HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Floor Area Adu.A054-99
----
~\
,,-,
PARCEL Iii=!" " CATE RCVO: I". Po ";;
CASENAM:E~C:::':€ A:1..Cn~:.'~~.nt F o-:,r ~r.::c: AOU
PROJ ACDR:l" ,
.. , # C6PIES:~ " :cASE'NolAC::~-9'
PLN'R:,lr..,.::- ~1r.'1S
STEPS1
CASE TYP:i::;:::~ Am~n::...!-:::.t
OWN/APP:Ic..::, (:: f\~pt'1I
REP:I
F'EES DUE:l
REFERRALSI
~ C/S/Z:I
C/S/Z:I
FEES RCVD:I
PHN:J
I'HN"
ADRI
. ADR:
STAT:)
MTG.DATE
!lEF~ BYI
. REV BODY PH NOTICED
F~F==
DUE:j
DATE OF FINAL ACTION,:
CITY COUNCIL:
PZ:
BOA:
DRAC:,
ADMIN:
REMARKSl
CLOSED:t..yl.v7,t'BV: 1_5 ,:x:j~'7
PLAT SUBMITD: I PLAT (BK,PG):1
,
,-,
0" \\ b
MEMORANDUM
TO:
The Mayor and City Council f\ h /
Amy Margerum, City Manager~\1JV
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community e elopment Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy DirectOJ:....P\<)
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Code Amendment --- Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G.
Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion" --- Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1999.
DATE:
July 12, 1999
SUMMARY: Please review the attached (Exhibit A) copy of the staff memorandum to
City Council regarding the Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.1 00, Definitions,
"Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion." At the May lOth hearing,
City Council passed the two following motions, both by votes of four to zero (4-0):
I move to direct staff to pursue a simple code amendment that would allow an FAR
bonus for deta~hed ADUs above a two-car garage with a maximum building footprint of
between 550 and 625 square feet, with the final number to be determined by the Planning
and Zoning Commission during its review of the proposed amendment.
And,
I move to uphold the Community Development Director's March 24, 1999, Code
Interpretation regarding the definition of 'Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or
Linked Pavilion.'
The proposed code amendment outlined in this memorandum is in response to the City
Council direction explained above. Community Development Department staff and the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council adopt the code
amendment to Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit
or Linked Pavilion," as proposed herein.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, an application
for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for
approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the Planning Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and then approved, approved with
conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS: See Exhibit A and the "Summary" section, above. Also, the
Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the code amendment proposed herein at their
June 8, 1999 hearing and recommended approval by a vote of six to zero (6-0). First
Reading by City Council was approved on the consent agenda on June 21, 1999.
,,,,,",
t'l
, i'
-DISCUSSION: Currently, Section 26.04.100, Definitions, of the Municipal Code defines
"Floor Area," as it relates to an "Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion" as follows:
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion. For the purpose of calculating floor
area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, the
following shall apply: The allowable floor area for an attached accessory dwelling unit
shall be excluded up to a maximum of three hundred fifty (350) square feet of allowable
floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit whichever is
less. An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet,
shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of allowable floor area up to seven hundred (700)
square feet of floor area. Any element linking the principal structure to the accessory
unit may be no more than one (I) story tall, six (6) feetwide and ten (10) feet long.
This definition indicates that an ADU separated from a principal structure by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet is
entitled to an FAR bonus. However, it is nearly impossible to provide a functional two-car
garage with a footprint of under 450 square feet. Realizing this, Council has directed staff to
pursue a simple code amendment that would allow for the "automatic" FAR bonus applying
to detached ADUs above a two-car garage with a maximum footprint of between five-
hundred fifty (550) and six hundred twenty-five (625) square feet, with the final number to
be determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission during its review of the proposed
amendment. Since the code requires that floor area and footprints be measured to the outside
of the walls, a maximum footprint of 625 square feet (25' x 25') would accommodate a
reasonable two-car garage while still ensuring that the detached structure is "incidental to,"
"subordinate to," and "subordinate in area, extent, and purpose" to the primary
structure/residence.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Staff proposes amending the above-cited definition to read
as follows, with text to be eliminated EkickiR 9'lt and text to be added in bold:
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion. For the purpose of calculating floor
area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, the
following shall apply: The allowable floor area for an attached accessory dwelling unit
shall be excluded up to a maximum of three hundred fifty (350) square feet of allowable
floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit whichever is
less. An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum building footprint off GUt' wlIll;lne Rft~: (1Hl) six
hundred twenty-five (625) square feet, shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of
allowable floor area up to seven hundred (700) square feet ofiloor area. Any element
linking the principal structure to the accessory unit may be no more than one (I) story
tall, six (6) feet wide and ten (10) feet long.
