Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.855 Bay St.A007-99r- lATG'bATE;;: IR&PODY, PH NOTICED .� DATE bF REMARKS CITY C SE� PL'AT•SU8'MI7D: � PLA,i`fSK PC1:r W 00mus7_t7: aI NT1 TO: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer 4 '' RE: 855 Bay Street, Insubstantial Amendment to a Conditional Use for an ADU DATE: October 12, 1999 SUMMARY: David Muckenhim of Ventures West, representing James A. Morse, owner, is requesting an insubstantial amendment to a conditional use approval for an ADU. When the conditional use was approved on May 18, 1999, the applicant could not place the ADU in the preferred location above the detached garage, because the Land Use Code permitted ADUs in a footprint of no more that 450 square feet. A code amendment has since revised that dimension so now the footprint where an ADU can be located is 625 square feet. The applicant is requesting administrative approval to relocate the ADU to above the garage and receive a 219 square foot FAR bonus for a detached, above grade ADU (Exhibit "B'). Staff has reviewed this proposed amendment and recommends administrative approval by the Director. APPLICANT: James A. Morse, Owner. LOCATION: 855 Bay Street ZONING: R -30 PUD. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Insubstantial amendments to an approved Conditional Use for an ADU may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.425.080. STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." The applicant's request is Exhibit `B." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Community Development Director approve this Insubstantial Conditional Use Amendment to relocate the ADU above the detached garage and grant the 219 square foot FAR bonus. APPROVAL: I hereby approve this Insubstantial Amendment for the relocation of the ADU to above the detached garage and grant a FAR bonus of 219 square feet for providing an above grade, detached ADU. date J Ann Woods, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Request from Applicant 2 Exhibit A Review Criteria Insubstantial Conditional Use Amendment. 1. The change will not cause negative impacts on pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation, parking or noise. Staff Finding: With this proposed amendment, the use and intensity remains the same as approved. The change does not increase pedestrian and vehicular traffic, circulation, parking or noise. The change will not substantially affect the tourist or local orientation of the conditional use. Staff Finding: The change will result in a better livability for the ADU. 3. The change wall not affect the character of the neighborhood in which the use is located. Staff Finding: The character will change no more than with the original location of the ADU. 4. The change will not increase the use's employee base or retail square footage in the structure. Staff Finding: The above criterion is not applicable to this request. 5. The change will not substantially alter the external visual appearance of the building or its site. Staff Finding: The relocation of the ADU will allow for a FAR bonus of approximately 219 square feet, but will be relocated above a detached two -car garage which was part of the site design prior to the code amendment and FAR bonus. The increased livability of the unit outweighs any alteration in the external visual appearance of the building. �0 HFUflESIM ARCHREM14OENGH a CONSTNUCNON October 8,1999 Mx. Julie Ann Worlds Community I)ovckgmTCnt Director City ol'Aspcn 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ms. Woods: Pursuant to paragraph 1 of P&Z Resolution 99 -12 granting approval of a Conditional Use for an ADU on Lot I of the Creektree Subdivision 855 Bay Street, City of Aspen, Colorado (see attached), this is a request on behalf of James A. Morse, owner to amend this conditional use approval such that the ADU be relocated above the garage a{ �d receive a FAR bonus pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code fn effect at this tithe. Sincerely, David Muckenjim cc Sarah Oates James A. Morse Steve Fitzgerald DOM Muckenhirn Post office Box 8352 • Aspcn, Colorado 81612 1 telephone 970.925.8889 • Fox 970.925.4006 • (doles 970.379.1077 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 189 19999 4:30 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL L COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public H. MINUTES (04/13/99) III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PUBLIC HEARING 4:45- 4:50A. Minor PUD Code Amendment, Chris Bendon (continued to June 8, 1999) no packet material 4:50- 4:55B. Lodge Preservation Program Text Amendment, Chris Bendon (continued to June 8, 1999) no packet material 4:55- 5:30C. 855 Bay Street Conditional Use for an ADU, Mitch Haas and . Chris Bendon (continued from April 13) 5:30- 6:OOD. 488 Castle Creek Rezoning, Chris Bendon V. ADJOURN (Information item on Truscott Golf Pro Shop was pul Post -ir Fax Note 7671 Date paoges0 To Co. /Dept From Co: Phone # Phone # Fax # +°- Fax 4 ADDENDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directoo/ "" Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director` yy//11 FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner RE: 855 Bay Street (Lot 1,Creektree Subdivision) Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and Variances from the Residential Design Standards. Parcel I.D. No. 2737- 073 - 50001. DATE: May 18, 1999 (continued from April 6, 1999 and April 13, 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 10`h 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.' Staff is now in the process of initiating the code amendment, and hopes to have it before the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 8, 1999. With that aside, staff continues to recommend approval of the current proposal to locate the ADU below the garage, but with a condition recognizing that the applicant agrees to pursue amendment of the conditional use approval for this ADU to relocate it above the garage, should the aforementioned code amendment be approved by City Council. In the interest of saving the applicant time and cost, staff is recommending that part of this condition allow the amended application to be administratively approved by the Community Development Director if it is found to meet the amended criteria for an "automatic" FAR bonus. In short, staff recommends approval of the currently proposed, below grade ADU with the following condition included: If a code amendment making an `automatic' FAR bonus possible for a detached ADU above a two -car garage with a footprint larger than 450 square feet is adopted by City Council, the owner /applicant shall submit a request for, and the Community Development Director shall be permitted to grant, administrative approval to amend this conditional use approval such that the ADU would be relocated above the garage and receive an FAR bonus pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application, provided the Community Development Director finds the amended proposal to satisfy all applicable review criteria. Further, staff continues to recommend approval of the below -grade ADU proposal since, in staffs opinion, it satisfies all applicable review criteria, as explained in the April 13, 1999 memorandum. Staff has re- reviewed the AACP in an attempt to determine whether it in any way precludes development of below -grade ADUs. The Plan simply stresses a need for an increased inventory of affordable units and makes no distinction between above- and below - grade units. There are many below -grade units throughout town in which people are and have been living happily. The fact that a unit is below grade does not categorically render it undesirable or unlivable, and staff would suggest leaving the determination of "acceptability" to the individual, potential renter(s) of the unit. Also, a unit's design and disposition will factor into its final level of "affordability." That is, below grade units will tend to have lower rents than will above -grade units and may, thus, serve a population with different needs and financial means than might the above -grade units. To conclude this point, the Housing Action Plan of the AACP states that, "No one location, no one type and no one sector can provide the opportunities needed to sustain the community." RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use for an ADU at 855 Bay Street (Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision) with the following conditions: If a code amendment making an `automatic' FAR bonus possible for a detached ADU above a two -car garage with a footprint larger than 450 square feet is adopted by City Council, the owner /applicant shall submit a request for, and the Community Development Director shall be permitted to grant, administrative approval to amend this conditional use approval such that the ADU would be relocated above the garage and VV receive an FAR bonus pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application, provided the Community Development Director finds the amended proposal to satisfy all applicable review criteria. 2. The Building Permit application shall: a. include a signed and recorded copy of the Planning and ,Zoning Commission Resolution outlining the granted approvals and conditions, and on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction, the language of any and all conditions of approval; b. include a signed and notarized letter from the contractor indicating that all conditions of approval are known to and understood by him /her; c. include a copy of the recorded Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision plat; d. include verification from the Housing Office that the Accessory Dwelling Unit will contain between 300 and 700 square feet of net livable area; e. include verification from the Housing Office that 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; f. include a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, a copy of which must be obtained from the Housing Office; g. clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on building permit plans as a separate unit; h. clearly indicate the provision of at least of one (1) off - street parking space for the ADU, and said space(s) shall be shown and designated on the final plans; i. include an executed copy of an agreement to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way; j. include working drawings to verify compliance with all applicable dimensional requirements; k. include a copy of an executed and recorded Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Agreement; 2 1. a copy of an executed tap permit from the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; m. information needed to verify that the proposed plans for the ADU will comply with all UBC requirements including but not limited to those addressing natural light, sound attenuation, and ventilation standards; n. include drawings that show all utility meter locations; utility meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. 3. The applicant shall provide a roof overhang or other sufficient means of preventing snow from falling on both the stairway leading to the door and the area in front of the door to the ADU; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairway is also required. 4. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. . 5. Except as provided for in condition number l., above, if the proposed use, density, or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking, or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re- evaluation. 6. The applicantlowner shall provide the contractor(s) with copies of all Planning and Zoning Commission resolutions applicable to the 855 Bay Street Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Review approvals. 7. 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. n RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Conditional Use request for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 855 Bay Street (Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision) with the \conditions recommended in the May 18, 1999 addendum to the April 13, 1999 staff • memorandum." EXHIBITS: (�,(�l,(�111�000u1uW11" Exhibit A — Staff Memorandum to City Council dated May 10, 1999, regarding the �JJ \1 \VY\ Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion." UA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 189 1999, 4:30 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES (04/13/99) III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PUBLIC HEARING 4:45- 4:50A. Minor PUD Code Amendment, Chris Bendon (continued to June 8, 1999) no packet material 4:504:55B. Lodge Preservation Program Text Amendment, Chris Bendon (continued to June 8, 1999) no packet material 4:55- 5:30C. 855 Bay Street Conditional Use for an ADU, Mitch Haas and Chris Bendon (continued from April 13) 5:30- 6:o0D.. 488 Castle Creek Rezoning, Chris Bendon V. ADJOURN (Information item on Truscott Golf Pro Shop was pulled) 0 CITY AGENDAS 5/18 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 4/27 Minor PUD, Code Amendment, Public Hearing (con't to 6/8) (CB) 855 Bay Street, Conditional Use for an ADU, Public Hearing (con't from 4/13) (MH) 488 Castle Creek Road, Rezoning, Public Hearing (CB) Lodge Preservation Program Text Amendment, Public Hearing (con't to 6/8) (CB) 5/24 City Council (5:00) City Notice 5/4 Moore Annexation, Determination of Completeness, I' Reading Ordinance 30 Revisions, l' Reading (JAW) 5/26 HPC (5:00) City Notice 5/4 308 N. 1', Inventory, Public Hearing 333 W. Main, Minor 400 W. Smugger, Minor 520 E. Durant, Minor 313 W. Bleeker, Work Session 6/1 City Planning and Zoning(4:30) City Notice 5111 Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, Public Hearing (CB) Bavarian Inn, Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (con't from 4/13) (MH) 308 N. 1s`, Inventory, Public Hearing (AG) 6/8 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 5/18 Lodge Preservation Text Amendment, Public Hearing (con't from 5/18) (CB) Minor PUD, Code Amendment, Public Hearing ( con't from 5/18) (CB) Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Final, Public Hearing (CB) Text Amendment, Section 26.04.100, Definitions, Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion, Public Hearing (MH) 6/9 HPC City Notice 5/18 405 S. Galena, Site Design 302 E. Hopkins, Conceptual, Public Hearing 121 N. Fifth, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Public Hearing 135 W. Hopkins, Conceptual (con't from 5/12) 6/14 City Council (5:00) City Notice 5/25 2 Williams Way, Inventory, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (SO) Street Name Change — "Aene Park" to "Alpine Court" (SO) Vendor's Agreement for Farmer's Market, Public Hearing (MI) Ordinance 30 Revisions, 2" Reading Public Hearing (JAW) 308 N. 1 ", Inventory, V Reading, (AG) 488 Castle Creek Rezoning, 1" Reading (CB) 121 N. Fifth, Historic Landmark Lot Split, In Reading (AG) Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, 1' Reading (CB) 6/15 Growth Management Commission (4:30) City Notice 5/25 Burlingame Season Housing, Public Hearing (CB) 6/15 City Planning and Zoning (5:30) City Notice 5/25 Aspen Mountain PUD, Conceptual, Lots 3 and 5, Public Hearing (MH) Hopkins and Original Work Session (MH) 6/21 City Council (5:00) Special Meeting Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD, Subdivision, ? Reading (CB) 6/22 City Planning and Zoning (5:00) Joint Meeting with County P &Z Buttermilk Master Plan 6/23 HPC (5:00) City Notice 6/1 6/28 City Council (5:00) City Notice 6/8 Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Fee Waivers and Appeal of Code Interpretation, 2°d Reading Public Hearing, Prentice, (CB) 7/6 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 6/16 Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment, Public Hearing (CB) . 7/12 City Council (5:00) City Notice 6/23 308 N. 1 ", Inventory, 2" Reading Public Hearing (AG) 488 Castle Creek Rezoning, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (CB) 121 N. Fifth, Historic Landmark Lot Split, 2' Reading Public Hearing (AG) Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (CB) Ri 7/14 HPC (5:00) City Notice 6/23 7/20 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 6/30 7/26 City Council (5:00) City Notice 7/7 7/28 HPC (5:00) City Notice 7/7 cc: P &Z Packet City Attorney's Office City Planning Staff City Clerk's Office 5/13/99 g:/ planning /aspen/agendWcomingup.dod 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING CONMSSION APRIL 13,M9 COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS ....................................................................... ............................... 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................................... ...................I........... 1 855 BAY STREET - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE - ADU AND VARIANCES FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS ................................................................................... ............................... 1 BAVARIAN INN CONCEPTUAL PUD .................................................................................... ............................... 6 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13,199 Jasmine Tygre, Vice - Chairperson, opened the special Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 p.m. with Steve Buettow, Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson, Roger Hunt and Tim Semrau (4:40 p.m.) present. Bob Blaich was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Mitch Haas, Joyce Ohlson, Julie Ann Woods, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roger Hunt stated the Engineering Department had the plats for the trail easement along the ACES fence by the Post Office; the trail easement was through the Post office property. Steve Buettow asked if the pick -up with a for sale sign on it was the new use of space where the newspaper boxes were previously located. Tim Mooney said there should be a traffic plan to eliminate the bottleneck with the circulation from the back of the building. Jasmine Tygre stated the City P &Z Commission felt strongly that a parking mitigation plan should be made and the newspaper boxes should be replaced. Ron Erickson said that at the lunch work session with Housing last Thursday; P &Z asked that all applicants have the same level of review. He asked the other commissioners to attend next week's lunch. Julie Ann Woods noted the meeting on April 21" reviewing the AACP. There was discussion about the participation by the housing board voting on projects. Joyce Ohlson said issues needed to be discussed involving how to make communication work. She distributed a list of items brought up at prior meetings to bring closure. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Steve Buettow stepped down on the Bavarian Conceptual PUD. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (04/0.6/99): 855 BAY STREET — STREAM MARGIN REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE - ADU and VARIANCES FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Jasmine Tygre, vice - chair, opened the continued public hearing. David Hoefer stated the proof of notice was provided and the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. He provided a review criteria sheet. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION I APRIL 13 1999 Mitch Haas stated the applicant requested a stream margin review, conditional use review for an ADU and two design review standard variance requests; garage placement and the volume standard. The application included demolition of the existing single family residence and re-development of the site with a single family residence and an ADU. The ADU would be located below a detached garage with no FAR bonus requested. The 543 square foot ADU would be deed restricted with it's own access. and parking space. Haas said the stream margin review was outside of the 100 -year floodplain with an existing trail, fisherman's easement and pedestrian/riverine easement. There were conditions requesting a new plat for this property with a dedicated trail easement. The engineering department reviewed the top of slope and agreed with it as well as the building envelope placement. Haas noted the garage placement standard required the garage structure to be a minimum of ten feet recessed behind the front fagade of the residence. He said this variance request more effectively addressed the standard. Haas stated the proposed volume variance regarding the "no window" zone between 9' -12' above a finished floor did not meet any of the standards. Staff recommended denial of this variance request because an alternate design was included that complied with the standard. David Muckenhirn, architect for applicant, stated the ADU was a very nice unit with it's own entrance. Ron Erickson asked what the FAR was on the site. Muckenhirn replied it was 6100 square feet. Steve Buettow asked what was the use of the space on the upper floor plan above the garage. He commented that the ADU would have worked well above the garage. Muckenhim replied the plans showed the elevation from a previous design with the ADU located above the garage, but the owner wanted to have a garage larger than the footprint of the ADU at 450 square feet. The commissioners requested clarification. Haas stated to obtain the FAR bonus without a mandatory occupancy deed restriction, the ADU must be detached and separated by 10 feet, above grade and the footprint of the structure had to be 450 square feet or less. He said there was no way, with a two -car garage, to have a 450 sf ADU above the two -car garage. Buettow inquired if that review was within the P &Z's purview. Haas answered that was not one of the conditions under conditional use that could be varied. Erickson asked if the measurement of the 450 sf was inside or outside. Haas responded it was the outside wall; other projects have accomplished the FAR bonus for an ADU with a one car garage and storage. Tim Mooney asked if there was a floor ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13 1999 plan to the second floor of the garage. Haas responded the second floor was only open space. Tim Semrau asked about the trail encroachment. Muckenhirn replied it would become a trail easement. Haas noted the memo contained incorrect numbering and would be re- labeled on the revised Resolution and reflected in the motion. No public comments. Erickson stated that he was in favor of the project except for the ADU because it was not livable being below grade. Roger Hunt said that a publicly beneficial ADU would be his preference also; placing the ADU above the garage would be a good use of the space. Buettow said the square footage above the garage could be made to conform for an ADU by adding a deck and storage. Haas stated that city council could over -turn the interpretation made by staff to allow the ADU above the garage, but the owner could have added 300 sf to the ADU having the same footprint as the garage. Staff reviewed the ADU as proposed, not as what it could be. He said the owner could have removed 300 sf from the main residence, but chose not to do that. Semrau stated that he did not agree with the volume variance. He said there was a second option, which kept with the character of the code. Mooney agreed that the option for the volume should be taken without a variance. Tygre noted there were several elements of this proposal and there were no comments on the stream margin review or the variance for the garage standard. The commissioners concurred. She noted the residential design standard volume variance was problematic, as was the sub -grade ADU. Hoefer suggested that separate motions would be appropriate. Buettow asked if the ADU was turned down tonight, what recourse did the applicant have in the future. Hoefer replied that if the ADU was turned down tonight, that was a denial of the application and they would have to start over. He said they could appeal from the criteria on the sheet. Muckenhirn asked if everything but the ADU could be approved tonight. He said then the ADU could be mitigated, appealed or something else. Haas responded that continuing the ADU portion of the hearing would be the best option. Hoefer noted that a date certain would be provided to continue the ADU ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13 1999 portion of the hearing. Staff s memo was re- numbered and re- worded to reflect the changes. