse units that are along 8th Street to the south of
Unit A and which share the same street orientation, are all 3 story attached townhomes without any one-story element. The Villas of Aspen Townhouses are across 8th Street from the
subject property and have landscaping and a parking lot facing 8th Street. The West Bleeker Place Townhomes across the street to the north, present their two story rear elevations
to the street. The architecture of the subject is harmonious with its setting, comes very close to fully satisfying the one-story element standard as it clearly “reads” as being one-story.
The minor variance for this standard is appropriate.
3. Windows.
a. Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor.
All windows for Unit B and the AH Unit satisfy this standard. The windows of Unit A that face 8th Street generally satisfy this standard except for the two narrow windows to the south
of the entry door that frame the fireplace on the interior. Because Unit A exists and is not being changed on this elevation, it is allowed to remain as a non-conforming structure
and does not have to comply with this standard.
b. No more than one (1) nonorthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building.
This standard is satisfied.
4. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building.
This standard is satisfied.
SECTION 4. DEVELOPMENT OF NON-MITIGATION AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT.
Sec. 26.470.070.Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this
standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
The AH Unit will be a studio with 401 square feet of Net Livable Area. This satisfies the APCHA Guidelines for Minimum Net Livable Square Feet. All other relevant requirements for the
kitchen and bathroom will be satisfied.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever
is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. (Ord. No. 14 – 2011, §3)
The AH Unit will be 100% above grade.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner
may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall
authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units.
The AH Unit will be a rental unit and an agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney will be entered into with the City that indicates this is being voluntarily provided and subject
to the rent limitations established for the selected category.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non- mitigation
affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. (Ord. No. 6 – 2010, §4)
The AH Unit is voluntarily being provided and as such is “Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing.” A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is sought as described in the following section
of this Application.
26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
26.540.030 Application and fees. All applications shall include the information required under Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures. In addition, all applications must
also include the following information.
A. The net livable square footage of each unit.
The AH Unit will be a studio with 401 square feet of Net Livable Area. This satisfies the APCHA Guidelines for Minimum Net Livable Square Feet.
B. If applicable, the conditions under which reductions from net minimum livable square footage requirements are requested according to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.
No reduction is requested.
C. Proposed category of each unit.
It is proposed that the AH Unit be a Category 4. Pursuant to Sec. 26.470.050.B.6 “Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted
at any level of affordability, including residential (sic) occupied.”
D. Proposed Full-Time-Equivalents housed by the units in increments of no less than five- one-hundredths (.05). (Ord. No. 6-2010, §5)
The AH Unit, as a studio, will provide 1.25 FTE. (See Sec. 26.470.100 A.2).
26.540.040 Review criteria for planning and zoning commission
A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to the adoption of a Resolution, if all of the following criteria are met:
A. A Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for affordable housing units that have been deed-restricted subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2010, and pursuant
to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d).
Satisfaction of this requirement will be a condition of issuance of the Certificate.
B. The affordable housing units are not for the purpose of mitigating impacts of development, or a requirement or obligation of a Development Order.
The AH Unit is a non-mitigation unit and satisfies this requirement.
C. A recommendation of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors has been made, establishing the number of Full-Time-Equivalents (FTEs) accommodated by the affordable
housing units, pursuant to Affordable Housing Guidelines, as amended. (Ord. N. 6-2010, §5)
It is requested that APCHA provide the recommendation as part of its referral response to this Application. The FTE’s are established by the Code as being 1.25 FTE for a studio. (See
Sec. 26.470.100 A.2).
SECTION 5. SUBDIVISION.
The purpose of Section 26.480, Subdivision, of the Code includes ensuring “the proper distribution of development” and encouraging “the well-planned subdivision of land by establishing
standards for the design of a subdivision.”
The proposed development involves the addition of one new non-mitigation affordable housing unit to an existing free-market residential duplex, thus creating a multi-family building.
