Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.731 E Durant-chaumont.A059-99 ..: . ~ ~ i _, .. .... :::'?~~.~~.\Dii?_7::.7~: 62-1'c:"'B ',' . ',)ATE)'icvij;'I!i:: B '99 'ii,:COpiES:r" . '-::CASe NOIAoo".es. .. . -. .. . . . - ... , CA~~NiME. C'~a:ea..: Ct:.!IJlTIo;:: Cordomin _..'S Umt 7A GP.10S C-anqe:n L1SH "_..~:~~. . . . P~6~::Ai:i6Rl73' East D~ra.~l.. 7A C~SE -rYp:JGr,~QS Chaoge in '",e . PLl\IR:j (';'1( . ~> b ... ",.. " STEPS~ ,..'. .:.". O,^-,~!APPi Do. E,.oac< R~~:, r.1.k~ Hc-=t~an ': FE~"DUE::llll:; :0\ + 10:; :" _ :;ill ,", 'REF~R~~~' . ", ' , ....:' ,,:: i: .."..:; ';::.i.Ji~FiBvl "~':~i~~~"'~: .::.'t-r-)rr-/ .... R~AR~1 CLo~~~lIlllYk>'~y':b. 'L,\,df;': . '.' 'P~~:S'!B~IT[)':'I . . PLATIBK.P"~t.1 FEE,S '~.cve:j 143C PH~1g7.0-T8 PHN s~lmc STAT:.r' 1_. .:AD~ c.:. ~.1ike H~ff~"'c:n ,. :~D~;. ~a'''''c' 1:5: .,?I~/Z~ Aspen C06:51' ,C~~IZ: S2'~~e 'DuE:l ".... ,.: . . . , " , ..' ,. ~ - -, :.,., ::".: ...... 'PATE'9F'F.INA.!.; ACTION: , CITY'CO~NCIL: ,.' PZ: ,':BOA: J;lRAC: ADMIN1 , ' " .'.. . '" '.:'!- .. ". ., ....-..." . .,'~ . OCT 21 '99 02:47PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P.1 MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department RE: Chateau Chaumont #7 A Change in Use (Com. to Res.) PamellD No. ; 731 East Durant Avenue ~S: (.\~ Oc.lf~~ " '1 'I <;;,'tJ ~o4f.~S 'I lII~v/;;:-I> / ~I 19.9.9 D<':V~'1',> 1:0,0,. 'of~1\?- FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: October 21, 1999 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System for a change in use for Unit 7A of the Chateau Chaumont Condominiums. Currently, the unit is leased to others for commercial purposes and the owner would like to convert the unit to a residential use. BACKGROUND: The unit currently is zoned for residential use and not commercial use. The owner had asked for a change in use prior to this request but was denied due to the fact that the complex, as a whole, exceeded the bedroom count of what would be allowed under today's standards, Section 26.470.070F, Change in Use, of the Land Use Regulations requires that the applicant demonstrate "minimal impact" in four key areas: employee generation, inCluding adequate mitigation; demand for additional parking spaces, including adequate mitigation; the amount of visual impact caused by the change in use; and the additional demand placed on the "city's public facilities." The applicant states that the change in use would have no affect on employee generation due to the physical characteristics of the unit. The unit is about 1,600 square feet, but due to the covenants of the complex, a unit of no more than two bedrooms can be constructed. Based on Section 26.470.100C3, in the Commercial Core, the following standard is used in calculating the number of full-time equivalent employees. If this was new Commercial development, the mitigation required would be 1600 + 1000 X 3.5 to 5.25 employees = 5.6 to 8.4 full-time equivalents. The Code does not stipulate numbers of employees for the residential side. but the Code does state that the criteria used to determine the percentage of employees generated by the proposed development who are prOVided with housing would be 2.25 residents for a two-bedroom unit. RECOMMENDATION: It is hard to make a recommendation without knowing the amount of employees that worked previously in this space, but if a normal space of 1600 square feet would generate 5.6 to 8.5 full-time equivalents. a two-bedroom unit would generate less. Therefore, staff would recommend approval of this application. ck:;hlword\nlfsrral\ca1ch7.mil . . AGENDA CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1999 5:00 PM AT PLAZA I GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION I. ROLL CALL II. MINUTES (10/12/99) III. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IV. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Chateau Chaumont Change in Use, Joyce Ohlson V. ADJOURN ",~' Lvrt--,-, ~ ...j~ .~ AGENDA GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1999 5:00 PM AT PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: 5:00p,m, A. Chateaux Chaumont Change in Use - Chris Bendon OTHER BUSINESS: A. City Planning & Zoning Minutes (08/24/99,09/21/99,09/28/99) B. Community Development Department Survey , . -. . (.,J , ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999 -;i COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.................................................:........................................................................... 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST .................................................................................................2 BAVARIAN INN CONCEPTUAL REVIEW........................................................................................................... 2 MOORE PUD REZONING....................................................................................................................................... 6 LODGE PRESERVATION TEXT AMENDMENT.............................................................................................. 10 < 14 . .. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999 Bob Blaich, Chairperson, opened the special Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:35p.m. Commissioners present: Roger Haneman, Roger Hunt, Ron Erickson, Jasmine Tygre, Bob Blaich and Tim Mooney. Steve Buettow was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Julie Ann Woods, Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon, Community Development Department; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Tim Semrau will be resigning from the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to serve on the Housing Board. He thanked the Commission and stated that he enjoyed the time he spent on the Commission. Jasmine Tygre stated that she had a copy of a mailing from the Maroon Creek Club showing the Sundeck and stated that the Sundeck, Benedict and Aspen Mountain Club were available for private parties for up to 800 guests. She said that her recollection was that the use by private parties would be limited in size and yet they are soliciting large groups. Blaich recalled that limiting the number of people to 500 was discussed, which seemed like a lot. Roger Hunt asked about the schedule not having any meeting on Tuesday, September 14t\ was that an error. No, there was no meeting scheduled. Ron Erickson asked Roger Hunt what the current status was of the trail easement behind the Post Office. Hunt replied that the Post Office was working on it and getting back to Nick Adeh on it. He explained that they were supposed to open up the back of the post office for one lane of cars exiting. They would be re-designing the inlets on the access road to Clark's which would be closed off and a new access to the post office parking off of Puppy Smith just west of the road going into Clark's. . Bob Blaich asked the status ofthe security sign code amendment. He said that he thought the signs were required to be setback by a certain date. ,Hunt asked what finally got approved on the location of the sign on the fence line or on the building. Chris Bendon responded that Apex got a letter from the city attorney requesting the signs be moved back and that it was a homeowners issue. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to direct staff to create a proclamation for Tim Semrau. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. 1 ! ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999 Joyce Ohlson stated James Lindt was the new planning technician on staff. She noted that Sarah Oates was in that position previously and Oates moved into the zoning officer position (previously Sara Thomas' position). Ohlson said the county staff requested an additional meeting time for Buttermilk. The commissioners agreed that any Tuesdal would work for them. Ohlson said that they were scheduled to meet on the 28 for the Buttermilk Master Plan. Ohlson asked if the Moore PUD could be moved forward to Item #B, the request was based upon handling that rezoning within 90 days of the annexation and it did have to go to council next. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved. to adjust the Moore PUD Rezoning to the second item under the public hearing. Ron Erickson second. ALL IN FAVOR 6-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Steve Buettow had a conflict with the Bavarian Inn and was excused from the meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/20/99): BAVARIAN INN CONCEPTUAL REVIEW Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. Joyce Ohlson commented that the staff memorandum,. summary of development program, proposed resolution and newly revised plan was in the packet. The applicant provided another revised plan dated 8/24/99. John Sarpa noted that this should reflect the discussions from the last time and the ciiscussions with the neighbors. Ohlson noted that this was the 4th meeting on the Bavarian. At the last meeting the commission directed staff to revise the resolution to reflect the issues and conditions. The revisions were reflected in the resolution regarding additional units, location, preservation of open space, creation of the court yard, addition of S3 units, preservation of trees, and access. There was a recommendation not to allow a structure to be parallel to Bleeker but to add an additional unit and the building orientated toward the alley. More open space was provided and to be more .c:ompatible with the neighborhood and potential play area for the residents. Ohlson stated at the planning commission's request there be at least 30 parking spaces provided on the site; they are now providing 33. She noted that was the core of the commissioners' recommendations and was reflected in Resolution #9. She said that staff recommended approval. , 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999 Sunny Vann, planner for applicant, noted the revised site plan resulted in housing 43% employees; it has 40 bedrooms; 19 units and about 33 parking spaces (depending on how the open space was resolved with the landscape plan). He said there was a minimum of 30 parking spaces needed and did not have a problem deferring to P&Z for the number of spaces prior to the final review. Vann stated that story poles were erected and he asked if the poles should remain up for finaL Ohlson responded that the poles should remain in preparation for final and the commissioners should visit the site as soon as possible. Vann noted there was a memorandum from Herb Klein that had some additional clarifications to add to the resolution. Ohlson remarked that she did not receive the memo and therefore the planning commission had not received it. Sarpa stated that he had discussed the letter with Herb and he said that he was prepared to discuss it with the commissioners. He said the Housing Board recommendations, except for their notation on mitigation of how it can or can't be used, were to be addressed by this commission. Ron Erickson said that he agreed with the Housing recommendation that it should not be used for mitigation for Top of Mill or anything else. Sarpa said that it was a decision to be made by counciL Ohlson commented that from back notes the planning commission deferred to council since it was their decision. Erickson asked if the date on the resolution, Exhibit A, was to read as this conceptual approval for Bavarian Inn 5 south, 8/24/99. Ohlson relied that it would. Klein said that the conditions needed to be integrated with the site plan and the neighborhood supported this site plan. Ohlson said that she proposed the elimination of "#2a, b & c" because they have been accomplished in the 8/24/99 revised site plan. The discussions of condition revisions were reflected in the resolution and included in the motion. David Brown explained the height specifications of the north units and the south units were at 20 feet; the west units (w units) were 25 feet. One 3-story structure was proposed, the west units. Klein requested that the absolute height be included in the resolution. Klein asked that the alley circulation be included in the resolution also, so it did not go through the west-end of the neighborhood, only emergency access. He said if the fire marshal didn't require the emergency access, then they would request a vacation of that end of the alley so it would not be used as access. Hoefer stated that vacation was a council decision. Roger Hunt stated that he would strongly recommend not vacating the alley. He said the traffic flow was self-eliminating and it would be unnecessary to vacate that end of the alley. Hoefer noted the fire equipment had to have room to turn around. Vann said from the applicant's perspective, it's always our understanding that we would try to limit access from 3 ," ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999 the west. Vann noted that as far as the vacation, that was an issue for the neighbors to take-up with city council. He said that the access from the east has been a representation made by this applicarit during this process. Klein requested adequate signage to discourage people from driving around. Erickson noted that it was his understanding that 8th Street would be closed off when the straight-shot into town was done, so it would be a cul-de-sac or a dead end. Erickson said that with the amount of trees and to drive around the to the west-end would be more of an effort and therefore less used.. He said that he did not want to completely eliminate the west-end access for emergency access. Klein said that people who, live at the Bavarian now drive through that west-end of the alley and they don't need to but they do. Blaich said that the west-end alley issue of access by emergency access was heard and will be reflected in the resolution. Klein stated the 'spruce trees on the south side needed to.be protected; the landscape plan included mitigation for 3 years but, because of their size it might take longer than 3 years to find out that they were killed during construction. Klein requested the trees be maintained in their perpetuity as a condition. He said the trees were 50 or 60 feet and provided screening. Vann responded that in principal there was not a problem; there was a 3-year financial guarantee for any proposed new landscape plan. Vann said they were required to protect those existing trees during construction and the parks department would require mitigation but not in perpetuity as a condition. Klein requested that there be some trees there in perpetuity that were at least 20 feet tall. Hoefer stated that could not be a requirement from a board, but if the applicant wanted to agree to that they could, but doubted it. Vann responded that they would not do that, but would do what they were required to do with a financial guarantee on any new installation of trees and protect any other trees that were identified on the landscape by the parks department. Once this project was finished it would be sold and become a condo association and Savannah would be gone. Blaich said that it has been made very clear from the legal point of view and that it would be up to the applicant, neighborhood and parks department to be worked out. Klein stated concern for the trees being damaged by the garbage trucks because of the dumpsters located in that area. Vann responded that the dumpsters will be addressed as part of the site plan. Klein thanked the board for allowing the applicant the opportunity to work so well with the neighborhood. Nancy Hendricks, Villas of Aspen, stated that she was pleased and welcomed seeing the detail with the dumpsters position and the lighting. Blaich noted there were lighting codes that would have to be conformed to in the code for this project. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999 Phil Rothblum, public, asked about a compactor. Vann replied that it would have to comply with the city's dumpster regulations in effect at the time of the project. Vann said the size of the dumpsters was gauged on the frequency of the pick-up; there were no plans for compaction unless it was a city requirement at that time. Hunt noted the changes in the resolution (as stated in the motion). MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend that the Aspen City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Development proposed on Lots D through I, Block 11, and Lots K through P, Block 12, City and townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. (parcel No. 2735.123.08.004) with the conditions recommended' by the Community Development Department, finding the criteria have been met and subject to the following conditions: t.lfthe requested rezoning of Parcel 2 from R-t5 to R-MF/PUD is not approved, this Conceptual PUD approval shall be rendered null and void. 2. For the Final PUD application, the proposed Site Development Plan shall be revised as follows, with final determination to be made at Final PUD review: a. The Bleeker Street frontage of the property shall remain undeveloped (with the exception of N1) to serve as a play area, court yard and open space. Trees located outside of the areas designated for driveway, sidewalk and parking shall be preserved with final determination to be made by the Parks Department. b. Parking shall meet as closely as possible with the off-street parking standards of Section 26.515, however; a minimum of 30 parking spaces shall be allocated for the entire PUD. c. Vehicular access to parking shall be signed in order to limit access to the development from the Bleeker Street and from the east end of the alley, with the exception of the existing parking spaces accessed from Seventh Street, in front of the Bavarian Inn. d. Turning movements at the east end connection of the alley to Seventh Street shall be restricted to right-in and right-out only. Once Highway 82 has been realigned to Main Street, the SeventhlMain Street intersection has been signalized, and traffic volumes on Seventh have decreased, the right-in and right-out only restriction may be removed ,after further analysis by the City's staff upon application for an insubstantial PUD amendment to allow left turn movements to and from the alley. 3. All buildings shall have flat roofs. Heights must comply with the R-MF zone district's twenty-five (25) foot limitation and specifically, the N1/N2 building complex and Sl-S5 bulding complex shall not exceed 20 feet in height to the top of the roof, and the W2-W5 complex shall not exceed 25 feet in height to the top of the roof. 4. The proposed landscape plan of the Final PUD shall be modified in accordance with the changes required pursuant to condition 2., above. In preparing the proposed landscape plan for the Final PUD application, the applicant shall work cooperatively with the City Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree relocation, preservation, and removal requirements. The plan shall also demonstrate consistency with the recommendations of the "Entrance to Aspen Main Street Design Report." In association with the landscape plan, the applicant shall provide plans or documents describing provisions for the on-going maintenance of all common areas and for ensuring landscape success for a three-year period. 5. The Final PUD application shall include a detailed outdoor lighting plan which illustrates that any outdoor lighting used on the subject property will not cause glare or hazardous conditions, that all outdoor lighting shall be of a down-directional, sharp cut-off fixtures and indicate that outdoor flood lights are 5 , , ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999 prohibited. 6. The Final PUD shall meet all requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District, including but not limited to the, installation of approved fire sprinkler and, alarm systems, and the maintenance of all fire department apparatus emergency access routes. Proposed snow storage areas shall be identified on the Final PUD Site Development Plan. 7. The Final PUD shall include a Special Review application for parking addressing the specific off-street parking requirements of Section 26.515 of the Municipal Code. The Final PUD shall also. address variations to the Open Space requirements and address the variation to the required rear yard setback for the current nonconforming condition of the existing Bavarian Lodge building. 8. The Final PUD application shall include a detailed utility plan including pr(lp(lsedeasements; a detailed stormwater drainage plan; a PMIO mitigation plan; a fugitive dust contl'ol plan and construction management plan; a report detailing the results of an asbestos inspection of the Bavarian Inn and its associated out- buildings as completed by a person licensed by the State of Colorado; a draft plat and SubdivisionIPUD Improvements Agreement;, and, any other reports identified by the City Engineer as necessary for a full evaluation of the proposed development. 9. The applicant shall record (and pay the applicable fees) with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder the signed Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution that provides City Council with a recommendation regarding the proposed Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD. In the alternative, the applicant may pay the recordation fee to the City Clerk, who will record the Resolution. 10. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. Jasmine Tygre second. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Erickson, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes; Hunt, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Sarpa stated that he thought the process was a good one with the neighborhood input and the commissioners' comments. Tygre said that the applicant was certainly responsive to the neighbors' requests. PUBLIC HEARING: MOORE Pun REZONING Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Stephanie Millar introduced herself as the long-range planner for the city. Millar said this was a standard statutory requirement after a property was annexed into the city; it had to be rezoned to city zoning within 90 days. She noted a change to the memo and resolution, which was reflected in the motion. David Hoefer requested the public notice. Millar provided that notice. Millar explained the R-15 parcels were the affordable housing parcels, which would. provide more density. The zoning changes would not have a great affect on this property because the PUD would over-ride. Joyce Ohlson said for background on this property the PUD was adopted as itwas placed on it and any revisions would have to go through a PUD amendment 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999 '" process. She stated that in a sense they were locked into the development pattern, densities along with the county's approval of that full PUD. No public comments. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend to city Council the Rezoning of the Moore PUD Subdivision (Parcel #273514112150) finding the criteria have been met with Aspen Planning and Zoning Resolution # 23-99; was annexed into the City of Aspen on Jnne 28, 1999 pnrsuant to Resolntion 42, Series of 1999; and, the property is approximately 215 acres, the adopted PUD will continue to control the uses and variances allowed on the property; and trails, paths and walkways as identified in the final recorded plat are considered accessory uses to the permitted uses in the zone district; and the uses in the Conservation and Parks zone districts are further limited by the James E. Moore Family LLLP Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated August 10, 1998 (also known as the Moore Playing Fields Agreement); Blocks shall be zoned as follows: Block A, C, D and F: R-15, Block B: puB, Block E: R-30, Block G: R-30, Open Space Areas 1-12, and Lot 2, Parcel A: Conservation Lot 1, Parcel A: Park Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. The agenda was switched since some members of the public were sent away until after 6 p.m. for the Lodge public hearing. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (08/03/99): ADU CODE AMENDMENT Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. Chris Bendon pointed out the intent of this revised program was to be more effective requiring mandatory occupancy. A guaranteed quality of the units with minimum design standards was added and a simpler approval process allowing the approval of ADDs by the Community Development Director instead of the conditional use review at the P&Z. These were the 3 objectives that Council and the Commission directed staff to return with code amendments. Bendon noted that the ADD portion was in one section of the code rather than scattered throughout. The changes to the section follow. The Growth Management exemption required ADDs to be occupied. He said that ADDs have a low rate of occupancy now (about 25%). Jasmine Tygre asked howthe occupancy was to be enforced. Bendon answered that was the critical issue, the applicant would be required to file a deed-restriction on the property for mandatory occupancy, to be enforced by the Housing Authority. Tygre stated that they have found that if the owner of the ADD wanted occupancy then it would be occupied and if they didn't, it wasn't occupied. She said that as a practical matter enforcement was a 7 >> . ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999 ~; nightmare and there was no penalty for non-compliance and that this could defeat their good intentions. Bendon responded that this came up a lot with the Housing Authority on the deed-restricted and category housing. He said there was an enforcement officer; there was the ability to fme people and take them to court, even though it was not in the land use code. Erickson said that he thought the Housing Authority was taking giant steps in enforcing deed-restricted housing and agreed that the enforcement should not be in the code. He said that the work on this amendment was good. Hunt asked if registration was required. Bendon replied that it was required. The commissioners agreed that there should be a strengthening of the enforcement by the Housing Authority., Bendon noted that in a prior draft of the amendment there was language regarding enforcement of the deed. restriction and it be incorporated in the contractual agreement. There was discussion of cash"in-lieu, which recommended costs incurred and how it relatedto actual building costs. Bendon said the design standards were basic and if the standards would not be met, then they would have to go before P&Z. He said there were exceptional standards and there was a requirement for a closet and storage area. He said there was a 300 net livable square footage minimum for an ADD. Bendon noted if an ADD was separate and distinct, then it might not have concerns with the bulk and mass. Herb Klein, public, asked if the new ADD mandatory occupancy only applied for new ADDs or if enforcement would apply to ADDs already in existence. Bendon replied that it would only be for ADDs from this point on, unless that property came in and needed a growth management exemption; if they scraped and replaced then the mandatory occupancy requirement would apply. As a clarifying statement something could be added to the language. Phil Rothblum, public, asked on the applicability subject that this resolution 24-99 what does the "approved as a conditional use prior to the adoption of Ordinance ~ series, 1999" mean. Bendon responded that if you come in to change your ADD that was already approved under the old code, these standards would now apply. David Hoefer said the amendment would not be retroactive. Bendon said the process would go through the community development director and if granted at staff level approval, then it would go on to building permit. This code amendment makes ADDs a permitted use in those zone districts and would have to go before P&Z or HPC if there was a request to amend those design standards. Blaich asked whatprocess would the public have if there was no public hearing, since people come before this commission quite often. Mooney noted that 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION . AUGUST 24. 1999 "~ associations often voiced concerns with ADUs. Bendon answered that the staff level review would not be a public hearing and that association covenants were a private issue. Bendon stated that the current program had FAR incentives, this code amendment takes that out., He said the final question was extending the program to other zone districts. The current program extends to all residential zone districts except for R15b, from an annexation agreement, not allowed as a conditional use now. He, said what would be most appropriate would be for that zone district to approach the city to change that district. He said the AHI was to be included in the zone district. Bendon said that a mobile home park did not allow ADUs, this was one of the denser areas of town but re-development of the units could incorporate an ADU through growth management. Roger Hunt asked if the small lot size would allow for the development of an ADD. Jasmine Tygre noted that the people who were living in that area would be the ones that would be happy to re-develop with the additional income of an ADD. Tim Mooney stated that there should be an easy mechanism for the existing illegal ADUs to become legal. Bendon stated there was a process for bandit units to become legal through the community development director with a check for UBC requirements. Mooney asked if this could be taken to the county to amend their code also, especially since housing would now be under the city. He said the M90re property was an example of the county process then annexed to city; we upgrade our codes and they did not. Bendon said that was a good idea especially in the design standards which should be more standardized. Blaich asked what the process would be to get this to the county. Bendon said that it could be included in a resolution. Hoefer noted it should be a separate motion. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #99-24 recommending the adoption ofthe Accessory Dwelling Unit Program provisions of the land use code pursuant to amendments, with conditions, finding the criteria standards have been met and to include clarification that this is not retroactive to pre-existing units. Tim Mooney second. Roll call vote: Erickson, yes; Hunt, yes; Haneman, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Tygre said that Chris has done a terrific job on this amendment and taken the recommendations to heart but she said that the mandatory occupancy would provide resistance to the program. She said there would be an enforcement problem and that ADUs will never be used for mitigation for any growth management. She said that voluntary only ADUs would have been better. 9 . ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999 MOTION: Ron Erickson moved the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission make a resolution to Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to bring the county land use code in line with the city land use code regarding the Accessory Dwelling Units to the urban metro area. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/20/99): LODGE PRESERVATION TEXT AMENDMENT Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. Bendon explained that this amendment affected different portions of the code: Growth Management Quota System; Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District; Lodge Definition and Parking Regulations. Roger Haneman asked if the condominization included fractional ownership. Bendon replied that the code did not provide for fractional ownership. He said that when the subdivision code revisions are addressed they will refer to the Kiowa statutes that were adopted 6 years ago, but currently were not included inthe zoning. Bendon said time-shares were covered. Herb Klein, attorney representing a couple of lodges, commented that the definition of lodge was now combined with hotel and there were problems with that. The concern was that hotels could not have kitchens and lodges can have kitchens. Klein said by combining the hotel and lodge definition, the proposed code language says that certain zones can have kitchens but there was nothing that talks about lodges having kitchens in certain rooms. He said this would create a lot of confusion because every zone district would have to be changed and showed an example on Exhibit D, the LP overlay zone. Klein said that the master lease isn't defined in the code. He said it wasn't clear if the mitigation credits included parking; many of the lodges did not have enough parking. Blaich asked why lodges in other zone districts would not be allowed kitchens. Bendon stated that under the supplementary it defined where those districts were that allowed kitchens. Roger Hunt answered that kitchens in lodges came as a benefit to mostly LP lodges or L3, to be able to market more than someone would get in the commercial zone. Hunt said the worry back then was that there would be pressure to convert some of the lodging inventory into condominiums. Blaich noted that the way this was defined, it would not be allowed. Hunt said the whole idea was to make hotel rooms less attractive to condominimize as a live-in facility. Tim Mooney commented that they would be in the LP zone district and what they 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999 were doing to catch up to what was done in the L}> zone. Klein said that was also to help the tourist have a more affordable experience, being able to cook in their room. Klein said it would be nice to have a cross-reference in the revision. Jack Simmons, Holland House Ski Lodge, stated that they were not in the LP zone. Yasmine DePagter, Holland House, stated that they were totally non-conforming. Simmons asked if some underlying zoning would need to be tweaked before the overlay were placed because of the non-conformities. Bendon said that the PUD automatically identified all of those non-conforming. Bendon said that was the purpose of the original LP zone. The. Holland House was in the original LTR, which allows a lodge. DePagter asked if these cases would come up individually because a lot of these lodges were unique properties and would they be able to go through special review to change the zoning. Bendon answered that if they would become members of the LP Overlay then yes, they would be able to apply through that minor PUD process and establish FAR, setback, height, zoning and parking a negotiative process with P&Z and then City Council. DePagter noted that they did come in at the eleventh hour but asked if the affordable housing was interconnected to small lodge preservation and she said that she did not understand how those two correlated. She commented that if the small lodge became affordable housing, then the small lodge would be eliminated and asked how the small lodge could be helped. Bendon responded that there were debates at work sessions with Council and P&Z on the small lodge and affordable housing merits. He said that in the LP zone affordable housing would remain a conditional use requiring review byP&Z. Bendon stated that there was much discussion regarding the affordable component for lodges. Simmons asked if the II-unit yearly allotment was per property or for the whole town. Bendon answered it was for the whole town. Simmons noted the change in use for the Alpine Lodge, Fireside, Ullr, Aspen Inn, Bell Mt were a few lodges that were no longer used as lodges. He asked if those lodge rooms could be thrown into the pot for the small lodges to utilize for additional rooms. Simmons said that those small lodge guests were nQw calling them for rooms and they do not have enough rooms. Bendon noted that unfortunately the growth management system did not account for negative growth or lost lodge rooms. Erickson said there were 380 rooms lost according to the ACRA. Bendon said there was no mechanism for growth management to add back the lost units. He noted that there were 27 units that weren't used plus the 11 = 38. He said that there was interest for the addition of rooms to some small lodges and the allotment did not necessarily have to be a limiting factor for the small lodges. Blaich asked what the option was to change the number through GMQS. Bendon said the whole GMQS will be an issue after the adoption of the AACP because growth was such an issue and it also involves the county. Roger Hunt noted the option of going into future allotments. 11 'ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999 Simmons .said that to build a lodge today the ADA becomes involved and it force the little lodges to be bought and re-developed into a condominium instead. He asked how do all of those lost lodge units get put back. He said they had a viable small lodge and could add 6 more units but the FAR probably wouldn't allow any addition. DePagter said the lodge rooms become a change in use when converted into condominiums, which becomes a dilemma. Simmons asked if the special review process had enough flexibility to possibly change their FAR so that properties could still operate as a small lodge. He said the difference between 20 and 25 rooms was a huge economic boom. Bendon said the number of units cannot be amended through a PUD, you can't amend growth management. He said the question was what that number should be set at. Bendon noted that the loss of over300 units was not reflected in the 11 units allotted per year. Bob Morris, Hotel Aspen and Aspen Mt. Lodge, said that Chris has done a really good job. Morris said that in trying to create an environment that will help the small lodges that would be the ability to add rooms. He said they could come in with a really good PUD. He noted they take all kinds of renters: employees, people looking for permanent housing, for long-term or short-term; he wanted the ability to be flexible. Morris stated that as the market changes all the time, people ask for rooms with kitchens; he said that he would like to be able to provide that for those people. He said this was a precious vacation for people and the length of rentals has become shorter, from 7 to 3 orA days. Bendon stated that the parking was only required on site for new impacts. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to extend proceedings for 15 minutes. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 6-0. Erickson asked if the underlying allotment were to be increased, what was to stop a big hotel (Aspen Mt. PUD) from coming in and taking all of the allotments. Bendon responded that those weren't LP; the whole LP programs was to create a separate bucket from the corporate projects that were just for LP projects. Erickson said wasn't the lodge program that just ended for the conversion of lodges using those allocations for someone else to pick-up; they haven't been picked-up, the city tried to help. He said that they were not loosing growth because the replacement units were condominium not lodges. Erickson said that the PUD process would be the way to go through the review process with P&Z. Morris said that this new PUD allowed them to make a more beneficial presentation. 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 24. 1999' Hunt said that the underlying zoning for the Holland House was LTR that was not, a non-conforming use but rather a non-conforming structure. Bendon said that the LP Overlay could be applied to the Holland House. Mooney said that he didn't think that this re-structuring was for the twilighting of the LTR zone district. Bendon said this was forthe small lodges to keep in operation and allow them to adjust to the current market conditions even if it included total demolition and replacement to be able to accommodate what the market wanted. This was meant to encourage small lodges with incentives ofa more flexible process rather than the 3-year LTR program. Klein said that anyone could apply for the LP zone. Haneman asked if a lodge wanted to expand onto an adjoining lot, how would that work. Erickson answered that it would be part of a PUD. Bendon replied that the expansion would be allowed when compatible with neighboring properties and with incentive for upgrade of existing lodges on site or adjacent properties. Bendon stated there were five amendments: CD change lodge definition to allow kitchens in LP zone; ~ remove "master" from lodge definition, <ID replace "in areas" with "on properties" in purpose of zone district; @ add last phrase of old purpose statement to new purpose statement "and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on-site or onto 'adj acent properties," and @ add "posting and mailing" to noticing requirements for growth management exemption. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #99-22 as amended in the discussions; recommending City Council amend the Growth Management Quota System Section 26.470 of the Land Use Code; approve an amendment to the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District Section 26.710.320; approve an amendment to the definition of "Lodge" Section 26.104.100 ofthe Land Use Code; and approve an amendment of the Off-Street Parking Regulations Section 26.515.030 of the Land Use code, finding that the criteria have been met. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes; 1Ygre, yes; Hunt, yes; Haneman, yes; Blaich, yes; Erickson, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Hunt said that he wanted the original reason for the lodge preservation known that , it was for properties that were not in the lodge underlying zoning. Blaich thanked the public for their contributions. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. an, Deputy City Clerk 13 . '" .."t':, ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21. 1999 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS..............,............................................................................................................... I MINUTES....................................................................................................................................................................2 YELLOW BRICK REZONING TO PUBLIC ......................................................................................................... 2 426 NORTH 2ND STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION ................................................................................ 2 CODE AMENDMENT - RESIDENTIAL MUL TI-F AMIL Y IRMFl.............................:..................................... 3 WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT ............................................................................... 3 DALY ADU - 1590 HOMEST AKE DRIVE............................................................................................................. 6 10 '" , ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21. 1999 Jasmine Tygre, Vice-Chairperson, opened the regular Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:35 p.m. The following commissioners were present: Steve Buettow, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Haneman and Tim Mooney. Bob Blaich, Roger Hunt and Ron Erickson were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attomey; Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon, Amy Guthrie and Nick Lelack, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Tim Mooney said that there were concerns for housing regarding deed-restricting some housing with a separate lottery for handicapped qualified people in our community. He said that he didn't know what the commissioners position was, but wanted to put the thought out there. Mooney said that he received a unique letter dated 09/07/99 from John McBride regarding 8 different public projects that were to be built under one project and to be approved in a couple of years. He said the letter goes on to say that this would be a mistake in not scrutinizing these projects with due process and it would break all the rules in the application process. The letter also stated that all the other private projects would be compromised. Mooney noted there was also an article in the newspaper today regarding the fast tracking of these projects. Roger Haneman said that what he thought that Tim was ref~rring to was what happened at the Housing Symposium; the consensus was to pursue all the projects equally but not necessarily submitted as one. He said the easier projects would find their way to the lead, first but each project would be handled individually. Joyce Ohlson stated that nothing has changed in the code for the way business was done. She said if something was changed in the code, it would come before this commission. Jasmine Tygre said that members of the commission have been concerned about what may appear to be different approaches or playing fields for private and public projects. She noted that they have gone over this many times before and it was certainly something they were all well aware of. Mooney said that Don Bird, Pitkin County, was looking for interim housing for people who were waiting to go into treatment but had no place to live. He asked to explore the 7th and Main affordable housing development as a possible place for some one like this to have a short term place to stay. He said that instead of the 7- 11 maybe some type of interim housing could be there which would some of our community needs better than a commercial element. Ohlson said that there was a handout with follow-up items including a memo from Sarah Oates on the Apex signs. Ohlson stated that the Sundeck maximum occupancy was 575 and the county staff would do whatever they needed to do. 1 , .r -ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21. 1999 MINUTES MOTION: Tim Mooney m.oved to approve the minutes from September 7,1999. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 4-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Jasmine Tygre noted this was important since there were only four members present tonight. None were disclosed. PUBLIC HEARlNG: YELLOW BRICK REZONING TO PUBLIC Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. She said the applicant requested a continuance. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to continue the Yellow Brick Rezoning Public Hearing to October 19, 1999 at 4:30 p.m. Roger Haneman second. ALL IN FAVOR. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARlNG: 426 NORTH 2ND STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. She explained to the applicant that with only four members present, a 2-2 vote would result in denial. Tygre stated that at this time the applicant had the right to table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain. Jess Pedersen, architect, stated that he would like to proceed with the public hearing tonight. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated there was proof of notice, which met the jurisdiction of the board. Amy Guthrie passed around some photos of the property. She noted there was a historic house on the property, built in 1888 with an addition from 1970. HPC believed the addition, was compatible. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend City Council approve landmark designation for 426 N. 2nd Street, Units A and B, Second and Smuggler Condominiums, finding the criteria have been met in P&Z Resolution #99-26, with standards B. Architectural Importance; D. Neighborhood Character and E. Community Character. Roger Haneman second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Haneman, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. The order of the agenda was amended. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21. 1999 '" PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT - RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (RMF) Jasmine Tygre opened the code amendment for residential multi-family. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated for the record that proof of notice had been provided and the commission had the authority to proceed. Chris Bendon stated that the code was just reorganized (Title 26) and added Title 20, the housing replacement program. He said that the new definition lacked the substantive issues that were applicable to units within a multi~use building. This was an amendment to close a loop-hole in the code. Roger Haneman asked for an example of 3 or more detached dwellings on a historic property. Amy Guthrie replied that Chuck Tower's property on Cleveland was one. Tygre said this was a housekeeping issue. Bendon noted that when multi-family housing units were demolished, the requirement was to replace with deed-restricted housing at Yz the square footage and Yz the bedrooms. He said this was to protect housing that has housed working residents. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend that the City Council amend the term "Residential Multi-Family Housing," as provided in P&Z Resolution #99-28, finding the criteria have been met. Steve Buettow second. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing and explained to Chuck Brandt, attorney for applicant, that there were only 4 members of the commission present, if the vote were 2 to 2 that would result in a denial. She said that as the applicant he could request a continuance prior to going any further. Brandt stated that he was willing to proceed. Chris Bendon stated that this was actually a continued public hearing. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, distributed the criteria sheet. Bendon commented that this originally gained approval by Ordinance #94-52. He noted there were actually 2 subdivisions: SilverLode 15 lots and Willaims Ranch, 35 affordable lots. He said it was annexed into the city and went through a PUD process in 1994. 3 ~ .- ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21. 1999 Bendon said there were 4 amendments. CD Aesthetics. The ,Salvation Ditch was historically an open-air ditch. Bendon said the developer was to come back after covering up the ditch and re-create a ditch feature, which would have water in it. There was some discussion of where this would be located, the open space parcel or on a residential lot or the park that was now city owned. The Salvation Ditch owners were not open to having construction within their easement or the ditch. The homeowners had concerns and did not want reconstruction of the ditch. Bendon indicated the park parcel and the open space parcel on a map. The open space parcel was owned by the homeowners association and was less aesthetic and was essentially weeds. @ Pedestrian Movement Bendon said this was essentially sidewalks and during the review the city engineer requested sidewalks. There was concern from the homeowners association about the aesthetic that would be created by that because there was a swale in front of some of the units that looked quite nice. The developer asked to be released from the sidewalk obligation since the homeowners did not want sidewalks on both sides of the streets. Bendon said the original purpose of the sidewalks was pedestrian movement through the subdivision. There were 2 trails through the subdivision for the residents as well as the area in general. Bendon said the city can develop the Mollie Gibson Park trail but the open space parcel, owned by the homeowners association, had a crude trail and needed help. He said because of the steepness of the platted vertical trail, there was no way to develop it. The pedestrian movement could be served through the subdivision streets, which were not heavily trafficked. @ Soil Erosion Control on Smuggler Mine Property and @ Emergency Access. Tim Mooney noted that entrance was a mess. There has never been grass but a huge pile of sand deposited where the access meets the pavement. He asked if the developer had any landscape condition that that was signed-off on when the pavers were installed. Albert Prezybylski, public; said there was a dispute with the fire access and it was virtually stripped of all the topsoil by construction vehicles moving through that open space parcel. There has been no restriction on contractor use ofthe area. Fred Soyka, Centennial resident, said that it was his understanding that the emergency access was to be restricted by some sort oflocking gate that only the fire department could access. There was only tape preventing access, which was run over by vehicles. He said that trees were removed and since then the erosion down Spruce Street was horrendous because there was no vegetation or trees. He said the city comes by and cleans it up but its getting worse every time there is a 4 ^"'. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21. 1999 big storm. Soyka stated that his understanding with the ditch was that it would remain open and left "as is" and now it was gone in spots. He said there were promises made in public meetings and none were followed up on. Kevin Owen, Williams Ranch resident, said there was a problem with the job done by the developer not living up to their word in terms of re-doing the ditches. He said the first wave of home were done, the developer promised to come back and put the ditches for the rest of the homes back in good order but this hasn't happened to the entire area, only one section. Owen asked that before any final approvals were given, that the developer needed to follow-up with what was promised from the past approvals. Bendon stated for clarity those ditches were along the internal island ofWiIIiams Ranch and were actually swales between the cart-way and actual houses. Tygre commented that there were certain issues that should have been-assumed from the conditions of approval for the original PUD. It seemed that these conditions have not been addressed and now we were in a situation that questions who will remedy these issues. Tygre said those original representations may have to be re-reviewed in order to get to the base of the original PUD and who was supposed to do what. Tygre stated concern for the representations regarding re- vegetation, tree removals and mitigation, trail easements. Hoefer asked if the questions could be answered tonight or would there need to be a more in-depth research. Tygre responded that those representations being actually in front of the commission might be more useful for the determination. Bendon responded that he based the memo on the approving ordinance and subdivision agreements, which did not include. the specific representations. He noted the difficulty in that information was that sometimes some of the suggested solutions were changed through the course of the review process. Mooney said that the developers responsibility was something that needed to be looked at. Tygre inquired about the approved 800 pitch in the trail that was now questioned. Mooney said that if the subdivision did not want sidewalks, then maybe they should not be imposed on them. He said smaller sidewalks might be a possibility for the area and help to utilize play space also. Mooney said the beaten path of where people move, through the subdivision was to get down to transportation. Buettow noted there was an erosion problem, the pavers and emergency access did not have adequate landscaping replaced which affects the safety of the people that live in the area. 5 < -' ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21. 1999 Chuck Brandt said the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association amended their covenants to preclude sidewalks; they don't want them. He said that every 40 feet there was a driveway and there was a drainage problem. He said there were some true logistical constraints that were not contemplated in the vacuum of the subdivision approval. Brandt said some of these features don't work and to please excuse the developer from the obligations. He said that Williams Ranch Joint Venture had no problem connecting this small area that was grassed over, from the end of the vertical trail to SilverLode Road; Brandt said there should probably be a culvert there because of the drainage ditch feature so that people could step safely from the end of the trail to the pavement. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to continue the public hearing for Williams Ranch Substantial PUD amendment to November 2, 1999. Roger Hanemen second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Haneman, yes; Mooney, yes; lYgre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. Kim Popish, Williams Ranch, stated that there was a letter from the homeowners association stating that they did not want sidewalks. She said they were happy with the trail and did riot want to see a trail go through the backyards of the neighbors. She said that they were in the process of adding dirt to the open or common space and were not holding their breath to have the developer do that. She said that the SilverLode Homeowners Association was pursuing the owner of Lot I to be responsible for the area. Mooney requested that Parks; representatives from Williams Ranch, SilverLode and Centennial Homeowners Associations; Engineering be present at the next meeting. He inquired as to the reasons for the ditches, the trail construction, and the open space re-vegetation not being satisfactory. Tygre questioned who was responsibe for the access and where it lies. Buettow asked for what was actually represented at those previous meetings. Bendon stated that he would provide the minutes form the approval process. Mooney asked that the discussions between the developer, city and homeowners continue to iron out as many of the issues as possible before hand. PUBLIC HEARING: DALY ADU - 1590 HOMESTAKE DRIVE Jasmine Tygre, Vice-Chair, stated there was the minimum number for a quorum of four members and asked if the applicant wished to proceed tonight. Tygre explained that a split 2-2 vote would automatically be a denial. Tom Daly, applicant, stated that he would like to proceed tonight. David Hoefer, Assistant 6 '" ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21. 1999 City Attorney, stated the affidavit of public notice was provided and the board had jurisdiction to proceed. Tygre opened the public hearing for the Daly ADD Nick Lelack, planner, said the application was for a conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit which would be 366 square feet. He said this was also an application for a growth management exemption, which meant it would be deed- restricted but not mandatory occupancy. The property was vacant and located in a neighborhood with other accessory dwelling units. Tygre asked for clarification on the entrance to the ADD and separation between the ADD and the rest of the house. Lelack responded that it was integrated into the house on the first floor. Tim Mooney asked if the entrance to the ADD came off of the driveway. Leland replied there would be a path, concrete or flagstone in the conditions of approval. Steve Buettow inquired about a parking place. Leland, answered that it would be in the garage as designated in the conditions of approval and shown in the building plans with an overhang over the entrance. Daly said the unit sat to one side of the house along with the garage. He said it was separate with a locked door from the inside. Buettow asked if there were double doors. Tygre stated there usually was a separation. Buettow asked ifthere was opposition to removing that door. Mooney said with the parking in the garage, the ADD occupant would come through the house, past the office and laundry down the hall, to enter the unit. Roger Haneman asked ifthere was an intended use. Daly replied that they did not have anyone in mind. Josephine Mann, public, stated that she lived at 1515 Homestake. She said that she was the first house there and has watched all the building and did not hear much about the plan except the size was not frightening. She said that she had no objection to what she called a mother-in-law unit. Daly stated that 80% of the house was one story and spoke to the neighbors and cut a lot off the top of the house. He thought it would make a great unit and if it had to be rented that would be okay. Daly stated that this was a nice ADD unit with an inch and % door with a lock from the inside. The commission liked the ADD having it on the street level, very light with large windows but they took exception of the door connecting the main house to the ADD. Daly stated that ifit was the desire of the board, he would remove that door and put in a wall having access to the ADD from the outside only. Condition "k" was added. MOTION: Tim Mooney to approve the Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit of approximately three hundred sixty six (366) net livable square feet to be located on the main level of a single family 7 -' ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21.1999 residence at 1590 Homestake Drive, which meets the standards and with the following conditions: l.)The building permit application shall include: a) a copy ofthe Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission resolution. b) a current Site Improvement Survey indicating the nature of all easements of record indicated on the property title commitment. c) a completed and recorded sidewalk, curb, and gurterconstruction agreement and an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. d) a completed and recorded ADU deed restriction on the property, a form for which may be obtained from the Housing Office. The de.ed restriction shall be noted on the building pennit plans. e) a drainage report and a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on"site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type system. Drywells may not be placed within utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained on site, and must be shown on the drainage plan. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the retention volume meet the design storm. 1) a tree removal or relocation permitfrom the City Parks Department for any trees to be removed or relocated. g) a completed tap permit with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The applicant shall connect the ADU to the sanitary sewer in a manner acceptable to the ACSD superintendent. 2.) The building permit plans shall reflect/indicate: a) Conformance with all aspects ofthe City's Residential Design Standards. b) The proposed ADU is labeled as such and meets the definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit. c) The ADU will contain a kitchen (having a minimum of a two-burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer) and a bathroom (having a minimum of a shower, sink, and a toilet). d) The ADU has the minimum one (1) off-street parking space provided; the building permit plans shall indicate the designated ADU parking space. The ADU space must have clear access and cannot be stacked with a space for the primary residence. e) The ADU meets all applicable UBC requirements for light and air. 1) An overhang shall cover the ADU entrance designed to prevent snow and ice from falling on, or building-up on, the entrance to the ADU. g) Conformance with the City's requirements for driveways. Driveways must be separated by 25 feet or more (including neighboring driveways), and must be paved from the edge of the street to the property line. Paving alternatives may be approved by the City Engineer. h) A fire suppression system if the gross square footage of the structure exceeds 5,000 square feet. i) A five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer for snow storage at the edge of the street paving. k) A pedestrian connection from the ADU entrance to the driveway shall be indicated on the building permit plans. The pedestrian path shall be construCted of concrete, flagstone or other pedestrian- usable surface material. I) Building plans shall be amended to reflect that there shall be no interior door connecting the ADU to the house. 3.) The applicant should provide separate utility taps and meters for each residential unit. 4.) All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21. 