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the stream margin review and a variance from the "garage placement" provision of the residential design standards for lot one of the Creektree Subdivision, 855 Bay Street, provided the review criteria have been met, including the following conditions: 1. Prior to City acceptance of a building permit application, the applicant shall prepare for recordation an amended Final Plat for Lot 1 of the Creektree Subdivision; this final plat shall: a. delineate a "designated building envelope" where the southerly extent of said building envelope corresponds with (is identical to) the northern edge of the fifteen (15) foot no- build zone (stream margin setback); b. delineate the top of slope and the fifteen (15) foot "no -build zone;" c. dedicate and delineate a legally described as -built trail easement (without the words "trail encroachment') of at least twenty (20) feet in width (ten (10) feet on each side of the built trail's centerline); d. include a "Site Section' showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, the no -build zone, pertinent elevations above sea level, and the progressive height limitation set by a line drawn at a forty -rive (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope to the point of intersection with the height limitation of the underlying R- 30/PUD zone district; d. delineate any and all existing wetlands areas as determined to exist through a wetlands delineation conducted in the Spring of 1999 by a qualified botanist or other Wetlands expert and approved by the City Parks Department; E be reviewed for approval by the Parks, Engineering, and Community Development Departments prior to recording (by the applicant) with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 2. The Building Permit application shall: a. include a signed and recorded copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution outlining the granted approvals and conditions, and on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction, the language of any and all conditions of approval; b. include a signed and notarized letter from the contractor indicating that all conditions of approval are known to and understood by him /her; c. include a copy of the recorded Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision plat described above in condition 1; d. include a $50 fee in lieu of digital submission requirements; e. include a survey entitled "Improvement, Survey" which clearly states that "all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy Number , dated [within the past 12 months] are shown hereon." f. include a drainage report and mitigation plan (24" x 36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, and the provisions of this plan are required to meet the runoff design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(1); g. include a permanent erosion control plan, and a temporary sediment control and contaminant plan for the construction phase; h. indicate whether aground injection or re- charge type drainage system is proposed (i.e., drywells), and if so, a soils report establishing percolation rates will need to be included; i..indicate that drywells will not be permitted within utility easements; j. demonstrate through the above - referenced drainage plans that foundation drainage systems will be detained on site; k. include an executed tree removal permit from the Parks Department, for any tree(s) that is /are to be removed or relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this /these dripline(s). 1. include an executed copy of an agreement to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way; m. include working drawings to verify compliance with all applicable dimensional requirements; n. include a copy of an executed and recorded Sidewalk, Curb ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13 1999 & Gutter Agreement; o. a copy of an executed tap permit from the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; p. include provisions and plans for the approval and installation of an automatic fire suppression system; and, q. include drawings that show all utility meter locations; utility meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. 3. Prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation, or building permits, the building envelope shall be delineated on -site by construction fencing incorporating sediment webbing from a point approximately thirty (30) feet back from the top of slope and around the river -side of the envelope to minimize the sedimentation potential along the two side yards and the river frontage. The barricades shall remain in place until the later of either the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or the completion and establishment of the landscaping. 4. If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not be directed toward the river or located down the river bank slope, nor will it cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down - directional, sharp cut -off fixtures, and those fixtures set along walkways (if any) shall be set at no more than eighteen (18) inches above finished grade. Outdoor flood lights are strictly prohibited. 5. The proposed design has been granted a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), Garage Placement, of the Residential Design Standards, Aspen Municipal Code. All other requirements of the Residential Design Standards shall be complied with. 6. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 7. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and /or public trail disturbances; The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. 8. If the proposed use, density, or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking, or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re- evaluation. 9. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 10. The applicantlowner shall provide the contractor(s) with copies of all Planning and Zoning Commission resolutions applicable to the 855 Bay Street Stream Margin Review approvals. 11. 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. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Semrau, yes; Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Erickson, yes; Hunt, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6 -0. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing regarding the Conditional Use for an ADU at the James A. Morse residence, 855 Bay Street to May 18, 1999. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Erickson, yes; Mooney, yes; Semrau, yes; Buettow, yes; Hunt, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6 -0. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: BAVARIAN INN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre, Chair, opened the public hearing and requested proof of notice. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated John Sarpa provided the notice, which was sufficient to proceed. He asked if the sign was posted and the mailing was done 18 days prior to the hearing. Sarpa answered that was true. Hoefer introduced the proposal for the project; criteria review sheet; copy of the ballot language from 1990; letters from Polse, Eichner and Murray. Mitch Haas, staff, utilized a site map showing of the proposed location with the Bavarian Inn, which was actually 2 parcels of land. The site included the (Parcel 1) Bavarian Inn, out- buildings and (Parcel 2) the other side of the alley where there was a volleyball court, picnic table and single family home. The proposal was to stay within the zoning on Parcel 1 and re -zone Parcel 2 to RMF -PUD (the same as Parcel 1). The re- zoning would be done during the final approval and any approvals for the PUD would be conditioned upon the re- zoning approval. Haas stated the proposal for the existing Bavarian Inn included an.interior remodel and paint with anew finish on the exterior. There would be 13 category two dormitory units, 1 two - bedroom apartment and 1 three- bedroom apartment. He said on Parcel 1, behind the Bavarian Inn, all the existing out - buildings would be demolished and replaced with a seven unit town home multi - family building. On the proposed Parcel 2 were five units facing 8'i' Street with temporary access to the 22 space parking area off the West Main Street extension. There would also be 2 one -story duplexes facing the street and facing the alley. All parking would access the alley; there would be mitigation for parking. This neighborhood had a parking problem. Haas stated some trees would be removed or re-located; some trees added as required and illustrated on the landscape plan. The parking area would be screened. Main Street was part of the historic district. He noted that a parking management plan was suggested. Haas said that Housing discussed converting the dormitory rooms into studios as for sale category units as opposed to rental units. He said that staff felt the architecture was appropriate with pitched roofs with a victorian character; the development proposal was suitable with density of just over 37 units to an acre. He said density was what we strive for in the urban area and this was one of the last buildable sites in the area with the exception of 7 h and Main Street. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13 1999 Haas said that the Entrance To Aspen will be under construction at about the same time frame as this project. He said there were variance requests that would probably change if the project were redesigned prior to final PUD. The proposal met the Housing Guidelines as well as the other various plans. Haas stated staff recommended approval with the conditions as listed in the memo. John Sarpa, representative for Savannah, stated that they have worked with various staff over the years on this 100% privately funded affordable housing project. He said they continue to meet with the neighbors. Sunny Vann, Savannah Planner, said the primary issue was to provide a project suitable to the site, housing as many people as possible, and meeting the housing guidelines. He said the rental units would be reconsidered and possibly converted to for sale studio apartments. Vann stated the inadequate parking for the Villas, Bleeker Street and current Bavarian Inn seriously exacerbated the parking situation for the surrounding neighborhood. He said there were excellent transportation options for this site but the proposed parking plan was needed. Vann stated condition 92 was contrary to some of the issues identified from the neighborhood. He said there were neighbors in the audience to speak about some of these issues; most other areas of concern were basic site configurations. Richie Cohen, West Bleeker Place Townhouses, stated concern for the density and mass but a real concern was with staff,,s concept of the urban streetscape. He said living in this neighborhood did not have a very urban feeling with the surrounding one -story buildings and open space. He noted the new entry to Aspen from the tunnel across the bridge to a gable townhouse would seem harsh and out of place. He said the parking plan was critical. He said the height and mass needed to be reduced and a judicious replacement of trees may help. Bonnie Murray, 814 West Bleeker, said that she did write a letter (see exhibits) and stated support for employee housing; she thought this was a wonderful site. Murray noted concerns about the livability and safety of the complex with children due to the lack of open space. She said that she hoped the dormitory rooms would be reconsidered with the housing authority recommendation for studio and one - bedroom units. She voiced concern over the massing and retention of the current Bavarian Inn. Paul Murray, 814 West Bleeker, reiterated the traffic and parking problems on Bleeker, which would be added to with the new entrance to Aspen. He stated support for employee housing. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13. 1999 Nancy Hendricks, Villas of Aspen, stated that the problems with cars were shared concerns. She said the housing was needed and expressed a desire for the dormitory units to be changed to studio for sale units. She agreed with the Murrays that the Bavarian Inn should come down and noted the lack of open space not only for playing but where the snow would be stored after it was plowed. She hoped the berming would continue past Eighth Street for the new entrance. William Steward, Villas of Aspen, requested the heights be restricted for the livability of the neighborhood. He said there were concerns for the density and traffic impacts from the highway regardless of the entrance changes. Steward noted that he drove a city bus and witnessed more accidents than shown in the traffic study; the study did not rate this area safely. He said this would not make a bad situation worse but rather make a failed situation a death trap; this was not an exaggeration and asked for anyone to try and cross at Eighth Street. Steward said the alley entrance would make it a dangerous situation with the short corners and sight lines. He suggested the project entrance be moved to Cooper Street to internalize the impacts and requested a total reduction of size, bulk and density. Herb Klein, neighbor; stated the developer has put the time in with the neighborhood and has tried to work within the constraints they were under. He reiterated the access and limited access problems in the area and cited the requirements for development from the code. He said the alley probably did not have adequate turning radius and was disappointed that staff did not filter out these problems prior to this conceptual stage. He noted the code did not make a distinction when re- zoning for affordable housing. Klein stated the traffic engineers gave the lowest possible mark for this intersection; the report shows only a few cars through the intersection onto Main Street because cars cannot get out of that intersection. He said the people of the neighborhood cannot use the intersection to get out onto Eighth but once the new highway is done there will not be that opportunity to come out of those streets because they will be closed. Klein noted no analysis for the traffic light added was done and with the Cemetery Lane traffic added, this light would cause Bleeker and the alley to be blocked. Klein stated the Bavarian Inn was a dump but the people who lived there were very nice and considerate. He said there was no problem with affordable housing but the density and massing were problems and not suitable for the neighborhood. Klein said this was his back and side yard and he had NIMBY issues here. Klein stated there was a circulation problem and a wall of buildings with the current site plan. He said this was not part of the urban grid of town and there were places in town that had access to parking from Main Street through out town. Klein 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13 1999 commented the trees must be retained, protected and not be trimmed to accommodate another building. He noted the alley was not 20' in width because of the trees in this area and this was a very dangerous intersection. Klein stated the issue with the intersection was a fatal flaw and should not be glossed over. Klein stated the existing Bavarian cabins should be historic and would be acceptable in terms of the neighborhood with less density and less parking problems. He requested the commissioners do a site visit. Todd Bosart, West Bleeker Place, echoed the neighbors concerns and comments. He stated the Savannah gentlemen have been great but this was a dense neighborhood with a narrow street especially with snow. He noted. there was more than one car per hour because he made at least that many trips with his neighbors. He said that loosing a few trees was an understatement; he encouraged the commission to look at the proposal and the foundation for it. Tygre requested the commission make a decision to extend the meeting past 7:00. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting until 725 p.m. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4 -0. Tim Mooney stated sympathy for the developer and the neighborhood; this gets to the root of the question for a sustainable community without projects like this and without sacrifices from the neighborhood. He said this was a suitable location and density for a project like this; he agreed with the RMF -PUD zoning. Mooney stated he was not in favor of variances; he said everyone should fit into the box, but stated sympathy toward the height and open space variances to allow the project to move forward. Mooney said the affordable housing should allow the ability to move up through the "housing food chain"; this may be one situation where rental dorm rooms could work if properly controlled. He said the parking spaces should be assigned with limitations spelled out in the covenants. He questioned why underground parking and basements were not explored. Mooney agreed with Richie Cohen in dropping the height of the buildings and even by going down 3 feet to accommodate the density into other areas on the site. He said the trees were critical to the landscape plan. Ron Erickson stated that he did not agree with staff on the urban landscape. He felt the height of the project should be lowered by going below ground; he said the trees were being removed or relocated anyhow according to the site plan. He applauded the number of parking spaces because the area has a parking problem. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13 1999 Erickson said there was a problem with the access to the project and it needed to be solved. He thought that one bedrooms were a better use for employee housing. Roger Hunt stated the Main Street access should be kept and there were traffic figures that would support a better flow with the Main Street extension at 7"' and Bleeker, he noted the flow may not be perfect but should be better. He said that he preferred the dorm idea to allow a balanced approach to affordable housing. Hunt said the gable roofs were preferred to flat roofs even if the buildings needed to be lowered to accommodate the project. He thought the density was okay. Hunt noted that ownership housing on site called for more parking to be provided on site. He mentioned the need for a parking storage facility outside of town for projects just like this one. Tim Semrau asked the height of the Main Street after the Entrance to Aspen was built. Haas replied that he did not think that was decided yet, but the assumption was the same as with parking on the north side of the street. He complimented the architecture and recommended changing the dorm units to studios. He stated the project was sound and it was time for creative solutions to some of the problems. Semrau said the height was 37' at the ridge; if the excavation went 8' instead of 4' there could be a step -down garden level or other space utilized with a height reduction. He said that access was a problem and solutions were needed with a possible parking restriction for permit parking in the west end. He said the access to Main Street from 7' could be utilized until the Entrance to Aspen was finished. Tygre summarized that a sense from the commission in favor of the density at this location but stated a need for solutions with regards to the dormitory units possibly being converted to studio or one - bedroom units; the over -all height being lowered; access and parking problems being solved. She suggested a partnership with the city on replacement of the Bavarian rather than remodel MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing for the Bavarian Inn Conceptual PUD to June 1, 1999. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Q/LCQ.rtJ ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 10 r _ MA • ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING CONMSSION APRIL 6 1999 COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS ....................................................................... ............................... 