Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Adu Lay.A079-01CASE NUMBER A079-01 PARCEL ID # CASE NAME Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER Chris Bendon CASE TYPE Code Amendment OWNER/APPLICANT Ken and Lindsay Lay REPRESENTATIVE Alan Richman DATE OF FINAL ACTION 12/17/01 CITY COUNCIL ACTION Ord. 47-2001 PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION Approved BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 12/18/01 BY J. Lindt Vlll . TO: Mayor Klandemd and City Council THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney _....J Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directorf'~~' FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner ~ j RE: ADU Program Text Amendments (Privately Initiated) 2"d Reading of Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2001. Removing existing Mandatory Occnpancy ADU Deed Restrictions SUMMARY: Kenneth and Linda Lay, property owners, have requested a process be included in the City's Land Use Code to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU~ deed restricted to mandatory occupancy in exchange for a Floor Area bonus to be relieved of that restriction while maintaining the bonus square footage, Several methods of accomplishing this }~ave been prePared and are described in the application, While this amendment will theoretically apply ro any property with such a restriction, only a few properties have this mandatory occupancy requirement. (Staff is tht/~..x~ researching the exact number and will provide more accurate information during public hearing.) The proposed text allows for lifting of the deed restriction when the applicant offers one oftkree alternatives: 1) consu'uction of an alternative affordable unit; 2) "buy- down" of an existing free-market unit to affordable staras; or, 3) payment-in-lieu based on the market value of the bonus space created by the restriction. The Housing Authority Board has reviewed this request and has endorsed the concept of lifting a mandatory occupancy restriction. The Housing Board suggested limiting off-site units to within the Lnfill Area, as used by the Infill Advisory Group (new definition), and reqmring the off-site unit or cash-in-lieu to be accepted at the option of the Housing Board. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this code amendment and recommended approval by a 7-0 vote. Their Resolution is attached. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2001. MAIN ISSUES: Options Presented by Applicant: The applicant has prepared several options for the Commission to consider based on discussion with staff. The application also analyzes the options and eliminates the fourth option (Smuggler TDR) as ineffective. This option would have used potentially remaining transferable rights created when the Smuggler Mobile Home Park was deed restricted. Only one of these TDR's potentially still exists and it itself has not been validated by the City. Creating a Land Use Code provision based on this ts too speculative The first option effectively moves the mandatory restriction onto another ADU. Staff believes this >nly displaces the issue and may creme more complication in the future. ',, Staf~cim ~n:e~i~loJa this as a repetitive process every time a property is transferred to an ~ i0~wn~er w~o~[r['t want the restriction. Staff does not support this option. Options 2 and 3 provide the community with an actual affordable housing unit or enough funds to purchase an actual unit. These options provide significantly more community benefit than the original ADU. These two options were preferred by the Housing Authority Board and have been combined into one proposed text an~endment. Staff supports thes? two options and has combined them into one proposed code. :¥onconformity: The bonus square footage allowed for a mandatory occupancy deed restriction is equal to half the net livable square footage of the ADU. Removing the deed restriction will cause a structural nonconformity and the action of removing the restriction should acknowledge, and legalize, its creation. The proposed language accomplishes this and relies on the existing provisions governing such structures. Code amendments often create nonconforming structures. The Floor Area reductions, for exmnple, would have created several such structures. Staff does not believe this issue prevents adoption of this text amendment. Off-Site Unit Location: The proposed code language allows a property owner to construct a new affordable unit or convert an existing unit to affordable housing. The Housing Board, based on the belief that ihe ADU Program is one that promotes thrill-type development, suggests these units only be allowed in the Infill Area - a geographical region of Aspen ("Mountain to Rivers") being used by the Infill Advisory Group. This suggestion has been incorporated into the text amendment. APPLICANT: Kenneth and Linda Lay, Represented by Alan Richman and Nicholas McGrath. 2 PREVIOUS ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended adoption of this Ordinance by a 7-0 vote. The Housing Board has endorsed the concepts presented by the applicant as options 2 & 3. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. STAFF COMMENTS: Two ADU code amendments are currently being contemplated under separate public hearings. One is a City-initiated amendment related to land use incentives for future ADU's and the other is a privately-initiated amendment related to existing mandatory occupancy ADU's. These two an~endments are being processed simultaneously, but under separate public hearings: They obviously relate but should remain as separate actions to maintain proper due process.. Staff has al!gned the two amendments and no conflicts exist under any approval/disapproval scenario. The Plarming and Zoning Commission Resolution highlights the proposed changes m the ADU Program. Cress cut text is proposed for removal. Underlined text is proposed for addition. Regular text indicates no changes. The proposed Ordinance shows plain text, without the highlights, in a ready for codification manner. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 47, Series of 200 I. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2001." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Planning and Zoning Resolution and Minutes C:\home\Chris\CASESkADU_Revisit\CC_MEMO_Alan.doc ORDINANCE NO. 47 (SERIES OF 2001) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROGRAM, SECTION 26.520 OF THE LAND USE CODE, CREATING A PROCESS FOR RELIEVING PROPERTIES OF MANDATORY OCCUPANCY ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTIONS. WHEREAS, Alan Richman and Nicholas'McGrath, on behalf of Linda and Kenneth Lay - property owners of 270 North Spring Street, have applied for a text amendment to the Land Use Code to create a process tO eliminate a Mandatory Occupancy Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restriction and maintain the Floor Area bonus granted in exchange for such restriction; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.520.070 and 26.520.090 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Tit!e 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Plarming Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and. WHEREAS. the Community Development Director recommended approval of amendments to Sections 26.520.070 and 26.520.090 of the land use code of the Aspen Mmf~cipal Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Plmming and Zoning Cormnission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program on November 6, 2001, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Cormnunity Development Director and recommended, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, City Council adopt the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Program amendments to the land use code by mnending the text of sections 26.520, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Murficipal Code as described herein; and. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken mad considered public con~ment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is conmstent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Comanunity Plan; and, Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2001 Page 1 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Section 26.520.070, Accessory Dwelling Units- Deed Restrictions and Enforcement, which section describes, authorizes, and regulates the types of deed restrictions and enforcement thereof for Accessory Dwelling Units, is hereby amended to read as follows: 26. 520.070 Deed Restrictions and Enforcement. A. Deed Restrictions. At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the following manner: · The ADU shall be registered with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. · Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working resident.according to the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. · The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less then six months in duration, or as otherwise required by the current AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority. A detached and permanently affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit qualifying a property for a Floor Area Exemption, pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted as a "For Sale" Affordable Housing Unit and conveyed to a qualified purchaser, according to the AsperfPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Accessory Dwelling Units deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy in exchange for a Floor Area Bonus, prior to the adoption of Ordinance 46, Series of 2001, shall be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater, unless the owner is granted approval to remove that restriction pursuant to Section 26.520.090 (A), Insubstantial Amendments. ' The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for recording Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a building permit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building permit plans for an ADU. B. Enforcement. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or their designee, shall enforce the recorded deed restriction between the property owner and AsperdPitkin County Housing Authority. Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2001 Page 2 Section 2: Section 26.520.090(A), Accessory Dwelling Units - Insubstantial Amendmem, which section describes, authorizes, and regulates the process for amending an approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. is hereby amended to read as follows: 26. 52t).090 Amendment of an ADU Development Order A. Insubstantial Amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit may be authorized by the Community Development Director if: 1. Tl~e change is in conformance with the design standards, Section 26.520.050, or does not exceed approved variations to the design standards; and, 2. The change does not alter the deed restriction for the ADU or the alteration to the deed restriction has been approved by the AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority. 3. An amendmem application that proposes to remove a Mandatory Occupancy ADU deed restriction placed on the property prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2001, may be approved if all of the following criteria are met: a. The mandatory occupancy deed restriction shall have been recorded on the property for a minimum of three (3) years prior to the date of application for its removal. The applicant shall demonstrate a change in circumstances supporting the request to remove the restriction. b. The Mandatory Occupancy deed restriction on the ADU is replaced with the minimum ADU deed restriction allowing voluntary occupancy; and, c. The applicant has obtained approval either: 1, From the City of Aspen to develop a deed restricted affordable housing unit on a site that is not otherwise required to Contain such a unit or from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority to convert an existing free- market unit and deed restrict the unit to affordable housing status. The replacement affordable housing unit shall be within the Aspen Infill Area. shall be of a comparable size and type as the ADU, shall be accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and shall be deed restricted as a Category 3, or lower, sales unit according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. as amended; or, 2. From the Asper~Pitkin County Housing Authority to pay an affordable housing conversion fee, calculated according to the following formula: quare footag plus improvements $ payment ~ of bonus floor J X x, area .,~ floor area of residence · kexcluding bonus FAR) '/ Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2001 Page 3 ~'otes: · The assessed value of the lot plus improvements shall be that value assigned to the lot and improvemems in the most current assessment made by the Pitkin County Assessor. · The Floor Area of the residence shall be calculated pursuant ro Section 26.575.020 (A), as amended. · .Payment shall be made in compliance with the applicable requirements for payment-in-lieu contained in the AsperdPitkin County Housing Guidelines, as amended. d. The structure granted the bonus Floor Area shall be considered a legally created Nonconforming Structure and subject to the provisions of Section 26.312. Section 3: Tiffs Ordinance shall nor effect any existing litigation and shall nor operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such pr/or ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, semence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall nor affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, ro record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 6: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 17th day of December 200I, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days pr/or ro which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation witkin the City of Aspen. Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2001 Page 4 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of November, 2001. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY. adopted, passed and approved this 17u' day of December, 2001. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: City A~orney Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2001 Page 5 Exhibit A ADU Program Amendments Privately Initiated STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment Section 26.310.040. Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Start Finding: The proposed code amendment intends to create a process to allow a property owner to lift a mandatory occupancy deed restriction from an ADU by providing an off-site unit or a cash-in-lieu payment that can be used by the community to purchase an off-site unit. This concept of"buying-down" free market residential units to affordable rares is supported in the community plan and is not in conflict with any otl~er portion of the Land Use Code or the Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Findin~: Staff believes these changes to the ADU Program are supported by the AACP. There are many references to ADU's and "buy-downs" ofexisting free-market residences. The purpose of the ADU Progrm2 is to allow interspersed employee housing within existing neighborhoods to promote a healthy social fabric and a balance between the resort and the community. The code mnendment allows the ADU to be voluntarily rented, but not eliminated. Tl~is ma/ntalns the opportumty for the mtit to be occupied by a Iocal working resident. In addition, the mitigation unit or payment will contribute to a permanent affordable unit in the community's inventory and address the desire for a "critical mass" of residents living and working within Aspen. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, 'considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This amendmem is proposed for ali residemial zone districts and also mixed use zones where a single-family or duplex could be developed except for the R-15B Zone District. No changes to the ADU or off-site unit are specifically allowed by this amendment and separate land use actions may be necessary to accommodate changes. Those changes would need to meet this, or a similar, standard of compatibility. staff comments page 1 D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which rne proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to. transportation facilities. sewage facilities water su oply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not allow for any changes to the ADU or off-site unit. Staff does not believe this code amendment creates any impact on traffic generation, road safety, infrastructure, or the natural environment G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: Characteristic of tradificnal towns, and imporram to Aspen as expressed in the Communky Plan, is a "critical mass" of residents and an interspersed social layering. The off-site unit or mitigation payment will promote this critical mass of residents and the remalmng ADU will still provide an opportunity for a local resident. H. Whether there have been changed conditior~s affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The mandatory occupancy incentive of the ADU Program has not been successful and the few mandatory units have been very problematic for the Housing Authority rd enforce. This realization has occurred over the past 2-4 years m~d has been the topic of ajoim work session between the Housing Board and the City Council The incentive ts typically realized by the original developer, while the effect of the deed restriction is transferred along with the ownership. The new owner often does not have the same motivation as the original developer which starts a legal process which can last years. The community's beneftt is marginal at best and creating a process rd achieve an actual affordable housing umr would provide significantly more community benefit. · 1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: This proposed amendment does not pose any conflicts with the public interest. Staff believes this anxendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. staff comments page 2 (SERIES OF 2001) ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROGRAM, SECTION 26.520, CREATING A PROCESS FOR RELIEVING PROPERTIES OF MANDATORY OCCUPANCY ACCESSPORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTIONS AND RECOMMNEDING ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS FOR "DETACFIED STRUCTURE" AND "ASPEN INFILL AREA," SECTION 26,104.100, OF THE LAND USE CODE, WHEREAS, Alan Richman and Nicholas McGrath, on behalf of Linda and Kenneth Lay - property owners of 270 North Spring Street, have applied for a tex.t amendmem ro the Land Use Code ro create a process to eliminate a Mandatory Occupancy Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restriction and maintain the Floor. Area bonus granted in exchange for such restriction; .and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.520.070, 26.520.09(~, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications ro amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WltEREAS, the Planning Director recommehded approval of ~mendments to Sections 26.520.070, 26.520.090, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Plarafing and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing ro consider the proposed amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program on November 6, 2001, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a seven ro zero (7-0) vote, City Council adopt the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Program amendments to the land use code by amending the text of sections 26.520, and 26.104. 100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE' IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code. the Aspen Planrd. ng and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.520.070, Accessory Dwelling Units - Deed Restrictions and Enforcement, which section describes, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 42, Series of 2001 Page 1 authorizes, and regulates the types of deed restrictions and enforcement thereof for Accessory Dwelling Units, by striking and adding, denoted by strike and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 26. 520.070 Deed Restrictions and Enforcement. ,4. Deed Restrictions. At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the following manner: · The ADU shall be regastered with the Aspen/'Pitkin County Housing Authority. · Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working resident according ro the current AspenfPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. · The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less then six months in duration, or as otherwise required by the current AsperYPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority. Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area Bonus, pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. This additional restriction requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the AsperfPitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the ri~m to select a qualified renter. Accessory, Dwelling_ Units deed restricted to Mandatory Occ.upanc¥ in exchar_ge for a Floor Area Bonus, prior to the adoption of Ordinance , Series of 2001, shall be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined bv the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease, periods of si-x months Or ~reater, unless the owner is ~anted approval to remove that restriction pursuant to Section 261520.090 (A), Insubstantial Amendments. The AsperfPitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for recording Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior ro an application for a building permit may be accepted. The book and page .associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building penmr plans for an ADU. B. 7~nforcernent. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or their designee, shall enforce the recorded deed restriction between the property owner and AsperfPitkin County Housing Authority. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.520.090(A), Accessory Dwelling Un/ts - Insubstantial Amendment, which section describes, authorizes, and regulates the process for amending an approval for an Accessory Dwelling Un/t, by Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 42, Series of 2001 Page 2 striking and adding, denoted by zt~kc and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 26. 520.090 Amendment of an ADU Development Order ~4. Insubstantial Amendmen~ An insubstantial amendment ro an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit may be authorized by the Community Development Director iff 1. The change is in conformance with the design standards, Section 26.520.050, or does not exceed approved variations to the design standards; and, 2. The change does not alter the deed restriction for the ADU or the alteration to the deed restriction has been approved by the AsperfPitkin County Housing Authority. 3. An amendment application that proposes to remove a Mandatory Occup.anc¥ ADU deed restriction placed on the property prior to adoption of Ordinance No. , Series of 2001, may be approved if ail of the following criteria are met: a. The mandatory occupancy deed restriction shall have been recorded on.the property for a minimum of three (3) years prior to the date of application for its removal The applicant shall demonstrate a change in circumstances supporting the request to remove the restriction. b The Mandatory Occupancy deed restriction on the ADU is replaced with the minimum ADU deed restriction allowin~ voluntary occupancy; and, c. The applicant has obtained approval either: I. From the City of Aspen to develop a deed restricted.affordable housing m-fit on a site that is not otherwise reqdired to conta{n such a unit or from the AsperfPitkin County Housin~ Authority to convert an existing free- market unit and deed restrict the unit to affordable housing status. The replacement affordable housin~ unit shall be with/n the Aspen Infill Area, shall be of a comparable ~ize and type as the ADU, shall be accepted by the AsperfPitkin Count,/Housing Authority, and shall be deed restricted as a Category 3, or lower, sales unit according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, as amended; or, 2. From the AsperfPitkin Count,/Housing Authority to pay an affordable housing conversion fee, calculated according to the following formula: plus improvements $ payment I of bonus floo_rI X area noor area of residence (excluding bonus FAR) Notes: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 42, Series of 2001 Page 3 · The assessed value of the lot plus improvements shall be tha value asmgned to the lot and improvemems in the most current assessment made by the Pitkin County Assessor. · The Floor Area of the residence shall be calculated pursuant m Section 26.575.020 (A), as amended · .Payment shall be made in compliance with the applicable requiremems for pamnent-in-lieu contained in the AsperJPitkin County Housin~ Guidelines, as amended. d The structure ~ranted the bonus Floor Area shall be considered a legall¥ created Nonconforming Structure and subiecr ro the provisions of Section 26.312. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends Cky Council amend Section 26.104.100, which section defines terms used in the Land Use Code, by inclusion of the following terms: Structure, detached. A structure nor physically connected in any manner ro another structure, above or below ~round, exclusive' o futility connections Aspen Infill Area. That ~eo~aphicaI area of Aspen east of Castle Creek and south of the Roar/ne Fork Privet. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 26.310.050 of the Municipal Code, the'.adoption of this resolution by the Planting and Zoning Corrm~ission shall not be considered a pending ordinance. APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on November 6, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ATTEST: an, Deputy City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 42, Series of 2001 Page 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6, ~ information docu~ed from the~sing Authori Tygre stated loca~ere mo~kety to ho~mployees. ~t~o~upan~y.~a~ ~thical b; endr~MecO, ~~ricks 5~ ,i~essory '~ccupancy the Bert Ron effects. that thi wem a Se be PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26.520~ ADU - ~ AMENDING EXISITNG MANDATORY OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTIONS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the private sector code amendment. David Hoefer stated that the proof of notice was provided. Chr/s Bendon stated that Kenneth and Linda Lay were the applicants represented by Alan Richman and Nick McGrath. Bendon said this code amendment dealt with the existing ADUs and enforcement of mandatory deed-restricted ADUs. Bendon stated that currently there was no language in the code for the option ofurtrestricting the ADU and retain the main res~dence's square footage. Bendon said that there were many lists of deed- restricted units ( 128-134 existing ADUs). There were 11 ADUs under 5 ASPE..N PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes -November 6, 2001 construction, 1 was in the permitting process and 2 in the land use approval process; 2 were mandatory occupancy. Bendon said that there were very few mandatory occupancy units. Bendon said that one thought was to move the mandatory deed-restriction from one ADU to another ADU or pay a cash-in-lieu difference from the current Housing Authority. This cash-in-lieu Would be a system where the market value of the square footage would be calculated and that amount given to the city. There was a need in th~s process for an exemption of non-conforming structures because a FAi~ exemption was received and built out once the deed restriction was lifted. Bendon noted that they were looking for in-fill ADUs. Bendon noted that there were 2 resolutions, versions A and 13, which were identical except for the process. The cash-in-lieu would be the responsibility of the Housing Authority and it was not really necessary to come back to P&Z. Alan Richman stated that it was a code amendment that would apply to 2 or 3 units; this application originally came to P&Z in 1998 by the Branding Group and it was built in 1999. Richrnan sta. ted that the Branding Group agreed to theo mandatory occupancy in exchange for the FAk bonus.~ Richman stated the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Lay, purchased the property after it was built in November 1999. He said that they bought this house without knowledge of the ADU deed- restriction, which was not in the recorded deed. Richrnan stated the applicants understood the FAR bonus and they have been trying to figure out how to give back at least equal value to the community for what they received. Richman said that they looked at a structural answer to the problem by removing the floor of the ADU, which would add 300 square feet of additional FAR and cash-in-lieu could be paid for mitiga6on. Richman said that the benefit to community was this proposal; he mentioned that the way the language was written it was either the P&Z or Housing that would approve the cash-in-lieu. Richman stated that the off-site unit proposal could be done; an example was the Auger project with the ADU off-site. The amendment would require the unit to be comparable in square footage. Ron Erickson asked if the cash-in-lieu payment was based on what was given up or what the floor area actually was. Richman replied that it was based on the actual appraised value of the floor area that was created. The commission discussed the process of the code amendment with the approving body being P&Z or Housing. The commission agreed upon Version B of the resolution for adoption. Ron Ericksoi~ stated that he was disappointed that this ADU would be taken away because it was the most beautiful ADU ever built. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes.-November 6, 2001 MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve P&Z Resolution #01-42 recommending approval of the privately -initiated amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program creating a process by which mandatory occupancy ADu deed restrictions may be lifted while maintaining bonus square footage on the property as discussed in Option B. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Kruger, yes; .~ Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Blaich, yes; Myrin, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0 LAND TO STREAM J~ as the hi The third ges. Bank En would go ~43, sej ., the .Code .Am .~ents S. ec: :~on:.gi~.. he · a.ng au~ity on Rewew ap .r,5 ns iud _the , as the offici~_ eterm~.'nation.~/~bp propertie~.~ the Roaring~. River. Roll call v~..e.' Kruge ,._r yes~yrin, yes; Haneman, yes;~l~ickson, yes; Td~re, yes. 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: , ~spen. CO ~0~¥ "~ STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Pitkin ) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requiremems of Section .6.o04.060 (E~ of the Aspen Land Use Code in the £ollowing manner: -/~Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation iz the City of Aspen at least fi~:een (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters not !~ss than one inch in height. SMd notice was posted at [east ten (10) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visine from the day of ,200 , to and including the date and time of the public heating. Aphotograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing ofnol'i'ce. By the mailing ora notice obtained from the Com~,~iunity - Development Department, which contains the mformat~on described tn Section · 26.304.0~5'0(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the :~ public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to ail owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal govemment, school, service' district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared rt~m than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing· A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is rD be amended, ~vb_ether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new Iand use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement or'an accura[e survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and Se notice rD and listing of names and addresses of owners o~'real property in the area o£the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (I 5) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknox~edged before me this'~°-1'Say of' t['"Qr>v, ,200t, by ~ ~ t~% .~o~--------~--~t' WITNESS MY HAND A_ND OFFICIAL SEAL My conunission expires: q'/..2-25 Notary Public ~'0 ut. tO '"~. ~,~;~, ~' b~y~ ~ ~p~ c~y co~.. ATTACHMENTS: Kenneth Lay, requesting approv~ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION m~,~ o*y o~% .~ ~.o.* t~ .....G~PH OF T~E POSTED NOTICE (SI G~ ~. ~,o so~h a~,~ s~ ~p~, co or0) YERS AND GO VE~VMENTAZ AGENCIES NOTICED B Y ~01. ('8152) The ~n Times on December L Exhibit A ADU Program Amendments Privately Initiated STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment Section 26.$10.040, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to tire text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed code amendment intends to create a process to allow a property owner to lift a mandatory occupancy deed restriction from an ADU by providing an off-site unit or a cash-in-lieu payment that can be used by the community to purchase an off-site unit. This concept of"buying-doxvn" free market residential units to affordable rates is supported in the community plan and is not in conflict with any other portion of the Land Use Code or the Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff believes these changes to the ADU Program are supported by the AACP. There are many references to ADU's and "buy-downs" of existing free-market residences. The purpose of the ADU Program is to allow interspersed employee housing within existing neighborhoods to promote a healthy social fabric m~d a balance between the resort and the community. The code amendment allows the ADU to be voluntarily rented, but not eliminated. This maintains the opportunity for the unit to be occupied by a local working resident. In addition, the mitigation unit or payment will contribute to a permanent affordable unit in the community's inventory and address the desire for a "critical mass" of residents living and working within Aspen. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding.' This amendment is proposed for all residential zone districts and also mixed use zones where a single-family or duplex could be developed except for the R-15B Zone District. No changes to the ADU or off-site unit are Specifically allowed by this amendment and separate land use actions may be necessary to accommodate changes. Those changes would need to meet this, or a similar, standard of compatibility. staff comments page 1 The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not allow for any changes to the ADU or off-site unit. Staff does not believe this code amendment creates any impact on traffic generation, road safety, infrastructure, or the natural environment G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: Characteristic of traditional towns, and important to Aspen as expressed in the Community Plan, is a "critical mass" of residents and an interspersed social layering. The off-site unit or mitigation payment will promote this critical mass of residents and the remaining ADU will still provide an opportunity for a local resident. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The mandatory occupancy incentive of the ADU Program has not been successful and the few mandatory units have been very problematic for the Housing Authority to enforce. This realization has occurred over the past 2-4 years and has been the topic of a joint work session between the Housing Board and the City Council. The incentive is typically realized by the original developer, while the effect of the deed restriction is transferred along with the ownership. The new owner often does not have the same motivation as the original developer which starts a legal process which can last years. The community's benefit is marginal at best and creating a process to achieve an actual affordable housing unit would provide significantly more community benefit. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: This proposed amendment does not pose any conflicts with the public interest. Staff believes this amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. staff comments page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 42 ~ (SERIES OF 2001) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROGRAM, SECTION 26.520, CREATING A PROCESS FOR RELIEVING PROPERTIES OF MANDATORY OCCUPANCY ACCESSPORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTIONS AND RECOMMNEDING ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS FOR "DETACHED STRUCTURE" AND "ASPEN INFILL AREA," SECTION 26.104.100, OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, Alan Pdchman and Nicholas McGrath, on behalf of Linda and Kenneth Lay - property owners of 270 North Spring Street, have applied for a text amendment to the Land Use Code to create a process to eliminate a Mandatory Occupancy Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restriction and maintain the Floor Area bonus granted in exchange for such restriction; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.520.070, 26.520.090, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to Sections 26.520.070, 26.520.090, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public heating to consider the proposed amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program on November 6, 2001, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, City Council adopt the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Program amendments to the land use code by amending the text of sections 26.520, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen PIarming and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.520.070, Accessory Dwelling Units - Deed Restrictions and Enforcement, which section describes, Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 Page: 1 of 4 authorizes, and regulates the types of deed restrictions and enforcement thereof for Accessory Dwelling Units, by striking and adding, denoted by str/l~e and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 26. 520.070 Deed Restrictions and Enforcement. A. Deed Restrictions. At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the following manner: ,, The ADU shall be registered with.the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. · Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working resident according to the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. · The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less then six months in duration, or as otherwise required by the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority. Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area Bonus, pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. This additional restriction requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. Accessory Dwelling Units deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy in exchange for a Floor Area Bonus, pr/or to the adoption of Ordinance , Series of 2001, shall be co~itinuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the Aspei~Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or ~reater, unless the owner is granted approval to remove that restriction pursuant to Section 26.520.090 L~), Insubstantial Amendments. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for recording Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a building permit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building permit plans for an ADU. B. Enforcement. The AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority, or their designee, shall enforce the recorded deed restriction between the property owner and AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.520.090(A), Accessory Dwelling Units - Insubstantial Amendment, which section describes, authorizes, and regulates the process for amending an approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, by Planning and Zoning Commission PageResolution No. 42,2 Series of 2001[[ II Ill[ I Ill [ l II il ll Il · 11/19/2001 11:47A SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 2~.~0 D 9.00 striking and adding, denoted by str4k-e and add. language to the Land Use Code as follows: 26. 520.090 Amendment of an ADU Development Order A. Insubstantial Amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit may be authorized by the Community Development Director if: 1. The change is in conformance with the design standards, Section 26.520.050, or does not exceed approved variations to the design standards; and, 2. The change does not alter the deed restriction for the ADU or the alteration to the deed restriction has been approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. 