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations And
Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A-I) standards for City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed amendments to the
text of the Land Use Code. These standards and staffs evaluation of the potential
amendments relative to them are provided below, with the standard in italics followed by the
staff "response."
2
r-,
("'\
)'
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not be III conflict with any applicable
portions ofthe Aspen Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: None of the proposed amendments would be in conflict with any elements of
the AACP, and are very much consistent with the "Intent" and "Philosophy" statements of
the Housing Action Plan (page 30 of the AACP).
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would effect all zone districts that allow ADUs as
conditional uses. As explained above, in the "Discussion" section of this memorandum, a
maximum footprint of 625 square feet (25' x 25') would accommodate a reasonable two-car
garage while still ensuring that the detached structure is "incidental to," "subordinate to,"
and "subordinate in area, extent, and purpose" to the primary structure/residence. All ADUs
would still be subject to Conditional Use Review, which includes criteria pertaining to
neighborhood compatibility.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have any effect on
traffic generation or road safety. Again, all ADUs would still be subject to Conditional Use
Review, which includes criteria pertaining to traffic generation and road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools.
and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have an effect on
infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. Again, all ADUs would still be subject to
Conditional Use Review, which includes criteria pertaining to the capacities and availability
of public facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have an effect on the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: As explained above, in the "Discussion" section of this memorandum, a
maximum footprint of 625 square feet (25' x 25') would accommodate a reasonable two-car
3
~
r".
t"""\
,
garage while still ensuring that the detached structure is "incidental to," "subordinate to,"
and "subordinate in area, extent, and purpose" to the primary structure/residence. All ADUs
would still be subject to Conditional Use Review, which includes criteria pertaining to
neighborhood compatibility.
H Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: There has been no significant change in Aspen's general character. The
proposed amendment would not affect a particular "subject parcel" or a particular
"surrounding neighborhood." Again, all ADUs would still be subject to Conditional Use
Review, which includes criteria pertaining to neighborhood compatibility.
1 Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is
in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendment would be in harmony with the public
interest in encouraging the provision of affordable housing in the form of livable, above-
grade Accessory Dwelling Units.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that
City Council approve the amendments to Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G.
Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion," as proposed herein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1999."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Staff Memorandum to City Council dated May 10, 1999, regarding the
Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.1 00, Definitions, "Floor
Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion."
c:\home\mitchh\councillfootpmt2nd.doc
4
~
FROM:
fu-r e>>J ~ 1:L-
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ~
Joyce Ohlson, Depl,lty Director~ ,"
Mitch Haas, Plannek
Code Amendment --- Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G.
Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion."
f1
R&;{~. .~
THRU:
RE:
DATE:
June 8, 1999
SUMMARY: Please review the attached (Exhibit A) copy of the staff memorandum to
City Council regarding the Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.100, Definitions,
"Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion." At their May lOth hearing,
City Council passed the two following motions, both by votes of four to zero (4-0):
I move to direct staff to pursue a simple code amendment that would allow an FAR
bonus for detached ADUs above a two-car garage with a maximum building footprint of
between 550 and 625 square feet, with the final number to be determined by the Planning
and Zoning Commission during its review of the proposed amendment.
And,
I move to uphold the Community Development Director's March 24, 1999, Code
Interpretation regarding the definition of 'Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or
Linked Pavilion.'
The proposed code amendment outlined in this memorandum is in response to the City
Council direction explained above. Community Development Department staff
recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission rorward to City Council a
recommendation to adopt the code amendment to Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor
Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion as proposed herein.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a development
application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and
recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the Planning
Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and then
approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing.
-DISCUSSION: Currently, Section 26.04.100, Definitions, or the Municipal Code defines
"Floor Area," as it relates to an "Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion" as follows:
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion. For the purpose of calculating floor
area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, the
following shall apply: The allowable floor area for an attached accessory dwelling unit
shall be excluded up to a maximlJm of three hundred fifty (350) square feet of allowable
"
.