1 MINUTES..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................................... ............................... 2 855 BAY STREET - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE - ADU AND VARIANCES FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS ................................................................................... ............................... 2 MELVILLE,1290 SNOWBUNNY LANE - CONDITIONAL USE - ADU ........................... ............................... 2 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 6 1999 Jasmine Tygre, Vice - Chairperson, opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 5:50 p.m. after an ADU work session with City Council. The following Commissioners were present: Steve Buettow, Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Bob Blaich and Tim Semrau were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Julie Ann Woods, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Ron Erickson said now that snow has left the streets, the cars at AutoTech were parked in the right -of -way again. He said that Mill Street was also a problem with the 400' crane and construction trailer. Julie Ann Woods replied the trailer would remain until the construction was complete. Tim Mooney said that Streets and Engineering were having an East End planning session and thought that P &Z should have an idea about what they were doing prior to the contracts being accepted. Woods said an update could certainly be given to the commissioners. Roger Hunt noted the buses that stand in the alley behind Rubey Park encroached into the alignment and asked what was to keep them from rolling into the alley. He said that he was receptive to RFTA needs, but noticed some diesel from the buses overflow and go into the drain on Mill Street. Hunt said the newspaper racks would be placed at the post office again, but in a new spot. They requested input from the city on placement. Three commissioners said to replace them where they were; two had no opinion. Woods stated that lunch meetings were scheduled for this commission to meet with the Housing Board on the 8`f', 15' and 22 "d. Chris Bendon noted that HPC would review staff's DEPP recommendations on the utility re- location. Bendon stated there was no quorum for DRAC again which was discouraging for applicants. This was a problem not being able to proceed. Steve Buettow, DRAC Chair, stated with only 3 members present, all must vote positively for approval. David Hoefer noted these variances shouldn't be easily granted therefore the higher requirement. He stated that an additional P &Z or HPC member was needed for this week's continued DRAC meeting. i ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 6. 1999 Jackie Lothian stated CCLC invited P &Z to join them tomorrow morning, at 9:30 a.m. to review DEPP and in -fill housing in the commercial core. MINUTES MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes from 03/16/99. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 5 -0. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: Staff requested this public hearing be continued to April 13, 1999. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated there was proof of notice but the list of mailing was not attached. The mailing was included in the packet materials for the continued public hearing on April 13"' MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing for the ADU Conditional Use, Residential Design Standards and Stream Margin Review to April 13,1999. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 5 -0. PUBLIC HEARING: MELVILLE 1290 SNOWBUNNY LANE — CONDITIONAL USE — ADU Jasmine Tygre, Vice - Chairperson, opened the public hearing and requested proof of notice. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the notice was sufficient for the commission to proceed. Chris Bendon, staff, explained the property owner, Ralph Melville, for a 600 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit. The property currently has a single - family residence, which would be re- developed into a duplex with the ADU in the basement. A stairway would access the unit with storage space under the stairs and a crawl space. access to the mechanical room. Bendon noted the ADU had a 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 6 1999 full kitchen, dining room living room, bathroom and bedroom. There was the possibility of adding more light wells to the plans. Roger Hunt inquired about the snow shedding into the stairwell. Bendon replied condition #2F addressed that issue. Craig Melville stated there would be drainage under the stairs for melting snow. Ron Erickson asked if the railed walkway was an over -hang for protection. Melville responded that there was a 10' easement but the entry way would be made safe with the possibility of an over -hang. Erickson asked if all of the light was from the east side. Melville stated there would be light wells for the other two bedrooms of the addition. Tim Mooney inquired about the parking for the ADU and new unit. Bendon said the ADU parking was by itself and not stacked with the primary residences. No public comments. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved adopt Resolution #99 -05 for the Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit of approximately six hundred (600) net livable square feet to be located in the proposed Melville Duplex, 1290 Snowbunny Lane, with the following conditions: 1.) The building application shall include: a.) a current Site Improvement Survey indicating the nature of all easements of record indicated on the property title commitment. b.) a completed and recorded sidewalk, curb, and gutter construction agreement and an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. c.) a completed and recorded ADU deed restriction on the property, a form for which may be obtained from the Housing Office. The deed restriction shall be noted on the building permit plans. d.) 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. e.) a tree removal or relocation permit from the City Parks Department for any trees to be removed or relocated. E) 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 of the 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 ashower, sink, and a toilet). d.) The ADU has the minimum one (1) off - street parking space provided. 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. f.) The roof and stairway are designed to prevent snow and ice from falling on, or building -up on, the entrance to the ADU. The applicant is encouraged to use open grate style stair steps for the exterior stairway accessing the ADU. g.) Conformance with the City's requirements for driveways. Driveways must be separated by 25 feet or more ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 6 1999 (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. 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 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 of the 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 10 p.m. 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. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes; Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Hunt, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5 -0. Erickson asked if another window could be installed into the bedroom. Tygre asked if the unit would be rented. Melville stated that it would be rented. He felt it was a livable space and the additional window well would take away living space from their unit. Bendon stated that a neighbor, John Reese, was opposed to the project because Snowbunny Lane was already too dense. 1111:iilC �D7�,(� LAND USE CODE REVISIONS Jasmine Tygre, Vice- Chair, opened the public hearing. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, prepared a cross- reference chart (included with staff memo). He requested proof of notice.' Julie Ann Woods did not have the notice. Hoefer stated that the notice must be received in the City Clerk's Office no later than 5pm on April 7, 1999. The Deputy City received the notice. Woods stated the simplification was reviewed against the procedural requirements to meet the review standards for the commission to make a finding. She referred to John Worcester's March 1, 1999 memo regarding the major changes. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 6 1999 Woods noted that P &Z requested modifications to the non- conforming structures section of the code that would require conformity to the code when re- developing a previous non- conforming building. This was not in the memo but included in the code 26.312 page 71._ If they do not wish to conform to the code, then a special review would come in front of this commission. Woods stated there were 2 other items not included. The first one was the ability of P &Z or HPC to serve as DRAC. Hoefer noted the applicant would either go before DRAG, P &Z or HPC but not all three boards, only one. This would hopefully eliminate the problem obtaining -a DRAC quorum; this would fall under the duties and responsibilities of HPC and P &Z. Hoefer noted this change would streamline the review process with DRAG. Roger Hunt commented that a P &Z DRAC member could possibly attend the HPC meeting or the HPC DRAC member would attend the P &Z meeting. Hoefer noted the DRAC review would occur at the HPC or P &Z meeting. Half of the DRAC meetings occurred with only 3 members or without a quorum (6 out of 12 meetings in 1998). Woods stated that hopefully the standards would be amended which would alleviate some of these meetings. Hoefer said the details needed to be worked out regarding the number of members voting or by a simple majority: The second item was under subdivision 26.480. Woods stated the first exemption was a lot iine'adjustment. She said a common lot line adjustment must relate to a hardship because of "c ". The applicant must go through a full -blown subdivision process in order to adjust a common lot line and staff felt it onerous to go through the subdivision process for a simple lot line adjustment. Woods requested that "hardship" be eliminated; the word "hardship" had not been defined. The commission stated caution must be taken for this amendment. Hoefer stated that was a valid point and the changes made with re- organization have significantly improved the code. Tygre noted from past experience, it was better to leave something in the code, even though onerous, because it was much harder to close the door than open it. Hoefer noted that "hardship" should be defined under this portion of the code. Woods stated if the community development director did not feel comfortable with the review, then P &Z would take on the review process. Joyce Ohlson noted the lot line adjustment could be a technical difficulty amended on the plat, purely administrative by nature, not a hardship associated with the lot line adjustment. Ron Erickson stated that this could happen only if the hardship did not exist, then the community development director would review. The following language would be amended: it is demonstrated that the request is to address a specific hardship or is in the best interest or not adverse to the spirit of the code. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 6 1999 Tim Mooney asked who would review an application fora lot line adjustment to add square footage in order to accommodate a duplex. Steve Buettow noted that people ask him about that type of adjustment all the time. Woods replied that would be covered under "e" development rights or permitted density. Tygre noted that many lot line adjustments "fall through the cracks" after the fact; years later a development application comes in for a duplex now that more square footage was added. She said that FAR was the "name of the game" and applicants would do that in two or three steps to add square footage. Mooney said the lot line adjustment would be included on an amended plat. Tygre stated the recordation must be included on the plat with specific language regarding FAR. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt P &Z Resolution 99 -06 with the revised amendments to the Land Use Code: Section 1: That the Commission formally recommends that City Council amend Section 26 Land Use Code, of the Aspen Municipal Code to read as presented . in the reformatted document attached as Exhibit B. Section 2: That the additional changes be made to Exhibit B: Chapter 26.212 Planning and Zoning Commission, Section 26.212.010 Powers and Duties, adding items (P) and (Q); and Chapter 26.220 ETC, Section 26.220.020 Powers and Duties, items (.n and (K), both of which would read as follows (consistent with DRAC duties): The hear, review and approve variances to the Residential Design Guidelines, pursuant to Chapter 26.410; To hear and decide appeals from, and review any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by, any administrative official charged with the enforcement of Chapter 26.410, including appeals of interpretation of the text of the Residential Design Standards. The Commission may only grant relief from the Residential Design Standards. A variance from the Residential Design Standards does not grant an approval to vary other standards of this Chapter that may be provided by another decision making administrative body. And Section 26.480.030 Exemptions, Subsection (A) (c). be deleted and condition (e) be modified as follows (new language in BOLD) :' e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights, including any increase in FAR, or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development. A plat note will be added to the corrected plat indicatiing the purpose of the lot line adjustment and the recognition that no additional FAR will be allowed with the adjustment. Buettow second. Roll Call vote: Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Erickson, yes; Hunt, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5 -0. Tygre asked the commissioners to review the resolution prior to adoption. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk �xk�48CT A To 5 1$•99 gvtxNatM MEMORANDUM TO: The Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner RE: Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.100, 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. Ventures 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 of a 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 of 6,114 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 ADUs 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 Planning 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 concludes that the 450 square foot footprint provision must relate to where the ADU - containing structure meets the ground, and not to the perimeter of the unit's floor plan. For instance, the criterion for the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant the FAR 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 "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 detached 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 of Interpretation t l� 4 3 � f IF �I II �I I I I 11 II II 20'-0" EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" I' -O ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1 /I6 "■ I' -O �11 _4 _.:4F;I;pl;q II�1 II I - II 11 I J _l 24' —(r EA57 GARAGE ELEVATION SCALE: 1 26' -0" NORTH GARAGE ELEVATION — 117' -0 * SNOW FENCE, GUTTER AND HEAT TAPE — 108' -0 — 97' -0 Z = W a W3va Y�wa Uwa� 0 C W >wm Z<> W 6 O NJ J W LLJ I- L~ w 00 ►+'' O U } U Q W m w U') 0-. 0o Q T 0 m Y i f 1�NE R4 rER \ Q £ V \ c °o H \ 1/. \ 14 0. N =O.pa' » RO toc rra /N 83,* . RECORD R �� RlvEa a /EtD ... 4RRRD ER 1 k /'t4r SN oL YE4R f( YY J Iaaveva1 �t"a O r z m Y �y T N °aa �aa B U I 1 4 n a / T T s A A gN ppr O � e �p TT y T � °p2n O iyy Tym D v fir N r r �x ti E1 Ear t s D OESrq( E 9s RE C _ F /E10 n °-or aoNTROG Y <R /a8Q Y S %R = �., n, s•e"Nr R /aWT.� fC` T ^ Y rR /.CO a(4s irEE! r/Orq Rr� C Gp OD R/ r xys z may osxT ° to IZ1 O O Cf T f MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner/ RE: 855 Bay Street (Lot 1,Creektree Subdivision) Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and Variances from the Residential Design Standards. Parcel I.D. No. 2737 -073- 50001. DATE: April 13, 1999 (continued from April 6, 1999) SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval for a Stream Margin Review, a Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), aril two variances from the Residential Design Standards (garage placement and volume standards), -. The subject property is located at 855 Bay Street (Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision). The applicant seeks to demolish an existing single family house and redevelop the site with a new single - family residence and an ADU. The proposed ADU would be located beneath a detached two -car garage, with a linking pavilion (breezeway) connecting the structure to the corresponding, primary residence. The ADU is proposed as a means of obtaining a GMQS exemption; an FAR bonus is not requested. The applicant's Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Application is attached as Exhibit A, and referral comments from Engineering, Housing, Zoning, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD), and Parks are included as Exhibit B. A vicinity map is attached as Exhibit C. Community Development Department staff recommends that the Stream Margin Review, and Conditional Use for the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 855 Bay Street be approved, subject to conditions. With regard to the Residential Design Standards, staff recommends approval of a "garage placement" variance, but denial of the requested "volume" variance. APPLICANT: James A. Morse, represented by Ventures West Architectural Design and Construction (David Muckenhim). LOCATION: Lot 1 of the Creektree Subdivision is located at 855 Bay Street in the City of Aspen. The lot is bounded by Bay Street to the north; Lot 12, Block 2 of Oklahoma Flats to the west, and the Roaring Fork River and then a park to the south (See vicinity map attached as Exhibit Q. The surrounding uses are all residential in nature. ZONING: Low - Density Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay (R- 30 /PUD) CURRENT LAND USE: Detached single - family residential. LOT SIZE: 1.469 acres (approximately 63,990 square feet). ALLOWABLE FAR: The allowable FAR on the subject lot is based on the Creek-tree Subdivision and PUD Agreement, and Ordinance Number 14, Series 1995. These approvals established an average lot area if 41,916 square feet for each of the four lots within the subdivision for purposes of calculating the allowable floor area. Thus, based on a 41,916 square foot lot in the R -30 zone district, the allowable floor area for a single family residence is 6,114 square feet. PROPOSED LAND USE: One detached single - family residence with a corresponding accessory dwelling unit below the detached garage. Detached residential dwellings are permitted uses on lots of 30,000 square feet or greater in the R -30 zone district. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) require conditional use approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. It is a one -step review that requires notification to be published, posted and mailed in accordance with Section 26.52.060(E). The Stream Margin Review is also a one -step processes; however, it requires only a public meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The difference lies in the fact that public meetings do not carry notice requirements or the need to take public comment. The following sections of the code are applicable to the review of the 855 Bay Street development application: Section 26.68.040, Stream Margin Review; Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units; Section 26.28.080, Low - Density Residential (R -30); Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses; and, Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards. Pursuant to Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards, Community Development Department staff reviewed this proposal against the Residential Design Standards and found that the submitted development application violates the volume and garage placement standards. A discussion of the variance requests associated with these standards is provided below. BACKGROUND: The current proposal is for Stream Margin Review approval as well as Conditional Use approval of an ADU. The ADU would be detached from the primary residence (but connected by a linking pavilion), below the two -car garage. As proposed, the ADU would contain approximately 543± square feet of net livable area and would have its own kitchen, bathroom, and access, as required by code. A surface parking space alongside the two -car garage would provide the required off - street parking space (See Exhibit A). REFERRAL COMMENTS: The comments from the City Engineering, Housing, Zoning, and Parks Departments as well as the ACSD are attached as Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: The criteria for Stream Margin Review and staffs responses to each criterion are attached as Exhibit "D." The criteria for Accessory Dwelling Units and Conditional Uses as well as staffs responses to each criterion are attached as Exhibit "E." 2 Exhibit "F," attached hereto, provides staff's review of the requested variances from the Residential Design Standards. As demonstrated in Exhibit "D," staff finds the proposal to comply with the criteria for Stream Margin Review, and recommends approval with conditions. Similarly and as demonstrated in Exhibit "E," staff finds the proposal to comply with the criteria for Accessory Dwelling Units as Conditional Uses in the R -30 zone district, and recommends approval with conditions. With regard to the requested variances from the Residential Design Standards, as explained in Exhibit "F," staff recommends approval of a "garage placement" variance but denial of the requested "volume" variance. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the proposed Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use for an ADU at 855 Bay Street (Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision) with the following conditions: Prior to City acceptance of a building permit application, the applicant shall prepare for recordation an amended Final Plat for Lot 1 of the Creektree Subdivision; this final plat shall: a. delineate a "designated building envelope" where the southerly extent of said building envelope corresponds with (is identical to) the northern edge of the fifteen (15) foot no- build zone (stream margin setback); b. delineate the top of slope and the fifteen (15) foot "no -build zone;" c. dedicate and delineate a legally described as -built trail easement (without the words "trail encroachment ") of at least twenty (20) feet in width (ten (10) feet on each side of the built trail's centerline); d. include a "Site Section" showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, the no -build zone, pertinent elevations above sea level, and the progressive height limitation set by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope to the point of intersection with the height limitation of the underlying R- 30/PUD zone district; e. delineate any and all existing wetlands areas as determined to exist through a wetlands delineation conducted in the Spring of 1999 by a qualified botanist or other wetlands expert and approved by the City Parks Department; f. be reviewed for approval by the Parks, Engineering, and Community Development Departments prior to recording (by the applicant) with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 2. The Building Permit application shall: a. include a signed and recorded copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution monumentalizing the granted approvals and conditions, and on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction, the language of any and all conditions of approval; b. include a signed and notarized letter from the contractor indicating that all conditions of approval are known to and understood by him/her; c. include a copy of the recorded Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision plat described above in condition 1; d. include a $50 fee in lieu of digital submission requirements; 3 e. include a survey entitled "Improvement Survey" which clearly states that "all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy Number , dated [within the past 12 months] are shown hereon." f. include a drainage report and mitigation plan (24" x 36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, and the provisions of this plan are required to meet the runoff design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f); g. include a permanent erosion control plan, and a temporary sediment control and contaminant plan for the construction phase; h. indicate whether a ground injection or re- charge type drainage system is proposed (i.e., drywells), and if so, a soils report establishing percolation rates will need to be included; i. indicate that drywells will not be permitted within utility easements; j. demonstrate through the above - referenced drainage plans that foundation drainage systems will be detained on site; f. include an executed tree removal permit from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is /are to be removed or relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this /these dripline(s). g. include verification from the Housing Office that the Accessory Dwelling Unit will contain between 300 and 700 square feet of net livable area; h. include verification from the Housing Office that 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; i. include a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, a copy of which must be obtained from the Housing Office; j. clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on building permit plans as a separate one - bedroom unit; k. clearly indicate the provision of at least of one (1) off - street parking space for the ADU, and said space(s) shall be shown and designated on the final plans; 1. include an executed copy of an agreement to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way; m. include working drawings to verify compliance with all applicable dimensional requirements; n. include a copy of an executed and recorded Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Agreement; o. a copy of an executed tap permit from the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; p. include provisions and plans for the approval and installation of an automatic fire suppression system; q. information needed to verify that the proposed plans for the ADU will comply with all UBC requirements including but not limited to those addressing natural light, sound attenuation, and ventilation standards; r. include drawings that show all utility meter locations; utility meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. 3. Prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation, or building permits, the building envelope shall be delineated on -site by construction fencing incorporating sediment webbing from a point approximately thirty (30) feet back from the top of slope and around the river -side of the envelope to minimize the sedimentation potential along the two side yards and the river frontage. The barricades shall remain in place until the later of either the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or the completion and establishment of the landscaping. 4. The applicant shall provide a roof overhang or other sufficient means of preventing snow from falling on both the stairway leading to the door and the area in front of the door to the ADU; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairway is also required. 5. If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not be directed toward the river or located down the river bank slope, nor will it cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down- directional, sharp cut -off fixtures, and those fixtures set along walkways (if any) shall be set at no more than eighteen (18) inches above finished grade. Outdoor flood lights are strictly prohibited. 6. The proposed design has been granted a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), Garage Placement, of the Residential Design Standards, Aspen Municipal Code. All other requirements of the Residential Design Standards shall be complied with. 7. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 8. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. 9. If the proposed use, density, or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking, or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re- evaluation. 10. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 11. The applicant/owner shall provide the contractor(s) with copies of all Planning and Zoning Commission resolutions applicable to the 855 Bay Street Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Review approvals. 12. 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 a considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board /Commission having authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use request for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 855 Bay Street (Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision) with the conditions recommended in the April 13, 1999 staff memorandum." EXHIBITS: "A" - «B„- "C,> - "D" - "E" - "P - Submitted Application Referral Comments Vicinity Map Stream Margin Review criteria and responses ADU /Conditional Use Review criteria and responses Review of Residential Design Standards variance requests 1� - --cO rd `Gd AW / euev" c —c{oCa EI-56 /-C� Clo a -BRt+ q ,&%i6 6AP-h j67T""6, tb ?09U C- aSI�EFzt-r. J OW �RcC�MM�ryJrh- *Pk1 ONJ 'n�,�o Reel �� 6 Cr J6re �l�e 6 MIRT MORSE CHATEAU APPLICATION FOR STREAM MARGIN, CONDITIONAL USE AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW This is an application for Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the Morse Chateau with respect to the City of Aspen's 1) Stream Margin Review criteria; 2) Conditional Use criteria, and; 3) Residential Design criteria. The Morse Chateau is a single family residence proposed for construction at 855 Bay Street, Aspen, Colorado (Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado) which is zoned R30/PUD. The owner, James Morse, seeks to demolish the existing "60's" single family home and construct a new residence with an ADU. The lot, which abuts the Roaring Fork River, contains approximately 41,916 square feet and has an allowable FAR of 6,115 square feet. The combined minimum submission items required for the three reviews follow immediately. Specific responses to each review are then presented. LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: 616 — 3 98— Z I REPRESENTATIVE: Name: V EWTUI Address: 'B c> Y_ E Phone #: 9 i--o 1 YPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply) r E EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, A f QSO 3 BDeM 60"5 S(Qv LE_ FAMILY PROPOSAL: (description of etc. To 'DEMOLISk EX ISTINCt 5TZUG1U0E AND Col smuc-r A Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S ❑ Pre - Application Conference Summary ❑ Attachment 91, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment 92, Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devi. ❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development ® Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation I ® ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) ExpansionV Mountain View Plane Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Other: ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, A f QSO 3 BDeM 60"5 S(Qv LE_ FAMILY PROPOSAL: (description of etc. To 'DEMOLISk EX ISTINCt 5TZUG1U0E AND Col smuc-r A Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S ❑ Pre - Application Conference Summary ❑ Attachment 91, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment 92, Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application Project: Applicant: Location: one District: Lot Size: ATTACHMENT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Lot Area: (tor the purposes of calculating r loor Area, Lot Area may oe recucea Tor areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: A, Proposed., ht I A< Number of residential units: L:ci.eling: - -� 1'rupu.rrd:� Numbcr of bedrooms: Existing: 3 Proposed Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only) DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 19S& Allowable: to 1 S Proposed:/ Principal bldg. height: Existing: !B , 5 r Allowable: 2 $I Proposed: Z,4 – Access. bldg. height: Existing: Not r S Allowable: . g 5' Proposed: 2 3' Q On -Site parking: Existing :___ J^Required: 3 Proposed: -4 1 % Site coverage: Existing: Required: t t Lk Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required:-4&--Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Z Required: L J` Proposed:_ 5 _ Rear Setback: Existing: 60` Required: t 5 / Proposed.• 27- Combined F /R: Existing: — Required: N b NL r= Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: 012 Required• ( D + Proposed: 4 1' Side. Setback: Existing: –f'+ Required: t O + Proposed: &q r Combined Sides: Existing: I Required: N o kI E Proposed: — Existing non - conformities or encroachments: N s7m E Variations requested: VCO C- U M a James A. Morse 107 Sinclair Drive Muskegon, Michigan 49441 616 - 798 -2149 _ ._.._ „Aocember, 29, 1998 - - - - David Mnekenhim of Ventures West Enterprises, Inc. is hereby authorized to act as my agent and representative in all matters regarding the application for a Stream Marvin Review, a Coxiditional Use Review for an ADU and a Residential Design Review of the proposed development of my property located at 855 Bay Street, Aspen, Colorado (alts Lot 1 Crecktree Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado)- Grames A. Morse Owner 855 Bay Street Aspen, Colorado ASPEN/PITKIN COMMI -MTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees (Please Print Clearly) CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Jib M ES M a 2.5 E (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 'fta MOW-5E. G+/ fA'TEA y (hereinafter, THE PROJECT) 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996) establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination 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 application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. 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 to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, 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 determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ q k! w ich is for &_ hours of Planning 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. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT Signature: f < < Julie Ann Woods Dat . , /_ S q9 Community Development Director Printed Name: City of Aspen Mailing Address: ' e 35Z XMpulpeo 8 /Giz O � � T- � � k� / I 1 )�0 %� - / \ -tx2 S22 eJ \jƒ a G 7 0 to ) 2) !z! &/d )�0 / \ -tx2 S22 eJ a f 7 0 }]7 ) 2) !./ x SOSS22 re2!)., §Exa)c ! &04 M %2222222 E :6 Z ) > §| ;! 22222 aJJ�. !z! &/d )�0 S22 eJ a f 7 0 . ) 2) !./ x SOSS22 re2!)., §Exa)c ! &04 M %2222222 E :6 Z ! k #Slka, ;! 22222 \22 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this 16 day of JANUARY 1998, between NELIGH C. COATES, JR. OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO GRANTOR, AND JAMES A. MORSE, TRUSTEE OF THE JAMES A. MORSE TRUST DATED JANUARY 15, 1997 1 GRANTEE ul whose legal address is 107 SINCLAIR DRIVE, MUSKEGON, MI 49441 COUNTY OF MUSKEGON , STATE OF MI WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration of Ten Dollars and other good and Qvaluable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does .grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm unto the grantee, its successors and assigns forever, all the real W z1a property together with improvements, if any, situate and lying and 1-� being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows: LOT 1, CREEKTREE SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof recorded February 14, 1978 in Plat Book 6 at Page B3 and the First Amended Plat n Creektree Subdivision, recorded June 21, 1995 in Plat Book 37 at Page 54. 'J r�ot, 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 OF 1111 IN I�" 412632 01/16/1898 02:41P ND DAM SILY1 a 1 of 2 R 11.00 D 200.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Q TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances tthereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and J1 reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the a- estate, right, title, interest, claim . and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. a W TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, its successors and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for himself, his heirs and personal representatives, does 2 covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, its successors kand assigns, that at the time of the ensealing delivery of the presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except those matters as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, its successors �-. and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable to all m' genders. V ELIGH C. COATE5, JR. �x �i Le :. NAN STATE OF COLORADO ) to COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ss. PF V74 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of January y 19 98 , by NELIGH C. COATES, JR. WITNESS my hand and official seal my commission expires: ,Ioyg,HigenslNotary N Not y Public My Commission expires 4122P9B 601 Fast Hopkins Gwwn. Cakorado 81611 EXHIBIT "A" 1. Taxes for the year 1998 not yet due or payable. 2. Reservations and exceptions as contained in Patent recorded in Book 39 at Page 136. 3. Terms and conditions of easements granted in documents recorded in Book 244 at Page 683 and in Book 244 at Page 686. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Subdivision Improvements Agreement recorded February 14, 1978 in Book 343 at Page 534. 5. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plats of subject property recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 83 and Plat Book 37 at Page 54. 6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in' Amendment to Development Agreement recorded June 21, 1995 in Book 784 at Page 123. 7. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Grant of Fishing Easement recorded June 21, 1995 in Book 784 at Page 128. S. Any question, dispute or adverse claim as to any loss or gain of land as a result of any change in the river bed location by other than natural causes, or alteration through accretion, reliction, erosion or avulsion of the center thread, bank, channel or flow of waters in the-Roaring Fork River lying within subject land; and any question as to the location of such center thread, bed, bank, bed or channel as a legal description monument or marker for the purposes of describing or locating subject lands. NOTE: There are no documents in the land records of the Office of the Clerk and Recorded of Pitkin County, Colorado accurately locating past or present location(s) of the center thread, bank, bed, or channel of the above River or indicating any alterations of the same as from time to time may have occured. m Any rights, interest or easements in favor of the riparian owners, the State of Colorado, The United States of America, or the general public, which exist, have existed, or are claimed to exist in and over the waters and present and past bed and banks of the Roaring Fork River. 412632 01/16/1998 02:41P WD DAMS SILYI 2 of 2 R 11.00 D 200.00 N 0.00 PZTKIN COUNTY CO I r�, 91 -C 133H5 01 H01VH 3003 - / n r 1, 0 MNEMONIC RESPONSE TO THE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW STANDARDS (Attachment 4). Because the proposed development is within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River, a Stream Margin Review is required. 1. As none of the proposed development is within the Special Flood Hazard area, this item is not applicable. 2. The applicant agrees to preserve the existing easement for the public trail and also the fisherman's easement which are recorded and are reflected on the attached survey. 3. The applicant is working with the Parks Department to ensure compliance with the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan. 4. The applicant agrees not to remove or damage any vegetation or to alter the grade between the designated building envelope and the river. Additionally, the applicant agrees to barricade the river side of the building envelope prior to any demolition, excavation or building permits and to maintain this barricade until the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. A plan to accommodate the increased site drainage shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. This and the barricade shall ensure that the proposed development will not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river. 6. This item is not applicable, as none of the proposed development is within the 100 year flood plain. 7. This item is not applicable, as none of the proposed development is within the 100 year flood plain. 8. This item is not applicable, as none of the proposed development is within the 100 year flood plain. 9. The applicant agrees not to remove or damage any vegetation or alter the grade between the designated building envelope and the river. 10. Please see the attached "Site Section" illustrating the top of slope, the 15 foot "no build" set -back and the 45 degree angle progressive height limit. 11. Please refer to the site plan for the proposed landscaping. No new plantings are proposed outside of the building envelope. 12. Applicant agrees not to direct any exterior lighting toward the river or to locate any lighting down the river bank slope. 13. Please refer to the "Site Section" included on the survey showing the proposed site elements, the top of slope and the river elevation and profile. 14. Please refer to the attached letter from NatureTech Consultant Services Corp. NATURETECH CONSULTANT SERVICES CORP. 2128 Railroad Ave., Ste. 201, Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625 -8553 • FAX 625 -8073 • Email: NTCS1 @sopris.net City of Aspen Planning Department Mr. Mitch Haas, Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO. 81611 February 17, 1998 Dear Sir: This letter shall serve as a statement of opinion for David Muckenhim to comply with the City of Aspen Stream Margin Review for his project. Due to field site conditions, the delineation base on the U.S. Army Cops of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual was not completed. However, based on a field site review completed on 12 February 1999, it is my opinion that development associated with the application submittal will not impact the riparian zone along the Roaring Fork River. The Roaring Fork River through this stretch is incised approximately 10 feet from the top of slope. In addition, many of the woody species associated with riparian areas at this elevation [i.e., yellow willow, Salix lutea), red -osier dogwood, (Corpus stolonifera spp sericea) and narrow -leaf cottonwood Po ulus aneustifolia)] are rooting well below the top of slope. Furthermore, the majority of the building envelope appears to be dominated by lawn grass such as kentucky bluegrass (Poa rap tensis) which is a non indicator plant species. Due to the inability of the site to meet the vegetation criteria needed for a jurisdictional wetland determination, the wetland line is expected to occur below the top of slope. The applicant has agreed to place the building envelope approximately 15 feet from the top of slope. By maintaining this buffer, any concerns associated with encroachment in the riparian zone should be alleviated. Should a formal delineation be needed for the processing of this permit, it is necessary for the ground to be free of snow cover and vegetation in a growth state that is easily identifiable. Please call me if you have questions regarding these comments. Sincere y, Michael J. Villa NatureTech Consultant Services Corp. President 2. RESPONSE TO THE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW STANDARDS (Attachment 4), AND TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (Aspen Code Section 26.40.090). In response to the Conditional Use Reviews Standards (Attachment 4) and the ADU criteria in Section 26.40.090, the applicant submits the following: A. Replacement of a demolished residence requires an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System. The Accessory Dwelling Unit proposed is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan and qualifies as an exemption from the GMQS. ADU's are allowed as a Conditional Use in the R30 Zone District and must be between 300 and 700 "net- livable" square feet in size. The proposed ADU is a large studio ADU containing 543 "net liveable" square feet. It features a full size kitchen, comfortable space for a king size bed, a luxury bath with two lavatorys and large light wells for ample light and ventilation. An electrical panel is located in the ADU for easy tenant access. There is no direct access from the main house. The roof above the stairwell has heat tape, gutters and a snow fence to eliminate dripping on the stairwell. Additionally, the stairwell will have steel grated treads for positive traction. One parking space is designated for the ADU and is shown on the site plan. The applicant agrees to meet the Housing Authority's guidelines for resident - occupied units and to deed restrict the ADU to limit rental periods to not less than six months in duration. Owners of the property shall have the right to select a qualified employee(s) for ADU tenants. B. The surrounding residences in the Oklahoma Flats area are single family residences, many with existing ADU's. Consequently, the Conditional Use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. The ADU is compatible and subordinate in character to the primary residence. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimize adverse impact of the development on the surrounding properties. As this development is located at the end of Bay Street, its impact by its location is minimized. A loop drive is provided to enhance vehicular circulation and the parking requirements are exceeded. D. Adequate public facilities exist to serve the conditional use. There is a public park immediately across the river. City roads, water, sewer, police, fire protection, schools and medical services are all available. E. The conditional use itself mitigates the requirement for affordable housing. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all of the City of Aspen dimensional, zoning and building codes and design standards with the exception of the volume design standard for which the applicant is seeking a variance. �I6WMrr '... Zfv•SS.ro'{OC�'��12� y J 0 M T 0 0 1 Q M Cl) N co m 9 O U a N d A. y U N N m 9 Q N d 9 Q N 0 E z E !D z 3 O d a E z d 9 0 V m o O m N O N M N N IL N ttJ N N �D N O N N tp N (D (D i0 t0 N N O tp tO N (O (O (O O O 'm 1p t0 O l0 i0 tD (O t0 N N (D fp o M m a o v o N n in o m r N W N to M N N N MIG N N m m N N Ol (O N of N N N N r N N N m r N N n N N N m r N N } 0 0 0 J O O 010 O O O J O 00 < O O O O O z x W O O J } 0 0¢ 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 Z U U U 2i LL U U U U U U U LL U U U U J U U U U U H Z U U LL Z U U J U U U U F U U Z ~ a Y 0 0 ¢ z ¢ m w Z z z¢ z z z zz z z w z Z w Q¢ z z z z z a a z z 0 z z> z z z z a z z CC W W W 3 a U W W W W W W W J W W> w U W W w w W 3 � a W w 3 w W w w W W w J W W a U a m m fA m m J O m m m m a m m fA a m a'a m m a Q a m a fn Z W S I- 2 a (n a m a m m N a m W O 0 a (� a m a W a m a W S 2 a m a m a m a m¢ J a fA a m m¢¢ a m a a a¢¢ a a z ¢❑¢ o Z S O z a m¢ < ° O W O O > W w Q Z_ N m Z z CC y y O N A M Y r O N_ W N J Ja = X 3 X X m Q a ¢ W m W m W m 2 o d d N a n 0 O N O O O N Q ❑ z w O # N 0 J Z J ¢ O [[ W w iC Z w 0 LL ❑ m W Z U a W ° y CC ❑ a F- Z❑. W W Y fn S ❑ > m U O z Z O O m CC 2 O m 2 a¢ Q J J F- m F- m F- M w w a F- N Y¢ O a U¢ w N N Q tq 3 F m W F- � N OJWrOa¢¢ > m Z¢ as M N CC a °w Q X tL wcrs N z av3�-w W z U' z w F- J J 2 Y Uj -a ¢ N Z Z w z w z W J a N J 2 Y U Y W Z V J O O S z J~ (7 V% J N LL t0 F- t0 Z F- y M Z a a CC } m O M W (A N J O NQ W' F- mm�¢�0¢O F.. U W m W m F- O O > ao0 0c7 c7x¢w = X X mQa my X X O X z X U X X ¢ wOS N w S LL O U Z W fn y O 2 U O O m 3 >i w z 2 a m (A m W CC t W UOUInaOtn m m Z m N Z O v1 N m O N m M m O M N m O m O M W O N m m O O m m O r O O tm0 m m 0 a m 0 o 0 0 N O 0 a t`O') m t`mJ m r W m Z Q N a W O J D = U Z N O J z ¢ m ¢ z ¢ m w m a J z ❑ U zZ a? z �z ¢z2 }aZ1)i 0 0 U) Z O Y 4 c¢i m° W O a w¢ c S J F- } W 2 > Z H S U Q z F O ° Q U H cc w❑ w m¢ H ¢ 0 J W J m a g 3 z m Q w z U m a o a = ° F¢ a w w ¢ w a z w¢ m° a LL r z w x Q O `n S ° > m° Q N m W ¢. W w W ° W U h �- F- ¢ N W F- m a F- M J a w Z Z l J 66. ¢ N W CC S W W w} ~>❑¢ a J J a¢ J U U U' �,- U 3 Y} w J otf 2 W J N (7 y Z J O F- O U Q W W U p J❑ C7 Z ❑ 2 C7 F- 'cc a a to a¢ m (7 w a 2> } J_ F- 2 CC W J 6 z Z Z U C7 S< J O Z J w m W z 2 cc S a (n J cc ~ N J O Q O 0 2 2¢ -a C7 m¢ < a¢ 2 W° F- J ¢ U a w W W W C3 cc U a m U Z z W m W 2 m m a h Z Z LL LL LL W Co 2 Q tq F- !r Z z m J m LL a CC O W J U 2¢ Y F- O y Z Y Z 2i 0 0 0 S j m N tai. Z W N �. N W y H w w FN- U Z In C7 d J U' S U m 0 ¢ w.� M m U cc a O } }} n X O z> m w° m FW-. a¢ J z w O a O m J¢ S z J a. J O O z° m ¢ J J¢ w w C[ ¢�' 0 0¢¢¢ ON J Z Q W O O¢¢ O¢ p 0 Y Y Y Z UY ¢ J a¢ a m m m m m U U U U U U❑❑❑ W W W LL (7 C7 C7 C7 (7 C7 2 2 S S y N O N N m O n N N O N In O N N a N n N O N O n N 0? r N N 0 N O r m N N r O O f0 N N O N N N N it] OJ r M N M N 0 r tp O 0 N O O N O O V N N cp O N m N M M O O O d' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cc O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p 0 0 0 m D: ¢ m¢¢ CC 2 CC t2 m !t 2 2 2 2 Q 2 It ¢ m rc s m Q CC Q Q Q Q Q 2 Q Q Q2 Q tL x W 2� . O O O O O O O N O O � O O O N 9 0 0 � O O N 0 0 0 tp t0 O O O (O m 0 (D f0 t0 O O O 01 O t0 O i0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OO O N T N N O 9 O N � r W t0 N 0 N 0 W N N O T O CO N (O 0 0 ci m of of of cb ci n� ci of r� cb a v v d� of ci of of r> of of c%) v of ci of v v c+� v v v m of m v r r n n n r r r r r r r n n n n n r r r r r r r r n n n n r r r r n n n n r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 of n 14. tr r; r n n n n r; r; h � r�- f r; N m 1Z m r; m r; m n m r�, M m M m m M M M M m r M n m r m n M n m n m r m n m r m r m n m n m n m r m r m n m n M n m r M r m r M r m r M r M r r n n n nn r r M r n m r n n r n r N N N N N N N N N N IN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 L7 C. N d a 7% U N yN d V 4 N m c Q E Z a f n 2 t 3 F Z I( U Y N .= N m .= .= :• N N .= .� .- .- fC Ol t0 (O tp tp (p (p IO !O N t0 O V W N m CO m T V m CO h W m M m m m-- m- O- W- W O h h (O O O O O O 0 0 0 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O Z 0 O � x v V v x U Z W 0< ¢ ¢� > O 2 p J a z Z Z ° W w W Z z j z z (r W U w Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z Z �' w Z W W W J Y U L' U W W a Q W W> z z W W W W W W a W W a W a W a W a J (n 0 Z W a a W a a W �- a a a a 2 a a a W a a a W OS z < J 2 2 < < U < < 0 < < < < < < < < < C=7 O w W w O Q Q O Z y N W C ° m N x m U p Oa. O ° W z 3 O N N in m O m N M N a T r a N N N N 2 N W m w ¢ O o y O w U Q °a JO W z 2 W LLI O cc W W J O CL F- CS ¢ .. 6 W Q Ir W m Z 7 J W m ° w w w W ? w U T z° O¢¢> w 3 Z O z J a W >¢ F Z z z Z Q N z J z J z J w z J w a Z Z¢ O m J J Y O w~ N J m< Q z Q m m J. J W W W Z O x L z z p x a x a V O o o o m m LL m x¢ _Wi Q¢ w o y m U�W O a °m ° W Y U J n" m y N a U m w Z m 2 O^ w w W w Z LL W tp O z' ¢ J W 0 W ¢ Q O O T n o n 0 n [I' o O z 0 W> W m 0 m 0 o 0 m 0 m 0 T S O r f0 o Q¢ O W N J�aar�c+>Na¢a�rt.- nnnnmWar r . - > > >3m zz 00 00 �i ¢ w W W W W W U m z ~n < < < < w 0) z ¢ z cc 0 0 0 0 Q o ¢ w a U N D Q > ° z ° Z O Z ° Z S W ab W Z ° z a 0 Z 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U? r ° W m �_ z >- M N z 4' cc Q Z j z z Z Z 00 z ° x ¢¢ U m 4 m a a a a¢ W Q O < >- ces m a6 W U J LL W W W (A >- g W U W 3 3 J Q W z ¢¢ F z z cr U m Q¢ Q Q J O W Q ' O W J Z J W W (/% W W CL W Z Q W° Z Z Z Z 7 CL F"' O 2 W W ¢ LL Y¢¢ Q Q W W z¢ zO y U m Y m Y 2.m Y Y m ILL �. LL a 2 Y Q W z¢ L m _U S U L w J F Y W Z OU N W m JO a a a a m jr W w S Jm W W W U Z L WJ z J W W W¢ W a W Y z W O x U¢ m m cc m LL 0 W C7 (� W w m a j m m a¢ W W � m m -� Y w 3 W I- a a x U U 'w Z > > > >> LL¢ ,W O ff° z O 0° m Z It Y W W= W¢¢ O O a¢ w¢ W w w x x h¢¢ O >i J 2 2 z O O a T LL m m Q m LL It W W W Flo W W > >> N O N O N N � (� T n n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (p t0 T N O O (p N t0 m 0 t t No d' O m m V n c m V , o T to n N W O po V OJ O O O N O N 0 V' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O ! O O O O O O f f O O O O O O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢ m To ¢¢ m cc 2 `L 2 x 2 x 2 2 2 W 2 m 6 x 2 m 2 m W¢ m. n T (O O N n a m a N tO m O N m t0 V O N N O (O N m 67 0 O< O N O N O T m 0 III O �O - O O O O N O O O m O O N O O m O r '- O 0 0 0 0 I • • OO 07 O O O O O C") O O O (0 (O N PJ n O o O T O T O T 6 T 6 n 6 O 6 n T O 1 T N 7 O T T O 7 N N N M 6 n n n 6 n (m n (b n n of nn (b n .i n n n n nn n n n • n o n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 0 n 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 of � � � n n r, n m n n n r n n n . NIN N NIN N NIN N ;N N N!N IN N NiN N NIN N N N�N N IN N�N N N Y 3. RESPONSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. The applicant believes the design as defined in the attached drawings to be in compliance with all of the Aspen Residential Design Standards with the exception of the "Volume" Design Standard. The applicant requests a variance from this standard to allow the window design depicted in A -7. The Volume Standard refers to windows between nine and twelve feet above finished floors and doubles the floor area calculation of any room for which this condition exists. It is concerned with aesthetics. The applicant believes the design presented in A -7 to be more aesthetic and faithful to the architecture of the residence than the design shown in A -7 Option which complies with this standard. As such, the applicant submits that it better serves the community. Should the commission choose to deny this request for variance, the applicant requests approval of the design depicted in A -7 Option. rr 8: Housing Office City of Aspen /Pi ;kin County ' 530 East Main Street, Lower Level Aspen, Colorado 6I611 (970) 920.5050 Fax: (970) 920 -5586 MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas, Planner FROM: Stefanie A. Levesque, Housing Office DATE: September 15, 1998 RE: 555 Bay Street (t) ADU — Parcel ID No. 2797 -073.50007 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for an accessory dwelling unit to be located 1111100106 a detached garages BACKGROUND: According to Section 28,.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units, a unit shall contain,not less than 300 square feet of net livable area and not more than 700 square feet of net livable area ` ISSUES: When the Housing Office reviews plans for an accessory dwelling unit them are particular areas that are given special attention. They are as follows: 1. The unit must be a fatally private unit, which means the unit must'have a private entrance and there shall be no other rooms in this unit that need to be utilized by the individuals in the principal residence; i.e ;, a mechanical room for the principal residence. 2. The kitchen includes a minimum of a two-bumer stove with oven, standard sink, and a Bcubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. 3. The unit is required to have a certain percentage of natural light into the unit: i.e., windows, sliding' glass door, window wells, etc., especially if the unit is located below grade. The Uniform Building' Code requires that 10% the floor area of a unit needs to have natural light. Natural light is.defined as light which is clear and open to The sky. 4. Should the unit be used to obtain an FAR bonus, tine unit MUST be rented to a qualified employee. 5.. A deed restriction MUST be recorded PRIOR fo building permit approval. The deed restriction shall be obtained from the Housing Office. RECOMMENDATION: After reviewing the application,.the Housing Office, recommends approval on the condition that issues 1 -5 above are met prior to bufding permit approval: Prior to C.O. the Housing Office: requ Tres a site tour to inspect the unit , lreferra11855 Bay.adu MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas, City Planner FROM: Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer RE: 855 Bay Street, Conditional Use Review for and ADU; Stream Margin Review DATE: March 1, 1999 1. 855 Bay Street (Lot 1 Creektree Subdivision) is located in the Low- Density Residential zone district with a Planned Unit Development overlay (R- 30/PUD), and the following dimensional requirements apply: • Front Yard Setback - 25 feet (Front yard for this parcel is the portion of the property which abuts Bay Street)* • Rear Yard Setback - 15 feet • Side Yard Setback - 10 feet • Distance between buildings - 10 feet • Height — 25 feet (The current proposal indicates a fence located within the required front yard setback. A fence of 6'or less in height is permitted within setbacks. However, if the stream margin review establishes a building envelope around the entire perimeter of the structure, the land use code would prohibit any disturbance or development outside of the envelope, including fences.) 2. The Creektree Subdivision is subject to a PUD agreement whereby Ordinance #14, 1995 established an average lot area of 41,916 square feet for each of the four lots within the subdivision for the purpose of calculating floor area. Based on a 41,916 square foot lot, the R -30 zone district permits a floor area of up to 6,114 square feet. 3. Floor area and height measurements cannot be verified at this time since the information provided in the application packet does not contain adequate detail for this level of review. 4. It should be noted that, in addition to a "volume" variance being required, a variance for "garage placement" is also necessary. The residential design standards require that all portions of a garage parallel to the street be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet. The current design proposal fails to comply with this standard. 0 Y Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Sy Kelly' Chairman - John Keleher Paul Smith' Treas Frank Loushin Michael Kelly' Secy Bruce Matherly, Mgr March 9, 1999 Mitch Haas Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 855 Bay Street Dear Mitch: The existing residence at 855 Bay Street is currently served by the District. The total connection fees for the project will be significant since a demolition of the existing structure is planned. Credit for previously paid connection fees is given in the exact amount previously paid. The total connection charges can be estimated once detailed plans are available and a tap permit is completed at our office. We would request, as a condition of approval, that the total connection fees be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. The final charges will be adjusted, if necessary, following a final inspection once the improvements are completed. - The existing four inch cast iron service line may be used for the new construction if video inspection shows it to be in good condition. There are minor downstream constraints that will be eliminated through a prorated system of additional fees. Service to the new dwelling unit and ADU is contingent upon compliance with the District rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. Clearwater connections such as groundwater drains, foundation drains, roof drains, etc. are prohibited. Our records show that high groundwater levels were , encountered when the existing residence was originally connected to the District system. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925 -3601 / FAX (970) 925 -2537 Memorandum TO: Mitch Haas, Planner, Community Development THRU: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director FROM: John D. Krueger, Trails Coordinator, Parks Department RE: Referral for 855 Bay Street Stream Margin Review And Conditional Use Review for an ADU DATE: March 25, 1999 The Parks Department has reviewed the 855 Bay Street application requesting approval of a Stream Margin Review and a Conditional Use for an ADU, and submits the following comments: TRAIL AND EASEMENT: The Parks Department has met several times to discuss the location of the existing trail and its relationship to the trail easement. The applicant feels that the trail is not in the trail easement and shows it as a' "trail encroachment" on the site survey plan submitted with the application. Review of the Creektree Subdivision/PUD Plat with the City Attorney and Community Development staff, shows that the trail is not an "encroachment' but a trail that meets the requirements of the Plat Dedication as an as-built trail "closely approximating the location of the twenty (20) foot trail easement." That is, the Plat dedication describes the trail easement as follows: 6 DO HEREBY AGREE TO GRANT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR PUBLIC TRAIL PURPOSES AN AS- BUILT TRAIL EASEMENT CLOSELY APPROXIMATING THE LOCATION OF THE TWENTY (20) FOOT TRAIL EASEMENT AS SHOWN AND NOTED HEREON. THE AS-BUILT TRAIL EASEMENT SHALL BE TWENTY (20) FEET WIDE, BEING TEN (10) FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE OF TTIE FINAL IMPROVEMENT. THIS GRANT OF TRAIL EASEMENT SHALL BE FOR NON - MOTORIZED USES ONLY EXCEPT FOR MOTOPJ= CONSTRUCTTON AND AL48 NANCE VEHICLES. The Parks Department feels that the trail easement dedication on the Plat, as cited above, adequately describes the existing trail location and does not require any movement of the trail from its present location. As a condition of approval, the applicant needs to show the as-built trail easement as required by the Plat dedication -- as a 20 foot wide trail easement, being 10 feet on each side of the centerline of the final improvement (existing trail) — on a recorded Site Specific Stream Margin Development Plan or plat. The "trail encroachment" language needs to be removed from this document when submitted for recordation. MEMORANDUM To:. Mitch Haas, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer C-(Z Date: March 17, 1999 Re: 855 Bay Street Stream Margin Exemption and Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their March 3, 1999 meeting, and we have the following comments: General - These comments are based on the fact that we assume that the site plan can work and no misrepresentation by the surveyor and site designer exists. 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." 1. F000dplain - The proposed work is outside of the 100 year floodplain. 2. Improvement Survey - A survey titled "Improvement Survey" needs to be prepared prior to acceptance of a building permit application. The improvement survey must clearly state that "ail easement of record as indicated on Title Policy Number , dated [within past 12 months] are shown hereon." There is apparently a sewer easement on the west side of the parcel. 3. Plat Amendment - Prior to submitting for a building permit, a plat amendment needs to be prepared in order to document the as -built trail easement. 4. Site Drainage - The existing City storm drainage infrastructure system is does not have additional capacity to convey increased storm runoff. The site development approvals must include the requirement of meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a requirement that the building permit application include a drainage mitigation plan (24 "06" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) and a report signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, submitted as part of the building and site plan, as well as a temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. 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 drainage plans prior to permit drawings. These requirements must be met prior to acceptance of a building permit application. 5. Housing Authority - The ADU needs a designated parking space. This will have to be shown on development plans. 6. Parks Department - The wetlands delineation will have to be determined in the field, in the spring, after the snow has melted. 7. Work in the Public Right -of -way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920 -5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920 -5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance, and streets department (920 -5130) for mailboxes , street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the city community development department. DRC Attendees Applicant's representative: Jim Morse, David Muckenhim Staff: Stephanie Levesque, Tom Bracewell, Mitch Haas, Rebecca Schickling, John Krueger, Chuck Roth 99M32 As a condition of approval, the applicant needs to submit an as -built survey of the trail as described in the Plat Dedication and "Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement" for the Creektree Subdivision. The survey needs to include a legal description of the trail easement and said legal description needs to be included on the final plat or Site Specific Stream Margin Development Plan. The Parks Department has had discussions with the applicant about the possibility of realigning the trail. While the Parks Department feels there is no obligation or requirement to realign the trail, the Parks Department may entertain the idea of realignment if at least the following conditions are met: 1. The relocation of the trail may require full design and engineering prior to construction due to the technical nature of the trail. This cost would be borne solely by the applicant. 2. The cost of relocating the trail on the applicant's property will be borne solely by the applicant. 3. The trail must be designed and constructed to current City standards (10 feet wide, colored concrete, with 2 foot safety shoulders on each side). 