Accordingly, subdivision approval is required pursuant to Section 26.480.050 of the Code even though it is not a traditional subdivision in the sense of dividing land areas into separate
interests. The procedures for review of a subdivision request involve obtaining a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission before proceeding to City Council for a final
decision.
26.480 Subdivision
Sec. 26.480.050.Review standards.
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements:
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
The previous sections of this Application have addressed compliance with the AACP. In order to minimize redundancies in the Application, please see the AACP discussion in Section 2
where variances are addressed. We incorporate by this reference, those provisions.
In addition, the following is provided:
In the “Managing Growth” section of the AACP, the stated community goals include:
“Provide for a ‘critical mass’ of permanent local residents by providing a limited number of new affordable housing units within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary.”
The proposal includes a new non-mitigation affordable housing unit that will house 1.25 FTE within the Aspen Infill Area.
“Contain development within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary…”
As explained above, the proposed redevelopment site is not only within the Urban Growth Boundary, but also within the Aspen Infill Area.
“Foster a well-balanced community through integrated design that promotes economic diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles, and the mixing of people from different backgrounds.”
The proposed development includes a mix of free market and affordable housing. The project site promotes the use of transit and a pedestrian friendly lifestyle; it includes a walking
and bicycle path adjacent to the property and RFTA bus stops within ½ block of the property.
The Intent of the AACP’s “Transportation” section provides that:
“The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters that reduces congestion and air pollution. Walking, bicycling and
transit use is promoted to help us reach that goal.”
As explained above, the project’s location promotes the use of transit and a pedestrian friendly lifestyle.
With regard to the “Housing” section of the AACP, the stated community goals include the following:
“The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing.” A similar goal seeks to “Encourage greater participation by the private sector
in developing affordable housing.”
The Application is from the private sector and will be providing one new non-mitigation affordable housing unit.
“New affordable housing projects should reinforce and enhance a healthy social balance for our community and enhance the character and charm of Aspen.”
The proposal not only reinforces the social balance sought by this goal statement but enhances it as well. The proposal integrates free market residences with an affordable residence
within one building, as next-door neighbors.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area.
As discussed in detail in the previous sections of this Application, the proposed development is fully consistent with the character of the neighborhood and approval of this proposal
will make the property more consistent with the neighboring uses. All of the neighboring uses are multi-family condominiums, e.g., exactly what is being proposed.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas.
The creation of multi-family units will not have any adverse affect on future neighborhood development.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title.
This Application seeks all approvals necessary for the development to fully comply with all provisions of the Code. As discussed in the preceding sections of this Application, certain
variances are requested so that the resulting development will conform with the Code as allowed by such variances.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche
or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
The land upon which the building is located is not subject to any natural hazards, is a flat, developed lot and has no conditions that are harmful to health, safety or welfare of anyone.
2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities
and unnecessary public costs.
The spatial pattern is very efficient, utilizes the undeveloped portion of an existing property and requires no utility extensions or public costs.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if
the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the
existing, neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers
as necessary.
The proposed development does not involve new streets, utility extensions or public improvements. The “subdivision” activity is simply creating a multi-family property by adding one
non-mitigation affordable housing unit and condominiumizing the property into three separate legal interests. All relevant engineering standards will be satisfied.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520,
Replacement housing program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470,
Growth Management Quota System.
The only new dwelling unit is a non-mitigation affordable housing unit and satisfies the above requirements.
E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication
standards set forth at Chapter 26.620.
Applicable school land dedications will be provided by cash-in-lieu. Calculations shall be undertaken at the time of building permit application.
SECTION 6. OFF-STREET PARKING
The subject property is in the Aspen Infill Area. The RMF zone district regulations state at Sec. 26.515.030. Required number of off-street parking spaces. Residential – Multi-Family
(as a single use). One space per unit. Fewer spaces may be approved, pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Special review and according to the review criteria of Section 26.515.040.
Although the Code requires just three (3) parking spaces (one for each unit), there will be six (6) on-site parking spaces provided. Two in each garage and two surface parking spaces.
Please see the site plan at Ex. C for the location and dimensions of the spaces.
