HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960806PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
Vice Chairperson Jasmine Tygre called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with
members Roger Hunt, Timothy Mooney, Robert Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, Steve
Buettow and Dave Johnston present. Sara Garton was excused.
There were no public comments' on items not on the agenda.
Minutes
MOTION: Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of July 23, 1996 and
July 30, 1996. Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion
carries.
PUBLIC MEETING:
Maroon Creek Club Rezoning
Mary Lackner, Staff said under the water service agreement the city with the
Maroon Creek Club the city can request that they annex at some date in the future,
they are now taking steps to proceed with the annexation of that parcel. Lackner
stated when annexing a parcel the rezoning has to be done within a certain number
of days of annexation, this will be forwarded to Council with P&Z's
recommendation for rezoning for the lots. Staff recommends that all the approvals
of the county be adopted, as is in the city and are enforced that way, every lot has a
designated FAR and what they are saying is the city will adopt those and how the
FAR is calculated through the annexation agreement and will rezone the
underlying parcels to reflect the nature of development that's taken place on them.
Tygre stated there will be a PUD overlay over the whole thing. Lackner responded
there will be a PUD overlay and an SPA overlay on the lot with the club parcel.
Blaich asked as a member of the club is it appropriate for him to vote.
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney responded that he did not view that as a
conflict of interest unless Blaich personally feels it will affect his impartiality.
Hunt asked who owns the lot on the North side of the highway along the East
boundary that apparently adjoins the existing Aspen golf course, what are the plans
and why hasn't that been annexed in this process.
Lackner responded that she would check on the parcel.
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director said the state statutes give two mechanisms to
annex property; 1) the property owner enter into an annexation agreement; 2) that
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
they have a water agreement with the city, if neither of those take place we can not
force annexation on property.
Lackner said the Zoline lease parcel for the golf course has already been annexed.
Hunt asked about the AFR-2 parcel that has been excluded from annexation.
Lackner responded that is the Pomegranate Condominium's and they do not have a
water service agreement with the city.
Hunt asked if there was any contiguity between the Pomegranate and the county.
Lackner responded there is an opening at the corner of the lot, to the East.
Bruce Hazzard, Design Workshop said the opening is approximately 30 feet.
Tygre stated this a recommendation of zoning, in anticipation of annexation.
Hunt said if this is rezoned can the pile of dirt be zoned out. Blaich stated the pile
of dirt is in contention between the city, county and the developer because that
property is being considered for affordable housing, the county is waiting on the
city's decision so they will not have to spend $80,000 to move the dirt twice.
Hazzard stated in the worksession with the County Commissioners, the agreement
was to resolve the issue of whether or not Country Inn will become employee
housing, in 90 days and to provide the definitive schedule as to when the dirt pile is
to be removed.
Hunt asked if the Country Inn is in the Park Zone.
Lackner responded yes it is, because it is slated for demolition.
Hazzard stated, in theory the zoning will be amended should the other avenues for
the Country Inn be pursued, at this time the political approvals with the county
require the building be removed from the property. Hazzard said Staff addressed
potential zoning classification for all the lands within Maroon Creek excluding
Pfeifer lease plan and including what is called the Pfister out parcels and the water
tank out parcels, graphically the map also delineates a zone district for what used
to be referred to as the ARU parcel, he said he could not find documentation as to
whether the ARU parcel was included in the water service agreement, and is the
ARU parcel included in the annexation.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
Michaelson said his assumption has always been that it was, he will confirm that
before this goes to Council.
Hunt asked which is the ARU parcel.
Hazzard responded the lot above #16 on the city zoning map, if it's in the water
agreement then all parties to that agreement are subject to annexation. Hazzard
stated further down by the river is property owned by Zoline, and two others.
Hunt asked if the purpose of that is a possible access road.
Hazzard responded that he did not know the history of the property ownership or
where the previous City of Aspen boundary was drawn.
Hunt asked if it was usable for development.