4. Any realigned trail on the applicant's property must be fully integrated into the rest of the trail. PEDESTRIAN AND RIVERINE RECREATION EASEMENT: The applicant needs to be aware of the pedestrian and nverme recreation easement across southern edge of the property, as refereed to in the Creektree Subdivision Plat Dedication which states: 7 DO IMZEBY GRANT TO THE PURUC FOR THE PURPOSES OF PEDESTRIAN AND RIVERJAE RECREATION, AN EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS ALL THOSE PORTIONS OFLOTS I AND 2 LYING WITHIN THE RIVER BED OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER AS SAID RIVER NOW EXISTS, AND AS SHOWN AND NOTED HEREON. WETLANDS DELINEATION: A wetland delineation as required by the Stream Margin Review must be performed and shown on the recorded Site Specific Stream Margin Development Plan or final plat. TREE PERMIT/MMGATION: The applicants have been working with the City Forester on tree issues for the property. However, a formal tree permit must be approved prior to the application for a building permit. No excavation, nor storage of fill materials may occur within driplines. SITE Exbibit D 855 Bay Street Section 26.68.040, Stream Margin Review Because development is proposed within one hundred (100) feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River, this proposal is subject to stream margin review. Section 26.68.040(B) states that "no development shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends beyond one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all the (14] standards set forth below:" These standards, and staff's evaluation of the proposal relative to them, are presented below. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows. that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and RESPONSE: The one hundred (100) year flood plain of the Roaring Fork River is shown on the submitted Improvement Survey and the proposed site plan, both of which are included in Exhibit A. As mentioned in the referral memo from the Engineering Department (Exhibit B), the proposed work is fully outside of the 100 year flood plain. Therefore, the proposed development will not have any impact on the base flood elevation. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map; or areas of historic public use or access are dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. Dedications are necessitated by development's increased impacts to the City's recreation and trail facilities includingpublic fishing access; and RESPONSE: The property has an existing trail easement, fisherman's easement, and pedestrian/riverine easement, all of which the applicant must preserve. The applicant is working with the Parks Department on relocating the trail easement to a more suitable location based on the built trail (see memo from Parks Department, Exhibit B). With regard to these easements, the Parks Department is recommending, as a condition of approval, that the applicant be required to submit for recordation a new Final Plat of the subject lot (Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision) showing removal of the words "trail encroachment" and dedication of an "as- built" easement around the trail (twenty (20) foot wide easement being set ten (10) feet on each side of the centerline of the built trail). The Parks Department also requests, pursuant to the terms of the original plat dedication and Subdivision/PUD Agreement, a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide an as -built survey of the trail with its legal description as part of the building permit application The Parks Department remains open to discussions regarding relocation of the trail but stipulates that the following minimum conditions would have to be agreed to before relocation would be approved: • The relocation of the trail may require full design and engineering prior to construction due to the technical nature of the trail; this cost would be borne solely by the applicant. • The cost of relocating the trail on the applicant's property will be borne solely by the applicant. • The trail must be designed and constructed to current City standards (10 feet wide, colored concrete, with 2 foot safety shoulders on each side). D -1 Exhibit D 855 Bay Street • Any realigned trail on the applicant's property must be fully integrated into the rest of the trail. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable; and RESPONSE: The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan recommends that trees not be cut along the River, that the River not be filled in and its banks not be graded. It also recommends that disturbed areas be brought back to as natural a state as possible, including the use of native plant species. The proposal does not require any trees to be removed along the River, nor does it require any filling in of the River or grading of its banks. The application also includes a letter from NatureTech Consultant Services Corporation (Mike Villa) stating that development of the proposed site plan is not expected to impact riparian vegetation. Staff finds that the recommendations of the Greenway Plan are being accommodated by the proposed plan. 4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy; and RESPONSE: The Engineering Department agrees with the proposed top of slope elevation and contour represented on the submitted site plan. The proposed building envelope is acceptable to the staff of the Community Development and Engineering Departments. The application represents that the proposed development would not remove or damage stream bank vegetation, nor would it necessitate stream bank slope grade changes. The applicant has further agreed to barricade the river side of the building envelope prior to any demolition, excavation or construction and to maintain the barricading until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These representations are recommended as conditions of approval. 5. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and /or sedimentation during construction. Increased on -site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and RESPONSE: The proposed development would not interfere with or change the River's course, nor would it cause pollution of the River. Given the provisions of this standard and the comments contained in the Engineering Department's referral memo (Exhibit B), staff is recommending the following as a condition of approval: The building permit application shall: (1) include a drainage report and mitigation plan (24" x 36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, and the provisions of this plan are required to meet the runoff design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f); (2) include a permanent erosion control plan, and a temporary sediment control and contaminant plan for the construction phase; (3) indicate whether a ground injection or re- charge type drainage system is proposed (i.e., drywells), and if so, a soils report establishing percolation rates will need to be included; (4) indicate that drywells will not be permitted within utility easements; and, (5) demonstrate through the above - referenced drainage plans that foundation drainage systems will be detained on site. D -2 Exhibit D 855 Bay Street 6 Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and RESPONSE: No such alteration or relocation is proposed, thus no written notice is required. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his [or her] heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the food carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and RESPONSE: Since no alteration or relocation is proposed, a guarantee is not required. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to workwithin the one - hundred- yearfoodplain; and RESPONSE: Since no work is proposed within the 100 -year flood plain, copies of permits are not applicable or necessary. 9. There is no development other than approved native vegetation taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is. an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. If any development is essential within this area, it may only be approved by special review pursuant to Section 26.04.100; and RESPONSE: The proposed site plan (see Exhibit A) depicts both the top of the stream bank and the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope. It illustrates that no development is proposed below the top of slope or within the fifteen foot "no- build" zone. 10. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty -five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Zoning Officer utilizing that definition set forth at Section 2604.100; and RESPONSE: The applicant has provided these drawings (see Exhibit A, site plan), demonstrating that the proposed structures would not exceed the height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. The site section shows the top of bank, the forty -five (45) degree angle from ground level, and the proposed residence. 11. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side to native riparian vegetation; and RESPONSE: The proposed landscaping treatment of the property is shown on the site plan (Exhibit A). No new plantings are proposed outside of the designated building envelope, including its river side. The applicant has been working with the City Forester to resolve any tree issues relative to the proposed development, and tree removal permits would be required as needed. 12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and RESPONSE: In response to this criterion, staff is suggesting the following condition(s) of approval: "If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not be directed toward the river or located down the river bank slope, nor will it cause glare or hazardous D -3 Exhibit D 855 Bay Street conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down - directional, sharp cut -off fixtures, and those fixtures set along walkways (if any) shall be set at no more than eighteen (18) inches above finished grade. Installation of any outdoor flood lights is prohibited." 13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level; and RESPONSE: The applicant submitted site sections showing all of the required site elements. This illustration is included with Exhibit A, on the site plan. 14. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. RESPONSE: The Parks Department is satisfied that no wetlands or riparian zones would be impacted by the proposed development, but is still recommending a condition requiring that a field - determined wetlands delineation be conducted in the Spring, after all snow has melted from the property, and that said delineation be shown on the recorded Final Plat. D -4 Exhibit E 855 Bay Street Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units The proposed ADU would be located below a detached (but connected via linking element) two -car garage, and would be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units, limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. The owners of the principal residence would retain the right to place a qualified employee(s) of his/her choosing in the ADU. As proposed, the ADU would contain approximately 543± square feet of net livable area and would have its own kitchen, bathroom, and access, as required by code. The surface parking pad located alongside the garage would provide the required off - street parking space for the ADU (See Exhibit "A "). Therefore, the proposal complies with the requirements of Section 26.40.090(A)(1). Section 26.40.090(A)(2) is not applicable as the ADU would be detached from the primary residence. Nevertheless, the ADU would comply with all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district, Low - Density Residential (R -30); see referral comments from Zoning Officer, Sara Thomas (Exhibit B). Section 26.490.090(A)(3) requires that detached ADUs be located on parcels that have secondary and/or alley access. In the past, similarly situated lots have been permitted to have detached ADUs after a finding that the property is accessed by a secondary road (see 970 Powder Lane/Fayez ADU). In the current case, and based on past approvals, Bay Street would qualify as a secondary road accessed from North Spring Street via Gibson Avenue and North Mill Street. Section 26.40.090(A)(4) is not applicable since the proposed ADU is not attached to the primary residence and there are no alleys in the subject area. Section 26.40.090(B), Development Review Standards for detached Accessory Dwelling Units, requires that: 1. The proposed development is compatible and subordinate in character with the primary residence located on the property and with the development located within the neighborhood, and assuming year -round occupancy, shall not create a density pattern inconsistent with the established neighborhood; The architectural character of the proposed structure is consistent with that of the primary residence. The massing and scale of the detached garage and ADU structure is subordinate to that of the main house as well as to the massing and scale of other structures in the neighborhood. The proposed accessory dwelling unit is consistent with the residential use of the Creektree and Oklahoma Flats subdivisions. The surrounding area is comprised of single- family residences, many of which have associated ADUs. Thus, placement of a small, deed restricted dwelling unit on the 855 Bay Street property is consistent with the established pattern of use. Section 26.40.090(B)(2), Development review standards for a detached accessory dwelling unit, states that: Where the proposed development varies from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence than the development in accord with the dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements may be varied: a. Minimum front and rear yard setbacks; E -1 w, Exhibit E 855 Bay. Street b. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot; c. Maximum allowed floor area may be exceeded up to the bonus allowed for accessory dwelling units; d The side yard setback shall be a minimum of three (3) feet... With the proposed layout, all dimensional requirements would be met, and no, variations are requested. Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, a development application for a conditional use approval shall meet the following standards: (A) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. RESPONSE: The stated purpose of the R -30 zone district "is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. " ADUs are allowed as conditional uses in the R -30 zone district, and the proposal is required to meet or exceed all of the dimensional requirements associated with the zoning. Furthermore, one of the stated themes of the AACP with regard to "revitalizing the permanent community" is to "increase resident housing." Also, the proposal is consistent with the following purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the AACP: • "Promote, market and implement Cottage Infill and Accessory Dwelling Unit programs;" • "Develop small scale resident housing which fits the character of the community and is interspersed with free market housing throughout the Aspen Area and up valley of Aspen Village;" and, • "The public and private sectors together should develop . . . employee- occupied accessory dwelling units, to achieve the identified unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents." Staff finds that this conditional use application for an ADU complies with Section 26.60.040(A). (B) The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. RESPONSE: The subject parcel is surrounded by residential uses, some of which have associated accessory dwelling units, and the proposed ADU use is both consistent and compatible with the existing residential development in the immediate vicinity. Also, see the staff response to 26.40.090(B)(1), above, on the preceding page. (C) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. RESPONSE: As mentioned earlier in this memo, the proposed ADU will be sub -grade and will appear as part of the detached garage structure, thus, its location, size and design will minimize any potential adverse visual impacts. Like all of the surrounding properties, the ADU's parking and trash service will be accessed from the street (Bay Street) at the front of E -2 v Exhibit E 855 Bay Street the property. No noise, vibration, or odor related impacts are anticipated. The proposed ADU will operate like any other residence or ADU found in the neighborhood. It is anticipated that the impacts would be negligible. (D) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. RESPONSE: There is an existing single - family residence on the property. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the proposed use. The subject site is within an existing, well - established neighborhood, with a public park located across the river (bridge accessible). See Engineering referral comments, attached as Exhibit B. (E) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for . increased employees generated by the conditional use. RESPONSE: While the proposed development of an ADU will not generate an increase in the employment base, the applicant will be supplying an ADU which, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(A)(1), will be deed restricted, registered with the housing office, and available for rental to an eligible working resident of Pitkin County for periods of not less than six months in duration, thereby serving the need for increased affordable housing in the City of Aspen. (F) The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title. RESPONSE: The proposed conditional use will comply with all additional standards imposed on it be the AACP and by all other applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, with the exception of the "garage placement" standard of Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards. The applicant is requesting a variance from said criterion. E -3 Exhibit F 855 Bay Street Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.020(B), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff. In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, staff shall find the submitted development application consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "if an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staffs findings to the Design Review Appeal Board [DRAC] pursuant to Chapter 26 22, Design Review Appeal Board " Community Development Department staff reviewed the proposed design for the 855 Bay Street residence for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards." Staff found that the proposal is not in compliance with the "Garage Placement" and "Volume" standards. The applicant is requesting variances from these standards (described below) in order to allow the proposed design. The application is attached as Exhibit "A." Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff is recommending approval of the "garage placement" variance based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue /problem to which the standard is a response than would a complying design. Staff is also recommending denial of the requested variance from the "volume" standard, finding that none of the three applicable variance criteria are met. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), Garage Placement The "garage placement" standard requires, among other things, that "All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet." As indicated on the proposed site plan (see Exhibit A), the garage would be the closest structure to the street, and it is not recessed behind the front facade. Thus, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the standard. Consequently, if a variance is not granted, the applicant would have to redesign to comply. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria. Staffs review of the application relative to said standards is provided below. An appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; RESPONSE: There is nothing about the subject proposal that would further the goals, standards, or objectives outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan. An appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would. (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, F -1 Exhibit F 855 Bay Street RESPONSE: The subject standard is designed to avoid and prohibit garage- dominated streetscapes in an effort to maintain and enhance the pedestrian experience. Staff believes the proposed design would more effectively address this issue /problem than would a complying design. Given the proposed placement and layout of the primary residence and its building envelope (street- oriented, as required by other provisions of the Residential Design Standards, such as 26.58.040(A), Building Orientation), staff is of the opinion that recessing the garage ten feet behind the primary mass would result in the garage doors being visible from the Bay Street right -of -way, and thereby adversely affecting the streetscape. In addition, it would result in a greater amount of paved area on the site. With the proposed design, the garage would be of the "side- entry," or side - loaded variety, and its vehicular entrance would be perpendicular to, and not visible from, the street. Staff believes this design more effectively avoids creation of a garage- dominated streetscape while better maintaining the pedestrian experience than would a design that complies with the given standard. An appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards maybe granted if the exception would.- (3) be clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specific constraints. RESPONSE: In terms of site specific constraints, there are no unusual physical conditions (i.e., topography, natural hazards, etc.) where reasons of fairness would dictate that the garage absolutely cannot be recessed behind the front facade. Nevertheless, given the proposed placement and layout of the primary residence and its building envelope (street - oriented, as required by other provisions of the Residential Design Standards, such as 26.58.040(A), Building Orientation), it could be argued that the top of slope designation somewhat precludes recessing the garage entrance ten feet behind the front facade. .Staff disagrees with this argument, since there are no site specific constraints that would preclude moving the entire structure further from the river and, thus, closer to Bay Street. This would provide enough room to recess the garage. While existing vegetation and setbacks from the street as well as from the neighboring property would aid in mitigating the impacts of the proposed garage, these are not unusual site specific constraints where reasons of fairness would make the proposed design necessary. In summary, staff recommends approval of a garage placement variance finding that the proposed design more effectively avoids creation of a garage- dominated streetscape while better maintaining the pedestrian experience than would a design that complies with the given standard. Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume The proposed design contains violations of the "Volume" standard on its south elevation (see Sheet A -7, Exhibit A). The applicant has also included an alternative south elevation that complies with the standard (see Sheet A -7 Option, Exhibit A). The portion of the "volume" standard relevant to this project reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) F -2 Exhibit F 855 Bay Street and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi - circular or non - orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/ fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the height of the finished floor. Thus, one might describe the area lying between nine and twelve feet above the finished floor as the "no window zone." Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicant is left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicant could accept the two -to -one (2:1) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed structure such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicant could appeal staffs findings. Rather than accept the floor area penalty or redesign the proposed residence, the applicant has chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if a variance is not granted, the applicant would have to redesign to comply with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria. Staff's review of the application relative to said standards is provided below. An appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would. (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; RESPONSE: There is nothing about the subject proposal that would further the goals, standards, or objectives outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan. An appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards maybe granted if the exception would: (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, RESPONSE: According to the proposed revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose /intent of the "Volume" standard "is to ensure that each residential building has street facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although proposed code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff feels this information might be helpful in understanding the issues /concems that the volume standard attempts to address. Staff believes the proposed design overstates its street - facing architectural details, has very little human scale, and contradicts local building traditions (as implied by the term "chateau "). While the same remains true of the design proposed on Sheet A -7 Option of Exhibit A, this design complies with the standards. Consequently, staff finds that the proposed design does not satisfy the criterion of more effectively providing street - facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is not satisfied with the design proposed on Sheet A -7 of Exhibit A, F -3 Exhibit F 855 Bay Street An appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (3) be clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specific constraints. RESPONSE: In terms of site specific constraints, there are no unusual physical conditions (i.e., topography, natural hazards, etc.) where reasons of fairness would dictate that the proposed noncomplying windows must be included in the design. While existing vegetation and setbacks from the street as well as from the neighboring property would aid in mitigating the impacts of the proposed design, these are not unusual site specific constraints where reasons of fairness would make the proposed window configurations necessary. In summary, staff recognizes that the subject location is not within one of the historic, traditional neighborhoods of Aspen or on a grid street system. Nevertheless, since the proposed design does not, in staff's opinion, meet the standards of any of the three criteria for granting a variance, staff recommends denial of the request. Consequently, staff recommends that the applicant utilize the design provided on Sheet A -7 Option of Exhibit A, or some other design that would comply with the "Volume" standard. F -4 t I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I i I I I I r I I I 1 I i 1 i Nb-Zd ?J00-1.J OJ__--- - - -L ®J I .M Z -b 0 V L m trj z ao D n � � o x 00 > m� �m� I SNOISIAHE 1 8 -.61 wb -.L L I f I I l I I I I I I I r- 1 1 I I i f I f l ,0-•9Z 0-19L .0-.LL N'd-ci aioo-i i L ®�---- - - -Loi a - xx © ap 9 V xx U u 0 0 x Dz c Nzo< --a o to CA M C7 co zU)� CD m oM Z z N I SNOISIAHE 1 8 -.61 wb -.L L I f I I l I I I I I I I r- 1 1 I I i f I f l ,0-•9Z 0-19L .0-.LL N'd-ci aioo-i i L ®�---- - - -Loi a - xx © ap 9 V xx U u 0 T, GPRKE 23x22 ® 24' -0" OMN 6' - 5w 0 ® KtMLfN 16'-9' 18X{9 19' 29' -6' ins ® `Y r --I LL © 123 -q' MAIN FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1 15" =1' -O 24' -Q" i ENV ® o 00 o / 0 ' 0 - -- 6' 1� - - - - -- - ° - -- ° O ° a DN O O 171" tr tiff P -1 24 LMNG ROOM LJ I o 24x42 v - -_,- 24' —� 7 ° I6 x 25 10' O 16' � L 70,a 43` /jam Il:l3 i 0 -8o E O O 0 '° �o K IS 23 24' -0° II GG O 15 O Z a H � = W LAJ YN m Uwao (D Cn t) g� L) moZ;C3 O U m W > >c �a�0 W w ap w Lo 00 A -3 uj w (D xy t) 00 L) ? O U m W w Lo 00 4 Q W A -3 x m 607 OPEN 12'-6" - 9tv GAkilk , 8' -0" 25x23 24' -0" 26' -0" s L 18 X 19 , 9' 29' -6" F _, IL a 1 O J2a S w C U I6X23 W YNw 1IOI UWO, 6' j d 9 O O ❑e _MAIN FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1 /8 " =1' -O 25' -d' 20' -0" 24' -0" ENtKY Own L� LMw wom 24x42 42x 42 U E I El 43'� e 0 mmm =j L y AWWaUV ol d0.1' -b � 0 OFFICE 17 ■ 13 O ® 12 E 0 I K IMAW" 18X23 0 u 11 24' -0" fl f GG REVISIONS Z ce to S w U Go W YNw 1IOI UWO, j d a L) I mpZLoa 0 w i II9' -0" _1 . . 16' -0" - 25' -O" -- 17' -4' * 19' -8' LOWER FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/5"=l'-0 REVISIONS Z m V7 m Ld W � u Y W m ro UWP,%D cn w Mid r m�Zcv 0 �rn o��co m z i w W 0 0 Lo Lo 03 0 as IA-41 F" w C° 1n 00 L) r O U W a m w Lo Lo 03 a a IA-41 4 -0" m wm PN 9' -0 IIC � III , • 24' -0" LOWER FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1 /5" =1' -0 1 — 19' -0" 1 16' -0" 25' -0" — * 17' -4" -1 19' -8" ' REVISIONS I z =W� 00 V WZ Y N W m i U W a 10 �caa m0zo 0 m W W C ,0 H O o' W 1- I W to F- 00 W N O Q W m w Lo CL O Q C 1 V M 73' -4° NORTH ELEVATION 50ALE: i/8"=11-0 Z CQ m = Wm W3 m to Z 03 U W a ,n 0 mO Zoo rn� z ; 1 Jv 26,_x°- -- - ��k-- �11' -0' 13•_x.. NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: z m =E V) wm CO fY3Wa to a d Co 0 m�Z� z> >°� W � � O U-i 00 N W CO W LO a !Yi 00 Q C) 1 24' -0" SO' -0" 17' -9 2' 24" WEST ELEVATION SCALE: I /8 " =1' -O Z = W m C1m co W YVtZ CO CJ L+J P. � F- gjdw i z ► Cj mono W w >w o oar w 0 to 00 00 w W 0 A-6 i E-4MM W W F- 0 W Q m w to 00 00 d < Q A-6 i 117' -( 108' -0 97-0 24" WEST ELEVATION Of � U z W afe0 � d t OOpZ0 Q w La Z > >� W i F-- r W co Qi pc o Q W mw to 00 Q O A -6 11 T -0 108' -0 . 9T -0 �^ 24' -0" 10' 0" 1 T 92 l9,-Cr 24" WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8 "= I' -O RMSIONS 4Mn /M Z " VI co LLI .> W m m .- t° ol \y 6 0) r�/y r rJ m L 1CJ N W i {O �a >o w � W � D �i 1 A-61 W E-+ ~ W .- t° Q+ cn CO � r O v W d 0° w �i 00 d 0 1 A-61 19' -0" 9' -9" 15'-0' 5' 0" 26'-U'— 16' -4• 20' -8' T -0" 5OUTN ELEVATION SCALE: Z cv m 2 m W W o cc YNwm U W a to 0 � � o mpZv�i � Co W 1 W co z<�x F/i� m 0 W F- E-4 W _(0 M F- 00 w N O U > U Q W m w to d h+ 1 00 Q C1 A e `� -7 12 12 79 12 —19 - - 9' 9" 15' -0" 26' -0" 16' -4' 20' -8' 7' 0" SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 12 �9 REVISIONS Z W Z co W co 00 I LLI a. d x m 00 � O H ca m Q Z N z` W o� W m W zQ>x w °w LO 00 w c A -7 W 1— W d x N 00 � � O U W Q m w Y-�-I LO 00 a- Q /-y A -7 >N EAST SARASE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/6"=l'-0 — 117' -0 iSNOW FENCE, GUTTER . k , —25' -(1 NORTH GARAGE ELEVATION SCALE: 115"=I'-0 97' -0 Z a V) co LLJ co ca Y N w m � U W a �Lo j3:� d I 0 ce O La a > x U-) cul co N O w Rl 0 MARr W F- LLI W �Lo ix I 0 Wmw U-) cul co 0- a O MARr 13'-6'L4' 20' -0' 19' -0" I I I 50ALE: 1/5"=l'-0 LLI! II II II II .I ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/16 "= 1' -0 ��� rr = == - -- I J 7-F- 24' -0° L EAST 6ARA6E ELEVATION SCALE: I /8 " =1' -O --„�i 26' -O" ` NORTH 6ARA6E ELEVATION — 117' -0 * SNOW FENCE, GUTTER AND HEAT TAPE — 1081 -0 92CELYAa•1 REVISIONS Z N =gym 3: U W m m i U W w d x 6 O � O 'moZ� w W W m >� NQ 00 0 A -8 F+ w CO d x Np CO W Q mw p� 00 a O A -8 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM%,'T 1 CODE INTERPRETATION hlryti�E` 999 JURISDICTION: City of Aspen Ctrr 9SpFN t OHS f APPLICABLE CODE SECTION(S): EFFECTIVE DATE: Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion." March 17, 1999 WRITTEN BY: Mitch Haas, Planner APPROVED BY: ATE: ��at 9 /,gam Jul' nn Woods, Cphtunity Development Director 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. Ventures 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). 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. BACKGROUND: Under the provisions of Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units, it is explained that an FAR bonus of up to 50% of the size of the ADU may be granted for an attached ADU if it is above grade and contains a "mandatory occupancy" term on the deed restriction (as interpreted from the phrase "available for rental "). Under Section 26.04.100, Definitions, as cited above, it is explained that an attached ADU may be granted a 50% FAR bonus, and that a detached ADU may be granted a 50% FAR bonus if it is separated from a principal structure by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (45 0) square feet. By combining the knowledge gained from the two aforementioned code sections, one can conclude that an attached ADU may be granted a 50% FAR bonus if it is above grade and carries a mandatory occupancy deed restriction while a detached ADU may be granted a 50% FAR bonus if it is above grade, separated from a principal structure by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet, and has a footprint of no more than four hundred fifty (450) square feet. Further, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(B)(2), Review Standards for Detached ADUs, it is explained that "Where the proposed development varies from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence than the development in accord with the dimensional requirements." Sub - section (c) goes on to state that FAR is one of the dimensional requirements that can be varied pursuant to this criterion. Based on the information contained in the preceding paragraph, staff concludes that the 450 square foot footprint provision must relate to where the ADU- containing structure meets the ground, and not to the "footprint" (or floor plan) of the unit itself. That is, the criterion for the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant the FAR bonus /variation for a detached ADU is a finding that "such variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence ... " If the 450 square foot footprint provision related only to the unit's floor plan, the variance criterion would be arbitrary, capricious and, moreover, unrelated to the issue of detached accessory dwelling units being in harmony with the letter and spirit of the City definition for "Accessory use or accessory structure," which includes such phrases as: "incidental to; subordinate to;" does not change the basic character of the premises, as determined by the principal use or structure;" and, "is subordinate in area, extent, and purpose ..." While staff is comfortable basing its conclusion on the foregoing line of reason, it should be added that the term "footprint" is commonly used in architectural circles to refer to the 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 as conferred with generally understand the term "footprint" to refer to where a structure meets the ground. INTERPRETATION: With regard to the City definition for "Floor Area, Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion" and the requirement that detached ADUs have a maximum footprint of 450 square feet to be eligible for an FAR bonus, the term "footprint" is hereby 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 refers to the footprint of the structure in which the ADU is incorporated, and not to the floor plan of the unit itself. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A — Request for Interpretation submitted by Ventures West i March 5, 1999 MIMI SI ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION a(iS; 2JUNA47- doG ' , AS:r : , -. >130. lie oods HAND DELIVERED Community evelopment Department Aspen Galena Street CO 81611 Dear Ms. Woods: As we discussed on the phone, this letter is a request for an "interpretation of code ". The portion of code in question is Section 26.40.090 (E), which defines the condition by which the applicant qualifies for the FAR bonus for an ADU. Please see the attached coDv. the =.lanauaue. =- ate: =we•, read: ifi, 3- ndicates (among other ^lven51'e) ~-square £eet Mto -qualify for the- .bonus = °FARs Sara Thomas has indicated that not only must the ADU footprint be less than 450 square feet, but also that the footprint of the underlying structure (in our case a garage) must also be less than 450 square fret. Ants reted.z a& "foot rint" is commonl used to describe the bottom ,*4k.6 cE rpc, >f an architectural unit such as a room. a floor, a pool,e"T Tew tever base it may rest, not necessarily Just the groun ..:rhu?7_„X f>ran t re, such as-a df:-gk nr eirpsser on the floor, etc. In order °trz>' to be clear, we often say the "footprint of the first floor" when �"4� referring to "the building footprint" of a house, as the second t5 story may have a different "footprint ". Is the footprint of the P �rfns cupola on top of the ADU the footprint of the garage? roi5t�, °'Yl�i We are told that the City does not define the word footprint in its OE'" definitions elsewhere. How could a person not intimately familiar I�ifE'� with the code, its intent and its history have any idea that the City would be using this uncommon, unusual, restrictive interpretation of the word "footprint ". We can only reliably know what we read. David Murkenhirn Post Office Box 8352 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 • Telephone 970.925.8889 • Fax 970.925.4006 • Cellular 970.379.1077 Ms. Julie Ann Woods March 5, 1999 Page 2 If the intent of the code is to restrict the footprint of an ADU to include the footprint of its underlying structure, why does it not say so? The inclusion of the underlying structure to 45o 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. grade. Should you insist that the footprint of the garage also needs to b� less than 450 square feet, this �UMi point is to move the ADU underground, beneath the garage. This is not an alternative that the Housing Department, the P & da,1S �Q- Commission, nor we desire. Why would you interpret the code in ���* such a manner to encourage the ADU to be underground?uu� We appreciate your consideration of this matter, as we have obviously relied on what we consider the general and common use of the word footprint and the literal words of the code. Thank you. Sincerely, David M ckenhirn, President Ventur s West Enterprises, Inc. DM /ca david \jawwds.001. C. James Morse Mitch Haas Sara Thomas John Worcester, Esq. a t • A- IrAcAtW fRK. 1u/o t) F= __.*doJ,5' Clgpw x riD Za2`� aCC�prt�GY `_._ [ TirslG4i VA.i O .1J� ��iJ it- AgAr, cDh'i7r✓.7 cnDecs'(cn-. r3Y IT Aar T4G 4 1. v A % —Mt$6V ADtA .( A) A15 k ggQLtlk Uj� April 19, 1999 4V MIN-Mj ARCHITECTURAL OESIGi9 & CONSTRUGION Ms. Julie Ann Woods Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Woods: HAND DELI'S -ERED Ex�MBrT C This letter is a request to appeal to the Aspen City Council the interpretation of Code by the Planning Director approved March 24, 1999, regarding the ADU footprint (Section 26.40.090). This appeal is precipitated at the encouragement of the Planning and Zoning Commission. It appears that the general consensus is that the Code interpretation does not meet the intent of the Code, and is counterproductive. The applicant feels that the Code as interpreted is not what the Code states. In brief, the issue is as follows: The Planning Department has stated in its response to the applicant's request for a code interpretation, "that an ADU separated from a principal structure by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of 450 feet is entitled to a FAR bonus ". The Planning Department has interpreted this to mean that any underlying structure to the ADU (in this case a 600 square foot garage) must also have a maximum footprint of 450 square feet. The applicant feels that the code simply does not say this, that it does not refer to the footprint of the underlying structure but only to the footprint of the ADU alone. As a result of this Code interpretation and because the applicant does not desire to reduce the garage to a maximum of 450 square feet, the applicant has moved the ADU from above the garage to below the garage. This is a solution that neither the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Housing Authority nor the applicant desires. For more specific background details, please refer to Exhibit A, the applicant's request for code interpretation and to Exhibit B, the Planning Department's response. Additionally, in subsequent discussions the question has arisen as to how appropriate the 450 square foot area is and as to whether it should be increased to 550 or 600 square feet. Sincerely, Iuckenhir (for James Mors DJM/kj s �r t 1999 rY EV r_Jr David bludcenhirn Post 0 ffice Box 8352 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 • Telephone 970.9 25.8889 • Fox 970.925.1006 - Cellular 970.379.1077 ASPEN /PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 -1975 Phone (970) 920 -5090 FAX (970) 920 -5439 fi =1 kk 017 ,112i�1�lu 1 TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked -off below: ft ........... City Engineer ........... Zoning Officer +........... Housing Director ........... Parks Department �........... Aspen Fire Marshal �........... City Water O ........... Historic Preservation Officer O ........... Transportation Planner O ........... City Manager FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner `........... Sanitation District O ........... Building Department O ........... Environmental Health O ........... Electric Department O ........... City Attorney O ........... Streets Department O ........... RFTA, Mike Davis O ........... Community Development Director RE: 855 Bay Street: Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Review for an ADU. Parcel ID Number 2737 - 073 -50001 DATE. February 24, 1999 REFERRAL SCHEDULE DRC MEETING DATE: March 3, 1999 ENGINEERING REFERRAL DUE TO PLANNER: March 12,1999 OTHER REFERRALS DUE TO ENGINEER & PLANNER: March 10, 1999 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by James A. Morse, represented by Ventures West (David Muckenhim). Please complete and return your referral comments according to the deadlines provided above. Thank you, Mitch. 855&Y'l 1p- ia MEMORANDUM To: "Flitch Haas, Project Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. 5oderstrom, Project Engineer &S PC: John Krueger, Trails Supervisor Date: February 2, 1999 Re: Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision/PUD I made a cursory review of the Improvement Survey by L. Buettner, wet ink dated 1/10/99, of the above property (not part of a formal land development application) with particular attention to the location of the pedestrian/bicycle trail and the trail easement. Part No. 6 in the dedication statement on the plat of the Creektree Subdivision/PUD, states that the trail easement is intended to be centered on the trail after the trail is completed, and that the depicted trail easement is only an approximation of the trail location. The subdivision agreement requires "as- built" survey and plans be provided to the City by the developer (condition No. 9) prior to acceptance of the improvements by the City although we do not have these as -built plans. The trail easement follows the trail as the trail exists on the ground, even though the developer did not provide a revised easement. The Creektree Subdivision/PUD plat also shows the building envelope, the "edge river bed" (a phrase without specific definition in the plat nor in the City Code), and the edge of the sloped portions of the lot above the existing house and along the river bank. The improvement survey should be filled -out by closing the "bottom of slope" line to the edge of the depicted trail easement to complete the building envelope for the property. The site conditions and conditions of approval from prior land development applications should be verified by the applicant to the conditions and dimensions shown on the improvement survey before making a new land development application. These would 'include, but are not limited to: • top of slope delineation and setback (including at least one section view from the river to the top of slope); • high water ling (per city code definition) in place of high watermark; • PUD overlay for Oklahoma Flats (dimensional limitations); • identity of the adjacent property owners to the north, east and south of the property (dashed lines for adjoining lots meeting the property); • include the public pedestrian easement over that portion of the property within the river bed (Part No. 7 dedication certificate, Creektree Subdivision/PUD plat); • a recent title commitment (issued within the iast calendar year) and reference the commitment issuer, and commitment number and-daig on the survey; • verify the exceptions to title and represent those on the plat which may be mapped; • depict the northerly right -of -way line of Bay St. for the portion of the street in front of the property; • possibly the existing topography of Bay Street, it may create a limitation for access to the property (future driveway width, grade and location coordinated with the street grade, utilities and trail); • zoning dimensions and standards for this property; • utilities (surface fixtures and appurtenances) within the property and in the right -of -way of Bay Street along the property frontage (access and services to the property); and • improvements within 5' outside the property boundaries; The survey should be drawn at a larger scale, e.g. 1 " =20`, for clarity. DRCM0399.DOC Page 1 OF 1 APPLICANT: James Morse represented by David Muckenhirn LOCATION: " 855 Bay Street ACTION: Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use for an ADU, " "Residential Design variances STREAM MARGIN• Standards applicable to"development within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams: A., No development shall be permitted in the floodway, with the exception of bridges or structures for irrigation; drainage; flood control or water diversion, which may be permitted by the City Engineer, provided plans and specifications are submitted to demonstrate that the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage; channels during peak flows and the Commission determines the proposed structure complies, to the extent practical, with all standards "set forth below. B. 