26.515 Off-street Parking
B. Requirements for expansion/redevelopment of existing development. No development shall reduce the number of existing off-street parking spaces below the minimum number of existing
spaces required herein for that development, unless expressly exempted by this Chapter. If existing development is expanded, additional off-street parking spaces shall be provided for
that increment of the expansion as if it is a separate development. An existing deficit of parking may be maintained when a property is redeveloped.
There is no parking deficit associated with the subject property.
26.515.020. Characteristics of off-street parking spaces.
A. General. Each off-street parking space shall consist of an open area measuring eight and one half (81⁄2) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet long and seven (7) feet high with a maximum
slope of twelve percent (12%) in any one direction. Each parking space, except those provided for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings, shall have an unobstructed access
to a street or alley. Off-street parking provided for multi-family dwellings which do not share a common parking area may be exempted from the unobstructed access requirement subject
to special review pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Special review and the standards set forth at Section 26.515.040, Special review standards, below. Off-street parking must be paved with
all weather surfacing or be covered with gravel. For residential development, a grass ring or grass-paver-type surface may be used. All parking shall be maintained in a usable condition
at all times.
Please see Exhibit C for location and dimensions of the parking spaces. The spaces comply with the dimensional standards and have unobstructed access to the street from each parking
space and will be either paved or have a gravel surface.
B. Location of off-street parking. Off-street parking shall be located on the same parcel as the principal use or an adjacent parcel under the same ownership as the lot occupied by the
principal use. For all uses, parking shall be accessed from an alley or secondary road, where one (1) exists unless otherwise established according to this Chapter.
This requirement is satisfied. Please see Exhibit C for location of the parking spaces. As demonstrated in the discussion concerning variances in Section 3 above, Unit B and the AH
Unit are not served by an alley.
SECTION 7. CALCULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
This section of the Code has many provisions that are not applicable to this property. The development will comply with all applicable provisions and requirements. Those that appear
to be the most relevant are addressed as follows:
C. Measuring Net Lot Area.
The property is a flat parcel made up from three townsite lots and contains 9000 square feet. There are no slopes, water features or easements that affect the property. Therefore, the
entire 9000 square feet is included.
D. Measuring Floor Area.
The RMF zone district allows for 6750 square feet of allowable floor area (“FAR’). The proposed development will not exceed this amount.
7. Garages and carports. In the RMF zone, 250 square feet of garage space per unit is exempt when there is no access to an alley. There will be three (3) units on the property, therefore,
750 square feet of the garage space will be exempt.
8, Subgrade areas. No new subgrade areas are proposed. Unit A has some finished basement space that will be calculated as required by the Code.
E. Measuring Setbacks.
The RMF zone allows for five (5) foot setbacks. The existing building and the new construction will comply with this requirement.
5. Allowed Projections into Setbacks.
The new construction will have allowed projections of overhangs into the setback, not to exceed the allowed 18 inches. It will also have an allowed projection for a walkway and steps
leading to the entry of Unit B that will not exceed the allowable 30 inch grade change per subsection k.
F. Measuring Building Heights.
The RMF zone allows for heights as follows:
7. Maximum height (according to density) (feet): a. Detached residential and duplex dwellings: same as R-6 Zone District. b. Multi-family – parcel density less than one (1) unit per
one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of Gross Lot Area: twenty-five (25).
The new construction will satisfy this limitation. The existing building is at the heights allowed and its height will not be exceeded by the new construction.
J. Measurement of Net Livable Area.
The Application has referred to Net Livable Area in certain of its sections. It has been calculated as defined in subsection J.
SECTION 8. RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (RMF) ZONE DISTRICT STANDARDS.
26.710.090 Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District.
26.710.090. Residential Multi-Family (RMF).
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Residential Multi- Family (RMF) Zone District:
1. Detached residential dwelling. 2. Two (2) detached residential dwellings. 3.Duplex dwelling. 4. Multi-family dwellings. 5. Home occupations. 6.Accessory buildings and uses. 7. Dormitory.