1999 property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. 5.) The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights-of-way from the appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox and landscaping from the City Streets Department. 6.) All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director ofthe Streets Department. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 7.) The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday- Saturday. 8.) Before applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 9.) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Steve Buettow second. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; lYgre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. The commissioners thanked the applicant for the nice ADD. Adjourned 6:50 p.m. .~. 'fl1jkLv IJJtU2~~, /Jackie Lothian, eputy City Clerk U 9 v' ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28. 1999 Steve Buettow, Acting-Chairperson, opened the special Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:05 p.m. The following commissioners were present: Steve Buettow, Ron Erickson, Tim Mooney, Roger Haneman and Jasmine Tygre. Bob Blaich and Roger Hunt were excused. Staff in attendance were: Joyce Ohlson, and Stephanie Millar, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director, noted that next week P&Z would be meeting with City Council to address any issues or ideas to talk with council about. Ordinance 30 and ADD issues were to be addressed. The Housing Authority issues were questioned because Council and BOCC were represented on the housing board but not on the P&Z or HPC. There was a question of the role ofP&Z in housing issues. Tim Mooney said that the metro area included areas that City P&Z could not vote upon but yet it affected the city. Ron Erickson said the AACP restricted growth but how would the employee housing be brought into line with all of the affordable housing. Mooney said that Bob Blaich had a memo with issues to discuss with council. Mooney asked to have city and county ordinances compliment one another. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARING: LIGHTING ORDINANCE Steve Buettow opened the public hearing. Stephanie Millar stated that Community Development was asked to draft a lighting ordinance to manage the level of light trespass caused by exterior illumination. The goal was to preserve the small town character and feel and one of the components was the ability to see stars on the dark sky. Millar said that through research from what other communities have done to address this problem, the light level could be lower than what was currently allowed in Aspen. The draft lighting ordinance was intended to maintain health, safety and welfare of the residents of Aspen through regulation of exterior lighting to help preserve small town character; eliminate escalation of nighttime light pollution; reduce glaring and offensive light sources; provide clear guidance to builders and developers; encourage the use of improved technologies for lighting; conserve energy; and prevent inappropriate and poorly designed or 1 . '....,- ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28. 1999 installed outdoor lighting and light trespass. Millar said that Mitch Haas held several work sessions and P&Z recommended that staff utilize Basalt's recent lighting ordinance to phase work with various city departments. Other jurisdictions were also reviewed as well as a lighting consultant. Millar said that holiday lighting and historic fixtures were dealt with in the exemption sections of the draft. Lighting plans were only required for subdivisions, PUDs, special review, environmentally sensitive areas and commercial or multi-family building applications. Enforcement will be carried out on a complaint only basis, as it was with all other zoning issues. Existing lighting will be considered legal non-confonning for 3 years, after that time they will be expected to comply bringing up to date but only if someone calls to report a problem. Millar noted that Stream Margin Review and all street parking sections of the code had some minor changes to ensure that the lighting sections of the code were referenced. She said that sign lighting were addressed in the new sign ordinance. She said that she was surprised that there were no members of the public in the audience. Ron Erickson stated that 3 years was a long time for anyone to come into compliance especially when no one would come into compliance unless there was a complaint. Buettow noted that a year would be long enough. Erickson said that 6 months was long enough and ifthere was a complaint, then extend it for 30 to 60 days. Millar responded that Basalt's was 5 years and communities range between 2 years to 40 years on an amortization period. Tim Mooney said that exemptions of holiday lights could remain up from Thanksgiving to March I st. He asked if that time period was really necessary. Millar replied that with inclement weather. Mooney asked if the lights could at least be turned off on January 15th. Erickson agreed. Erickson asked why the gazebo needed to be illuminated in March. Joyce Ohlson asked for clarification on the types of lights. Millar answered that this ordinance applied to commercial and residential lighting. She asked if there were any more issues. Roger Haneman stated that there were 3 different standards used for measuring light; lumens, foot-candles, and watts; he asked ifthere was any reason why one couldn't be used. Millar responded that she would check with the consultant to tighten up the language. Erickson asked for the definition of what scintillating lights were. Millar replied those were lights that moved erratically. 2 > -./ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28. 1999 , George Detko, public, said that he moved here from Florida about 5 years ago and was involved in the lighting ordinance in Vero Beach. He stated that there was a great interference with sea turtles from ocean front lighting. Detko said that it was with great difficulty that the ordinance passed because people felt it was their right to light up anything and everything because they paid $2,000,000.00 for their property. He noted that he now runs down Rio Grande Trail at night and the houses along the Roaring Fork River were purposefully doing the same thing, lighting up the river. He asked how this ordinance would address these large houses along the river. Erickson noted the ordinance said that lighting directed towards the Roaring Fork River or its tributaries was prohibited. Ohlson replied that was one of the reasons for initiating this; it was to minimize the lighting of the river, environmentally sensitive areas, which were included in the stream margin reVIew process. Buettow stated that he asked Sarah Oates to look into the one yard with the lights down by Slaughterhouse Bridge at the mile and Y. mark on the Rio Grande Trail. Detko noted lights like those also kill your night vision for probably 15 minutes after you pass by them. He said that in Florida the ordinance was drafted to read that direct lighting couldn't be visible from the mean high water line at sand level. Millar responded that it was those types oflighting that this ordinance attempted to address. The light that hampers vision, the light spread, light being contained by the property lines, glare and visibility oflight bulbs. Detko commented that inside lighting was also addressed because of the huge expanses of glass and prohibition of flood lighting outside, Detko said it was the 3rd house to the west on the north side of the river from the Oklahoma Flats Bridge that had the lighting from the inside which lights up the river, It was noted that it was the Gary Moore House. Buettow asked ifthese comments could be incorporated into this ordinance prior to the council presentation, Millar stated the 3 issues to be included were: CD change the compliance period from 3 years to 6 months or a year; @ reduce the holiday lighting period to November 15th to January 15th; @ Simplify the levels of measurement. Erickson stated that equally important was the time period of 30 to 60 days for having to come into compliance after a compliant was registered. Mooney requested that some sort of communication with the county begin to address lights that affect the city, He mentioned that the lights at RUthie's Restaurant and at Buttermilk have been on for about 4 weeks, even though those properties were located in the county they affected the city. 3 ",",-- '::'. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28. 1999 MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend City Council approve the lighting Ordinance, finding it met the criteria with the changes reflected in P&Z Resolution #99-24. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Tygre, yes; Haneman, yes; Mooney, yes; Erickson, yes; Buettow, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. into a work session with County P&Z on Buttermilk. 4 . , MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen/Pitkin Growth Management Commission Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director~ ' Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director , 1 . Christopher Bendon, Planner~\W\ I Chateau Chaumont - Public Hearing <;h:>!,ge-i'l~Vs8. Commercial to Residential THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: October !:l, 1999 SUMMARY: The basement of the Chateau Chanmont building houses an office of approximately 1,600 square feet directly accessed from the underground garage. This space was legally created in 1968 as part of another residential unit. Unit 7 A was then converted to an office and separated through the condominium declaration. The approved condominiumization allowed eight of the units on this property to be both residential and business use although this is the only office in the building. Since that time, the zoning has changed to prohibit office use and Growth Management now requires a change-in-use application be approved for these types of conversions. While the office use is currently not a permitted use in the zone district, it was legally created and may continue for the life of the building as a non-conformity. , The owner of Unit 7 A, Dale Eubank, is requestinr aJ'lQ- ~hange-in-use exemption from Growth Management to convert this space into a reSidence. To accomplish this task, an external entrance and adequate light and air needs to be provided to meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as the only entrance is now from the parking garage. Chateau Chaumont exceeds the residential density allowed in the L/TR Zone District. The applicant was granted a variance from the Board of Adjustment in May of this year allowing this application to proceed to the Growth Management Commission. In their deliberations, the Board of Adjustment discussed the presence of a hardship versus the fairness of other units within the building which are used as residences. Staff did not support the variance because the argument was primarily based on the , financial difficulty of the applicant finding an occupant. In other words, the ' applicant's difficulty in securing lease for more than the market would bear was not a justifiable reason for a variance. Eventually, however, the Board determined that the variance standards had mostly been met. (BOA minutes are attached.) The change-in-use provision allows the creation of one free-market residence in conformance with the review criteria. It appears the application meets all of the standards for a change-in-use and staffis supporting the request. There are six (6) 1 . , free-market allotments currently available. If approved, the one unit will be accordingly deducted from the annual allotment pool. Staff recommends the Commission approve this Change-In-Use, with conditions. APPLICANT: Dale Eubanks. Represented by Michael Hoffman. LOCATION: 731 East Durant Avenue. Chateau Chaumont Condominiums. ZONING: LodgefTourist Residential (LfTR). CURRENT LAND USE: Commercial office. PROPOSED LAND USE: Two-Bedroom residence. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered this application. The Aspen Board of Adjustment granted a variance for this application. BOA minutes are attached. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Change-in-use, The Growth Management Commission shall, by resolution, approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application at a public hearing. STAFF COMMENTS: The application includes an agreement between the applicant and the Condominium Association. This private agreement is not enforceable by the City and merely acts as a covenant between adjacent land-owners. As a point of interest, this private agreement seems to prevent an owner from placing an affordable housing deed restriction on his own property or selling the unit to the Housing Authority. Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." BOA minutes have been included as Exhibit "C." The application has been included as Exhibit "D." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Growth Management Commission approve the Chateau Chaumont Unit 7A change-in-use from commercial to residential with the following conditions: 2 , ',':; . 1. The Building Permit Plans shall demonstrate the unit's compliance with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code ,including, but not limited to, natural light, ventilation, automobile exhaust, and egress. The unit shall contain an entrance from the exterior of the building and the entrance from the underground garage may not be the primary entrance to the residence. 2. This change-in.use approval shall not be considered an approval or variance of any other requirement of the Land Use Code or of the Uniform Building Code. The building permit plans shall demonstrate compliance with all zoning requirements not granted a variance including, but not limited to, setbacks and Floor Area. 3. Before a building permit application may be accepted by the Building Department, the applicant shall record this Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Growth Management Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Chateau Chaumont Unit #7A change-in-use to residential vvith the conditions outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated October 12, 1999." ATTACHMENTS: ' Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments Exhibit C -- BOA Minutes Exhibit D -- Development Application 3 , t j / N I / / --._-- -g." / ", ~~-~ '- ~~_.=::~ ". "'''.' -' ~~', /,' ~- .~. .:'" '.. '_. - I ! '...,. ., ----.....' il; />._,-:--,1--,,' ' --'~!"'I "-. ", --~-.F I ", , ' , / , j'! , ' --. ecOo PCil",lIe -'. '~-..J . ---.. "- -- A' 200 o 200 Feet , ;'''''' Exhibit ! -. 7.-----7 & 'J A ~,'~"~ , .,.;~ ---It --- .