3. An amendment application that proposes to remove a Mandatory Occupancy ADU deed restriction placed on the property prior to adoption of Ordinance No. , Series of 2001, may be approved if all of the following criteria are met: a. The mandatory occupancy deed restriction shall have been recorded on the property for a minimum of three (3) years prior to the date of application for its removal. The applicant shall demonstrate a change in circumstances supporting the request to remove the restriction. b. The Mandatory Occupancy deed restriction on the ADU is replaced with the minimum ADU deed restriction allowing voluntary occupancy; and, c. The applicant has obtained approval either: 1. From the City of Aspen to develop a deed restricted affordable housing unit on a site that is not otherwise required to contain such a unit or from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority to convert an existing free- market unit and deed restrict the unit to affordable housing status. The replacement affordable housing unit shall be within the Aspen Infill Area, shall be of a comparable size and type as the ADU, shall be accepted by the Aspen/P]tkm County Housing Authority, and shall be deed restricted as a Category 3, or lower, sales unit according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, as amended; or, 2.From the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority to pay an affordable housing conversion fee, calculated according to the following formula: fsquare footage~ ( assessed value of parcel!'~ plus improvements ~ Spawnent= I of bonus floo_rI X ~,area j ~)fl°°rarea°fresidence J Notes: Planning and Zoning Commission PageResolution No. 42, Series of 20013 · The assessed value of the lot plus improvements shall be that value assigned to the lot and improvements in the most current assessment made by the Pitkin County Assessor. · The Floor Area of the residence shall be calculated pursuant to Section 26.575.020 (A), as amended. · Payment shall be made in compliance with the applicable requirements for payment-in-lieu contained in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, as amended. d. The structure granted the bonus Floor Area shall be considered a legally created Nonconforming Structure and subject to the provisions of Section 26.312. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.104.100, which section defines tm'ms used in the Land Use Code, by inclusion of the following terms: Structure, detached. A structure not physically connected in any manner to another structure, above or below ground, exclusive of utility connections. Aspen InfilI Area. That geographical area of Aspen east of Castle Creek and south of the Roaring Fork River. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 26.310.050 of the Municipal Code, the ~adoption of this resolution by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be considered a pending ordinance. APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on November 6, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Cit~ Attorney' Jasmine Tygre, Chair (,~ ATTEST: /ckieLotJfikn~, Deputy City Clerk Planning and Zoning Co mmission//11///~~11~1!1!! i~)~i~: Resolution No. 42, Series of 2001 /1~///~ ~; Page 4 ' ~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6, Authori Tygre stated -41 Bert Cohen, Ron effects. that be PUBLIC HEARING: ~ LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26.520, ADU- ~ AMENDING EXISITNG MA/NDATORY OCCUP~CY DEED RESTRICTIONS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the private sector code amendment. 1 David Hoefer stated that the proof of notice was Provided. Chris Bendon stated that Kenneth and Linda Lay were the applicants represented by Alan Richman and Nick McGrath. Bendon said this code amendment dealt with the existing ADUs and enforcement of mandatory deed-restricted ADUs. Bendon stated that ctm'ently there was no language in the code for the option of unrestricting the ADU and retain the main residence's square footage. Bendon said that there were many lists of deed- restricted units (128-134 existing ADUs)2 There were 11 ADUs under 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6~ 2001 construction, 1 was in the permitting process and 2 in the land use approval process; 2 were mandatory occupancy. Bendon said that there were very few mandatory occupancy units. Bendon said that one thought was to move the mandatory deed-restriction from one ADU to another ADU or pay a cash-in-lieu difference from the current Housing Authority. This cash-in-lieu w~ould be a system where the market value of the square footage would be calculated and that amount given to the city. There was a need in this process for an exemption of non-conforming structures because a FAR exemption was received and built out once the deed restriction was lifted. Bendon noted that they were looking for in-fill ADUs. Bendon noted that there were 2 resolutions, versions A and B, which were identical except for the process. The cash-in-lieu would be the responsibility of the Housing Authority and it was not really necessary to come back to P&Z. Alan Richman stated that it was a code amendment that would apply to 2 or 3 units; this application originally came to P&Z in 1998 by the Branding Group and it was built in 1999. Richman stated that the Branding Group agreed to the mandatory occupancy in exchange for the FAR bonus. Richman stated the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Lay, purchased the property after it was built in November 1999. He said that they bought this house without knowledge of the ADU deed- restriction, which was not in the recorded deed. Richman stated the applicants understood the FAR bonus and they have been trying to figure out how to give back at least equal value to the community for what they received. Richman said that they looked at a structural answer to the problem by removing the floor of the ADU, which would add 300 square feet of additional FAR and cash-in-lieu could be paid for mitigation. Richman said that the benefit to community was this proposal; he mentioned that the way the language was written it was either the P&Z or Housing that would approve the cash-in-lieu. Richman stated that the off-site unit proposal could be done; an example was the Auger project with the ADU off-site. The amendment would require the unit to be comparable in square footage. Ron Erickson asked if the cash-in-lieu payment was based on what was given up or what the floor area actually was. Richman replied that it was based on the actual appraised value of the floor area that was created. The commission discussed the process of the code amendment with the approving body being P&Z or Housing. The commission agreed upon Version B of the resolution for adoption. Ron Erickson stated that he was disappointed that this ADU would be taken away because it was the most beautiful ADU ever built. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6, 2001 MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve P&Z Resolution #01-42 recommending approval of the privately -initiated amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program creating a process by which mandatory occupancy ADU deed restrictions may he lifted while maintaining bonus square.footage on the property as discussed in Option B. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Kruger, yes; ~ Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Blaich, yes; Myrin, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0 LIC LAND CODE dENTS TO 26.435. Ja public :. tated that ', hearing was ,ider a code to the Review with 3 The first was to the Direct tandards Ro Fork River mapped ections, whi top disputes. 100-year fl( was also )s as well as the high and woul stream: The third to reor Bank that if with the would tuire director' been opened this Sopris and GIS with en developed Ericks the )e being would go Bob I moved to )n #43, se'~s , recomm~, that Ci~ ~ the .Code .Ame..~ents that will re~fganize he St~int 3 S. ect,on, gi~the Comm~fty DeveloI ~ tt Dire ct, n-maki.ng au~rity on Roaj~ F;rk l; ive~ ~, ~am Maff ~w Appli. c..~.ons a. nd.!he _/ a~tion of the ~ffeam Vlar~f3 as the offici~.det..erm!nat~n~op ~s[ope ant high .t~'ine for propertie~ the Roaring~'k River. h .eonded. Roll call v~fe: ~uger, yes3~yr'm, yes; Haneman, yes;.~5'ickson, yes;~'' ~T~re, yes. 7 ASPEN/PITI(IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and \],~e.,~ ~,,-~_ L~,,,~.~ ~ -~ (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for ~o -.,~_~ ~ '.~&-~,- - '~..-.-~..~ (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) 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 that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff 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 consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver, of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit .in the amount of $ ~,~-~,05 which is for \q~, hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $205.00 per planner hour over the initial deposiL Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICAN~ . ~')/f~ By:. By:~~~~ Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director Date: . Mailing Address: 2121 Kirby Drive, #137 Houston, TX 77019 g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc 1/10/01 VtlJ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council THRU: $ohn Worcester, City Attorney ~ 3ulie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner ~ RE: ADU Program Text Amendments (Privately Initiated) 1't Reading of Ordinance No. ~, Series of 2001. Removing existing Mandatory Occupancy ADU Deed Restrictions DATE: November 26, 2001 SUMMARY: Kenneth and Linda Lay, property owners, have requested a process be included in the City's Land Use Code to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) deed restricted to mandatory occupancy in exchange for a Floor Area bonus to be relieved of that restriction while maintaining the bonus square footage~ Several methods of accomplishing this have been prepared and are described in the application. While this amendment will theoretically apply to any property with such a restriction, only a few properties have this mandatory occupancy requirement. (Staff is researching the exact number and will provide more accurate information during the public hearing.) The proposed text allows for lifting of the deed restriction when the applicant offers one of three altematives: l) construction of an alternative affordable unit; 2) "buy- down" of an existing free-market unit to affordable status; or, 3) payment-in-lieu based on the market value of the bonus space created by the restriction. The Housing Authority Board has reviewed this request and has endorsed the concept of lifting a mandatory occupancy restriction. The Housing Board suggested limiting off-site units to within the Infill Area, as used by the Infill Advisory Group (new definition), and requiring the off-site unit or cash-in-lieu to be accepted at the option of the Housing Board. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this code amendment and recommended approval by a 7-0 vote. Their Resolution is attached. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. ~, Series of 2001, upon first reading. MAIN ISSUES: Options Presented by Applicant: The applicant has prepared several options for the Commission to consider based on discussion with staff. The apPlication also analyzes the options and eliminates the fourth option (Smuggler TDR) as ineffective. This opti°n would have used potentially remaining transferable rights created when the Smuggler Mobile Home Park was deed restricted. Only one of these TDR's potentiaily still exists and it itself has not been validated by the City. Creating a Land Use Code provision based on this is too speculative. The first option effectively moves the mandatory restriction onto another ADU. Staff believes this only displaces the issue and may create more complication in the future. Staff can envision this as a repetitive process every time a property is transferred to an owner who doesn't want the restriction. Staff does not support this option. Options 2 and 3 provide the community with an actual affordable housing unit or enough funds to purchase and actual unit. These options provide significantly more community benefit than the original ADU. These two options were preferred by the Housing Authority Board and have been combined into one proposed text amendment. Staff supports these two options and has combined them into one proposed code. Nonconformity: The bonus square footage ailowed for a mandatory occupancy deed restriction is equal to half the net livable square footage of the ADU. Removing the deed restriction will cause a structural nonconformity and the action of removing the restriction should acknowledge, and legalize, its creation. The proposed language accomplishes this and relies on the existing provisions governing such structures. Code amendments often create nonconforming structures: The Floor Area reductions, for example, would have created several such structures. Staff does not believe this issue prevents adoption of this text amendment. Off-Site Unit Location: The proposed code language allows a property owner to construct a new affordable unit or convert an existing unit to affordable housing. The Housing Board, based on the belief that the ADU Program is one that promotes infill-type development, suggests these units only be allowed in the Infill Area - a geographical region of Aspen ("Mountain to Rivers") being used by the Infill Advisory Group. This suggestion has been incorporated into the text amendment. APPLICANT: Kenneth and Linda Lay, Represented by Alan Richman and Nicholas McGrath. 2 PREVIOUS ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended adoption of this Ordinance by a 7-0 vote. The Housing Board has endorsed the concepts presented by the applicant as options 2 & 3. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. STAFF COMMENTS: Two ADU code amendments are currently being contemplated under separate public hearings. One is a City-initiated amendment related to land use incentives for future ADU's and the other is a privately-initiated amendment related to existing mandatory occupancy ADU's. These two amendments are being processed simultaneously, but under separate public hearings. They obviously relate but should remain as separate actions to maintain proper due process. Staffhas aligned the two amendments and no conflicts exist under any approval/disapproval scenario. The Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution shows the proposed changes to the ADU Program and highlights the amendments in blue. Crc~ out text is proposed for removal. Underlined text is proposed for addition. Regular text indicates no changes. The proposed Ordinance shows plain text, without the highlights, in a ready for codification manner. RECOMMENOATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 1~, Series of 2001, upon first reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "! move to adopt Ordinance No.~Series of 2001, upon first reading." ATTACHMENTS: ExhibitA -- Review Criteria and StaffComments Exhibit B -- Planning and Zoning Resolution C:~home\Chris\CA S ES~,DU_Revisit\CC_MEM O_Alan.doc Exhibit A ADU Program Amendments PrivatelY Initiated STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment Section 26.310. 040, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed code amendment intends to create a process to allow a property owner to lift a mandatory occupancy deed restriction from an ADU by providing an off-site unit or a cash-in-lieu payment that can be used by the community to purchase an off-site unit. This concept of "buying-down" free market residential units to affordable rates is supported in the community plan and is not in conflict with any other portion of the Land Use Code or the Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. StaffFinding: Staff believes these changes to the ADU Program are supported by the AACP. There are many references to ADU's and "buy-downs" of existing flee-market residences. The purpose of the ADU Program is to allow interspersed employee housing within existing neighborhoods to promote a healthy social fabric and a balance between the resort and the community. The code amendment allows the ADU to be voluntarily rented, but not eliminated. This maintains the opportunity for the unit to be occupied by a local working resident. In addition, the mitigation unit or payment will contribute to a permanent affordable unit in the community's inventory and address the desire for a "critical mass" of residents living and working within Aspen. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This amendment is proposed for all residential zone districts and also mixed use zones where a single-family or duplex could be developed except for the R-15B Zone District. No changes to the ADU or off-site unit are specifically allowed by this amendment and separate land use actions may be necessary to accommodate changes. Those changes would need to meet this, or a similar, standard of compatibility. staffcomments page 1 D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and read safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities; water sUpply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not allow for any changes to the ADU or off-site unit. Staff does not believe this code amendment creates any impact on 'traffic generation, road safety, infrastructure, or the natural environment O. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: Characteristic of traditional towns, and important to Aspen as expressed in the Community Plan, is a "critical mass" of residents and an interspersed social layering. The off-site unit or mitigation payment will promote this critical mass or residents and the remaining ADU will still provide an opportunity for a local resident. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The mandatory occupancy incentive of the ADU Program has not been successful and the few mandatory units have been very problematic for the Housing Authority to enforce. This realization has occurred over the past 2-4 years and has been the topic of a joint work session between the Housing Board and the City Council. The incentive is typically realized by the original developer, while the effect of the deed restriction is transferred along with the ownership. The new owner often does not have the same motivation as the original developer which starts a legal process which can last years. The community's benefit is marginal at best and creating a process to achieve an actual affordable housing unit would provide significantly more community benefit. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. StaffFinding: This proposed amendment does not pose any conflicts with the public interest. Staff believes this amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. staff comments page 2 ~- RESOLUTION NO. 42 (SERIES OF 2001) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROGRAM, SECTION 26,520, CREATING A PROCESS FOR RELIEVING PROPERTIES OF MANDATORY OCCUPANCY ACCESSPORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTIONS AND RECOMMNEDING ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS FOR "DETACHED STRUCTURE" AND "ASPEN INFILL AREA," SECTION 26.104.100, OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, Alan Richman and Nicholas McGrath, on behalf of Linda and Kenneth Lay- property owners of 270 North Spring Street, have applied for a text amendment to the Land Use Code to create a process to eliminate a Mandatory Occupancy Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restriction and maintain the Floor Area bonus granted in exchange for such restriction; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.520.070, 26.520.090, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to Sections 26.520.070, 26.520.090, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program on November 6, 2001, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, City Council adopt the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Program amendments to the land use code by amending the text of sections 26.520, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.520.070, Accessory Dwelling Units - Deed Restrictions and Enforcement, which section describes, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 42, Series of 2001 Page 1 authorizes, and regulates the types of deed restrictions and enforcement thereof for Accessory Dwelling Units, by striking and adding, denoted by strike and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 26. 520.070 Deed Restrictions and Enforcement. A. Deed Restrictions. At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the following manner: · The ADU shall be registered with the AsperffPitldn County Housing Authority. · Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working resident according to the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less then six months in duration, or as otherwise required by the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority. Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area Bonus, pursuant to Section 26.575~020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. This additional restriction requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the Asper~Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. Accessory Dwelling Units deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy in exchange for a Floor Area Bonus, prior to the adoption of Ordinance , Series of 2001, shall be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater, unless the owner is granted approval to remove that restriction pursuant to Section 26.520.090 (A), Insubstantial Amendments. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for recording Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a building permit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building permit plans for an ADU. B. Enforcetneng The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or their designee, shall enforce the recorded deed restriction between the property owner and Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.520.090(A), Accessory Dwelling Units - Insubstantial Amendment, which section describes, authorizes, and regulates the process for amending an approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, by Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 42, Series of 2001 Page 2 striking and adding, denoted by s~kc and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 26. 520.090 Amendment of an ADU Development Order A. Insubstantial Amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit may be authorized by the Community Developmont Director if: 1. The change is in conformance with the design standards, Section 26.520.050, or does not exceed approved variations to the design standards; and, 2. The change does not alter the deed restriction for the ADU or the alteration to the deed restriction has been approved by the Asper~Pitkin County Housing Authority. 3. An amendment application that proposes to remove a Mandatory Occupancy ADU deed restriction placed on the property prior to adoption of Ordinance No. , Series of 2001, may be approved if all of the following criteria are met: a. The mandatory occupancy deed restriction shall have been recorded on the property for a minimum of three (3) years prior to the date of application for its removal. The applicant shall demonstrate a change in circumstances supporting the request to remove the restriction. b. The Mandatory Occupancy deed restriction on the ADU is replaced with the minimum ADU deed restriction allowing voluntary occupancy; and~ c. The applicant has obtained approval either: 1. From the City of Aspen to develop a deed restricted affordable housing unit on a site that is not otherwise required to contain such a unit or from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority to convert an existing free- market unit and deed restrict the unit to affordable housing status. The replacement affordable housing unit shall be within the Aspen Infill Area, shall be ora comparable size and type as the ADU, shall be accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and shall be deed restricted as a Category 3, or lower, sales unit according to the AsperffPitkin County Housing Guidelines, as amended; or, 2. From the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority to pay an affordable housing conversion fee, calculated according to the following formula: fsquare footage~ ( assessed value ofparceI '~ plus improvements .~ Spawnent = I of bonus floo_rI x .... ~,area .~~)fl°°rarea°fresidence J Notes: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 42, Series of 2001 Page 3 · The assessed value of the lot plus improvements Shall be that value assigned to the lot and improvements in the most current assessment made by the Pitkin County Assessor. · The Floor Area of the residence shall be calculated pursuant to Section 26.575.020 (A), as amended. · Pawnent shall be made in compliance with the applicable requirements for pa,/ment-in-lieu contained in the Aspen/Pitkin Count,/Housing Guidelines, as amended. d. The structure granted the bonus Floor Area shall be considered a legall,/ created Nonconforming Structure and subiect to the provisions of Section 26.312. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City COuncil amend SectiOn 26.104.100, which section defines terms used in the Land Use Code, by inclusion of the folloWing terms: Structure, detached. A structure not ph,/sicall¥ connected in any manner to another structure, above or below ground, exclusive of utilit`/connections. Aspen Infill Area. That geographical area of Aspen east of Castle Creek and south of the Roaring Fork River. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 26.310.050 of the Municipal Code, the adoption of this resolution by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be considered a pending ordinance. APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on November 6, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attomey Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Loth/an, Deputy City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 42, Series of 2001 page 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Plannez....~'~ RE: ADU Program Text Amendments (Privately Initiated) - Public Hearing Removing an existing Mandatory Occupancy ADU Deed RestriCtion DATE: November 6, 200 SUMMARY: Kenneth and Linda Lay, property owners, have requested a process be included in the City's Land Use Code to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) deed restricted to mandatory occupancy in exchange for a Floor Area bonus to be relieved of that restriction while maintaining the bonus square footage. Several methods of accomplishing this have been prepared and are described in the application. While this amendment will theoretically apply to any property with such a restriction, only a few properties have this mandatory occupancy requirement. (Staff is researching the exact number and will provide more accurate information during the public hearing.) The proposed text allows for lifting of the deed restriction when the applicant offers one of three alternatives: 1) constmctinn of an alternative affordable unit; 2) "buy- down" of an existing free-market unit to affordable status; or, 3) paymant-in-lieu based on the market value of the bonus space created by the restriction. The Housing Authority Board has reviewed this request and has endorsed the concept of listing a mandatory occupancy restriction. The Housing Board suggested limiting off-site units to within the Infill Area, as used bY the Infill Advisory Group (new definition), and requiring the off-sire unit or Cash-in'lieu to be accepted at the option of the Housing Board. Two proposed Resolutions have been prepared. Version A relies on the Special Review process with the Planning and Zoning Commission tO lift a mandatory occupancy restriction. Version B relies on a review by the Housing Board and an administrative acceptance by the Planning staff. Staff recommends the Commission select a version and recommend City Council adoption of this code amendment. MAIN ISSUES: Options Presented by Applicant: The applicant has prepared several options for the Commission to consider based on discussion with staff. The apPliCation also analyzes the options and eliminates the fourth option (Smu._uggler TDR~) ~ ineffective. This option would have used potentially remaining transferable rights created when the Smuggler Mobile Home Park was deed restricted. Only one of these TDR's potentially still exists and it itself has not been validated by the City. Creating a Land Use Code provision based on this is too speculative. The first option effectively moves the mandatory restriction onto another ADU~. Staff believes this only displaces the issue and may create more complication in the future. Staff can envision this as a repetitive process every time a property is transferred to an owner who doesn't want the restriction. Staff does not support this option. Options 2 and 3 provide the community with an actual affordable housing unit or enough funds to purchase and actual unit. These options provide significantly more community benefit than the original ADU. These two options were preferred by the Housing Authority Board and have been combined into one proposed text amendment. Staff supports these two options. Nonconformi(y: The bonus square footage allowed for a mandatory occupancy deed restriction is equal to half the net livable square footage of the ADU. Removing the deed restriction will cause a structural nonconformity and the action of removing the restriction should acknowledge, and legalize, its creation. The proposed language accomplishes this and relies on the existing provisions governing such structures. Code amendments often create nonconforming structures. The Floor Area reductions, for example, would have created several such structures. Staffdoes not believe this issue prevents adoption of this text amendment. Off-Site Unit Location: The proposed code language allows a property owner to construct a new affordable unit or convert an existing unit to affordable housing. The Housing Board, based on the belief that the ADU Program is one that promotes infill-type development, suggests these units only be allowed in the Infill Area - a geographical region of Aspen ("Mountain to Rivers") being used by the Infill AdvisorY GrOUp. This suggestion has been incorporated into the text amendment. APPLICANT: Kenneth and Linda Lay, Represented by Alan Richman and Nicholas McGrath. 2 PR~VlOlJS ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission has not previousl considered this Resolution. The Housing Board has endorsed the concepts presented by the applicant as options 2 &3. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public heating, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. STAFF COMMENTS; Two ADU code amendments are currently being contemplated under separate public hearings. One is a City-initiated amendment related to land use incentives for future ADU's and the other is a privately-initiated amendment related to existing mandatory occupancy ADU's. These two amendments are being processed simultaneously, but under separate public hearings. They obviously relate but should remain as separate actions to maintain proper due process. Staffhas aligned the two amendments and no conflicts exist under any approval/disapproval scenario. The Resolution shows the proposed changes to the ADU Program and highlights the amendments in blue. Crc, as cut text is proposed for removal. Underlined text is proposed for addition. Regular text indicates no changes. RECOMalENI)ATION: Staffrecommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the privately-initiated,~!'j}endments to the AccessOry Dwelling Unit Program as described in Resolution 01-~ RECOMMENDEI) MOTION: "I move to approve PZ-Resolution 01-~.rec0mmending approval of the privately- initiated amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program creating a process by which mandatory occupancy ADU deed restrictions may be lifted while maintaining bonus square footage on the property." Exhibit A -- Proposed ResolUtion ExhibitB -- Review Criteria and StaffComments C:~ome\Chris\CA SESXADU_P,.evisifiPZ_MEMO_Alan.doc Exhibit B ADU Program Amendments Privately Initiated STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment Section 26.310. 040, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. StaffFinding: The proposed code amendment intends to create a process to allow a property owner to lift a mandatory occupancy deed restriction from an ADU by providing an off-site unit or a cash-in-lieu payment that can be used by the community to purchase an off-site unit. This concept of "buying-down" free market residential units to affordable rates is supported in the community plan and is not in conflict with any other portion of the Land Use Code or the Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. StaffFinding: Staffbelieves these changes to the ADU Program are supported by the AACP. There are many references to ADU's and "buy-downs" of existing free-market residences. The purpose of the ADU Program is to allow interspersed employee housing within existing neighborhoods to promote a healthy social fabric and a balance between the resort and the community. The code amendment allows the ADU to be voluntarily rented, but not eliminated. This maintains the opportunity for the unit to be occupied by a local working resident. In addition, the mitigation unit or payment will contribute to a permanent affordable unit in the community's inventory and address the desire for a "critical mass" of residents living and working within Aspen. ¢. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. StaffFinding: This amendment is proposed for all residential zone districts and also mixed use zones where a single-family or duplex could be developed except for the R-15B Zone District. No changes to the ADU or off-site unit are specifically allowed by this amendment and separate land use actions may be necessary to accommodate changes. Those changes would need to meet this, or a similar, standard of compatibility. staff comments page 1 D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, inclUding, but not limited to, transportatiOn facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not allow for any changes to the ADU or off-site unit. Staff does not believe this code amendment creates any impact on traffic generation, road safety, infrastructure, or the natural environment O. Whether the proPOSed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: Characteristic of traditional towns, and important to Aspen as expressed in the Community Plan, is a "critical mass" of residents and an interspersed social layering. The off-site unit or mitigation payment will promote this critical mass or residents and the remaining ADU will still provide an opportunity for a local resident. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the Proposed amendment. StaffFinding: The mandatory occupancy incentive of the ADU Program has not been successful and the few mandatory units have been very problematic for the Housing Authority to enforce. This realization has occurred over the past 2-4 years and has been the topic of a joint work session between the Housing Board and the City Council. The incentive is typically realized by the original developer, while the effect of the deed restriction is transferred along with the ownership. The new oWner often does not have the same motivation as the original developer which starts a legal process which can last years. The community's benefit is marginal at best and creating a process to achieve an actUal affordable housing unit would provide significantly more community benefit. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the PurpoSe and intent of this title. Staff Finding: This proposed amendment does not pose any conflicts with the public interest. Staff believes this amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. staff comments page 2 RESOLUTION NO__ ~ (SERIES OF 2001) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROGRAM, SECTION 26.520, CREATING A PROCESS FOR RELIEVING PROPERTIES OF MANDATORY OCCUPANCY ACCESSPORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTIONS AND RECOMMNEDING ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS FOR "DETACHED STRUCTURE" AND "ASPEN INFILL AREA~" SECTION 26.104.100, OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, Alan Richman and Nicholas McGrath, on behalf of Linda and Kenneth Lay - property owners of 270 North Spring Street, have applied for a text amendment to the Land Use Code to create a process to eliminate a Mandatory Occupancy Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restriction and maintain the Floor Area bonus granted in exchange for such restriction; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.520.070, 26.520.080, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended appmvaI of amendments to Sections 26.520.070, 26.520.080, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program on November 6, 2001, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a ___ to __ (~-__) vote, City Council adopt the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Program amendments to the land use code by amending the text of sections 26.520, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Conneil amend Section 26.520.070, Accessory Dwelling Units - Deed Restrictions and Enforcement, which section describes, Planning and Zoning Commission Version A Resolution No. __, Series of 2001 Page 1 authorizes, and regulates the types of deed restrictions and enforcement thereof for Accessory Dwelling Units, by striking and adding, denoted by s~/ke and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 26. 520.070 Deed Restrictions and Enforcement. A. Deed Restrictions. At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the following manner: · The ADU shall be registered with the AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority. · Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working resident according to the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. · The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less then six months in duration, or as otherwise required by the current Asper~Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority. Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area Bonus, pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. This additional restriction requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the AspergPitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. Accessory Dwelling Units deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy in exchange for a Floor Area Bonus, prior to the adoption of Ordinance , Series of 2001, shall be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater, unless the owner is granted approval to remove that restriction pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review. The Aspen/Pitldn County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for recording Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a building permit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building permit plans for an ADU. B. Enforcemen~ The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or their designee.~ shall enforce the recorded deed restriction between the property owner and Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.520.080(D), Accessory Dwelling Units - Procedure - Special Review, which section describes, authorizes, and regulates the process for deviating form the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards, Planning and Zoning Commission Version A Resolution No. __, Series of 2001 Page 2 by striking and adding, denoted by g~qke and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 26.520.080 D. Special Review. An application requesting a variance from the ADU design standards, or-an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, or removal of a mandatory occupancy deed restriction shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability; and, 2. The proposed ADU is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property; and, 3. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. In addition to the above criteria, a Special Review application that proposes to remove a Mandatory Occupancy ADU deed restriction placed on the property prior to adoption of Ordinance No. , Series of 2001, may only be approved if all of the following criteria are also met: 4. The mandatory occupancy deed restriction shall have been recorded on the property for a minimum of three (3) years priOr t° the date of application for its removal. The applicant shall demonstrate a change in circumstances supporting the request to remove the restriction. Planning and Zoning Commission Version A Resolution No. __, Series of 2001 Page 3 5. The Mandatory Occupancy deed restriction on the ADU is replaced with the minimum ADU deed restriction allowing voluntary occupancy; and, 6. At the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant shall either: a: Develop a deed restricted affordable housing unit on a site that is not otherwise required to contain such a unit or convert an existing free- market unit and deed restrict the unit to affordable housing status. The replacement affordable housing unit shall be within the Aspen Infill Area, shall be ora comparable size and type as the ADU, and shall be deed restricted as a Category 3, or lower, sales unit according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, as amended; or, b. Pay an affordable housing conversion fee, calculated according to the following formula: ~fsquare footage~__ ( assessed value ofparcel ,~__ = plus improvements .~ $ payment of bonus floo_rr[ x . ~k,'area I~)fi°°rarea°fresidence J Notes: · The assessed value of the lot plus improvements shall be that value assigned to the lot and improvements in the most current assessment made by the Pitkin County Assessor. · The Floor Area of the residence shall be calculated pursuant to Section 26.575.020 (A), as amended. · Payment shall be made in compliance with the applicable requirements for payment-in-lieu contained in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, as amended. 