Hazzard responded in theory, yes it is relatively flat and encompasses the upper
portion of the bench, there are a couple of old foundations, just off the new
pedestrian bridge on to that property, it is the strip of land that comes out to the
highway, someone could apply for an access permit, although he doubts they
would receive it.
Hunt asked how wide the highway frontage is.
Hazzard suspects it is 150-200 feet.
Hunt stated there is a potential development problem that we are dependent on the
county to control.
Chaikovska asked where the water for this parcel is drawn from. Hazzard
responded the water utilized for the irrigation of the golf course and common areas
is drawn from surface water rights that were transferred with the property,
primarily it comes out of the Willow Creek ditch.
MOTION: Blaich moved to recommend that the Aspen City
Council adopt the rezoning of the Maroon Creek Club. Seconded
by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
Pickus Conditional Use for an ADU
Tygre opened the public hearing and asked for proof of notice.
Hoefer stated that proof of notice is legally sufficient and the Commission has
jurisdiction to proceed.
Bob Nevins, Planner said the site is located at the corner of Cemetery Lane and
Silver King, there is an existing one-story house and the Pickus residence is a story
and a half, the zoning is R-15 moderate density. Nevins stated this was originally a
single family home, legally converted into a duplex and since condominiumized,
the Pickus residence is unit B, to get a GMQS exemption the applicant is required
to provide an ADU a minimum of 600 sf. or pay the cash-in-lieut. Nevins said the
ADU is proposed in the basement and does not add to the overall mass or bulk of
the building, it has a separate entrance and a dedicated off-street parking spot, this
meets the standards of a conditional use approval, he stated that a lot of older
residences have either been demolished and reconverted into second homes or
expanded, it is not the neighborhood it was several years ago, he thinks this
proposal can strengthen or maintain the character of the neighborhood. Staff
recommends approval with conditions.
Blaich asked why the Engineering memo was not in the packet.
Nevins stated that he received it today and tried to include what they have used in
the past for conditions of approval, driveway, trash & utility areas and sidewalk.
Nevins said he would like to include the Engineering memo conditions in the
conditions of approval.
Sallie Pickus, applicant said the ADU will not be seen from the street, it is not
going to affect the neighborhood, currently the cars are parked in the driveway and
they propose to put in a driveway so the cars will not be on the street anymore.
Pickus stated that she wants to do away with the legal parking space that comes in
off of Cemetery.
Hunt said there will be a driveway off of Silver King.
Nevins responded currently there is an existing driveway on both Silver King and
Cemetery, that will be consolidated on to Silver King.
Pickus stated that she talked with the neighbors within 300 feet and everyone liked
the project.
4
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
Buettow asked what area the lightwell is attached to.
Calie Siemel, representing applicant responded it is the main section of the ADU,
towards Silver King, there is one in the niche' of the bathroom and there is a
skylight in the main room of the ADU.
Pickus said she thinks they addressed all the concerns of the Housing Department
and what they like to see in an ADU.
Buettow said he is concerned with the lightwell on the streetside, ordinance 30
tries to discourage lightwells addressing the streetside.
Nevins stated they would need to take this through an ordinance 30 review to
address the lightwell issues.
Siemel said Cemetery Lane is the front yard.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
John Seigle, public lives on Chatfield Rd. stated that his concern is this was once a
single family residence, now there will be duplex with a third unit, he asked the
Commission to consider another option to satisfy the requirement under the code,
he disagrees about the "changing neighborhood" most of the people who live in
this neighborhood have been there a long time and unlike most of the other
neighborhoods in Aspen, this one is a little behind the curve. Seigle said he is
concerned about the fundamental change that will happen in this neighborhood, he
also stated there will, hopefully be a move by the neighborhood to request the city
change the zone so duplexes will not be allowed.
Andy Disabatino, public said the people he contacted in the neighborhood were
basically against the project, he submitted four letters against the project.
Hunt asked if any of those lived within 300 ft. of the project.