,-,
/'1
floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit whichever is
less. An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet,
shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of allowable floor, area up to seven hundred (700)
square feet of floor area. Any element linking the principal structure to the accessory
unit may be no more than one (I) story tall, six (6) feet wide arid ten (10) feet long. '
Tfie ~1Xj,/ :;V~fY'r
~efinition indicates that an ADU' separated from a principal structure ,by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet is
entitled to an FAR bonus. However, it is nearly impossible to provide a functional two-car
garage with a footprint of under 450 square feet. Realizing this, Council has directed staff to
pursue a simple code amendment that would allow for the "automatic" FAR bonus applying
to detached ADUs above a two-car garage with a maximum footprint of between five-
hundred fifty (550) and six hundred twenty-five (625) square feet, with the final number to
be determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission during its review of the proposed
amendment. Since the code requires that floor area and footprints be measured to the outside
of the walls, a maximum footprint of 625 square feet (25' x 25') would accommodate a
reasonable two-car garage while still ensuring that the detached structure is "incidental to,"
"subordinate to," and, "subordinate in area, extent, and purpose" to the primary
structure/residence.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: ' Staff proposes amending the above-cited definition to read
as follows, with text to be eliminated Elrisbm. g'lt and text to be added in bold:
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion. For the purpose of calculating floor
area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, the
following shall apply: The allowable floor area for an attached accessory dwelling unit
shall be excluded up to a maximum of three hundred fifty (350) square feet of allowable
floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit whichever is
less. An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum building footprint ofw'lr AYRGrWQ t:i~' (459) six
hundred twenty-five (625) square feet, shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of
allowable floor area up to seven hundred (700) square feet of floor area. Any element
linking the principal structure to the accessory unitmay be no more than one (1) story
tall, six (6) feet wide and ten (10) feet 10.ng}A:tJo ~UIO~ ~ e.~ AlaS'Ms:t,
TiWY'~,c:;ltlq t~ ~L ~C"1 ~...,... -ro..J,o,/W {;rV.owl(ffJUJ P"lA:>P: ~.
REVIE~]TANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations And
Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A-I) standards for City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed amendments to the
text of the Land Use Code. These standards and staff's evaluation of the potential
amendments relative to them are provided below, with the standard in italics followed by the
staff "response."
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any applicable
portions of the Aspen Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
2
,
<
".-.,
,
,"'-'"
,. ,
RESPONSE: None of the proposed amendments would be in conflict with any elements of
the AACP, and are very much consistent with the "Intent" and "Philosophy" statements of
the Housing Action Plan (page 30 of the AACP).
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone, districts and
land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characterislics.
,
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would effect all zone districts that allow ADUs as
conditional uses. As explained above, in the "Discussion" section of this memorandum, a
maximum footprint of 625 square feet (25' x 25') would accommodate a reasonable two-car
garage while still ensuring that the detached structure is "incidental to," "subordinate to,"
and "subordinate in area, extent, andpurpose" to the primary structure/residence. All ADUs
would still be subject to Coriditio,nal Use Review, which iIW.I.l:des criteria pertaining to
neighborhood compatibility; -tr~c JCllef>3:0'tYI-rlba/~...!:b .....v O#ltet77es. or ~(/ltlwt;f!1'lU7T' oF
, 1>"/11.,1<:- Pit-eit-me:s..
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have any effect on
traffic generation or road safety. Again, all ADUs would still be subject to Conditional Use
Review, which includes criteria pertaining to traffic generation and road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools"
and emergency medicalfacilities.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have an effect on
infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. Again, all ADUs would still be subject to
Conditional Use Review, which includes criteria pertaining to the capacities and availability
of public facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
, RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have an effect on the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: As explained above, in the "Discussion" section of this memorandum, a
maximum footprint of 625 square feet (25' x 25') would accommodate a reasonable two-car
garage while still ensuring that the detached structure is "incidental to," "subordinate to,"
and "subordinate in area, extent, and purpose" to the primary structure/residence. All ADUs
would still be subject to Conditional Use Review, which includes criteria pertaining to
neighborhood compatibility.
H Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
3
r---.
~,
RESPONSE: There has been no significant change in Aspen's general character. The
proposed amendment would not affect a particular "subject parcel" or a particular
"surrounding neighborhood." Again, all ADUs would still be subject to Conditional Use
Review, which includes criteria pertaining to neighborhood compatibility.
I Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is
in harmony'with the purpose and intent ofthis title.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendment would be in harmony with the public
interest in encouraging the provision of affordable housing in the form of livable, above-
grade Accessory Dwelling Units.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the falll!iIllhand Zoning Commission
forward to City Council a recommendation to approve th<;\ameootrients to Section 26.04.100,
Definitions, "Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion," as proposed
herein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend that City Council adopt the
amendments to Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or
Linked Pavilion," as proposed in the Community Development Department memorandum
dated June 8, 1999."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Staff Memorandum to City Council dated May 10, 1999, regarding the
Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.1 00, Definitions, "Floor
Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion." ,-0
Irfftol/~ .,.?~,
c:lhomelmitchhlp&zmemoslfootpml.doc
{fY;cJ~ "10
~
fll ,. 0
(6 -0 )
4
!"'"
r"'"'\
~18\T A ~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
The Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM:
RE:
Mitch Haas, Planner
Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.1 00, Definitions, "Floor Area,
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion."
DATE:
May 10, 1999
SUMMARY: Section 26.04.100, Definitions, of the Municipal Code defines "Floor Area,"
as it relates to an "Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion" as follows:
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion. For the purpose of calculating floor
area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, the
following shall apply: The allowable floor area for an attached accessory dwelling
unit shall be excluded up to a maximum of three hundred fifty (350) square feet of
allowable floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit
whichever is less. An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure
by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred
fifty (450) square feet, shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of allowable floor area
up to seven hundred (700) square feet of floor area. Any element linking the
principal structure to the accessory unit may be no more than one (1) story tall, SIX
(6) feet wide and ten (10) feet long.
This definition indicates that an ADU separated from a principal structure by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet is
entitled to an FAR bonus. V entures West has submitted a request for interpretation arguing
that the term "footprint" refers to the ADU itself (its floor plan), and not necessarily to where
the structure in which the ADU is incorporated meets the ground (plan view). They explain
that the language of the definition, as they read it, indicates that the footprint of the ADU (not
the encompassing structure) must not exceed 450 square feet to qualify for the FAR bonus.
Ventures West purports that the word "footprint" is commonly used to describe the bottom
perimeter of an architectural unit such as a room, a floor, a pool, etc., on whatever base it
may rest, not necessarily just the ground. They go on to explain that, "The inclusion of the
underlying structure to 450 square feet just because it is the part of the structure that meets
the ground is certainly not implied in the common use of the word footprint, nor is it a
reasonable assumption that it would be." "As we [Ventures West] read the code, all that is
clear is that the footprint of the ADU is restricted to 450 square feet (net livable) regardless
of whether it is on grade, below grade, or part ofa structure above grade." (See Exhibit A.)
INTERPRETATION: Staff of the Community Development Department has routinely and
consistently administered the above-cited definition as requiring that detached structures
containing ADUs have a maximum footprint of 450 square feet to be eligible for an FAR
bonus. In doing so, the term "footprint" has been interpreted to mean "the structure as drawn
in plan view, or the conglomeration of all points of intersection between the structure and
finished grade." In other words, the term "footprint" as used in the "Floor Area" definition
,'-'"
~
.'
has always been interpreted as a reference to the footprint of the structure in which the ADU
is incorporated, and not to the floor plan of the unit itself. (See Exhibit B.)
BACKGROUND: In designing a residence with an allowable FAR of6,114 square feet, the
applicant assumed an "automatic" FAR bonus of 50% of the ADU's floor area, and used all
of the site's allowable FAR (plus the bonus and exempted areas such as subgrade
spaces/basement and garages). The original proposal would have located the ADU above the
detached two-car garage. When it was realized that the FAR bonus would not be "automatic"
(i.e., without the imposition of "mandatory occupancy" on the deed restriction as a sort of
quid pro quo for a bonus being included with the conditional use approval), the applicant was
left with the following options: 1) redesign the proposal to fit within the' allowable FAR for
the site --- this would have required either elimination of approximately 288 square feet of
FAR from the proposed residence of nearly 10,000 gross square feet, or relocation of the
ADU to a subgrade space so that most of its area would be exempt from FAR calculations;
2) redesign the proposed detached structure to have a footprint of 450 square feet or less; 3)
apply for a code amendment to change the 450 square foot footprint provision to allow a
larger footprint; or, 4) seek a code interpretation of the term "footprint," and if necessary, .
appeal the interpretation to Council.