7. The structure granted the bonus Floor Area shall be considered a legally created Nonconforming Structure and subject to the provisions of Section 26.312. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.104.100, which section defines terms used in the Land Use Code, by inclusion of the following terms: Structure, detached. A structure not physically connected in any manner to another structure, above or below ground, exclusive of utility connections. Aspen Infill Area. That geographical area of Aspen east of Castle Creek and south of the Roaring Fork River. Planning and Zoning Commission Version A Resolution No. __, Series of 2001 Page 4 Section 4: Pursuant to Section 26.310.050 of the Municipal Code, the adoption of this resolution by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be considered a pending ordinance. APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on November 6, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attomey Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:Xhome\Chris\CASESXADU_RevisitXAlan?Z_reso.doc Planning and Zoning Commission Version A ~ Resolution No. __, Series of 2001 : I Page 5 RESOLUTION NO__ !~) (SERIES OF 2001) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROGRAM, SECTION 26.520, CREATING A PROCESS FOR RELIEVING PROPERTIES OF M~ATORY oCCUPANCY ACCESSPORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTIONS AND RECOMMNEDING ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS FOR "DETACHED STRUCTURE" AND "ASPEN INFILL AREA," SECTION 26.104,100, OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, Alan Richman and Nicholas McGrath, on behalf of Linda and Kenneth Lay - property owners of 270 North Spring Street, have applied for a text amendment to the Land Use Code to create a process to eliminate ~ Mandatory Occupancy Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restriction and maintain the Floor Area bonus granted in exchange for such restriction; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.520.070, 26.520.090, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Plann'mg and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to Sections 26.520.070, 26.520.090, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unft Program on November 6, 2001, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a to __ (__-__) vote, City Council adopt the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Program amendments to the land use code by amending the text of sections 26.520, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.520.070, Accessory Dwelling Units - Deed Restrictions and Enforcement, which section describes, Planning and Zoning Commission Version B Resolution No. __, Series of 2001 Page 1 authorizes, and regulates the types of deed restrictions and enforcement thereof for Accessory Dwelling Units, by striking and adding, denoted by strike and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 26. 520.070 Deed Restrictions and Enforcement. A. Deed Restrictions. At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the following manner: · The ADU shall be registered with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. · Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working resident according to the current AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. · The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less then six months in duration, or as otherwise required by the current AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority. Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area Bonus, pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. This additional restriction requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. Accessory Dwelling Units deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy in exchange for a Floor Area Bonus, prior to the adoption of Ordinance , Series of 2001, shall be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater, unless the owner is granted approval to remove that restriction pursuant to Section 26.520.090 (A), Insubstantial Amendments. The AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for record'rog Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a building permit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building permit plans for an ADU. B. Enforcement. The AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority, or their designee, shall enforce the recorded deed restriction between the property owner and AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.520.090(A), Accessory Dwelling Units - Insubstantial Amendment, which section describes, authorizes, and regulates the process for amending an approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, by Planning and Zoning Commission Version B Resolution No. __, Series of 2001 Page 2 striking and adding, denoted by s~!re and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 26. 520.090 Amendment of an ADU Development Order A. Insubstantial Amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit may be authorized by the Community Development Director if: 1. The change is in conformance with the design standards, Section 26.520.050, or does not exceed approved variations to the design standards; and, 2. The change does not alter the deed restriction for the ADU or the alteration to the deed restriction has been approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. 3. An amendment application that proposes to remove a Mandatory Occupancy ADU deed restriction Placed On the property Prior to adoPtion of Ordinance No. , Series of 2001, may be approved if all of the following criteria are met: a. The mandatory occupancy deed restriction shall have been recorded on the property for a minimum of three (3) years prior to the date of application for its removal. The applicant shall demonstrate a change in CircUmstances supporting the request to remove the restriction. b. The Mandatory Occupancy deed restriction on the ADU is replaced with the minimum ADU deed restriction allowing voluntary occupancy; and, c. The applicant has obtained approval either: 1. From the City of AsPen to develop a deed restricted affordable housing unit on a site that is not otherwise required to contain such a unit or from the AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority to convert an existing free- market unit and deed restrict the unit to affordable housing status. The replacement affordable housing unit shall be within the Aspen lnfill Area, shall be of a comparable size and type as the ADU, shall be accepted by the AsperffPitkin County Housing Authority, and shall be deed restricted as a Category 3, or lower, sales unit according to the AsperVPitkin County Housing Guidelines, as amended; or, 2. From the Aspen/Pitkin COunty Housing Authority to pay an affordable housing conversion fee, calculated according to the following formula: fsquare footage~ ( assessed value of parcel ~ $ payment = ~ of__f_~bonus floo_rrI x plus improvements ~area j floor area of residence Notes: Planning and Zoning Commission Version B Resolution No. __, Series of 2001 Page 3 · The assessed value of the lot plus improvements shall be that value assigrted to the lot and improvements in the most current assessment made by the Pitkin Coun~ Assessor. · The Floor Area of the residence shall be calculated pursuant to Section 26.575.020 (A), as amended. · Pa,iment shall l~e made in compliance with the applicable requirements for payment-in-lieu contained in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, as amended. d. The structure granted the bonus Floor Area shall be considered a legally created Nonconforming Structure and subiect to the provisions of Section 26~312. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.104.100, which section defines terms used in the Land Use Code, by inclusion of the folloWing terms: Structure, detached. A structure not physically connected in any manner to another structure, above or below ground, exclusive of Utility connections. Aspen lnfill Area. That geographical area of Aspen east of Castle Creek and south of the Roaring Fork River. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 26.310.050 of the Municipal Code, the adoption of this resolution by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be considered a pending ordinance. APPROVED by the Commission during a public heating on November 6, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk I Planning and Zoning Commission Version B Resolution No. __, Series of 2001 Page 4 ~ B.~.2001 0:32AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC M0.344 E 40 ANDUt,4 TO: Houaing goard FROM; Cindy ChrWtensen THRU; M~ ~obe~s ~A~ Octobe~ 3, ~00~ ~klng tk ff the Ho~i~ Bo~d ~evJew the options ~d m~ke ~ ~; ~e P~U~? Jnvglv~ ~eving ~ ,~triction fe~ a m~data~ occupan~ acc~sor dweJli~ un[?. Curr~t~, fhe L~d Use Co~e d°~ not provide cPifePia )r allowing such ~ ch,e. The applicant i~~ requiting to mod[~ the curr~t I~gu~e n the Land Use ~de guiding the ABU p~og~ to pr,mit ~ owne~ to remove this ~e ADL in qu~tion w~ pPo~sed and developed ~ ~ mean~ of ~otisfyi~ the P~ui~ents of ~ecti, n ~6.470.070B. ~wth ~gemen? Exemption fop a si~te-fomil~ dwelli~ unit. Under I ~ s~tion, in order to q~lify fop ~ single-family exemption, fhe ~pph~t ~ho have th,ee op Providing an accessopy dwelling unit pu~uant to 5~tion ~6.~0; P~ing the applicable affordable housi~ imp~t f~ pursuant ?o the Aspe~Pitkin ~ounW Ho~sing AuthoPi~ ~uidellnes. ~ ~end~; 3. ~o~dlng a e~ident-occupled (~O) deed Pestrlc?on on eh~ single-family ~welling unit being co~truc?~. The o~ at ?he time ~atisfied thJ~ ~e~p~ion by ~rovidtng ~n AbU. Zf the owner h~ s~Wfiec the mitigation by ~ p~m~t-ln-lleu fee. ?he fee would have amount~ to 4,~2 new square f ~f · 3,000 squ~re f~t pep ~ = ~.48~ X ~86,5~ (~ver~g~ of the C~o~ 3 ~L in ~gg8) · $~7,66~,20 (under the 2000 Guidelines, th~ paym~t-in-lieu fee would be $~,~4~.~). ~e owner at the time had requested and been g~ted additional 1 ,.~ i SI ~.28.2~1 9:~2AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC M0.344 P.3 I:AR whicl under the Land Use ~ode, required the AbU to be deed restricted ~o occu~ , ~ qu~llfie~ ~mployee. ~e ~pli~ ~nf is requoti~ a cods ~dment fhof would ~llow ~ owner to remove the ~nd~o~ r~triction by providing other possibilities. ~e ~ppii~t h~ propo~ three ~ltern~iv (thee ~e tho~ughly defined in the a~chments, with pros and cons for dte~n~iv 1. 'eAle~t w~ ~-~'~ Acce~ ~1119 ~/tz: ~is would to allow the "transfer" of th; ~d~to~ acc~sory dwelh~ unit to anothe~ Io~?ion. ~e unit curr~tly r~,ricted would remain ~ ADU, but would not ,~uire ~/~m~t ~f& ~f-g~ ~e~eble ~[~ ~[f: ~ls would be ~ more r~?ric*ive approach. ~i= W°uld allow ?he Own~ ~o purchase an off-site f~ mar~t unit ~nd convert i* ?o de~ res?ric?e~'(c~gory) hous[~, or to de, lop off-site dee~ r~tricte~ (cation) housing u~lt. wi~ e mandatary occupancy unit that ~om~ne ~eceive~ e FAR bonus ~d anly d~ls with the p~ent of the additional ~AR. ~ ~ppli~t i~ ~ueeting t~t deCo,mine the ~eunt*due, to use the p¢o~ure that is u~ by the Town ShOWings VilJ~e. ~e Tawn of Snowm~s Vill~e ~llows owners to m~ln~in ~floo~ e~ on ?hei~ p~ope~ by p~i~ a fee th~. lifts the ~equl~ent that the bonus space be u~ ~ what is ~lled an "ec~s6~ mployee unit" (AEU) on Sq. ft. of 'bonus flaor a~ X [~s~sed wlue 0f Jot plus J~p~ove~ent~ · e~ea of e~idence (~cludin9 bon~ :oP gn ~emple: ~e ~nu~ floor area obtained for the subJ~t proper~ w~ ~93 squ~e feet. ~e ~s~ wlue of the lot plus improvements, ~ on the mast ~e flooP e~ of the P~[d~ce, ~cludin~ the 293 square foot bon~, Is 4,4Z2 squaPe feet. : ~[s Pesu]?~ In ?he following 2 ,~ ~ P.28.200& 9:3~RM RSPEN HOUSING OFC N0.344 P.4 $4,291,100 ~ 4,41Z · $972.60 per ~qua~e foot $972,60 X 293 = $284,97! payment requl~¢d Fo give the Board on idea as to wha~ the pa~ent-ln-lleu fee would have be~ under fha proposed ~001 ~uldelin~ to obt~ n a growth man~m~t exemption, · he cal¢~lation i~ $61.1~ pea squaee foo~ of ~w s~u~ue~. ~is would be 4,4Z2 square feet Corigin~l sq~re footage without ~he FAR bon~) X $6L1~ = ;269,6~7.3~, ~is is I~s ~hen what i~ bming propos~ by this 4, ~R ~ff~: ~is is thorough~ discussed in the ettachmen?s. However, do. not feel this is e viabl~ option for the RDU p~ogeem. ~ ~: Staff do. not see the f~ibilify of the first altmr~ive in f~ct the1 not only will the probabili~ of finding ~other aif~ ~ n~rly im~.ible, ~forc~ ~,nt of th~m units is ve~ difficult. Also, the TDR option de. ~ot seem to be f~lble ¢ ~ thls ti~& Th~ ~o other alternatives are more doable, Staff would recomm~d that bot~ altern~lv~ be propos~ to ¢IW :ouncil with th~ following condition: I, ~e ~nits shall be ~pp~ov~ ~ the A~pen/Pttkln ~un~ Hou~ing AuthoH~ CAPCHA), ah?Il be of like size ~d Wpe, end sh~ll b~ d~d e~tHc*~ ~ ewnteship umt wf*h the specific c~tego~ d~ign~t~ by APCHA. A canteen of ?he APCHA Is that ?he "comply" chosen that has homeowners' du~, thw ~ to be e~o~ble fe~ ~e ¢~t~e~/income ~f the deed-~tricted unit. ~e existing accessory dwelling unit would ~em~ia en ac¢~so~ dwelli~ unit the m~d~oW occu~¢y wo~ld be ~. ~e mand~to~ occupan~ deed r~triction would h~ve to have b~n of ~=cord I~st ?he~ y~rs prioe to the ~pplicaTlen date, ~d the ownee would n~ demo~trate that the~e h~ be~ a ¢h~e of ¢ir~umet~c~ that lupNets the requ~t to change the r~trlc?ion. ~e formula used to ~lculate the fee due shall be ~ follows ~d sh~ll be verified ~ the Aspen/Pffkin CounW Hoeing ~ =188.8001 9:@2AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC N0.344 P.S Sq, ft, af bonus floor are~ X assessed value of lot plus im~royements Floor ~reo of resMence (excluding bonus FAR) 8, ~eyment of th~ fee would allow the owner to conve? t~e 4OU on the p~opm~ volunte~ eccup~cy ADU. ' 3. ~ment of tko f~ would be ~equired within gO d~s of the a~peoval, wh~e~ ~endtd e~t~ictian on the specific ADU ~,would be ~opd~ ~el~lng ~deto~ occupan~ ~equir~ent. ' ' 4. ~e m~dato~ occupancy would h~ve ?o have been af e~rd at I~st 3 ~elar to the appli~ion date, and th~ awn~ would need ?o demonsteate th~ ~here h~ be~ a cha~e of circumst~c~ t~af ~up~ the r~u~t to p~ the ~ee in-lieu of the rMteiction. ~ere er; ~?ill some outstanding Issues that n~d to be clarified. One of them d~W fi of ci~mst~nc~, Who determines th~ Change of drcumste~e" ~d what the 'c?n~ " ' celt~a wc Wd that recommending body ~evlew foe a determin~tion? TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction ........................................................ 1 Background Information .............................................. 1 Alternative Proposals ................................................. 2 1. Replacement with Off-Site Accessory Dwelling Unit ................ 2 2. Replacement with Off-Site Affordable Housing Unit ............... 4 3. Payment of an In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fee ................... 4 4. TDR Option ............................................. 6 Proposed Code Amendment ............................................ 7 Approach 1 - Replacement With Off-Site ADU ........................ 9 Approach 2 - Replacement With Off-Site AH Unit ..................... 11 Approach 3 - Replacement With Payment-In-Lieu ..................... 13 EXHIBITS #1, Deed to 270 North Spring Street Letter from owner authorizing submission of application #3. Pre-Application Conference Summary #4. P&Z Resolution 98-25 #5. Deed Restriction for 270 North Spring Street #6. Title Insurance Policy #7. Section 26.520 of Aspen Land Use Code #8. Section 26.575.020A.6 of Aspen Land Use Code Introduction This is a privately-initiated application to amend the text of the Land Use Code, prepared pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Code. It is being submitted by Kenneth and Linda Lay (hereinafter, "the applicants"), who own a residence located at 270 North Spring Street (see the warranty deed, attached as Exhibit #1). Alan Richman planlfing Services, along with J. Nicholas McGrath, P.C., have been authorized to sUbmit this application on behalf of the applicants (see letter of authorization, attached as Exhibit #2). The residence at 270 North Spring ~ontains an accessory dwelling unit that is sUbject to a mandatory occupancy deed restriction. The applicants have been working with various members of the City staff over the past several months, seeking to identify an alternative way by which they could satisfy this affordable housing Obligation. All involved agree that the Code does not provide this type of flexibility at the current time. Therefore, the best approach to initiating a formal discussion of this issue with the City's review bodies is to propose a Code Amendment (see pre-Application Conference SUmmary, attached as Exhibit #3). Because the Code Amendment, if adopted, would have general applicability throughout the City, the applicants have tried to be as thorough as possible, identifying and evaluating several alternative approaches for the City to consider. Before addressing each of these alternatiVes, it is first important to provide some background information on this property and the particular difficulties that the applicants have encountered, to help in understanding the need for the proposed Code Amendment. Background InformatiOn The property at 270 North sPring Street is apProximately 14,175 ~quare feet in size. The pr6perty is Zoned R,30 (PUD). It i~ improved with a prima~ residence and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). These improvements were built in 1999 by the former owner of the property, the Branding Group. Prior to development of the property, the Branding Group submitted an application to the City to obtain approval for an ADU, The ADU Was prOPosed as the means of satisfying the requirements of Section 26.470.070B., the Growth Management Exemption for a single- family dwelling unit. As stated in P&Z Resolution 98-25 (attached hereto as Exhibit #4), the Branding Group was granted COnditional use approval for an ADU restricted to mandatory occupancy. Condition #2 of the Resolution provides that only half Of the floor area contained with the ADU (293 of the 587 sq. ft.) would count toward the property's floor area, as a bonus in return for the mandatory occupancy deed restriction. The ADU was subseCluently built above the attached garage and the required deed restriction was filed by the former owner (see deed restriction, attached hereto as Exhibit #5). The unit is accessed from a mud room on a side entry to the primary residence. Application for Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment Page 1 The aPPlicants purchased the newly improved property from the Branding Group in November, 1999. The applicants have 5 children, each of whom is married, and 6 grand children. They bought this house primarily for their children and grand children to have a place to stay when they visit Aspen. Early in 2000, the applicants were contacted by the Housing Office asking for a report as to who was living in the ADU and informing them that if the unit were not occupied, the HouSing Office Would place a tenant in the unit, The applicants were quite surprised by this contact, because it was the first time they learned that the ADU in this house had a mandatory occupanCy restriction. Their a~it~rney, Mr. McGrath, researched the matter, and discovered that when they purchased the property, the title company had neglected to list either the P&Z Resolution or the deed restriction on the title commitment (see Schedule B of the commitment for title insurance attached as Exhibit #6). These documents were also not listed On the deed (see Exhibit #1). The appliCants knew that they were purchasing a house containing an ADU, but mistakenly believed that it was a voluntary occupancy unit, restricted in the same manner as an ADU that is located in their own Aspen house. The applicants do not have an employee that they need to place in this unit. Because the ADU was designed to be an integral part of the primary residence, they are concerned about the security of the house and the privaCy of their children and grandchildren if a portion of their residence is being occupied by someone they do not know. Therefore, they would prefer to satisfy the requirement to provide this mandatory occupanCy unit in another form or in another location. They recognize the importance of this type of restriction to the City, and appreciate the FAR bonUs that was granted to the property in exchange for the mandatory occupanCy. They seek an alternative that would provide a comparable type of benefit to the community. It is als° their underStanding that not many other landowners have obtained an FAR bonus thrOugh the mandatOry occupanCy restriction. So while they know that whatever they propose would be generally applicable thrOughout the