8. Accessory dwelling units and carriage houses meeting the provisions of Chapter
The proposed multi-family development is an allowed use.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District:
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): six thousand (6,000). For lots created by Paragraph 26.480.030.A.4, Historic landmark lot split: three thousand (3,000).
The property has 9000 square feet of Gross Lot Area.
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet):
Multi-family dwellings: No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): sixty (60).
The parcel is 90’ x 100 feet.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): b. Multi-family: five (5).
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): b. Multi-family: five (5).
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): b. Multi-family: five (5).
All of the above setback limitations are satisfied.
7. Maximum height (according to density) (feet):
Multi-family – parcel density less than one (1) unit per one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of Gross Lot Area: twenty-five (25).
The property will have a density of less than one unit per 1500 square feet of Gross Lot Area and thus will satisfy the 25 foot height requirements.
10. Floor area ratio (FAR).
c. Multi-family – parcel density of less than one (1) unit per one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of Gross Lot Area: 0.75:1.
The property is 9000 square feet in size and thus has an FAR of 6,750 square feet.
11. Maximum multi-family unit size (square feet): For properties in the Aspen infill area, two thousand (2,000) square feet of net livable area. For properties outside the Aspen infill
area, two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of net livable area.
Unit A does not meet this standard as it will have 2952 square feet of NLA. It is the Applicant’s position that this standard is not applicable or should be deemed satisfied because
Unit A is an existing non-conforming structure and as such is allowed to be developed so long as the non-conformity is not increased. Unit B and the AH Unit will satisfy the 2000 square
feet NLA limitation. This is discussed in detail in Section 2 above. A variance from this standard has been requested for the existing Unit A if deemed necessary.
SECTION 9. VESTED RIGHTS.
In order to preserve the land use approvals that may be obtained as a result of this application, the applicant hereby requests vested property rights status pursuant to the provisions
of Chapter 26.308 of the Code. Final approvals of the proposed development must be granted by separate Resolution of the P&Z, and Ordinance of the City Council. It is also understood
that no specific submission requirements, or review criteria other than a public hearing, are required to confer vested rights status. It is requested that each approval resolution
and ordinance include vested property rights. The applicant requests vested rights be granted for the statutory three (3) years.
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully requests that the approvals and variances requested are granted.
Applicant:
____________________ Date: March 14, 2012
Herbert S. Klein
831-833 W. Bleeker St. Expansion and Addition of Non-mitigation Affordable Housing Application Page 1
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex B - SHEET 1 2-27-2012.pdf C:\Documents and Settings\Stan\My Documents\Klein 1-5-2012\SURVEY 1-24-2012\831BLEEKER_IS12412[1] Model (1)
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex C - SHEET 2 2-27-2012.pdf C:\Documents and Settings\Stan\My Documents\Klein 1-5-2012\SURVEY 1-24-2012\831BLEEKER_IS12412[1] Model (1)
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex D - SHEET 3 2-27-2012.pdf C:\Documents and Settings\Stan\My Documents\Klein 1-5-2012\SURVEY 1-24-2012\831BLEEKER_IS12412[1] Model (1)
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex E - NORTH EAST CORNER 3-4-2012.pdf Bleeker_2-27-2012
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex F - NORTHWEST 3-4-2012.pdf Bleeker_2-27-2012
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex G - VIEW FROM 8th 3-4-2012-copy.pdf Bleeker_2-27-2012
0016.2012.ASLU/EX H - TITLE CERT AND CONSENT TO PROCESS LTR - exec.pdf
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex I - PRE-APP 831wbleekerstreet.pdf PRE-APP 831wbleekerstreet
CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sara Adams, 429-2778 DATE: 1/10/12 PROJECT: 831 West Bleeker Street REPRESENTATIVE: Herb Klein, hsk@kcelaw.net DESCRIPTION:
The prospective applicant is interested in attaching a voluntary affordable housing unit to the existing duplex at 831 West Bleeker Street. The subject property is an existing legally
established duplex on an approximately 9,000 square feet lot that is zoned Residential Multi-Family (RMF). Adding a third attached unit qualifies the property as multi-family which
has an allowable floor area of 6,750 square feet for a 9,000 square foot lot with 3 units. Growth management review for the development of affordable housing is required by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Creating a multi -family residential use also requires subdivision review by City Council with a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
subdivision review criteria require the proposed subdivision to “be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title.” This means that the 3,000 square feet unit on the
property must meet the required 2,000 square feet net livable size cap (which can be increased to 2,500 square feet by landing a TDR) in the RMF zone district. A dimensional variance
may be requested of the Planning and Zoning Commission to allow the existing 3,000 square feet unit to exceed the unit cap for multi-family residential units. The development of a
voluntary affordable housing unit that meets the criteria listed in Section 26.470.070.4 (a – d) is eligible to apply for a certificate of affordable housing credit. The affordable
housing unit must be category 4 or lower in order to qualify for the housing credit program. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviews the establishment of affordable housing credits.