Disabatino responded one, the Simpson's and they are the first property to their
West. Disabatino stated the subdivision is trying to do an alternative program,
when you drive down Silver King, Homestake, or Chatfield Drive, the homes are
single family, one concern is safety the existing driveway is 30x28, there have
almost been two accidents on that corner, where are all the cars that are on the
driveway now, going to go.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
Bill Emdey, public lives at 1500 Silver King Dr. and he is wholly in agreement
with Mr. Disabatino.
Michael Hersch, public stated he lives four houses from the corner is concerned
this is trending toward a triplex neighborhood, he agrees strongly with the
opposition.
Buettow said because this is a duplex now and half of it is requesting an ADU,
doesn't the other duplex have a right to request an ADU.
Nevins stated that according to the condominium declarations, unit B has first right
to petition for the ADU, only one ADU is required to create a duplex.
Buettow stated the other could come in for a voluntary ADU later on and turn this
into a fourplex.
Michaelson stated he did not think another ADU could be added and stay under
FAR.
Nevins said when you create a duplex to get a GMQS exemption one option is to
create one free market dwelling unit and one deed restricted resident occupied unit,
Ms. Pickus purchased hers as a free market unit and the other unit is free market.
Tygre asked if the condominiumization predated Ms. Pickus purchase.
Michaelson stated yes because originally it was a single family home with one
deed, at that time Bob Hughes split it which allowed Ms. Pickus to purchase hers.
Nevins said the other option is cash-in-lieu, currently the existing residence is
approximately 700 s.f., they are allowed 1900 s.f. of FAR so that difference
multiplied by $19.17 is the total of what cash-in-lieu would be, $23,000. Nevins
said in terms of the driveway issue, Engineering has done a good job noting what
the driveway restrictions are on that site.
Blaich asked who the ADU tenant would be.
Pickus responded Siemel's step son who has two jobs in Aspen and currently lives
in Blue Lake. Pickus also stated that for the people who are concerned, she can
build this because it is in the basement and it does not affect her FAR, she could
have someone who owns four cars live down in the basement, or she could have a
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
nanny, but what she has tried to do is clean this up, work with the neighborhood
and add an employee housing unit.
Seigle stated he is really concerned about the changing of these neighborhoods,
they are trying to hold on to a single family neighborhood, the Snowbunny area
historically was where "locals" live, they are starting to see second homes, he
thinks limiting the number of units in these homes will slow the process. Seigle
said one side of this is 1900 s.f., he is not here to argue that because all of them, at
some point will try to build to the maximum FAR, if they don't their successors
will.
Michaelson noted that the single family FAR is actually higher than the duplex.
MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the conditional use for an
accessory dwelling unit of approximately 685 s.f. at 1425 Silver King
Drive, Unit B with the following conditions:
1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall:
A) verify with the Housing Office that the floor area of the
Accessory Dwelling Unit is a minimum of six hundred (600) square feet
as per Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c)(2);
B) verify with the Housing Office that the ADU will contain a
kitchen having a minimum of a two-burner stove with oven, standard
sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer;
C) upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office,,
the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder's Office and provide proof of recordation to the
Community Development Department. The deed restriction shall state
the Accessory Dwelling Unit meets the housing guidelines for such
units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, the
unit shall be rented for periods of six (6) months or longer;
D) clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Unit on the building
permit plans as a separate studio unit having a private, exterior
entrance and being in compliance with 1994 U.B.C. Sound
Transmission Guidelines (Appendix Chapter 12, Division II, Section
1208).
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
E) provide one, off-street parking space on-site for the ADU.
F) submit plans pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Review
Standards to Community Development for review and approval;
G) provide a drainage plan to confirm that the historic surface
run-off shall be maintained on-site;
H) submit a landscape plan to the Parks Department for review
and approval;
I) apply for a tree removal permit two (2) weeks prior to the
issuance of a building permit if any trees are to be removed. The
required mitigation for the removal of any of these trees shall be as per
Section 1~.04.450 of the municipal code.
2) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Community
Development Department shall inspect the Accessory Dwelling Unit to
determine compliance with the conditions of approval.