The applicant chose to relocate the proposed ADU to a subgrade space in order to avoid
having all of its gross square footage count toward the site's total allowable FAR. Staff still
found the proposal to meet the review criteria for an ADU as a Conditional Use, and
recommended approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission feels
that, although not precluded by the Land Use Code, subgrade AnUs are not consistent with
the direction and recommendations of the AACP. Accordingly, rather than approve the
subgrade ADU, the Commission felt it would be better for the ADU to be located in the
unused, vaulted space above the detached two-car garage. Consequently, the Plarming and
Zoning Commission encouraged the applicant to appeal the Community Development
Director's Code Interpretation to Council, thinking that the interpretation somehow precluded
or discouraged location of the ADU above-grade.
DISCUSSION: In interpreting the code language, staff struggled with the following
questions. Why would the maximum "footprint" (floor plan) of the ADU itself be limited to
450 square feet when a 700 square foot unit is permissible? Or, how can a bonus of up to
350 square feet of floor area be possible if the unit's maximum footprint is 450 square feet?
Answer: if the applicant's interpretation is correct, the 350 square foot bonus and/or a 700
square foot unit would only be possible for two-story ADUs. Is the City simply attempting to
encourage two-story ADUs? Staff thinks not. Similarly, is the City discouraging detached
ADUs above two-car garages in order to, instead, encourage the development of these units
only above one-car garages or on grade? Again, staff thinks not.
Based on the ADU-related information found throughout the City Code and on staffs
understanding of the ADU program's purpose, staff co s that the 450 square foot
foot rint provision must relate to where . . oun and
not to e penm e unl S oor plan. For instance, the criterion for the Planning and
ZOlllng Commission to grant the tAR bonus/variation for a detached ADU is a finding that
"such variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence . . ." Such a
criterion (one related to compatibility in character to the primary residence) would be
arbitrary and capricious in relation to the floor plan of a unit within a larger building. That is,
under the applicant's interpretation, such a criterion would seek to answer the question of, "Is
this room or unit within the detached building compatible with the character of the primary
residence?" Further, the variance criterion would be unrelated to the issue of detached
accessory dwelling units being in harmony with the letter and spirit of the City definition for
2
'-
,-,
~
. .
"Accessory use or accessory structure," which includes such phrases as: "incidental to;"
"subordinate to;" and, "is subordinate in area, extent, and purpose. . ."
CONCLUSION: While staff is comfortable basing its conclusion on the foregoing lines of
reason, it may be added that the term "footprint" is commonly used in architectural circles to
refer to a structure as drawn in plan view, or the conglomeration of all points of intersection
between the structure and finished grade. This interpretation has been consistently applied in
the past. In fact, in recent discussions with various architects, none disagreed with this
interpretation and none believed the term applied to individual rooms, floors, etc. All
architects staff has conferred with generally understand the term "footprint" to refer to where
a structure meets the ground.
With regard to the Planning and Zoning Commission's feeling that staffs interpretation
somehow precluded or discouraged location of the ADU above-grade, staff can only respond
by pointing out that relocation of the ADU to a subgrade space was required only because the
applicant was not willing to either eliminate 288 square feet of FAR from the principal
residence, or make the garage smaller. On the other hand, staff agrees with the applicant
insomuch as it is nearly impossible to provide a functional two-car garage with a footprint of
under 450 square feet. Thus, while staff stands by its interpretation, staff also feels it might
be worthwhile to pursue a simple code amendment that would allow for the "automatic" FAR
bonus applying to deta.ched ADUs above a two-car garage with a maximum footprint of five-
hundred fifty (550) square feet if Council should be so inclined. A maximum footprint of
550 square feet (22' x 25') would accommodate a reasonable two-car garage while still
ensuring that the detached structure is "incidental to," "subordinate to," and "subordinate in
area, extent, and purpose" to the primary structure/residence.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council uphold the Community
Development Director's interpretation of Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G.
Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion" finding that the term "footprint" as used in the
subject definition refers to a structure as drawn in plan view, or the conglomeration of all
points of intersection between the structure and finished grade.
In addition, it is recommended that Council direct staff to pursue a simple code amendment
that would allow an FAR bonus for detached ADUs above a two-car garage with a maximum
footprint of five-hundred fifty (550) square feet.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to uphold the Community Development Director's
March 24, 1999, Code Interpretation regarding the definition of "Floor Area, G. Accessory
Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion," as provided in Section 26.04.100 of the Aspen Municipal
Code."
"I also move to direct staff to pursue a simple code amendment that would allow an FAR
bonus for detached ADUs above a two-car garage with a maximum footprint of five-hundred
fifty (550) square feet."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A --- Request for Interpretation
Exhibit B --- Director's Interpretation
Exhibit C -.- Request for Appeal ofInterpretation
3