City, in reality, it is likely to only be applied to a very small number of properties. Alternative Proposals The applicants have identified several approaches that they belieVe could provide a comparable benefit to thc community in return for lifting the mandatory occupanCy \restriction on the accessory dwelling unit. TheSe approaches are described below, follOwed each pproa h. -~ ~ ~ f~\'l. Replacement With Off-Site Accessory Dwelling Unit The first approach the applicants suggest the City consider would be to allow the owner of a unit with a mandatory occupanCy restriction who would like to have that restriction be removed be able to do so by replacing it with an off-site accessory dwelling unit that is deed restricted to mandatory occupanCy. The primary elements of this approach are as follows: Application for Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment Page 2 a. The replacement ADU would have to either be a newly developed ADU on a property that is not otherwise required to contain an Al)U, or an existing voluntary occupancy ADU that is converted to mandatory occupancy. It would have to be at least as large as the original ADU. b. The ADU on the original property would be required to be restricted as a voluntary occupancy ADU. c. The owner would have to agree that the off-site property would not be eligible for FAR bonus ( yen thoug an e h the unit on that site would be a mandatory occupancy unit), ensuring that an FAR bonus would only apply to one of the two properties. d. The mandatory occupancy deed restriction would have to have been of record at least 3 years prior to the application date, and the owner would need to demonstrate that there has been a change of circumstances that supports the request to change the restriction. This provision (which is included in each of the options described herein), is intended to ensure that these options do not result in abuses of the bonus floor area provisions, but are only used in limited cases where the conditions that originally led the applicant to propose the mandatory occupancy ADU have changed. Pros This would be an even exchange, in that a mandatory occupancy restriction in one location would be replaced with the same type of restriction in another location. Only one of the two properties would be eligible for the FAR bonus, so there would not be a greater total floor area created across the two properties. The City would end up with two ADU's - a voluntary ADU on the original property that satisfies the condition of providing an ADU to qualify for a GMQS exemption for a single family unit, and a mandatory occupancy unit on the second property, as mitigation for obtaining the bonus floor area. Cons The neighborhood in which the increased floor area is allowed would not necessarily be the same one in which the mandatory occupancy occurs, creating somewhat of a "gap" between where the impacts are experienced and where the community benefits are obtained. Most owners proposing to develop a residence do not have access to a second property on which they could develop an ADU or further restrict an existing ADU. Therefore, this approach would likely only prove feasible in rare circumstances. Application for Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment Page 3 Replacement With Off-Site Affordable Housing Unit If the City determines that substituting an off-site mandatory occupancy ADU would not be sufficient mitigation to authorize removal of the on-site mandatory occupancy restriction, then a more restrictive approach would be to allow the owner to do so by purchasing an off- site free market unit and converting it to deed restricted (category) housing, or by developing an off-site deed restricted Icategory) housing unit. The primary elements of this approach would be as follows: a. The deed restricted unit would have to be at least as large as the ADU it is replacing. b. The accessory dwelling unit on the original property would be required to be restricted as a voluntary occupancy ADU. c. The mandatory occupancy deed restriction would have to have been of record at least 3 years prior to the application date, and the owner would need to demonstrate that there has been a change of circumstances that supports the request to change the restriction. Pros · The community obtains a unit that is fully deed restricted (rental/sale prices, incomes, occupancy, etc.) and is available to any qualified employee, rather than just a mandatory occupancy accessory dwelling unit. In addition, there would still be an ADU on the original site (although it would be a voluntary occupancy unit). Cons The neighborhood in which the increased floor area is allowed would not necessarily be the same one in which the deed restricted unit is developed, creating somewhat  of a "gap" between where the impacts are experienced and the community benefits are obtained. 3. Payment of an In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fee A different type of approach that the applicants suggest the City consider would be to allow the owner of a unit with a mandatory occupancy restriction who would like to have that restriction be removed to be able to do so by paying an affordable housing fee. The Town of Snowmass Village has had this type of regulation in place for several years. It allows owners to maintain bonus floor area on their property by paying a fee that lifts the requirement that the bonus space be used as what is called an "accessory employee unit" (AEU) on their property. The formula the Town uses to calculate the value of the required payment is as follows: AppliCation for Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment Page 4 $ payment = sq. ft. of bonus X assessed value of lot plus improvements floor area floor area of residence (excluding bonus FAR) To make this formula understandable to the reviewer, following is its application to the subject property, illustrating what the required payment would be. The factors to be used in this calculation are as follows: · The bonus floor area obtained for the subject property was 293 square feet. · The assessed value of the lot plus improvements, based on the most current County assessment, is $4,291,100. · The floor area of the residence, excluding the 293 square foot bonus, is 4,412 sq. ft. This results in the following calculation: $4,291,100/4,412 = $972.60 per square foot $972.60 x 293 = $284,971 payment required Therefore, if this approach were adopted, payment of a fee of $284,971 would allow the owner to convert the accessory dwelling unit on the property to voluntary occupancy. So, in summary, the primary elements of this approach would be as follows: a. Payment of the fee would allow the owner to convert the ADU on the property to a voluntary occupancy ADU. b. The timing and other administrative aspects of making the payment would be the same as required for all other cash-in-lieu payments authorized by the Housing Authority Guidelines. c. The mandatory occupancy deed restriction would have to have been of record at least 3 years prior to the application date, and the owner would need to demonstrate that there has been a change of circumstances that supports the request to pay the fee in- lieu of the restriction. Pros · The monies received from this new fee could be used by the City to create other affordable housing that is available to any employee of the community. There appears to be a need, at this point in time, for additional sources of cash to support the affordable housing program, and this approach could be erie more technique that generates money to develop desired affordable housing projects. Application for Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment Page When the applicants' representatives met with staff to discuss this application, they were informed that the City had used $1,000 per square foot as a value applied to another property that had proposed to substitute cash for an accessory dwelling unit. The $972.60 per square foot value is reasonably comparable to the $1,000 value, but has been calculated using a logical methodology that has proven successful in another jurisdiction. This gives the fee a solid technical rationale, which is beneficial if there is ever a legal challenge to this standard. Cons Some members of the community may object to an approach that could be seen as offering an owner the ability to purchase additional free market floor area on their property, feeling it provides opportunities to the wealthy that may not be available to other residents. 4. TDR Option Staff suggested that the applicants also evaluate whether an approach could be identified that might use transfer of development rights (TDR). The applicants believe there could be some merit to the concept of purchasing a TDR to authorize an applicant to obtain (or in this case, maintain) bonus floor area on a property. However, m our view, this would be more of a long term solution, since the Land Use Code does not presently authorize the use of TDR's. The applicants would prefer to see the City take the lead in establishing a TDR program to address its broader planning goals, and then try to see whether that program could be applied to this issue, rather than using this application as the vehicle to create a TDR program for this single, relatively limited purpose. There is one aspect to the TDR approach that could potentially be pursued at this time. The City created a handful of TDR's as part of a land use application that helped to preserve the Smuggler Mobile Park. The City has determined that these rights are exempt from the allotment procedures of the Growth Management Quota System and require no additional mitigation by an applicant in order to develop a single-family unit. Since there is no provision in the current Land Use Code that addresses the Smuggler TDR's, we would not suggest amending the Code to allow these TDR's to be used to lift the mandatory occupancy restriction on this and similar properties. However, it is our understanding that most of these TDR's have now been used. and the City is anxious to have any remaining rights from that project come forward, so they can be fully accounted for. Therefore, the City could make a one-time determination to allow this applicant to purchase one of the Smuggler TDR's and apply it to this property in exchange for permitting the mandatory occupancy ADU to be converted to a voluntary occupancy ADU. ~,~ Application for Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment Page 6 Pros · A TDR system could have wide ranging beneficial application to land use issues in Aspen, including such topics as infill deVeloPment and historic preservation. · Provides a very low impact way of using one of the few remaining Smuggler TDR's, helPing to remove these "floating development rights" from the market. Cons Since the Code does not really address the Smuggler TDR's, amending the Code to allow them to be applied in this unique manner would probably be quite tricky. However, without such an amendment, it is difficult to imagine how the City would authorize a TDR to be used for this purpose, even as a one-time action. · The Property does not contain sufficient land area for a dUPlex. Therefore, the rationale for using the TDR could nOt be that it is being used to create a second legal unit on the property. The applicant has not verified whether any of the Smuggler TDR's remain available for purchase, or if all of these have been used or are being held for futUre needs. Proposed Code Amendment Given the above analysis, there appear to be several feasible options the City could pursue if it were willing to include this added level of flexibility in its accessory dwelling unit program. We believe options 1, 2, or 3 could be pursued as amendments to the Land Use Code at this time. We have reviewed the various sections of the Code that address ADU's, to determine where to propose the language that would be needed to implement these approaches. We find that ADU's are addressed in the following sections of the Land Use Code: Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, sets out the basic requirements governing ADU's. A copy of this section is attached as Exhibit #7. It includes the ADU design standards and deed restriction requirements. It also includes a sub-section outlining a special review procedure, permitting the Planning and Zoning COmmission to grant variances from the ADU design standards, or to hear an appeal of the Planning Director's administrative determination on the approval or denial of an ADU. Section 26.575.020A.6, Calculations and Measurements, Floor.4rea, describes the floor area bonuses available to a landowner who proposes a detached ADU or a mandatory occupancy ADU. A copy of this section is attached as Exhibit #8. Application for Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment Page 7 Preferred Options We conclude that the best approach would be to amend Section 26.520.080, which sets out the procedures and criteria for special review of an ADU. This will make the Planning and Zoning Commission the body that reviews applications to consider lifting the mandatory occupancy restriction on an ADU. The special review would occur at a public heating, providing neighbors notice of the proposal. A cross reference to this language would also need to be provided in Section 26.520.070, which sets out the requirements for ADU deed restrictions. Following below are three options for the amended language that would be incorporated into Sections 26.520.070 and 26.520.080. Each option contains the full text of the adopted sections, with new language shown in the ~i)~ format, and deleted language shown in the sm;keom format. The applicants would prefer that the City adopt the language proposed in Approach 3, authorizing a payment-in-lieu. Not only does this approach provide an implementable solution for the application, but it also provides funds to the City that can be used to develop desired affordable housing projects. If the City does not support this approach, then the applicants' second choice would be Approach 2, allowing the applicant to buy down an off-site deed restricted unit and to substitute that unit for the mandatory occupancy ADU. This would appear to be an appropriate time for the City to consider such alternatives. Just prior to the submission of this application, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority held a work session to review the status of the accessory dwelling unit program. The outcome of that meeting was a sweeping set of recommendations to modify the program. Two of the recommendations are quite consistent with the options described in this application, these being proposals to allow applicants requesting a GMQS exemption to make a cash paymem in-lieu of developing an ADU, or to buy down a free market unit and convert it to category housing in-lieu of developing an ADU. The City Council is scheduled to consider these recommendations later this month. The applicants would hope that this spirit of reform that is emerging with respect to ADU's can allow a positive solution to their problem to be formulated at this time. Application for Accessory Dwelling unit Code Amendment Page 8 APPROACH 1 - REPLACEMENT WITH OFF-SITE ADU Section 26.520.070A. Deed Restrictions and Enforcement At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the following manner: The ADU shall be registered with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. n Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working resident according to the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. · The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less than six months in duration. or as otherwise required by the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority. Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area Bonus, pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy :~.:.:.~-~.::.'*:.'-:~:~r ~*~:~:~*:.~:~o>:~:'~,.'.:.~,:::~:".~:~o:*~:~:~ :~:..':~.~.'~:~.:.:*~.' z.. ~:.:,~ ~.~ :~.~....~>..: :~,:.:...:,:~;.~. ~..~... ~..x~. Th~s additional restriction reqmres the ADU to be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for recording Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a building permit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building permit plans for an ADU. Section 26.520.080D. Special Review. An application requesting a variance from the ADU design standards, o~ an appeal of a determmatmn made by the Commumty Development D~rector, ~:~ig~,~I.O.'.~ snm~ oe processea as a ~pec~m ~ev~ew ~n accoraance w~tn me Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed. pursuant to Section 26.304,060 (E)(3)(b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: ,-~ Application for Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment Page 9 "~ 1. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the , ADU program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability. 2. The proposed ADU is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, ~ ~ privacy, and histOrical significance of the property. 3. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances " the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated ' view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking, ~, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. ~s'" '*~'':'' · ~[~~~~g~~ ....... 5:: ,~, , x~ ~:~. , :~>:~~~.:- ~:~ ....... * · ~. ~ : App~cation for Ac~sSo~ ~elling ~nit C~e ~endment Page 10 APPROACH 2 - REPLACEMENT WITIt OFF-SITE AH UNIT Section 2(r520.070,4. Deed Restrictions and Enforcement At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the following ,- manner: · The ADU shall be registered with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. -- · Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working resident according to the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. · The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less than six months in duration, '- or as otherwise required by the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority. Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area Bonus, pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy 'fins aclaltlonal restriction reqmres the ~a.J~ to ne connnuous~y occuptea ny a tocat wort, rog resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for recording · - Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a building permit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building -- permit plans for an ADU. Section 26520.080D. Special Review. An application requesting a variance from the ADU design standards, e~ an appeal of a determ~nanon made by the Commum evelopment D~rector, -- ~~/~~i/~ shall be rocessed as a Specml Rev{~ Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, -- pursuant to Section 26.304,060 (E)(3)(b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark, -- on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: ,. Application for Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment Page T 1. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in Which it is proposed, and ~. promotes the unit's general livability. 2. The proposed ADU is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character t-: to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property. ~ 3. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances , the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking, ~'- availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. ..... · ......2, ................. ?~{~,~**~ ~g~?$$ *~ *~;,.'~,: ::*~:.~.~ g~1::*~';.::~.:: Application for Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendmen! Page 12 APPROACH 3 - REPLACEMENT WITH PAYMENT-IN-LIEU ... Section 26520.070/t. Deed Restrictions and Enforcement At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the following ,,- manner: · The ADU shall be registered with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. -- · Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working resident according to the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. · The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less than six months in duration, ~ or as otherwise required by the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority. Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area Bonus, pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy Th~s additional restriction requires the ~U to be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. ~ The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for recording · - Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a building permit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building ._ permit plans for an ADU. Section 26.520.080D. Special Review. An application requesting a variance from the ADU design standards, o~ an appeal of a determination made by the Commumty Development D~rector, ~ii~i~ shall be processed as a Special Rev{~]~ Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed. pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark, '- on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: Application for Accessory Dwellh~g Unit Code Amendment Page 13 1. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ; ADU program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and ~ ~ promotes the Unit's general livability. 2. The proposed ADU is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering ail dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, ~. privacy, and historical significance of the property. 3. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner Which is compatible with or enhances ,- the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated wew planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational ,- : opportunities. ......... ~e ~-- ~.:.~:~.~ .~ ....... ~ .~ . :~. ..~ .~ ..... : . L~~~~~~~' "~:~ '~' '~'"'~"' '~' ................... ~' '" ............. ' ........... ~:'~' "'~ .............. '"~' ............~ ............ App~mffon for A~sso~ ~elling Unit C~e ~endment Page 14 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this 05 day of NOVEMBER ~©~' 1999~ between TEE BRkNDI~G GROUP, A COL0~O CORP~o~ ~,~,~ ~ WITN~SSETH, That for and in consideration of the sum o~ ten dollars and other good an~ valuable consideration, the receipt and s6fficiency of which is hereby acknowled~ed, the grant6r has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by ~hese presents does ~rant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property t~ether with improvements, if any, situate and lyin~ and being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLO~O, described as follows: 437465 , thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and the hereditaments and appurtenances. the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable ~o ali WITNESS my hand and official seal /~~ EXHIBIT "A" 1. Taxe~ for the year 1999 not yet due or payable. Easements, rights of way and all ma~rers as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded in Plat Book 2 ar Page 0. 3. The premises hereby granted, with the exception of the surface may be entered by the proprietor of any other vein, lode or ledge, the t~p or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted premlse~, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate. intersect, or extend into said premises for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or ledge as reserved in United S~aues Patent recorded December 14 1900in Book 39 au Page 136. 4 Easement and right of way ~or an electric transmission or ~ distribution line or system, as 9ranted to ~oly Cross Electric Association, Inc. in instrument recorded May 23. 1996 as Recepulon NO~ 392945. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 437465 11/0~/1999 03:27P ~D DRVI$ $IkVI 2 of 2 R [0.00 D 482.50 ~ ~.00 PZTKZH COUNTY CO Ex mrr #2 Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community DeVelopment Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: APPLICATION FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CODE AMENDMENT Dear Chris, We hereby authOrize Alan Richman Planning Services and NiChOlas McGrath P.C. to act as our designated representatives with respect to the land use application being submitted to your office for our property, located at 270 North Spring Street in Aspen. Mr. Richman and Mr. McGrath are authorized to submit a privately-initiated Code Amendment on our behalf, proposing changes to the Aspen Land Use Code with regard to mandatory occupancy accessory dWelling units. They are also authorized to rePresent us in meetings with the City of Aspen staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application, please do so through these designated representatives, whose addresses and telephone numbers are included in the land use application. Sincerely, ~ 2121 Kirby Drive #137 Houston, Texas 77019 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Chris Bendon, 920.5072 DATE: 4.27.01 PROJECT: ADU Floor Area'Amendment REPRESENTATIVE: Nich McGrath OWNER: Mr. And Mrs. Lay TYPE OF APPLICATION: 2 step - Land Use Code amendment DESCRIPTION: Mr. And Mrs. Lay have expressed, through their attorney Nicholas McGrath, interest in amending the Land Use Code to allow them to retain a floor area bonus made available to their property, 270 North Spring Street, by virtue ofa mandatoryoccupancy deed restriction on their ADU while removing the deed restriction. The exact method(s) by which the applicant may propose this change are not specifically known, but the applicant has indicated several methods in a letter to the City, attached. Staffexpects this change would affect floor area calculation methods and possibly the ADU sections of the Land Use Code, at a minimum. If the applicant pursues this code amendment, a followup consultation with staff may be beneficial to identify the most efficient manner to amend the code comidering related sections, etc. and if any amendments to the housing guidelines would be necessary. Land Use Code Sections: 26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code 26.575,20 Calculations and Measurements (floor area) 26.520 Accessory Dwelling Units 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures Review by: Staff for Completeness, Housing Authority for recommendation (and possible Board hearing), " Community Development Director for recommendation, Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation, City Council for final decision. Public Hearing: Yes, P&Z, and City Council. Notice is publication in the newspaper. "Referral Agencies: Housing Planning Fees: $2405 (deposi0 Referral Agency Fees: Housing $345 ~' Total Deposit: $2,750 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $205/hour). "'To apply, submit the following information: I. Proof of ownership and letter signed by the applicant stating representative authorization. -' 2. Signed fee agreement 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which request is applicable, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all ,,- owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Total deposit for ~eview of the application · - 5. 30 Copies of the complete application'packet. · - 6. Additional materials as required by the specific review. Please refer to specific submittal requirements of the code sections noted above. 7. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed -- development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application Review standards are included in the above reference code citations. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed, .,.Notes: · A site improvement survey is not required. · ~ · This is expected to be an amendment general to all areas of town and not for only one parcel. Details about the specific parcel are not required. · Code amendment request could also include request approving alternative mitigation, subject to code amendment. In ~ this case, information concerning the site and development is appropriate. Disclaimer: ~" The foregomg summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City, The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change Ln the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate The summary does not create a legal or vested right. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMI~SSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTED TO MANDATORY OCCUPANCY, STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, AND WAIVERS OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR "VOLUME" AND "GARAGE PLACEMENT" FOR THE PROPOSED BRANDING GROUP RESIDENCE, 270 NORTH SPRING STREET, NORTH HALF OF LOT 2 AND ALL, OF LOTS 3, 4, 5. AND 6, BLOCK 2, OKLAHOMA FLATS ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN. Parcel No, 2737-073-11-005 Resolution #98 -o~' WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Kristeen Rosenberg of the Branding Group, owner and applicant, requesting Conditional Use approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit of approximately five hundred and eighty seven (587) square feet, deed restricted to mandatory occupancy, to be located in a space above a proposed garage, a request for Stream Margin Review approval for development within the 100-year floodplain, and a request for variances to the "Volume" and "Garage Placement" elements of the Residential Design Standards for a new residence to be located at 270 Spring Street, north half of Lot #2 and all of Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, Oklahoma Flats Addition; and, WHEREAS, the parcel is approximately 14,175 square feet and located in the Low Density Residential (R-30) Zone District; and, WItEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.40.090 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Accessory Dwelling Units in the R-30 Zone District may be approved by the Plannm. g and Zoning Commission as a Conditional Use in conformance with the requirements of said Section: and, WI-IEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.68.040 Stream Margin Review, development within the 100-year floodplain, in conformance with said Section, may be approved by .the Commission; and, WttEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.58 Residential Design Standards, the Design ~Review Appeal Committee, or any other Board for which land use approval is required, may waive certain requirements of said Section upon finding the development either (a) is in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP, (b) exhibits a more effective method of addressing standard in question, or (c) exhibits a necessary reason for a waiver based on unusual site specific constraints; and. WHEREAS, the Housing Office, Water Department, Fire Marshall, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and the Community Development -' Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and, WItEREAS, during a public hearing at a regular meeting on September 15, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a 7-0 vote the Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restricted to mandatory occupancy, approved the Stream Margin Review, and waived the "Volume" and "Garage Placement" element of the I Illlll Illll Illlll IIllll IIII ilill Illlll ill lllll IIll Ilil 423440 10/20/1998 11:111:1 RESOLUTT DRVIS SZLV! 1 O~ 4 R 21 00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PIT,IN COUNTY CO Residential Design Standards for the Branding Group residence, 270 Spring Street, with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department, as amended by the Commission during the hearing. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the Conditional Use for a 587 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit, deed restricted to mandatory occupancy, to be located above a proposed garage, the Stream Margin Review, and the waiver of the "Voltmae" and "Garage Placement" elements of the Residential Design Standards are approved for the proposed Branding Group residence, 270 North Spring Street, with the following conditions: 1.Before the building permit application may be accepted, the applicant shall provide a current s~te improvement survey wet signed and sealed by a Registered Engineer or Land Surveyor. 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the 587 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit, as represented. The Zoning Officer shall measure half of the ADU's Floor Area as contributing to the maximum allowable for the parcel as the unit shall be deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. 3. Before issuance of a buitding permit, the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be deed restricted and registered with the Housing Authority. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Unit shall be inspected by the Housing Authority or the Zoning Officer to ensure the unit was built in substantial conformance with the permit plans and this Resolution. 4.The permit plans shall designate one on-site parking space for the Accessory Dwelling Unit which is not stacked with a space for the prima~ residence. 5. The Planning mad Zoning Commission hereby waives the "Volume" and "Garage placement" elements of the Residential Design Standards for this project. Any substantial change to the proposed residence which necessitates an additional or different variance from the design standards shall require review and approval by the Design Review Appeal Committee, or any other board from which the project requires land use approval. 6. The building envelope for this parcel shall coincide with the zoning setbacks for this parcel. -- The top-of-slope does not occur within the parcel boundaries. The front yard shall be measured from the Bay StreEt parcel line. No development may occur outside of this building envelope accept as represented on the proposed landscape plan. The applicant shal~ provide a landscape plan, with the building envelope shown, with the building permit set for review and approval. 7. The building envelope shall be barricaded to protect existing vegetation prior to issuance of a building permit. Adequate construction access should be placed to minimize disturbance to the existing vegetation but does not aced to be barricaded. . 8. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and not used to accentuate architectural or landscape features of the property. 9. The applicant shall, to the extent practical, coordinate the relocation of the cabin and smaller accessory structure with Denise Reich, neighbor. This condition shall ~ be construed to be a condition of this development proposal. I Illlll Illll illlil Illlii Illl Illll lilill Ill lllll Illl liil 423440 10/20/1998 11:1111 RESOLUT! g'qVI$ SlLV! 2 of 4 R 21.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKI~t COUNTY CO 10. A tree removal permit from.the City Parks Department shall be required for the removal or relocation of trees as per Section 13.20.020 of the Code. 1 I. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall complete a tap permit and 5hall pay all connection charges due to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The applicant shall connect the ADU to the sanitary sewer in a manner acceptable to the ACSD superintendent. 12. Prior to issuance ora building permit, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Environmental Health Department for any certified woodstoves or gas log fireplaces (new coal- & woodburning fireplaces are not allowed). 13. Prior to issuance ora building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage report and a drainage plan, including a erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. Ifa 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. 14. Prior to issuance ora Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide a Floodplain Elevation Certificate, demonstrating the structure has been constructed according to requirements of building within the floodplain, to the City Engineer. 15. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall complete and record an agreement tojoin any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing ~mprovements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. 16. g-ll utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in arly 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2'hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor 9f this condition. 19. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. 20. Before issuance of 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. 21. 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. I IIIIII II111 !11111 IIII!! IIII !1111 IIiill III !111! iill 423440 10/20/1998 II**'J*IR RESOLUTi ORv'r~, SiLV! 3 o~ 4 R 21.0~ D 0.0~ N ~.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ,- ® ® MAY IT FURTHER BE RESOLVED by the commission: that with regards the proposed guest parkingby ~ong~ nqo,.~.,~. §id.e._of. the property which represents a second curb cut disallowed " ~P!~ann?g ~d,Z orm~gComrmssionisthatup~?~-~'c~bj clrysnoulamiow~orasecondcurbcutfor~k~;£~,. ,- i.~>g/z y tre,tth~ does not create a legal or vested right. ,~.:'v,~'~vy_.L~,~.tm~mcatmn. l'his disposition APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on September 15, 1998. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING " COMMISSION: ci! ~ 'ty Attorney v Sam Garron Chair ATTEST: - I IIIIII IIIII !11111 IIIiil IIII IIIII IIIIII Iii IIIII IIII III] 423440 ~.0/20/1958 1'1:111:1 RE$OLUT! DI:IVI$ SILVa. 4 of 4 R 21.85 O 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO EXIIYRIT #$ OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT FOR AN EMPI:.OYEE' DWE~'EING~UNtT APPROVED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 98-25 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this / / %ay of/'~__ ~ ,. 1998, by the (risteen Rosenberg, President, Branding Group (hereinaT~er referred to as "Owner"), whose address is 2'70 North Spring Road, located in the County of pitkin, and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (hereinafter APCHA), a multi-jurisdictional housing authority established pursuant to the AMENDED AND RESTATED INTER-GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT recordec in Book 605 at Page 751 of the records of the Pit'in County Clerk and Recorder's Office (hereinafter refereed to as "Authority"). W[TNESSETH WHEREAS, Owner owns real property more specifically described as stated as the N~ Lot 2, and all of Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 2, Oklahoma Fiats. Town of Aspen, County of Pitkin (hereinafter referred to as "Real Property"), which Rea] Property shall contain one "Free-Market" unit and one affordable dwelling unit to contain a studio unit. approximately 587 net Iivable square feet, approved by.the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No 98-25 For purposes of this Agreement. the Employee Dweliing Unit, the Real Property, and all appurtenances, improvements and fixtures associated therewith shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Prooerty"; and WHEREAS, this Agreement imposes certain covenants upon the Property which restrict the use and occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit to employees and their families who are employed in Pitkin County and meet the qualification guidelines established and indexed by [he Authority on an annual basis. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations contained herein, the Owner hereby covenants and agrees as follows: 1. Owner hereby covenants that the Employee Dwelling Unit described above shall at all times remain a rental unit and shall not be condominiumized. 2. The use and oscupancy of the Employee Dweliing Unit shall henceforth be limited exclusively'to housing for employees and their families who are employed in Pitk~ County . and who meet the definition of a Resident Occupied (nO) employee as thai term is defined by the qualification guidelines established and indexed by the Authority on an ' annual basis. Title Owner shall have the right to lease the Employee DwelIing Unit to a "qualified RO employee" of his own selection. Such individual may be an employee of the Owner. provided such person(s) fulfills the requirements of a qualified employee. The unit must meet occupancy requirements as established by the APCHA and reviewed from time to time. 3. The Employee Dwelling. Unit shall not. be occupied by the Owner or members of the immediate family ("Immediate Family" shall mean a person related by blood or marriage who is a first cousin [or closer relative] and his or her children) -nor shall ~he Employee Dwelling Unit be used a guest house or guest fadlity. It11111 i!111 Illlti Iill I!1111 Illl I111111 II1 !!tll tfil 1111 - ' 426529 81/1311969 11:12~ DEED RES DAVIS SILVZ O -- 4. Written verification of employment of employee(s) proposed to reside in the Employee ,,,, Dwelling Unit shall be comoleted and flied with the Authority by the Owner of the Employee Dwelling Unit prior to occupancy thereof, and such verification must be acceptable to the Authority. 5. The Employee Dwelling Unit shall be required to be rented for periods of no less than six (6) consecutive months. Upon vacancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit, the Owner is ,,., granted forty-five (45) days 'n which to locate a qualified employee, if no employee is placed by the Owner. the Authority may rent the Employee 3weliing Unit to a qualified employee. 6. The Unit must meet minimum occupancy; i.e.. one person per bedroom: .. 7. Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit' shall provide for a rental term of not Jess than six (6) consecutive months. A signed and executed copy of the lease shall be provided to the Authority by the Owner within ten (10) days of approval ... of employee(s) for the Employee Dweliing Unit. 8. 