Changes to the exterior require compliance with the Residential Design Standards or a request for variances from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Multi-family housing is not required
to meet all of the Design Standards. See Section 26.410.010.B.1 for the applicable Design Standards. The reviews may be consolidated as follows: Step One: Planning and Zoning
Commission Review: Growth Management for the development of Affordable Housing, Dimensional Variance to exceed the unit size cap, Establishment of a Certificate of Affordable
Housing, Residential Design Standard Variances, recommendation of Subdivision to City Council Step Two: City Council Subdivision Review The land use application is found
here: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2011%20land%20use%20app%20for m.pdf Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.314 Variances 26.410.010.B.1 Residential Design Standards for Multi-family housing 26.470.070.4 Growth Management for the Development of Affordable Housing 26.480 Subdivision
26.515 Off-street Parking 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.090 Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District
Review by: - Staff for complete application - P&Z for RDS variances, GMQS, dimensional variances, Certificate of AH reviews and Subdivision recommendation - City Council for
subdivision Public Hearing: At Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Planning Fees: $7,560 deposit for 24 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed
at $315 per hour) Referral Fees: Engineering ($265/hr), Housing ($1,260 flat fee). Total Deposit: $9,085. Total Number of Application Copies: 10 for P&Z and 10 for City Council
= 20 total To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant’s name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed
by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel
on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, 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. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Pre-application Conference Summary. 6. Letter authorizing owner representation. 7. Site improvement survey. 8. Proposed
elevations, floor plans, site plan. 11. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. 12. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of
copies noted above). 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.
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex J List of Property Owners - 300 ft 831 W Bleeker.pdf
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex K agmt to pay application fees exec.pdf
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex L Vicinity Map.pdf Ex. L Vicinity Map
0016.2012.ASLU/EX M neighborhood development pattern.pdf EX. neighborhood pattern.png
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex N Dimensional Requirements Form-filled in.pdf
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex O Land Use Application Form-final.pdf
0016.2012.ASLU/Ex A.pdf
0016.2012.ASLU/Exhibit List - final.docx Index of Exhibits:
Index of Exhibits:
SURVEYS, SITE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS:
A. Improvement Survey
B. Sheet 1 - General location of Units A and B and the area on the property where the new construction will take place. </w:
C. Sheet 2 - Location of the AH Unit, new garage serving Unit B, existing garage serving Unit A and on-site parking. </w:
D. Sheet 3 - Existing space from the upper level of Unit A to be part of Unit B.
E. Elevation – North-east corner view
F. Elevation – North-west corner view
G. Elevation – 8th street view
OTHER EXHIBITS:
H. Letter certifying title and proof of ownership and authority of < representative. </w:
I. Pre-application conference summary
J. List of property owners located within three-hundred feet of the property .
K. Executed application fee agreement.
L. Vicinity map.
M. Neighborhood development pattern – aerial photo.
N. Dimensional Requirements – City Form
O. Land Use Application Form – City Form