~ '- "---i -, I r___ ! .I I I ; /11 '-----. --------- Location Map , Exhibit A STAFF COMMENTS: Change In Use 26.100.050 (B)(3) Growth Management Commission Exemptions that are Deducted from the Pool of Annual 'Development Allotments and from the Metro Area Development Ceilings. a. Change in use. A change in use of an existing structure between the residential, commercial/office, and tourist accommodation categories for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and which is intended to be reused, shall be exempt from the growth management competition and scoring procedures, provided the following conditions are met: 1) The Growth Management Commission determines that a minimal number of additional employees will be generated by the change in use and that employee housing will be providedfor the additional employees generated. Staff Finding: The existing commercial office space has the capacity to generate more employees than the residential use. In fact, the employee generation rates used in the land use code determine this space to generate approximately 5.6 employees. The land use code does not have a generation rate for residential land use. It is highly unlikely, however, that this residence would generate anywhere near 5.6 full-time employees. Staff believes that no additional employees will be generated by this change-in-use. 2) The Growth Jlfanagement Commission determines that a minimal amount of additional parking spaces will be demanded by the change in use and that parking will be provided. Staff Finding: The parking regulations for residential use requires I space per bedroom or two per unit, whichever is less. For commercial development, 4 spaces per 1000 square feet of net leasable space are required. The exisjng commercial space in question is approximately 1,600 square feet. This requires 6.4 parking spaces on-site. The applicant is seeking to create a two-bedroom apartment requiring 2 parking spaces. The apartment building does not meet the current on-site parking requirements of the Land Use Code with approximately 20 off-street spaces used in common by all residents. However, the proposed use requires fewer spaces than the commercial use. Because there is proposed a reduction in the on-site parking for this space, staff believes this standard is met. 3) The Growth Management Commission determines that there will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhoodfrom the change in use. Staff Finding: Changing the use of this unit will not have a substantial visual impact on the neighborhood. Additional light and egress areas will need to be provided to meet the requirements of the V.B.C. Other than these changes, the residential use will be virtually invisible. 4) The Growth Management Commission determines that a minimal demand will be placed on the City's public facilities from the change in use. Staff Finding: This change in use is not expected to affect the provision of facilities. The unit is currently served by all the necessary utilities needed for residential use. 5) No zone change is required. Staff Finding: No zone change is required for this use. The applicant gained a variance from the Board of Adjustment related to the density on the parcel. 6) No more than one residential unit will be created. Staff Finding: Only one residence is proposed. This criteria is met \\ith this application. 7) The proposed use is consistent in all respects with the AACP. Staff Finding: The AACP does not address this parcel specifically, but there are statements for and , against this conversion which may loosely apply. The AACP spea',:s to the provision of additional housing in the core area of Aspen. This infill housing, however, is primarily related to affordable, deed restricted, housing and projects with a substantial amount of affordable housing. The commercial section then goes on to say "Office space costs are driving many of these local business people and their local services out of the community. Finding ways to provide affordable office space in the core of the community is essential to the Aspen area quality oflife." This "finding ways to provide affordable office space," however, does not necessarily mean existing space cannot be converted. In fact, this statement seems to indicate a need to create new subsidized or deed restricted office space. Lastly, a statement in the commercial section reads: "Revise the criteria for change-in-use in zone districts outside of the CC zone district in order to prohibit the loss of locally serving business through change-in-use." This proposed code amendment was never accomplished and it would be unfair to hold this application to that increased scrutiny. These statements may loosely apply but do not provide any certain direction regarding , this project. It is difficult to determine if a project is "consistent in all respects with the AACP" if there is little concrete guidance given for that project. With some certainty, however, staff can say that the project is not inconsistent with the AACP. ,"-__'~.,..._-",..,,-.,"=,...,.,..__'W"_ t1t~t~rt DRAFT MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, Planner Tbm: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer Date: September 13,1999 Re: Chateau Chaumont #7A Change in Use (731 E. Durant Avenue) The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their August II, 1999 meeting, and we have the following comments: GeneraI- (1) These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is aCcurate, that it shows all site features without misrepresentation, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to halt complaints related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." (2) If there are any encroachments into the public right-of-way, the encroaChment must either be removed or be subj ect to current encroachment license requirements if continuation of such encroachment would be acceptable to the City. 1. En2ineering Department - The application requests to convert an existing office space in a condominium building to a residential space. There are no impacts of city engineering concem. 2. Building Department - The applicant needs to meet with the Building Department in order to determine if it will be required to construct light wells for the unit. DRC Attendees Staff: Nick Adeh, Tom Bracewell, Ed Van Walraven, Chris Bendon, Sarah Oates, Karma Borgquist, Stephen Kanipe, Cheryl Christiansen, Jack Reid, Chuck Roth 99M120 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13. 1999 rson, chairma pened the City of As n B at 4:00 p.m. w.' members Rick Hea , im Iglel D Id Schott pres . City staff in atten ce were: Da' ttorney; Sar omas, Communit evelopment Zonil Deput: Ci Clerk. k~k~~~~ C ~ irA t11~uks 00\&0 ~_ CASE #99-03 CHATEAU CHAUMONT CO:'\'UOMINIUMS. UNIT #7A Charles Paterson, chair, opened the public hearing. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated that notice was provided but the list was not attached. (The list was provided to the city clerk's office on May 18, 1999.) Sara Thomas stated that this building was built in 1968, when this tYDe of construction and zoning were allowed, but now, it was non-conform.ng. She noted that this office space was part of a unit, which was connected with a residential unit. To convert back to residential was a two-step process to comply with density; the next review would be with P&Z for a change in use request. Thomas said that stafffound no hardship to meet the criteria. The non-conformity could be maintained as an office, but not changed to residential. The applicant, Dale Eubanks represented by Michael Hoffman, requested a variance from the density requirements of the LT-R zone district to allow for the conversion of this existing office space into residential space. Hoffman asked for staff interpretation. He noted this had always been a separate condominium and the current space was not allowed under current zoning law. He I --,.....,~._..,_..."...,.""""-.-._..._-.- .. CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13. 1999 said there were 2 other units that had been converted to residential from office; Mr. Eubanks will limit the # of people if so desired by deed restriction. Hoffman distributed his review criteria for variance setting (exhibit #40); he felt there was a hardship. Thomas stated that the other building permits all represented residential remodels; these permits were for residential and not commercial. Peter Wolford, Chateau Chaumont manager, stated that #23 was the office for the Chateau Chaumont and was converted to residential. Hoefer explained to the board that this was not a board of equity but must be consistent with criteria presented and rule from that criterion. Rick Head asked ifthe # of bedrooms had gone up or was it always the same. Wolford stated there was a bedroom with an illegal use that was converted; there were now 48 bedrooms. Eubanks said tl).at unit #23 was used as an office. He said he made the mistake and stated his unit #7 A was an office; he was penalized because he was honest and now could not make the unit residential. David Schott asked when purchased if it was an office. Eubanks replied that is was an office. Wolford said the condo association didn't care if it was residential or commercial but the parking was critical with only 11 spaces; there were no designated parking places, but on a first come first serve basis. Hoffman said that Dale placed a deed restriction, which puts his unit in full compliance with all of ,the homeowner's requests. He said the parking was for only the owner with the exception that one renter would be allowed. Hoffman further stated that the deed restriction would include one adult per bedroom, if the variance was granted. There would be 3 bedrooms depending upon the proper egress for those bedrooms. Eubanks stated there was a plan to change the egress from access through the garage to the back stairwell, although there was no legal or code problem with the existing. He stated that he has owned the unit since 1978 and never had a clue about these problems. Eubanks said that ifhe abandoned the commercial use then he was left with 1500 square feet of unusable space. He noted this was brought about by applying to put in window well in this unit. He asked where the equity was from the city for someone who has lived here and owned a business here for all these years. Paterson asked if there was a change in the town over the years in this area. Eubanks replied there was a change and he moved his office down- valley about 5 years ago. He said the type of business to go into this space wasn't a viable option for the homeowners and maybe there would be a takings scenario. Hoffman stated that the condominium declarations state that certain units can be used for commercial, but the underlying assumption was that all can be used for 2 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13.1999 residential. He said that Mr. Eubanks just wanted to exercise his right for residential when he bought it in 1978. Head said Eubanks bought it knowing it was an office. Eubanks responded that he bought it knowing it was office but it was also clear to use residentially. He said that he had to show consistent historic office usage. Hoefer noted the condominium declarations were not binding on the city; the city ordinance was the binding document which the finding was based upon. Hoffman stated that the board had to consider the equities forming a hardship. Head stated that this board could not consider financial hardship. Hoffman did not agree. Paterson stated the board of adjustment was a board of fairness for all sides. Eubanks stated that the space has not been rented or sold in two years. The board agreed that could be a function of price. Head asked if this unit could be converted to parking spaces and if those spaces could be sold. Thomas said the review process with P&Z might still be for a change in use. Head said there was a viable use as office space now. Jim Iglehart asked if there was a kitchen in the unit. Eubanks replied there was an office kitchen, not a full residential kitchen. Howard DeLuca asked if this was the only commercial use in the building. Eubanks answered that was correct. Iglehart, DeLuca and Schott concurred that office space was a bigger impact on the neighborhood than residential. Schott stated concern for 3 additional bedrooms without a parking provision. Head stated the variance was financially driven and parking was a problem. He said even though the economy has changed the board could not consider financial equity as a hardship. Head noted he would not vote in favor of this variance. Paterson said this was consistent with the AACP and felt there was a hardship because of the change in zoning and density requirements at the time this was built. DeLuca noted parking was a problem with only room for 11 cars and 48 bedrooms, 25 units, but asked to look to the future - public transportation can then service Aspen when cars won't be needed. Paterson noted that not too long ago parking wasn't considered for any commercial or residential units and now it was unfair to apply the present or future situation without considering the change a hardship. Iglehart asked staff what review was necessary to go through to get 3 bedrooms approved. Thomas noted that P&Z would review the change in use to allow residential conversion and a parking variance. Iglehart said P&Z may grant only 3 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13. 1999 orie bedroom, and this was in town, so parking shouldn't be a problem. DeLuca said that if things go as planned, to remove traffic out of the commercial core, then a hardship is created for businesses because ofthe change in impact. Hoffman stated the fairness issue was not the same as a takings analysis of all value but rather fairness was the issue here. Hoefer stated the focus was compliance with AACP and the hardship with the minimum variance was not discussed. He said that he followed Rick's statement about the request as economically driven without a minimum variance request. Hoefer stated the city position was that this unitcould be rented commercially. Paterson asked what a minimum variance request would be without granting what they were asking for. Thomas responded that it would be a reasonable use ofthe parcel without variances. She said the code still allowed that use. Eubanks asked what ifhe was no longer able to use it for the purpose. Hoefer responded that they were able to use it for that purpose. Hoffman said the code stated ifhe did nothing with it for one year, he would not be allowed to use it. Hoefer stated that Eubanks purchased and used the unit commercially. Head stated that Eubanks was not denied reasonable use ofthe property. Paterson reviewed the criteria sheet and felt there were special conditions and circumstances. He said that granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant any special privileges because other people had the opportunity to have residential. Wolford said there could be both good and bad residential and commercial uses; if Eubanks could provide the egress and windows or whatever was necessary to be in compliance, then it was fine. Head asked why this couldn't be done with the office. MOTION: Charles Paterson moved to approve the request to vary the minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the conversion of an office space to a residential dwelling unit at 731 East Durant, Unit 7A, finding that the review standards have mostly been met, and that such conversion shall be subject to Change in Use approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. David Schott second. Roll call vote: Iglehart, yes; DeLuca, yes; Schott, yes; Head, no; Paterson, yes. APPROVED 4-1. ckie LothiaJ.'{, Deputy City Clerk 4 .A'_ . LAW OFFICES FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE A PARTNERSHIP !NCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IN ASPEN COLORADO A1TORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J, MYLER, P,C, 1 E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN I SHANE J. HARVEY I 106 SOUTII MILL STREET SUITE 202 AsPEN, COLORADO 81611 IN KANSAS CITI.lv.lISSOURl FREILICH,LEITNER& CARLISLE ATI'ORNEYSATLAW FACSIMILE (970) 920.4259 TELEPHONE (970) 920-1018 ROBERT H. FREILICH. P,C, l,l.' MARTIN L. LETrnER, P.C.' RICHARD O. CARLISLE, P.C.' STEPHENJ. MOORE. P.C.' s. MARK WHITE l,.< KYLE E. FOOTE' AIllol,tt'l'EDlN'CO' .AD'MIt'TE:PlNMo',cJ.!.