3) The applicant shall consult with City departments regarding the
following:
A) City Engineering for design considerations and any
development within public rights-of-way;
B) Parks Department for tree removal, landscaping, and
vegetative species;
C) City Streets Department for any work or development,
including landscaping, within public rights of way.
4) Any new surface utility needs including pedestals must be installed
on-site.
5) The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts
which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in
the public right-of-way.
6) All material representations made by the applicant in this
application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
8
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval,
unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
and with the addition of condition 7, the applicant shall comply with
the following engineering conditions:
8) Driveway & Parking: The maximum permitted driveway width for
this zone district and for a 60 ft. frontage lot dimension is eighteen (18)
ft. of width for the length of a double driveway extending from the
edge of pavement to the right-of-way line. The existing driveway is
approximately sixteen (16) ft. wide on the Unit B (present application)
side and adjoining a twelve (12) ft. wide section on the Unit A side of
the Mutual Consent Division Line. As such the driveway should not be
widened from its existing width from the edge of street pavement to the
right-of-way line at the northwesterly property line.
No driveway access should be permitted along the Cemetery Lane
frontage due to the proximity to the intersection of Cemetery Lane,
Silver King Drive and Snowbunny Lane. The existing landscaping
obstructs visibility of the existing stop sign on Silver King Dr. thus
either regular pruning of the hedge or other landscaping should be
planted to provide adequate visibility of the sign and site distance to
the south on Cemetery Lane.
The parking configuration will need to be shown on the final
improvement plans submitted for the building permit application.
9) Trash & Utility Areas: The submitted site plan does not indicate
locations for these facilities although water and electric utility meters
and service connection points need to be accessible to service personnel
in the completed project and not obstructed by garbage or recycling
containers, other structures or landscaping. Any new surface utilities
requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment must be
installed on an easement provided by the property owner and not
located in the public rights-of-way. The existing easements appear
adequate in width on each side of the property. All existing and any
new easements for utilities shall be shown on the final improvement
plans and any new easements must be recorded prior to issuance of the
building permit.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
10) Site Drainage: The new development cannot release more
than historic (pre-development) storm run-off flows from the site and
any increase in historic storm run-off flows must be first routed and
detained on the site. A drainage report and plan must be included in
the final improvement plans submitted for the building permit.
11) Sidewalk Area: The property owner will be required to
execute and record, prior to building permit issuance, an agreement to
construct curb, gutter and sidewalks when needed for the
neighborhood along the Silver King Drive and Cemetery Lane
frontages, although none is planned at this time. A five ft. (5) sidewalk
(or pedestrian area) should remain unobstructed by improvements
including fences, landscape boulders, vegetation; e.g. any new trees
must be located to provide space for and alignment of the future
sidewalk with the neighboring sidewalk routes and grades to either
side. The pedestrian usable space must be shown on the final
development plan.
12) Encroachments: The proposed easterly walkway leading to
Cemetery Lane must be placed not higher than existing grade so that it
does not protrude above the surrounding ground level in the right-of-
way. Street maintenance and snow removal operations may damage
or remove improvements and landscaping placed or extending into the
public rights-of-way. The owner is responsible for construction and
maintenance of all landscaping improvements, with prior City
approval, to the edge of pavement.
13) Improvement Survey: A proper improvement survey plat per
current 38-51 C.R.S. and as amended by the city code requirements
needs to be submitted in the building permit application.
14) Improvement Districts: The property owner will be required
to agree to join any future improvement districts formed for the
purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-
way. The agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to issuance
of the building permit for the project.
15) Record Drawings: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit
applicant will be required to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Data
Processing Department as-built drawings for the project showing the
property lines, building footprints, easements, encroachments, entry
10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other
improvements.
Seconded by Mooney.
Discussion:
Hunt said he looks at this project as an attempt to attack the
automobile situation, it is more than moving it off of Cemetery Lane
and on to Silver King, he thinks they are trying to accommodate the
vehicles on site, so he generally looks at this as an improvement. Hunt
stated it is another unit, over time we have considered the addition of
an ADU in single family residences or duplexes as an attempt to attack
what is happening with so many residences going over to the "mega"
second home aspect and keep some residence in the community, he
tends to look at that as a positive thing as well. Hunt does not see this
third unit being a detriment to the community, in the long run.