'No development shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams; or within the Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends beyond 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards set forth below: 1. It can,be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the 'Special Flood Hazard"Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This "shall be demonstrated by an engineering' study prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State o£ Colorado which shows that the base"flood elevation will not be raised, but not limited to, proposed mitigation' techniques on or off -site which compensate: for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Community Plan, Parks /Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan Map, or'areas of historic public,use or access are dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. Dedications are necessitated'by development's increased impacts to the City's recreation and trail facilities including public fishing access. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practical. 4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade (cut/fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. 5. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary; including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pool or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; 6. Written notice shall be provided to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency: 7. A- guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits related to the work within the 100 -year floodplain. 9. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. If any development is essential within this area, it may only be approved by special review pursuant to Section 26.64.040(D). 10. All development outside of the fifteen (1.5) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty -five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. 11. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. 12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no lights directed toward the river or located down the slope. 13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top -of- slope, and pertinent elevation above sea level. 14. There has been accurate identification of wetland ° and riparian areas. SPECIAL REVIEW: No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Commission makes 'a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements setforth below:. I. A unique condition exists on the site where adherence to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design problem. 2. Any intrusion into the -top of slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible. 3. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are Iocated outside the top of slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. 4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all - adjoining properties. 4 STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL CONDITIONAL USES: The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the'Aspexi Area Community Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. The conditional use is consistent and, compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel, proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development., The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet and no more than seven hundred (700) square feet of net livable area. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the Housing Authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners M Of the principle residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling. unit, One (1) parking space shall be provided on -site for each studio unit; and for each bedroom within' a one or two - bedroom accessory dwelling unit. An attached' accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to all other dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district A detached accessory dwelling unit shall only be permitted' on parcels that have secondary and/or alley access, exempting parcels with' existing structures to be converted to detached accessory dwelling units, detached, garages or carports where, an accessory dwelling unit is proposed above; attached to, or contained within such detached garage or carport. Detached accessory dwelling units are prohibited within the`R- 1511zone district. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall utilize all access to the extent practical. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: The proposed development shall be compatible with and subordinate in character to the primary residence located on the parcel as well as development located within the neighborhood, and assuming year- round occupancy, shall not create a density pattern inconsistent with the established neighborhood. ` Where the proposed development varies from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence than the development in accord with dimensional requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission may exempt nonconforming structures, being.converted to a detached accessory dwelling unit, provided the nonconformity is not increased. Conditional use review shall be granted pursuant to Section 26.60.040 standards applicable to all conditional uses. FAR FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principle use is residential, the following shaft apply: the allowable floor area for an above -grade attached, accessory dwelling unit shall be excluded to a maximum of 350 square feet of allowable floor area or fifty percent. of the size of the accessory dwelling unit, whichever is less. This floor area exclusion provision only applies to accessory dwelling units which are subject to review and approval by the P and,Z pursuant to conditional use review and approval, Section 26.60.030 of this code, and the units must be deed restricted, registered with the housing office, and available for rental to an eligible working resident of Pitkin.County. The owner retains the right to select the renter for the unit. An ADU,separated from a principal, structure by a distance of no less than ten feet with a maximum footprint of 450 square feet shall be calculated at 50 percent of the allowable floor area up to 700 square feet of.Floor Area Any element linking the principal structure to the accessory, structure may be no more than one story tall, six feet wide, and ten feet long. AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 13,1999,4:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. 855 Bay Street: Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use for an ADU, Residential Design Variances (continued from 4/13), Mitch Haas B. Bavarian Inn Conceptual PUD, Mitch Haas V. ADJOURN ► 1.' • AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1999, 4:15 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES (NAAQcN III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. WORK SESSION (with City Council) A. Accessory Dwelling Units, Chris Bendon Regular meeting will begin at 5:30pm. V. PUBLIC HEARING A. 855 Bay Street: Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use for an ADU, Residential Design Variances, Mitch Haas (continued to April 13,1999) B. Melville Conditional Use for an ADU, 1290 Snowbunny Lane, Chris Bendon C. Land Use Code Revisions, Julie Ann Woods VI. ADJOURN ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS ........................................................:.............. ..............................I I MINUTES..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. .................................................................. .........I..................... 2 ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY CONDITIONAL USE ...................................................... ............................... 2 BARBEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINAL BUD SUBDIVISION REZONING AND SPECIAL REVIEW .................. ............................... .................. ............................... ............... 2 -- tv A-K H 16 199! Bob Blaich, Chairman, opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:45 p.m. Commissioners present were: Steve Buettow, Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson and Bob Blaich. Tim Semrau arrived for the second portion of the meeting. Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre were excused. Staff in attendance were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Amy Guthrie, Julie Ann Woods, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Steve Buettow stated that the Iselin Master Plan Committee put together interrelationships with the program, budget and community. Ron Erickson stated that an Oklahoma Fiats area resident told him that North Spring Street had been moved when some new houses were built. This move also relocated or removed property markers. He said there was a city owned right -of- way in that area. He inquired as to the problems of the markers being moved. Julie Ann Woods replied that someone would look into it. Bob Blaich distributed an article on "the brawl over sprawl'. He asked about the Bass Park options: (D 100% park; OO a mix of about half park and affordable housing and OO the city be allowed to sell the property on the free market. He asked about the 4" option from the '12 day citizen work session for all housing on Bass Park; city council decided not to go with that recommendation as an option. Julie Ann Woods introduced the new Community Development Deputy Director, Joyce Ohlson. She explained that Joyce would be at city P &Z meetings. Woods suggested setting some dates for P &Z to meet with Housing, possibly Fridays; 4/2, 4/9, 4/16 at noon. Woods said the purpose would be to discuss the roles of the AH review, the process and the projects. Tim Mooney said lunch was not a meeting he could attend. The other 3 commissioners could meet on Fridays, Bob Blaich would not attend the 9th. Woods stated there were work sessions scheduled with council on 3/22 and 3/23 at 4:15 p.m. No public comments. MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes from 03/03/98 and 03/17/98. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4 -0. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16 1999 MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve the minutes from 03/02/99. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 4 -0. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Steve Buettow disclosed a conflict with the Barbee project. WORK SESSION: ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY. CONDITIONAL USE No minutes are transcribed for work sessions. 5:40 PM - BREAK FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MEETING — City Pct Z resumed ot6 :25 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: BARBEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINAL PUD SUBDIVISION REZONING AND SPECIAL REVIEW Bob Blaich, chairperson, opened the public hearing with commissioners Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson and Tim Semrau in attendance. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the proof of notice was provided and the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. Blaich commented the meeting will proceed to 7 :00 and then a vote must be taken to extend the meeting. Sunny Vann, representative for applicant, stated there were two remaining issues from staff. Julie Ann Woods, staff, responded that the swales would not work according to the engineering department, but curb and gutter were needed. Vann said the shed on the property could be reincorporated into the project and the access to the free - market lots, which were somewhat narrower than 2 city town site lots, could be utilized through the affordable access. He said there were 3 family members that necessitated these lots for the project. Vann said the concern was compliance with ordinance 30 at the time of the building permit issuance for the garages. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16 1999 Tim Semrau asked if the set backs on the building envelopes for lots 2, 3 & 4 were 10 feet and the sidewalk was in that set back. Vann responded that the sidewalk, curb and `gutter and landscape buffer would be in the public right -of -way all the way to Koch Park. Jay Hammond, engineer, explained it was 10 feet after the 2 feet were dedicated. Vann noted there were no plans for demolition of the existing house, but if that ever happened, a new building envelope was already established with the required 10' set back. Ron Erickson asked if the building envelope could be established per that code whenever it was re- developed. Vann responded that the PUD required the approval for the building envelopes. Julie Ann Woods stated there was a consistency with the neighborhood and by establishing the building envelope now, the slope requirements would be met. Woods pointed out the proposed building envelopes on a map. Mooney expressed concern over the time frame and conveyance of the affordable housing being built. Vann replied there were protective covenants recorded with the final plat which required the duplex units to have a C.O. prior to any building permits issued for the RO units and then free market units would be sold. Mooney asked for a parking plan for the construction phase of the project AH units. Vann answered that was addressed in the covenants and had no problem making that a condition of approval. Erickson asked who would distribute the AH and RO lots. Vann stated they would agree to whatever rules the housing office had at the time of construction. Reid Haughey, applicant, responded the plan was to distribute the four category units through the housing authority lottery. Erickson asked what lot 12 was. Vann answered it was the road and parking lot for the benefit of all the units and owned by the homeowners association. He said it was restricted against any further development. The covenants for the condo association and the three RO lots will contribute to the maintenance, repair and snow removal. Public Comments Guy Noble, Unit 2A Timberidge neighbor, stated support for the project but was concerned about guest parking. She said early morning trucks that come into town now used the Koch Park porta- potty. She requested non - reflection roof material and the hours of construction be 8 -6 five days a week. Woods stated by city ordinance, the hours of construction were lam -IOpm. Vann noted the affordable housing was to be built in a timely and cost effective manner. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16 1999 Trisha Cunningham, Timberidge Condo resident, said her concerns were similar, parking and noise. The trucks in the morning were a problem especially with the narrow road. She asked that noise be restricted from 8 -6 as a condition of the project. David Hoefer stated condition 415 restricted noise and construction from 7 -10. If noise became a problem then a stop work order could be issued. Dave Ellis, Timberidge owner, noted that a similar project had construction times amended to 8 -6, Monday through Friday. He said the when vertical curb is installed at Koch Park, it will eliminate a lot of parking. He reiterated Guy Nobel's request for specific materials of construction. Biaich stated ordinance 30 would take care of some of the problems. Vann stated that non - reflective roof material would be used. He said there were some architectural drawings and covenants which included that language. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to continue the meeting to 7 :30 p.m. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 4 -0. Haughey said that further restrictions would make the project more difficult to complete; like limiting the morning construction hours. Hoefer suggested the applicant and neighbors work it out between now and council. He said there could be an agreement brought to council on the hours; one project limited the activity to certain kinds of construction at certain hours. Blaich agreed with Hoefer. Noble asked where the construction vehicles will park and how will fire trucks get through. Vann explained the parking plan; he noted there were 2 mandatory spaces plus extra spaces. Vann reviewed the conditions with the commission, staff and the assistant city attorney. Conditions #9, 11, 15,20, 24 were amended; #19, 27 deleted and a construction parking condition was added and shared driveway placement: MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve the Special Review for Parking for the Barbee Affordable housing development and recommend City Council approve the Barbee Final PUD /Subdivision and Rezoning. The conditions are amended: #9. Strike: Lots 1 4 she!! be ineluded in theAr-ehiteetur-al Guidelines, as pr-opesed- in &hib-it G, &f the SLA- #11. Strike: replace: pursuant to the regulations in place at the time of the building permit. #15. Add: no Sunday construction. #19. Stricken. #20. Add: prior to the CO of the duplex. #24. Strike: ... per lot fee... replace: ...forproject... #27. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16 1999 Stricken. Add: Prior to building permit application, a construction management plan to include the on -site construction vehicle parking. All of the Ws be changed. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Semrau, yes; Erickson, yes; Mooney, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4 -0. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. ckie Lothi ,Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director jl FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner RE: 855 Bay Street (Lot l,Creektree Subdivision) Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and Variances from the Residential Design Standards. Parcel I.D. No. 2737 - 073 - 50001. DATE: April 6, 1999 SUMMARY: A few issues regarding the rules governing FAR bonuses have recently arisen, and these issues have lead the applicant to consider changes to the current application. As a result, the application is not yet ready for a comprehensive staff and Commission review. Thus, staff and the applicant respectfully request that the Commission open the already noticed public hearing and continue it to the April 13th agenda. While the April 13th meeting has been set as a special meeting with just two items on the agenda (Bavarian Inn Conceptual PUD, and a work session on outdoor lighting regulation), staff feels that given the late timing for the emergence of issues coupled with the relatively low level of complexity involved in the 855 Bay Street application review, it would be reasonable to accommodate the applicant as quickly as possible. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission open the already noticed public hearing and continue it to the April 13th agenda, as the first item on said agenda. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the public hearing regarding the 855 Bay Street application to the first item on the April 13, 1999 Commission agenda." RECEIVED PUBLIC NOTICE MAR 13 1999 RE: 855 BAY STREET: REQUESTS FOR APPROVAL OF STRE ASPEN / HTKiN MARGIN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLIN�EVEtoPMENr UNIT (ADU), AND VARIANCES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 6, 1999 at a meeting to begin at 5:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by James Morse of 107 Sinclair Drive, Muskegon, MI 49441 (represented by David Muckenhim of Ventures West), requesting approval of the proposed reconstruction of a single - family residence. As the proposal includes the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and the property is situated along the Roaring Fork River, the applicant is seeking Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Review approval at this hearing. Variances from the Residential Design Standards are also requested. The property is located at 855 Bay Street, and is described as Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920 -5095, or by email at mitchh @ci.aspen.co.us. s/Bob Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 20, 1999 City of Aspen Account hr-�oQlb a`iw r FEB 2 3 1999 ASPEN I Pl l &iN r^nNwl 1%$7TV npklm OWACM V E. N l U R E SI E S l ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION w ET 5 I1'J Ems, o T 77 (J 77 W 7-- ._ $Ec.*'Lwe 7M /6 PAe.44¢yE 7a -ae cewAr— '. Gc ov t--p YOU Pe-Ev"`16E .0 011 E art€ S ID Aluy aEf" 1c1Fvc1S5 o2 &-eR6A1 f'Ov 40EARE AA0PZ'FVL 7V BE SC-1-Aft VI.EQ David Murkenhirn Post Office Box 8352 • Aspen; Colorado :81612 Telephone 970.925.8889.• Fax 970.925 4006 •. Cellular 970.379.1077 F(IA)A ARCHITECTURAL OESIGNAtoSyCGOtd999 Abf- NNIPiTI/KIN , AtIn117vnFV>yt.OpMFNT r its wiev 0000 / T PL S� T�1'oc> David Murkenhirn Post Office Box 8352 ; • Aspen, Colorado 81612 . Telephone 970.925.8889 fax 970.925.4006..• Cellular 970.379.1077