~,NC' CERTIFIED LAND USE PLANNERS MICHAEL J, LAUER, AlCP JENNIFER 1<.. BARRE1T,AlCP KIM S. BROPHY, AlCP June 17,1999 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen Municipal Government 130 S, Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Request for Variance - Chateau Chaumont Condominiums, Unit 7A (the "Unit") Dale Eubank, Owner Gentlemen: By this correspondence Dale Eubank is requesting that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission grant an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System ("GMQS") for a change in the use of Unit 7 A (the "Unit") of the Chateau Chaumont Condominiums (the "Project")' from commercial to residential use. Mr. Eubank utilized the property as the office for his accounting practice for many years, More recently, the Unit was leased to others for commercial purposes, Mr, Eubank had planned to convert the Unit to residential use so he stay there occasionally when he comes upvalley from his home in Carbondale, However, in the past week, Mr, Eubank has entered into a contract to sell the property to Veronika, me" a local investment company, The Buyer wishes to pursue Mr, Eubank's plan to convert the property to residential use, I. Background ofReauest What makes this application somewhat unique is that the Unit is zoned for residential, not commercial use, This land use process began for Mr. Eubank when he asked the City for a building pennit to convert his office space to bedrooms, The City Zoning Officer turned him down even though the requested use of the Unit is allowed in the UTR zone district while its current use is prohibited, The City took this position because the number of bedrooms in the condominium Project as a whole exceeds that which would be allowed if the building was to be constructed today, The Project is located on the southwest side of the intersection of Original and Durant Streets. .' FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 1999 Page 2 Allowing Mr, Eubank to use his Unit as a residence would only further increase density in the Project, according to the City, and therefore would not be allowed, Mr. Eubank was unable to find either a commercial buyer or a tenant for the Unit. The combination of the City's refusal to allow him to convert the Unit to residential use and the reality that there is little demand for below-grade commercial space in Aspen, left l\fr, Eubank with few alternatives, In the Spring of this year, he asked the Aspen Board of Adjustment to grant him a variance from staff's interpretation of the density requirements of the L/TR zone district. On May 13, 1999, the Board of Adjustment granted l\fr, Eubank's request. In a 4-1 decision, the Board found that it would be inequitable to prohibit Mr, Eubank from using the Unit as a residence when every other privately-owned unit the Project was used for that purpose. The Board also apparently believed that it would be unfair to prevent l\fr, Eubank from converting the Unit from commercial use when several other owners in the Project had done the same thing without anv opposition from the Citv, II, Need for GMOS Exemption Even though the Board of Adjustment granted the request for a variance, the Land Use Regulations require that the Planning and Zoning Commission review and approve the proposed change in use, Section 26-102-040(B)(I)(b) provides that [a ]ny change in use of an existing structure between the residential, commercial/office and tourist accommodations categories [may be exempted from GMQS by the Planning and Zoning Commission], provided that it can be demonstrated that the change in use will have minimal impact upon the city. The Code requires that the applicant demonstrate "minimal impact" in four key areas: employee generation including adequate mitigation, demand for additional parking spaces including adequate mitigation, the amount of visual impact caused by the change in use and the additional demand placed on "the city's public facilities," III, Interests of the Proiect's Homeowners' Association Chateau Chaurnont Condominium Association, Inc, (the "Association"), is the homeowners' association for the Project. The impacts of a conversion of Mr. Eubank's Unit from commercial to residential use will be more immediately felt by the members of the Association than they will by the City of Aspen at large, Because of its intense concern over these impacts, the Association required that Mr. Eubank enter into Deed Restrictions concerning the Unit as a condition of its support for this application, A copy of the Deed Restrictions is attached to this application as Exhibit "A", The Association is particularly concerned that (1) the Unit not beused in a manner which will disrupt other owners in their peaceful enjoyment of their property, and (2) that the few parking spaces .' FREll.ICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 17,1999 Page 3 which exist in the Project continue to be available for owners and not be used by tenants or guests, These interests closely reflect the impacts of conversion which must be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission under the Land Use Regulations, IV, Effects of Conversion on Employee Generation Allowing the Unit to be converted from office use will have a positive impact on the employee housing problem in the City. When it is used for commercial purposes, the Unit contributes to the number of people working in Aspen, If the opportunity to use the Unit for commercial purposes is removed, fewer people can work here, Because commercial use ofthe property is not allowed in the L/TR zone district, the eliminated employees cannot be "recreated" unless zoning regulations are changed substantially, Such a change is unlikely, Conversion to residential use will have little, ifany, impact on the number of people employed in the City. The Unit's physical characteristics, especially its below-grade siting, will keep its sales price low, by Aspen standards. Local people can afford to own or buy this Unit, Most likely, the property will be a de facto affordable housing unit, one through which the owner may participate in appreciation in the housing marketplace, Rental of the Unit to long-tenn unrelated tenants is limited by the Deed Restrictions to "[ n Jot more than one (1) person per legal bedroom," No more than three bedrooms can be created2 These two covenants alone will substantially reduce the impact of the Unit's residential use on the community, Even if the Unit is rented to Aspen visitors, the impact of these guests will have only a minima1 impact on employee generation. The Project was constructed in 1968 to accommodate short-tenn visitors, Many Chateau Chaumont units are still used for that purpose, The condominiums themselves are not large enough to require specialized employees, such as nannies, cooks or gardeners, so guests will have only a generalized impact on the local economy, No direct impacts should be created or realized upon the conversion of the Unit to residential use, V. Little, If Any. Additional Parking Will Be Required By Residential Use The Unit can now be used for commercial purposes, For much of the past 20 years, Mr, Eubank used the property as the office for his accounting practice, His clients and staff intensively utilized the street for parking purposes, If the Unit is converted to residential use, those vehicles will no longer occupy parking spaces near the Project during busy daylight hours, Nor will they contribute to traffic within the City or along Highway 82 as their owners drive to and from work. They will be replaced by cars owned either by (1) short-term guests or (2) a few long-term residents, Although it is difficult to state with certainty the exact impact these two groups will have on local parking availability, it is likely that they will little negative effect. Due to the Project's proximity to Aspen Mountain, the central business core and RFT A bus lines, short-term Chateau Chaumont guests 2 Deed Restrictions, Section 3. '. FREILICH, MYLER. LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 1999 Page 4 do not need to bring their personal vehicles with them, Long-term residents are likely to recognize that they have little need for a car. The residential restrictions included in the Deed Restrictions3 encourage use of the Unit by a family, rather than by individual adults, The consolidated needs of families should also result in fewer vehicles being associated with the Unit. Conversion of the Unit from commercial to residential use will have minimal impact on the number of parking spaces needed within the City of Aspen. VI, Conversion Will Cause Minimal Visual Impact on the Neighborhood The extent to which Mr, Eubank can make use of the Unit as a personal residence depends in large part on his ability to bring the property to current Uniform Building Code ("UBC") standards, particularly in the area of ingress and egress. For this reason, the Association has already given its consent to allow Mr. Eubank to construct alternative entrance/exit portals to the Unit at particular locations as may be required to satisfY the UBC and Aspen building officials, The Association agreed to this construction because its officials believed that these improvements will have little impact on the Project or the surrounding neighborhood. As Mr, Eubank, or his successor, work with the Community Development Department to satisfY the UBC, more definite construction plans will be established, Mr, Eubank agrees that an appropriate condition of the Commission's approval of this request is that the final plan have a minimal visual impact on the neighborhood, VII. Demands on Public Facilities, As with parking, conversion of the Unit from commercial to residential Use will essentially effect a change in the time of day during which occupants will utilize the space, Although residents will more intensively use the Unit during the evening and early morning hours, there is no evidence that there will be a difference in the average demand placed on public facilities related to the Unit, The only currently anticipated physical changes in the property will be for access to the bedrooms so as to comply with the UBC. The residential restrictions contained in the Deed Restrictions limit the number of people who can live in the Unit, thereby further limiting potential impacts on local ' infrastructure There will be minimal, if any, additional demand placed on the city's public facilities from the change to residential use, VITI. Conclusion It is likely that allowing Mr, Eubank to use his condominium Unit for residential purposes will actually reduce traffic in the area of City Market, the ,Silver Queen Gondola, and in the commercial core, Although residential use could have had some negative consequences ifits use was not handled responsibly, the Project's homeowners' Association recognized the risk and moved aggressively to 3 Deed Restrictions, Section 3, '. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 17,1999 Page 5 pre-empt any such effects, Mr, Eubank agreed to his neighbor's requests, and the Deed Restrictions which now efficiently govern use of the Unit. As described in this letter, conversion of the Unit to residential use will have minimal impact on the City, Particularly in the areas of employee generation, parking space requirements, visual impacts and demands on public facilities, the City will not be harmed by allowing Mr, Eubank to make the same use of his property enjoyed by all other owners of units within the Project. For this reason, we urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant this request for an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System, Sincerely, FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE E, Michael Hoffinan cc: Dale Eubank " DEED RESTRICTIONS THESE RESTRICTIONS are entered into as of this 13th day of May, 1999, by B. DALE EUBANK. hereinafter referred to as "Owner", WIT N E SSE T H: WHEREAS, the Owner is the owner of Unit 7 A (the "Property"), Chateau Chaumont Apartments, a Condominium, according to the Plat thereof and the Condominium Declaration therefor recorded in the records of Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Owner and Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association, Ine. entered into an agreement dated May 13, 1999 (the "Agreement") regarding the imposition of certain restrictions upon the Property for the consideration recited in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Owner has received the consideration set forth in the Agreement and is willing to memorialize the restrictions to be imposed upon the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the benefits derived by the Owner pursuantlo the Agreement, the Owner agrees as follows: 1. Restrictions Reaardlna Use. The Property shall not, by deed restriction, contract or any other form of covenant or commitment, be restricted for purchase, sale, use andlor occupancy for only employee housing, or for only resident occupied housing or for only deed restricted employee housing, including, but not limited to, affordable housing or any other use which may subject the purChase, sale or use of the Property to the control of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or any other governmental agency whiCh has any authority to control or affect the use or occupancy of the Property other than zoning and building code authorities. by way of example only, and not by way of limitation, this covenant shall include a prohibition against executing andlor recording deed restrictions or any other form of covenant against the Property intending to restrict the purchase, sale, use and/or occupancy of the Property to only employee or resident occupied units or otherwise intended to bring the purchase and sale of the Property under the auspices of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or any successor or related entity or the City of Aspen or the County of Pitkin, Colorado. This provision shall not preclude owners of the Property from selling the Property as a free market unit, to employers or others who may desire to lease their units to employees in accordance with the other terms hereof, not shall it preclude the 111111111111111.11111111I111111111111111111111111 431120 0!l/17/tIllS ..!SA DEED RES DAVIS SILVI 1 0' 4 R 21.08 D e.ea " e.e0 PITKIN COUNTY CO sale of any unit to an "employee" or prospective "resident occupanf'. Rather, it only prohibits the creation of a deed restriction of other covenant that would preclude the sale of the Property as a free market unit to any prospective purchaser. 2. Not Use for Mitivatlon PUI:poses. No commitment or use of any nature shall directly or indirectly be made conceming, or of, the Property which satisfies or mitigates any governmental zoning, planning, housing or other requirement applicable to any land, building or portion of a building anywhere, or which has the direct or indirect intended or actual effect of increasing the value or sales price of any land, building or portion of a building anywhere. 3, Residential Restriction. (a) Not more than one (1) person per legal bedroom in the Property shall reside in the Property at any time, except for (i) the owner of the Property and his or her family; (ii) bona fide short-term guests ("Rental Guests") who rent the Property through a property management company which cI1arges the owner of the Property a commission of not less than thirty-five percent (35%) of the gross amount of such rent; (iil) between June 1 and September 1 in each year, not more than two (2) persons per legal bedroom in the Property who each (a) is not directly or indirectly employed on a part-time or full-time basis by or for any proprietorship or business or nonprofit organization or other entity, in Pitkin County, Colorado, and (b) maintains his or her principal residence outside of Pitkin County, Colorado, while residing in the Property; and (iv) a single family comprised of a person and his or her spouse and their children. (b) The Property shall have not more than three (3) bedrooms. 