Chaikovska stated that she understands where the community is going
with this, it is a very active single family non second home
neighborhood so far. Chaikovska said it is good they have come on
record stating this is what they are worried about for the future, she
said the only recourse would be the neighborhood get together and ask
for a change in zoning or something else that would cohesively change
the character as it is allowed right now, because they could conceivably
have duplexes all the way down.
Buettow said he is uncomfortable with the project because this is a
duplex property fitting into a single family neighborhood with the
majority of the other lots on the adjacent streets on Cemetery and
Silver King being primarily single family. Pickus responded she thinks
the majority is duplex. Buettow asked how many duplexes are in this
RueR.
Michaelson responded; 1) he could not answer that and; 2) the
question is really, does zoning allow duplexes in the neighborhood and
the answer is yes.
Buettow stated now we are talking about a triplex.
Michaelson stated he would be very cautious about that because
ordinance 1 was very specific in that it did not regard ADU's as
11
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
mitigation for employee housing to be represented as density, that is
why it is written like it is written, in that mitigation is not considered
another dwelling unit, per se. Michaelson said if it was you could have
a single family home with an ADU and we would call that a duplex, the
code is quite specific in not laying that label on an ADU.
Motion carries 5-2, members Blaich and Buettow voted no.
Chaikovska said this is a point we should look at, it does create additional density,
it does make it look like triplexes and while we are addressing ADU issues we
might want to consider this.
Michaelson stated the point of debate is, is it or is it not a unit of density, there are
a lot of issues that pop up with that, in the eyes of ordinance 1 you are actually
downzoning the property.
Mooney said as long as there is a deed restriction in place, he thinks that mitigates
density as long as we have the ability to put employees into these neighborhoods
he does not look at it like it is growth.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
Colas Investments Conditional Use Review for Two ADU's
Tygre reopened the public hearing.
Nevins said the technical issues have been addressed, there have been several
meetings with Ed VanWalraven, Fire Marshall to address fire concerns, they met
with the neighbors to address the actual construction and mitigation, they have had
on-site visits with the Parks Department to look at the trail alignment and to see the
viability of that trail making a critical link in the trail and they feel it does provide
an important opportunity to make the trail linkage along the Roaring Fork to
Herron Park. Nevins stated they are half as big as one residence, in terms of the
bulk and mass.
Mooney said he thinks the density is in the number of people that will be living
there vs. a single family home, if you have two separate families and two separate
ADU's you have four different wheels turning, if you have a single family
residence you basically have one wheel turning. Mooney stated to him the density
is in the number of people coming and going and living separate and different life
styles.
12
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
Nevins said one single family residence would require an ADU to receive a GMQS
exemption or cash-in-lieu.
Jan Derrington, Charles Cuniffe Architects said the fire truck was reviewed with
the Fire Marshall who said it would work if the applicant provides an interior
automatic fire sprinkling system, a landscape agreement has been reached with the
neighbors.
Paul Taddune, Attorney representing the applicant stated he did not feel it would
be necessary to have an encroachment license it would just be a landscape
agreement where by both sides would agree to maintain the landscaping.
Derrington said it has access to bus routes and people who live there may be
encouraged to walk into town, especially if the trail along the Rio Grande is built.
Blaich asked about the number of vehicles that are parked at one of the neighbors
houses, he is concerned people will park in the area designated for fire emergency
only.
Derrington responded they will post fire lane signs along the area. Blaich said that
would have to be mandatory.
Blaich asked if the parking would only be for the proposed dwellings. Derrington
responded yes. Blaich asked what they do about the cars that currently park there.
Derrington responded they have no say in the use of an adjoining land owners
property.
Mooney asked if the lot to the East of Dieter Bibbig is going to be developed.
Dieter Bibbig, public said that will be developed pretty soon too, he said some of
the cars are collector's items.