'Chis Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Real Property as a burden, ~ thereon 'for the benefit of, and shatl be specifically enforceable by, the Authority, the Aspen City Council. and their resoective successors as applicable, by any appropriate legal action including, but not limited to. 'njunction. abatement, or eviction of non-qualified tenants. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on this date and year above first written. OWNER: ,. , ... ~ .t,.' / ~/'.- , .(../~/,,, ~,( ,-., . (~.'., ~.'~, ........ .. K. dsteen ResenDerg, President, Branding Group Mailing Address: ~-LO. 1_.~--~ )O(~¢'r~ STATE OF ) ) sa. COUNTY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this [,I day of "'~¢_.,¢¢-~ , 19R~¢', by Kdsteen Rosenberg, President. Branding Group.  and ofl'icial seal; My"C%mmissioc--e'~¢'~res: 7 '"?" .Z~ 2 III!111 i!fli Iillll Iill !![!11 !III 42~g29 01/13/1999 :tl:12A DEED RES D¢1¥IS SILVI ACCEPTANCE BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY ,- The foregoing agreement and its terms are accepted by the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. THE ASPEN/PITK1N C{~U.N'f'Y HOUSING AUTHORI~'f'Y Frank S. Peters. Chairperson .,, Mailing Address: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 530 East Main, Lower Level Aspen, CO 81611 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. _ COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing nstrument was acknowledged before me this ]'(~ day of .~- - 1998, by Frank S. Pete~s. WITNESS MY hand and official seal. My Commission expiras: ~..2 Notary Public ~/ ~ I Illlll lllll IIllll till iillll llil Illllll III IIlli 1111 llll 42~BZ~ ~1/13t1~ 11~12~ DEED RES D~V~$ SILVI 3 o~ 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0:00 P~TK~H COUHTY CO S PITK1N COUNTY TITLE, [NC. 601 E. HOPKINS, 3rd Floor ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-925-1766 I 970-925-6527 FAX ,~bruary 9. 2000 ~"CHOLAS J.. MCGRATH. P.C. 10 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ,SPEN, CO 81611 --'TN: NICK :E: PCT14482 itkin County Title. Inc. is oleased to provide you with the owners policy relative to the above mentioned file. ~ase review the policy in its entirety. We at Pitkin Count) Title. lnc. believe in providing you, our customer, with a quali~y ~duct which will serve your needs. ~""the event you do find a discrepancy, or if you have any questions or comments regarding your final policy, please contact ~ and we will gladly handle any request you may have as efficiently and quickly as possible. ,,J.e have assigned the above number to your records to assure prompt processing of future title orders involving me property. /ou sell or obtain a loan on this property within 5 years, ask ,,our broker or agent to contact our office to ensure re-issue .es which may be available to you. ~ank you very much for giwng Pitkin County Title. Inc. the opportunity to serve you. ncerely, ,.~Lynne VanE~uren icy Administrator ,,&closures: COPY OF TAX CERTIFICATE "' ~ Owner's Policy of Title insurance Fidelity National Title Insurance Company ~,. A $1ock Company 13 12- 1 5 1 4 ! 7 OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANC:E SuBdE CT TO TIlE EXCLUSIONS FROM CO VERA GE TIlE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND TIlE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a corporation herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amoonr of Insurance stated in Schedule A sustained or incurred by the insured ~¥ reason os' ]. Fitle to the estate or interest described in Sche&de A being vested other than as stated herein; 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title. 3. Unmarketability of the title: g. Lack ora right of access to and from the land. The Company will also pay the costa attorneys 'fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured but only to the cevtent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations. [N WITNESS WIfEZcEO~ FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its duly authorized o~cers as of D~zte of Pollcy shown in Schedule A. FNT S CI-IEDUI~ A-OWNER'S POLICY CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER' PCT14462 November 5.1999 @ 3:28 PM 4.825 000,00 1312~161417 1. NAME OF INSURED: LINDA P. LAYAND KENNETH L. LAY 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BYTHIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3.THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: LiNDA P. LAY AND KENNETH L. LAY ,_ 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO iN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: The NoAh one-half of Lot 2. and all of Lots 3~ 4.5 & 6, Block 2. OKLAHOMA =LATS. PITmN COUi-r~ Ti2'~, INC 601 .~ ttOPI~IS AV~ ASPEN, COLOP. A1X) 81611 970 925-1766/(970~-925-6527 FAX THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WiTH THE =REPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET. S CI"IED ULE B- OWNERS CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER · ' PCT14462 November5 1999@3:28PM 13t2-161417 THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the oublic records. ,-, 2. Easements. or claims of easements, not shown bythe public records. 3.Discrepancies. conflicts in boundary lines, shortcge in area enchroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4.Any lien. or right to a lien. for services abor. or material heretofore or hereafter furnished imposec By law and not shown by the public records. 5Nater rights, claims Or title to water. ~-, 8. Easements. rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded n Plat Book 2 at Page 0. 7. The aremises hereby granted, with the exception of the surface, may be entered by the proprietor of any other vein lode or ledge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary of said granted premises, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate intersect, or extend into said premises, for the purposes of e:4racting and removir 2 the ore from such other vein lode or ledge as reserved in United Sates Patent recorded December 14 1900 in Book 39 at Page 136. 8. Easement and right of way for an electric transmission or distribution line or system, as granted to Holy Cross Electric Association. Inc.. in instrument recorded May 23 1996 as Reception No. 392945 '"" 9. Deed of Trust from : KENNETH L. LAY and LINDA P. LAY To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : BANK OF AMERICA. N.A.. A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION ff- Original Amount : $ 4,325,000.00 Dated : November 5. 1999 Recorded : November 5.1999 Reception No. : 437466 EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED 1.2.3 AND 4 ARE HEREBY OMITTED 26.520.010 EXItlBIT #7 Chapter 26.520 ACCESSORY DWELLLNG UNITS Sections: 26.520.010 Purpose. 26.520.020 Genera/. 26.520.030 Authority. 26.520.040 Applicability. 26.520.050 Design Standards, 26-520.060 Calculations and Measurements. 26.520,070 Deed Restrictions and Enforcement. 26-520.080 Procedure. 26.520.090 Amendment of an ADU Development Order. 26.520.010 Purpose. The purpose of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADD-) Program is to promote the long-standing community goal of socially, economically, and environmentally responsible development par- terns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between working residents and part-time residents. Al)Us represent viable housing opportunities for working residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the commurdty without their housing being easily identifiable as "em- ployee housing," ADUs also help to address-the affects of existing homes, which have pro- vided workforce housing, being significantly redeveloped, often as second homes, ADUs support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base w/thin the town and providing a critical mass of local residents importam to preserving Aspen's character. ADUs allow second home owners the opportunity to hire an on-site caretaker to maintain theLr prop- erty in their absence. Increased employee housing opportun/ties in close proximity to employ- ment and recreation centers is also an environmentally preferred land use pattern which re- duces automobile reliance. To the extent Aspen des/res Accessory Dwelling Units wh/ch prov/de viable and livable hous- ing oppommities to local working residents, ADU's qualify existing vacant lots of record and s~gnificant redevelopment of existing homes for an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System. In addit/on, ADU's deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy provide for certain Floor Area incentives. 26.520.020 General. An Accessory Dwelling Un/t, or AZ)U, is a separate dwelling unit incidental and subordinate in size and character to the primary residence and located on the same parcel or on a conti~u- ous lot under the same ownership. A primary residenc~ may have no more than one ADU. An ADU may not be accessory to another ADU, An ADU cannot be conveyed as a property inter- est separate from the primary residence, and an ADU shall not be considered a unit of density 678 26-520.030 with regard to zoning requirements. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used to obta/n points in the affordable housing category of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Acces- sory dwelling un/ts also may nor be used to meet the reqmrements of Chapter 26.530 "Resi- dential Multi-Fam/Iy Housing Replacement Program." Ail ADUs shall be developed in con- formance with, this Section. 26.520.030 Authority. The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter and of Common Development Review Procedures, Section 26.304, shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a land use application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. An appeal of the Community Development Director's determination shall be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review. A land use application requesting a variation of the ADU design standards shall be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant t~o Section 26.520.080, Special Review. If the land use application requesting a variation of the ADU desig-n standards is part of a con- solidated application process, authorized by the Community Development Director, requiring consideration by the Historic Preservation, Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the variation, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review. 26.520.040 Applicability. This Section applies to alt zone districts within the City of Aspen in which an Accessory Dwelling Unit is a permitted use, as designated in Section 26.710, and to all Accessory Dwell- ing Units approved as a Conditional Use prior, to the adoption of Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999. 26.520.050 Design Standards. Ali ADUs shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise approved, pursu- ant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review: 1. An ADU must contain between 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of which must be a closet or storage area. 2. An A.DU must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes the following: a) An ADU must be separately accessible from the exterior. An interior entrance to the primary residence may be _approved by the Commission, pursuant to Special Review; 679 (x~,~ ~uoo) 26.520.060 b) An ADU must have separately accessible utilities. This does not preclude shared ser- vices; c) An ADU shall contain a kitchen containing, at a mimmum, an oven, a stove with two burners, a sink, and a refrigerator with a minimum of 6 cubic feet of capacity and a freezer; and, d)An ADU shall contain a bar. broom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a toilet, and a shower. 3. One park/ng space for the ADU shall be provided on-site and shalI remain available for the benefit of the ADU resident. The parking space shall not be stacked with a space for the primary residence. 4. An ADU shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located. 5. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an A/DU. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing snow and ice from accu- mulating on the stairs shall be provided. 6. ADUs shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of this title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are nor limited to, the Uniform Building Code requirements related to adequate natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression, and sound attenuation between living units. This standard may not be varied. 7.- All Al)Us shall be re~stered with the Housing Authority and the property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520:070 Deed Restr/ctious. This standard may not be var/ed. 26.520.060 Calculations and Measurements. A. Floor Are,, ADU's are attributed to the maximum allowable floor area for the g~ven property on which they are developed, pursuant to Section 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements. B. Net Livable Square Footage. ADUs must contain between 300 and 800 square feet of net livable floor area, un/ess varied through a land use review. The calculation of net livable area differs slightly from the calcula- tion of Floor Area inasmuch as it measures the interior dimensions of the unit. 26.520.070 Deed Restrictions and Enforcement. A. Deed Restrictions. At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the following manner: (~ ~00> 680 26.520.080 · The ADU shall be registered with the AsperdPitidn County Housing Authority. · Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working- resident according to the current AsperdPitldn Coun .ty Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less then six months in duration, or as otherwise required by the current AsperffPitldn County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority. Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area Bonus, pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. This additional restriction requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the As- perdPitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of slx months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. The Aspen/Pitldn County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for recording Ac- cessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitldn Courtly Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a building perrrfit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building permk plans for an ADIJ. B. Enforcement. The AsperdPitkin County Housing Authority, or their desig'nee, shalI enforce the recorded deed re- strict/on between the property owner and AsperffPitkin County Housing Autho~ty. 26.520,080 Procedure. A. General Pursuant to Section 26.304.020, Pre-Application Conference, Applicants are encouraged to meet with a City Planner of the Community Development Department to clarify the require- ments of the ADU Program. A development application for an ADU shall include the requisite information and materials, pursuant to Section 26.304.030. In addition, the application shall include scaled floor plans and elevations for the proposed ADU. The application shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Any bandit dwelling unit which can be demonstrated to have been in existence on or prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999, and which complies with the requirements of this section may be legal/zed as an accessory dwelling unit, if it shall meet the health and safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as determined by the Chief Building Offi- cial. No retre-acfive penalties or assessments shall be levied against any bandit unit upon galization. ADUs require a separate building permit. After a Development Order has been issued for an ADU, a building permit application may be submitted in conformance with Section 26.304.075. -- 681 (~ 26.520.080 B. Administrative Review. In Order to obtain a Development Order for an ADU, the Community Development Director shall find the ADU in confon~aance with the criteria for adm/nistrative approval. If an applica- tion is found to be inconsistent with these criteria, in whole o~- in part, the applicant may either amend the application, apply for a Special Review to vary the design standards, or apply for an appeal of the Director's finding pursuant to Subsection C, below. An application for an ADU may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria: 1. The proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit meets the requirements of Section 26.520.050, De- si,ma Standards. 2. The applicable deed restriction for the Accessory Dwelling Unit has been accepted by the Asper~Pitkin County Housing Authority and the deed restr/ction is recorded prior to an appli- cation for a building perrrfit. Appeal of Director's Determination. An appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be re- viewed as a Special Review pursuant to subsection D, below. In ttfis case, the Community De- velopment Director s find/n= shall be forwarded as a recommendation and a new application need not be filed. D. Special Review. An application requesting a variance from the ADU design standards, or an appeal of a deter- mination made by the Community Development Director, shall be processed as a Special Re- view in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure set forr/a in Section 26.304. The Spec/al Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mai/ed, pursuant to Section 26.304.060('E)(3)Co and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a HiStoric Landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or wi~/~in a Historic Overlay District, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preservation Comm/ssion shall consider the Special Rev/ew. A Special Review for an ADU may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU pro- gram, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livabilky; and, 2. The proposed ADU is designed to be compatible Mth, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site confi~m~ration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property; and, 682 26.520.090 3. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking, availability of transit ser- vices, and.walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. E. Inspection and Acceptance. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for an AX)U, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or the Chief Building Official, shall inspect the ADU for compliance with the De- sign Standards. Any un-approved variations from these standards shall be remedied or ap- proved pursuant to this chapter prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance. 26.520.090 Amendment of an AI)U Development Order. A. Insubstantial Amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit may be authorized by the Community Development Director if: 1. The change is in conformance with the desig-n standards, Section 26.520.050, or does not ex- ceed approved variations to the design standards; and, 2. The change does not alter the deed restriction for the ADU or the alteration to the deed resmc- t/on has been approved by the AsperdPitldn Cottnty Housing Authority. B. Other Amendments. All other amendments to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and procedures of this Section. Ord. No. 44-1999 §1 683 26.575.020 EXI~IBIT #8 6. Accessory Dwelling: An Accessory Dwe/ling Unit shall be calculated and attributed to the allowable floor area for a parcel with the same inclusions and exclusions for calculating Floor Area as defined in this Section, unless eligible for an exemption as described below. Detached ADU Floor Area Bonus Fifty (50) percent of the net livable square footage of an ADU which is detached from the primary residence by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet and which is housed in a su-acrare with a footprint of no more than 625 square feet shall be ex- cluded from the calculation of Floor Area Mandatory Occupancy ADU Floor Area Bonus. Fifty (50) percent of the net livable square footage of an Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy shall be ex- cluded from the calculation of Floor Area. Th/s mandatory occupancy restricted requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a lo~al working residents, as defined by the AsperdPitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified ranter. Combined FAR Bonuses. If an ADU is eligible for both of the Floor Area bonuses de- scribed above, one hundred (100) percent of the net livable square footage of the ADU shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area. 7. Linked Pavilion. Any element linking the principal structure to an accessory structure shall not be included in the calculation of floor area provided that the linking srrucrare is no more than one (1) story tall, six (6) feet wide and ten (10) feet long. Areas of linking structures in excess of ten feet in length shall be counted in floor area. 690