4. Parkin9 Restrictions. Each business operated from the Property, all employees, visitors. customers, suppliers and others related to such business, and all residents of the Property and their guests and visitors, shall be strictly prohibited from parking any vehicle in any Common Element parking space of the Chateau Chaumont Apartments at any time, except that the owner of the Property and his or her family and Rental Guests may park a vehicle in a Chateau Chaumont Apartments Common Element parking space in accordance with Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association, Inc. parking rules in effect from time to time. 5. Preservation of Parkina and GarbaQe Container Areas. The owner of the Property shall not directly or indirectly (i) seek approval from any governmental zoning, planning. housing or other authority to make any change or alteration of any kind whatsoever (a) to any Common Element parking place of the Chateau Chaumont Apartments, in existence on the date of this Deed Restriction, or (b) to the area on the west side of the ChateauChaumont Apartment building, which on the date of this Deed Restriction is used to store garbage containers which service such building, or (ii) make any such change or alteration with or without the approval of any such authority, and -2- I 1111II 11111 11111I 1111 1m Ilml 111111 11111111 1111 1111 43112ll,ll!/17/19l18 8lI,!IA DEED RES DAVIS SILVI ' 2 or 4 R 21.ee 0 e.ll0 M ll.1Il PITlCIN COUNTY co the expense of removing snow from, and all maintenance of, any window wells, walkways or entrance to the Property on the west side of such building shalf be bome by the owner of the Property, and shall not be an expense of the Association. . 6. Penalties, The owner of the Property shalf be subject to special assessment by Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association, Inc. of up to (i) One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150. DO) for each calendar day on which there has occurred any violation of the restrictions set forth in Paragraph 3 above; and (II) One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) for each calendar day on which there has occurred any violation of the prohibition against vehicle parking in the Chateau Chaumont Apartments Common Element parking space as set forth In Paragraph 4 above. 7. Prohibition Aoalnst Legal Actions. The owner of the Property shall neither institute nor take any action which causes any person or entity to institute any legal or govemmental proceeding which concems the enforceability of the restrictions set forth herein on the purchase, sale, use and occupancy of the Property and the owner of the Property shall pay any and all legal and related expenses incurred by any owner of a Chateau Chaumont Apartment and by Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association, Inc.. as incurred, in connection with any such proceeding, and any appeals of any orders or findings issues in any such proceeding, regardless of whether such restrictions are found to be enforceable on unenforceable. 8. Iniunctive Relief, The owner of the Property agrees that irreparable damage would occur in the event that any of the provisions hereof were not performed in accordance with their specific terms or were otherwise breached. It is accordingly agreed that Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association, Inc. and any owner of a Chateau Chaumont Apartment will be entitled to an injunction or injunctions to prevent any breach of any provision hereof and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions hereof in any court of the United States or any state haVing jurisdiction, this being in addition to any other remedy to which they are entitled at law or in equity. 9. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation or arbitration between the parties arising from the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entilled to collect all of its reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and court costs, 10. Running of Benefits and Burdens, All of the provisions of this instrument. inclUding the benefit and burdens, shall run with the Property and shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the owner of the Property. 11. Severability. Should any part or parts of these restrictions be declared invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining restrictions set forth herein. -3- ~1~'!'I""I""III1III1UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I!S/17/1_ 181~ DEED REs DAVIs $ILVl 3 0'4 R 21.01 D 1.11 N 1.11 PITkIN COUNTY CO , . ''.:, 12. ParagraDh Headlnas. The paragraph headings in this instrument are for convenience only and shall not be construed to be a part of the restrictions contained herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Owner has hereto set his hand and seal on the day and year first above written. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. ) Co.UNT-v.,QF P1TKIN ",. '., {/~<. ' .~ foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 13th day of ~ c... May, 1999, by:~ Dale Eubank. , 't~- :2 ': . - = -=c. . .t '\<f...... WiTNEs,6 my hand and official seal. \~~...."" My co~ission expires: AUS""+ If. ~~dl '~o lo' .",'- '~,...-. ~~/ Notary Public ~ 1111111 Hili IU 1111 Iml 111111 111111 11I1111111111111 431128 1ll/17/1111 fllh!lllA DEED RES DAVIS SILVI 4 ., 4 R 21.11I De.. N e.. PITKIN COUIITY co , ::OOMA'PCOOl::SlCHICAG0418S319O\1 -4- From: E. Miena. Hoffmim To: Achim Buersldin Date: 7129190 lime: 5:27:1B PM Pag82of2 Achim Buerklin AABC Unit G Aspen, Colorado 81611 July 29, 1999 Aspen / Pitkin County Department ofConnnunity Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ladies and Gentlemen: As the owner of the real property described 011 the attached Exhibit, I hereby authorize the law finn of Freilich. Myler, Leitner & Carlisle to submit and process the Aspen land use application for Approval of an Exemption from the Growth Management Quota System which accompanies this letter, The relevant contact at the law firm is: E. Michael Hoffinan Freilich. Myler. Leitner & Carlisle 106 South Mill Street, Suite 202 Aspc:n, Colorado 81611 970-920-1018 Thank you for your oonsideratiOl1 in this Application, if you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly you"', /s~ - Achim Buerklin , Ill. L. ~ Gh4"de ~ \ l~ . ~ rJ - . ~ ('Pdt ~VltvldlaV1//J. . 1"'1 1,z,Jr\' ~fv(~~ 'P~lble 1N~\ew.. '-4 Ll~kkrdl ; fW ~~I\'\ ----- ~1f. ~"IlI'~ ~~, ~ . L3tr G-~ ,/I . , MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: 4........... City Engineer o ........... Zoning Officer ............ Housing Director 0........... Parks Department o ........... Aspen Fire Marshal o ........... City Water 0........... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 0........... Building Department 0........... Environmental Health 0........... Electric Department o ........... Holy Cross Electric 0........... City Attorney 0........... Streets Department o ........... Historic Preservation Officer o ........... Pitkin County Planning FROM: Chris Bendon, Planner Community Development Department 130 So. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone-920.5090 Fax-920.5439 RE: Chateau Chaumont #7 A Change In Use (Com. to Res.) 731 East Durant Avenue DATE: August 6, 1999 REFERRAL SCHEDULE DRC MEETING DATE:( 1:30-3:00 Sister Cities Mtg. Room) OTHER REFERRALS DUE TO PLANNER: ENGINEERING REFERRAL DUE TO PLANNER: August 11, 1999 August 18, 1999 August 20, 1999 Thank you, Chris. r-, LAW OFFICES ~ FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IN ASPEN COLORADO ATIORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER, P,C. 1 E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN 1 SHANEJ.HARVEY' 106 SOU'THMILL STREET SUITE 202 AsPEN, COLORADO 81611 IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI FREILIaJ, LEITNER & CARLISLE ATIORNEYS AT LAW FACSIM1LE (970) 920-4259 TELEPHONE (970) 920-1018 ROBERT H. FREILICH, P,C, U4 MARTIN L. LEnNER, P.C. l RICHARD G, CARLISLE, P.C. Z STEPHEN I. MOORE, P.C. Z S,MARKWHITE~s KYLE E. FOOTE I Al)MlTII!:l:>lNoo' Al)MITn:DlNMo',~,NY',NC' CERTIFIED LAND USE PLANNERS MICHAEL J. LAUER, AICP JENNIFER K. BARRETI, AIep KIM S, BROPHY. AICF June 17, 1999 Ms, Sarah Oates City of Aspen Community Development 130 S, Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: GMQS Exemption Request Unit 7 A, Chateau Chaumont Condominiums Dear Sarah: I have enclosed certain documents in connection with Dale Eubank's request for an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System for a proposed change in use of the property referenced above, In response to your Pre-Application Conference Summary, I have attached the following documents to this correspondence: 1. Proof of Ownership, A Commitment for Title Insurance dated June 16, 1999, for the Property, evidencing title in Dale Eubank, is attached to this correspondence as Exhibit "N'. 2, Fee Agreement with the City of Aspen, signed by me as Mr. Eubank's attorney, is attached to this correspondence as Exhibit "B", 3, Letter of Authorization is attached hereto as Exhibit "C", 4, Street Address and Legal Descriotion of the Prooertv: Street Address: Legal Description: 731 East Durant, Unit 7 A, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit 7 A, Chateau Chaumont Condominiums, according to the recorded condominium map thereof and the recorded Condominium Declaration thereof, both recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County. ,-., FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE tI""'\ Ms, Sarah Oates June 17, 1999 Page 2 5, Deposit for Review of Application: A check in the amount of$I,430 is enclosed with this letter. 6, Copies, Ten copies of the application and related maps are enclosed with this correspondence. 7, Site Map, A copy of a site map generated by the City's GIS department is attached to this correspondence as Exhibit "D", 8, Additional Materials, No additional materials are required to be submitted with this application. 9, Written Description of Proposal, The original "application letter" is attached to this correspondence as Exhibit "E", Copies are included with the packets listed above as Item 6, Please let me know if you need any additional information, Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE f E, Michael Hoffinan cc: Dale Eubank Billy Ditmar ,-.., FNT ,(""\ COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A l. Effective Date: OS/26/99 at 08:30 A.M. 2 . Policy or Policies to be issued: (a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992 Proposed Insured: VERONIKA INC. (b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Proposed Insured: Case No. PCT13971 Amount$ 287,500.00 premiumS 920.00 Rate:STANDARD Amount $ premiumS Rate: Tax Certificate: $10.00 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: B. DALE EUBANK 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: CONDOMINIUM UNIT 4, CHATEAU CHAUMONT, according to the Map thereof recorded December 16, 1968 in Plat Book 3 at Page 342, and as further defined and described in the Condominium Declaration recorded December 16, 1968 in Book 238 at Page 140. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO. 81611 970-925-1766 970-925-6527 FAX AUTHORIZED AGENT Schedule A-PG.1 This Commitment is invalid unless the Insuring Provisions and Schedules A and B are attached. f""'-, ~ FNT SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payablei and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. 7. The premises hereby granted, with the exception of the surface, may be entered by the proprietor of any other vein, lode or ledge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate, intersect, or extend into said premises, for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or ledge as reserved in United States Patent recorded June 17, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 246. 8. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 29, 1958 in Book 185 at Page 69. 9. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for Chateau Chaumont recorded December 16, 1968 in Book 238 at Page 140, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. 10. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded December 16, 1968 in Plat Book 3 at Page 342. 11. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Deed Restriction recorded June 22, 1995 in Book 784 at Page 234 and Agreement to Maintain and Indemnify recorded in Book 784 at Page 230. 12. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Deed Restrictions recorded May 17, 1999 as Reception No. 431120. r"""'\ r--. ASPENIPITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Pavment nf City of Aspen Development Applicatinn Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and B. Dale Eubank (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE ,\S FOLLOWS: \, APPLICANT has suhmitted :0 CITY an application for GMQS Exemption for Unit 7A, Chateau Chaumont Condominiums (heremafter. THE PROJECT), 2, APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No, 49 (Series of 1998) establishes a fee structure for Land lise applications ana the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a detennination of application completeness. 3, APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project. it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the appiication, APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter pennit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis, APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering Its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff tocomplete processing or present sufficient infonnation to the Planning Commission and/or City Council 10 enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision, 5, Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a detennination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review, Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building pennits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: - c1.--J. :y:~ . Michael Hof man Dati\ttorney June 17, 1999 Ie Ann Woods ommunlty Development Director Mailing Address: c/o Freilich, MylBr, Leitner & Carlisle 106 S. Mill Street. Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 '1_, ~. t""\ ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1999 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CATEGORY , Major Minor Staff Approvals Flat Fee Exempt HPC Minor HPC Significant HPC <1000 sq. ft. Significant HPC >1000 sq. ft. Demolition, Partial Demolition, Relocation Referral Fees - Environmental Health Major Minor Referral Fees - Housing Major Minor Referral Fees - City Engineer Major Minor Hourly Rate HOURS DEPOSIT 12 6 2,220.00 1,110.00 460.00 FLAT FEE 255,00 65.00 120.00 312.00 624.00 1250.00 320.00 160.00 320.00 160.00 320,00 160.00 185.00 1"""\ 1""'\ , Mr, Dale Eubank 498 Rose Lane Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (970) 963-8874 June 16, 1999 Aspen I Pitkin County Department of Community Development 130 S, Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ladies and Gentlemen: As the owner of the real property described on the attached Exhibit, I hereby authorize the Freilich, Myler, Leitner & Carlisle to submit and process the Aspen land use application for Approval of an Exemption from the Growth Management Quota System which accompanies this letter. The relevant contact at the law firm is: E, Michael Hoffinan Freilich, Myler, Leitner & Carlisle 106 South Mill Street, Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-920-10 18 Thank you for your consideration in this Application, if you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me, I i I """'" I !I I I() It!/ / /1//;' /,/~l /lllftlii#fjIFj \ / //1,// / I / / j; III 1 : II! I! /1 I"""'" 'I, / " I 1,,/ II! I II till ?II I l I I II/II 11111' I I '""""",,, ,v /// i! I I ijll j, 1// /1 //1// '''''''''", .II/j" I[ hi I IA/! I /;;/li 1/ I E'Hl'I14ANAIIE' II I II! I · n I $' I I Ii I /'// , II ;/ '_"" ff !//!// itl/!!l/ I tv I IiIVllIi//ii' , ,////E'COOPE'RAIIE' ! I!~~~RAN~AIIE' I II/}I/!/!;!;/ / / I; , / /;/;111/////1// ! / "I ". /11 'j Ii I 1/ j /, III I I I/'fijl/II/I!'I I, .,:tV ')' / '!/~IJ1;{~j;~/lllfllil j:.~, '~~ '" I ~[.l~j:I./\\.'~..~ (/"'? Il;j/1 I ;' '/I/~'''''..A.' I .. I '\ \ '\' v! ,I ,I I ! ,ill':: \ y' . .... I /' ! 1,,1 I I) .. 11/"\ \1 . '. /'.... .' .' '_ I \'A Vf(1</ // .IFI/J~/j\, e\ \\ \\ .... C\' Ihll, / II! l / \ ITTI / ~-\ fO 1/1; 1/1/ \, Im,+/ ,'/ 11I1 ~,^. \ \! I. I /I;' II I I -,~ 'li,l./ 1/".". [11 \)4! / ""\ / '. \" '\j 1/ _,~, '... I'II../i 1\ I \[1, ~/ ." \ \, ." \ ,,\ ;'\\/\{( /)~/'^ ""'F:- V I..) / \ \ / '\ , (y \ / I o "-.. ~ ~( /~ / D )