Mooney asked about the gray house that has an apartment in the basement that
accesses their house from this driveway level, they park two cars facing their
apartment, this is the crux of the problem for him, it is not exactly what happens on
the applicant's property, it is what is going to happen in Bibbig's yard when there
are two single family houses on the applicant's lot, that kind of complexity ends
with the applicant's proposal.
Sylvio Tabet, applicant said he could not speak for Bibbig but his understanding is
the person who bought the land will build a single home with a garage, concerning
13
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
his own property he will probably keep one of the residences for himself, he
spends one-two months a year in Aspen, he would like the ADU for security, he
will eventually sell the other home to a friend of his, he thinks the way this has
been planned it will be nice.
Derrington stated that Tabet wants to make these above grade ADU's much nicer
than the typical ADU in the basement, there will be sunlight and views with easy
access to town.
Bibbig asked if the concern was the fire access.
Mooney stated he thinks we are looking at separate pieces of something that is
going to get more and more complex when the other pieces come in, if we know
how it will look we can make a decision on fire access, parking and how much
traffic will be 10 ft. from your front door, if this is going to work like a street it
should be designed like a street, if it is a private driveway then it is o.k. to design
as a private driveway.
Taddune said it will become more of a driveway once the property is developed
because people will not be allowed to park and prevent access.
Blaich stated that he shares Mooney's concern that another house, plus the number
of people and cars at Bibbig's will look like a Walmart parking lot.
Derrington responded his understanding is the other piece of property will be
accessed directly from Park Avenue and will not be using this access.
Mooney asked if there is an easement off of Tabet' s paved driveway for the
apartment in the basement of the gray house to drive down the driveway.
Derrington responded it is a non-exclusive access easement.
Tygre asked what kind of review the house to be built on the lot, that is currently
under contract go through.
Nevins responded you will probably see the ADU as a conditional use to get a
GMQS exemption, part of that requirement is that they park a maximum of two
cars on-site, they will have stream margin review, they will have the same type of
requirements as this project.
14
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
Tygre stated that her concern is not to just look at this particular parcel but the
potential for additional traffic and parking impacts as these things eventually come
on line, which they will.
Hunt asked the Parks Department about the trail plans in this area and in particular
will the Proctor parcel be integrated in this.
Rebecca Schickling, Parks stated they have asked for a blanket easement from the
center line of the ditch down to the end of their property, she stated they are just
looking at a lot of options right now, they try to obtain easements to eventually
connect all the way to Herron Park.
Michaelson asked for clarification on the applicant's indication that he is "willing"
to consider an easement, assuming he is approved for the ADU.
Derrington responded they did not want to be in a position of granting an easement
and not be given what he is asking for.
Tabet stated he would consider the easement as long as it does not impact the
privacy of the tenants, he asked that the trail be made lower than the level of the
bedrooms to maintain privacy.
Schickling responded the Parks Department always tries to design for that, they
want it to be a pleasurable experience whether it is a walking path, or what is
considered a recreational multi-use path, will be decided in the future, they have to
look at the easements now and obtain them during stream margin review.
Schickling stated Parks will have to go through stream margin review when they
design the trails and have to work with the adjacent property owners.
Mooney asked what the vertical drop between the site levels from the lower
apartments to the head level of the trail.
Derrington responded it would be approximately 12' from the edge of the river to
the edge of the ditch.
Tabet asked how far it would be from the house. Derrington responded it would be
approximately 24' from the nearest point. Tabet said it is fiat closer to the river
and said it would make more sense to have a trail there.
Schickling responded there are wetlands issues along the rivers edge and they are
environmentally sensitive to the riparian areas, they try to design it for both the
15
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
adjacent property owner as well as not impacting the river to the point where there
is a concrete path along the rivers edge.
Chaikovska asked if trail easements are required during stream margin review or is
this something the city requests and is the option of the owner, she is sensitive to it
given the Oregon case.
Taddune responded he was the City Attorney when that case was decided, it was
their position at that time and he thinks the attitude will tend to be the same that
you can not exact a trail easement in connection with a land use approval, you can
end up in a situation similar to this where a person volunteer's to work out a result.
Michaelson read criteria #2 under stream margin "any trail on the parcel
designated on the Aspen Area Community Plan/Parks/Recreation/Open Space/
Trails Plan map, or areas of historic public use where access are dedicated via a
recorded easement for public use. Dedications are necessitated by development's
increased impacts to the City's recreation and trail facilities including public
fishing access".
Chaikovska stated this is something the applicant would work out with the city so
he is not impacted adversely, in terms of his private property, if he is impacted he
has the option of saying no.
Stan Clausen, Community Development Director responded Staff does not believe
so, when a trail is mapped or planned it is an appropriate request that an easement
be granted.
Schickling responded it specifically states in the Pedestrian Bikeway Plan
easements along water ways the city should obtain whenever possible. Schickling
said the trail could be mapped out but that may not be realistic, now is the time to
ask for it as we are going through stream margin review, it is important for them as
far as focusing on that water way linkage in getting from point A to point B.
Schickling said there has been talk, it is not definite of having a bridge from the
Valley High area over to Proctor, they do not know where it will be or if it will
ever occur, she stated it is a very complex puzzle as far as dealing with the Army
Corp of Engineers, the property owners, and easements that are not suitable to
build the trail, they try to take all that into consideration and build the best trail
possible.
MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the conditional use for two studio,
accessory dwelling units and the stream margin review for the two,
detached single family residences proposed on Parcel A and B situated
16
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 7 and in the NW 1/4 of the NE
1/4 of Section 18, all in Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the sixth
principal meridian, with the following conditions:
Accessory Dwelling Units Conditional Use Approval
1) The applicant shall submit to Engineering for review and approval,
prior to the issuance of any development orders, the following:
A) A construction and landscape easement agreement with the
adjoining property owners to be recorded with the County Cleric
B) The access easement shall be created as an "outlot" that is
unrestricted with no right for any development on the easement which
restricts the access intent and that the intent is to convey a clear twenty
foot travel access.
C) The maintenance agreement and encroachment licenses shall
be submitted prior to their execution, and the new access "outlot"
easement.
D) A complete improvement survey and topographic survey.
E) The Fire Marshall to review and approve the residential
interior sprinkler systems and the final access drive and turn-around
with respect to emergency access and fire safety.
F) The on-site parking and vehicular access requirements meet
City design standards.
2) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall
comply with the following:
A) The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval
of the deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the applicant shall
record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorders Office with proof of recordation submitted to the Planning
Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory units
meet the housing guidelines for such units, meet the definition of
17
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
Resident Occupied Units, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of
six (6) months or longer.
B) Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure
compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADU's.
C) The ADU's shall be clearly identified as separate dwelling
units on building permit plans and shall comply with the 1994 U.B.C.
Sound Transmission Control Guidelines.
D) A landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be
required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than six inch
caliper.
3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning
Department shall inspect the accessory dwelling units to ensure
compliance with the conditions of approval.
4) 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.
Stream Margin Review Approval
1) Applicant agrees to negotiate, in good faith with the city regarding a
trail easement. The trail easement shall be the area from the
centerline of the Riverside ditch south to the lower property boundary.
The trail easement shall be described and shown on the final plat. The
easement shall be recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder. The
trail easement will not affect the allowable FAR permitted on the
parcel.
2) The building envelopes for the two residences shall be clearly shown
on the final plat.
3) No vegetation shall be manipulated outside of the building envelope,
and the envelope boundary along the Roaring Fork River shall be
barricaded prior to issuance of any building permits.
18
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 1996
4) Silt fencing shall be used during construction to prevent runoff from
disturbed soils from entering the river. Revegetation is required for
any disturbed soil on the site.
5) 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.
Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries.
Meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Amy G. Schmid, Deputy City Clerk
Minutes ................................................................................................... 1
Maroon Creek Club Rezoning ............................................................... 1
Pickus Conditional Use for an ADU. ..................................................... 4
Colas Investments Conditional Use Review for Two ADU's ............... 12
19