Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19981215 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1998, 4:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS · A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 4:45-5:30 Ao 5:30-6:30 B. V. PUBLIC HEARING 934 West Francis, Amendment to a Conditional Use Approval for 2 ADUs, Mitch Haas Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Conceptual PUD, Chris Bendon ADJOURN CITY AGENDAS 12/14 City Council (5:00) City Notice 11/24 Castle Creek Condos (Hallam House) Rezoning, 1 st Reading (SO) 117 N. 6th, Landmark, 2d Reading Public Hearing (AG) Resolution, Historic Preservation Tax Credit (AG) 12/15 City Planning & Zoning (4:30) City Notice 11/24 934 W. Francis Street, Amendment to Conditional Use for 2 ADUs, Public Hearing (MH) (5:30) Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (CB) 12/23 HPC (5:00) City Notice 12/1 Canceled 12/28 City Council (5:00) City Notice 12/8 Canceled 1/5 City Planning & Zoning (4:30) City Notice 12/15 Truscott Place, Work Session (BN) Westend Partnerships, 234 W. Hallam, Conditional Use for 2 ADUs, Public Hearing (con't from 12/8)5 (CB) 126 Park Avenue, Conditional Use and Residential Design, Public Hearing (con't from 12/8), (CB) 1/6 HPC (5:00) Building Code/Contractors, Special Work Session 1/7 DRAC (4:00) River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums (MH) 1/11 City Council (5:00) City Notice 12/22 Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Conceptual PUD, 1 st Reading Action Item (CB) SCI Code Amendment and Definitions, 1 st Reading Action Item (CB) Code Amendment, HP Procedures, Public Hearing (AG) 1/13 HPC (5:00) City Notice 12/22 920 E. Hyman, Conceptual, Public Hearing 1/19 City Planning & Zoning (4:30) City Notice 12/29 1/25 City Council (5:00) City Notice 1/6 Code Amendment, Security Company Signage, 2d Reading Public Hearing (MH) Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Conceptual PUD, 2d Reading Public Hearing (CB) Castle Creek Condos, Rezoning, 2d Reading Public Hearing (SO) 1/27 HPC (5:00) City Notice 1/6 cc: P&Z Packet Community Development Admin. Staff City Attorney's Office City Planning Staff City Clerk's Office g:/planning/aspen/agendas/comingup.doc/ 12/09/98 2 TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 01, FROM: Mitch Haas, Interim Deputy Director DATE: December 15. 1998 RE: Follow-up and Up -coming 1. Auto Tech Parking Area. The Parking Division of the Transportation Dept. has. along with the Streets Department, been working on this issue. I will keep you updated as issues are decided. No new news. 2. Construction Parking in Alleys. Concerns were raised regarding construction parking obstructing the rights -of -way in both the alley between Spring and Original (Main and Hopkins) and on Park Avenue. Both of these situations have been brought to the attention of the Parking and Streets Departments by planning staff, but no response has been received as of yet. 3. Construction parking in general. During the discussion on the 1999 fee ordinance (Ordinance No. 49, Series of 1998) at the 12/7 council meeting, council asked staff to consider instituting a parking fee (or bus pass) as part of the building permit requirements. We will continue to work with the Parking Dept. on new procedures in this regard, and your suggestion of researching the Vail model has been forwarded to the appropriate staff persons. We'll keep you posted. 4. Work Session on LP Program. City Council has suggested a joint work- session with the P&Z to discuss changes to the small lodge program. The December 15, 1998 @ 5 PM, date and time have been cancelled by council, and will be rescheduled for a date to be determined in January. If you want to track this, please contact staff after tonight to get the latest date on this meeting. 5. Land Use Code Work Session. Staff will be meeting in December to review the changes before scheduling hearings in January. This is just the first step, there is much more work to follow, but we hope a big step in the right direction. 6. Next regular meeting. Next Tuesday, the 5th of January, @ 4:30.--Happy Holidays!! Upcoming: Upcoming in January with City Council: (Dates to be determined) • Cozy Point Work Session • Trails and Sidewalks work session • Main St. Work Session with HPC, P&Z, and City Council • FAR Work session -vv/ HPC, P&Z and City Council c1home/mitchh/p&zmemos/120898.doe 26.40.090 Accessory dwelling units. A. General provisions. I. Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet of net livable area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of net livable area. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. One (1) parking space shall be provided on -site for each studio unit, and for each bedroom within a one- or two -bedroom accessory dwelling unit. 2. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to all other dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. 3. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall utilized alley access to the extent practical. B. Development review standards. The review standards for a detached accessory dwelling unit are as follows: 1. The proposed development is compatible and subordinate in character with the primary residence located on the property and with the development .ocated within the neighborhood, and assuming year -around occupancy, shall not create a density pattern inconsistent with the established neighborhood; 2. Where the proposed development varies from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence than the development in accord with dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements may be varied: a. Minimum front and rear vard setbacks; b. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot; C. Maximum allowed floor area may be exceeded up to the bonus allowed for accessory dwelling units; d. The side yard setback shall be a minimum of three (3) feet; e. The maximum height limits for detached accessory dwelling units in the R-6 zone district may be varied at the rear one-third (1/3) of the parcel, however, the maximum height of the structure shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet. On Landmarked Designated Parcels and within the Historic Overlay District the HPC shall have the ability to make such height variations; f. Maximum allowable site coverage may be varied up to a maximum of five (5) percent, on Landmark Designated Parcels and within an Historic Overlay District the HPC shall have the ability to make such site coverage variations; g. In the case where the proposed detached accessory dwelling unit in located on a Landmark Designated Parcel or within an Historic Overlay District only HPC may make dimensional variations pursuant to the standards of section 26.40.070(B) of this Code. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Committee may exempt existing nonconforming structures, being converted to a detached accessory dwelling unit, from section 26.40.090 (B)(2)(a)---(g) provided that the nonconformity is not increased. 4. Conditional use review shall be granted pursuant to section 26.60.040, Standards applicable to all conditional uses. C. Bandit units. Anv bandit dwelling unit which can be demonstrated to have been in existence on or prior to November 1, 1988, and which complies with the requirements of this section may be legalized 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 Official. D. GMQS/replacement housing credits. Accessory dwelling units shall no be used to obtain points in the affordable housing category of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Only those units meeting the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines or approval of the housing designee and the standards of section 26.100.090 of this Code may be used to obtain points in the affordable housing category. Accessory dwelling units also may not be used to meet the requirements of Title 20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, "Resident Multi -Family Housing Replacement Program." E. FAR for accessory dwelling units. For the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential, the following shall apply: The allowable floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall be excluded up to a maximum of three hundred fifty (350) square feet of allowable floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit, whichever is less. This floor area exclusion provision only applies to accessory dwelling units which are subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to conditional use review and approval pursuant to Section 26.60.030 of this Code, and the units must be deed restricted, registered with the Housing Office, and available for rental to an eligible workina resident of Pitkin Countv. The owner retains the right to select the renter for the unit. An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet, shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of the allowable floor area up to seven hundred (700) square feet of floor area. Any element linking the principal structure to the accessory unit may be no more than one (1) story tall, six (6) feet wide and ten (10) feet long. (Ord. No. 47-1988, § 3; Ord. No. 1-1990, § 6; Ord. No. 60-1990, § 2; Ord. No:.56-1994, § 11; Ord. No. 38-1996, § 6; Ord. No. 8-1997, §§ 10, ll: Code 1971, § 5-510) ti LUZ, PROJECT:now NAME OF r I CITY CLERK: ,,j-ACqei E Lo-m *qo�,,j STAFF: WITNESSES: (1) -t)A LE {4p\,vE'4Z (2) Ct<. RA VC-15:i<., (3) ,H (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet (Check If Applicable) E 5 MOTION: OC-rg �--- MD f Et> VOTE: YES jkNO I SARA GARTON YES A/N ROGER HUNT YES ��NO ROBERT BLAICH YES V NO RON ERICKSON YES ' NO TIMOTHY MOONEY YES NO STEVEN BUETTOW YES NO TIM SEMRAU YES �NO 1 City of Aspen j City Attorneys Office MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: John F. Worcester DATE: December 15,1998 : ,dim Curtis — Conflict of Interest Inquiry • • • • ® s ® ® ® ® • • ® ® • • e s • • • • • • s • • • • • ® a e • ® • • • • • • ® o ® • ® o • ® • • s • e o s • • • • • • • ® • • I understand that at your last meeting a question came up regarding Jim Curtis and his representation of the City of Aspen in certain transactions relating to the Burlingame Ranch development application. If I understand the concern correctly, the issue is whether Jim may have a conflict of interest in representing the City while at the same time he is representing the MAA. Jim Curtis is, in fact, representing the City of Aspen in its continuing negotiations with the Zoline family and in preparing preliminary design documents for any application that may be submitted for the development of that portion of the Burlingame Ranch. He is also representing the MAA in its negotiations with the Aspen Ski Company and the City of Aspen. In that these are totally different projects which do not relate to each other except for the fact that they involve the Burlingame Ranch, I do not believe he has a conflict of interest in representing the City with respect to the "Zoline affordable housing project" and the MAA in the "MAA affordable housing project." Some of the work that Jim has undertaken benefit both projects (i.e annexation) and this fact alone does not constitute a conflict. Indeed, by definition, that work involves common interests. I should note the MAA portion of Burlingame Ranch is not going to be sold to the Housing Authority and the negotiations for its sale has been conducted by the City Manager's Office and not the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority's role in this matter has been advisory with all final decisions being made by the City Council. The details of the contemplated transaction between the City and the MAA have not been finalized as contract documents are still being negotiated. The MAA is currently being represented by Dave Myler in these negotiations. I do not believe there is a perception of a conflict of interest once the facts of his representation are understood. A perception of a conflict of interest exists only if there is a potential for a conflict even when none exists. In this case, there is no potential for a conflict simply because the individual transactions involve a larger single parcel of land. It might be easier to conceptually understand my opinion on this matter if the two parcels involved are assumed to be completely separate (for example, the "Jones project" and the "Smith project" both of which involved separate City owned property.) Under this assumption, it would not be a conflict for an agent of the City to represent 41, '; .. Confidential Attomey-Client Communication --Page 1 Confidential Memorandum From Jahn PI,, Worcester - Page 2 the City on the "Jones project" while at the same time represent Mr. Smith in negotiations with the City for the sale of the "Smith project" land from the City. Thank you for raising these questions and for giving me an opportunity to respond. This office appreciates your constant vigilance in assuring the integrity of our land use policies and decisions, particularly when the City itself is involved. If you have any questions regarding the above, please let me know. cc: Julie A. Woods City Manager JPW-12/15/98-G:\john\word\memos\cur-is.doc Gonffdential fitne (1ein Comrrrunieatian" MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Mitch Haas, )4 RE: 934 West Francis Street Amendment to a Conditional Use for Two (2) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) - Public Hearing. Parcel ID 2735-123- 0013 DATE: December 15, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to amend a Conditional Use approval to construct two (2) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The applicant owns Lots 1 and 2 of the Hower Subdivision Exemption (Lot Split approved via Ordinance Number 39, Series of 1997), and intends to construct a single-family residence with a corresponding ADU on each of the two lots. The previously approved ADUs were to be located above the garages along the alley and attached to the corresponding, primary residences. However, with the above grade ADUs, the applicant was having difficulty complying with the FAR limitations of the zone district and was going to be required to fire sprinkler the structures. Consequently, the applicant has decided to revise their conditional use approval (which was granted at the September 15, 1998 Commission hearing; the resolution and minutes of said hearing are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively). Under the current, amended application each of the two ADUs would be located below grade, under the alley -accessed garages of and with no internal connection to the corresponding primary residences. Under the original approval, the applicant requested and was granted FAR bonuses on each of the two residences and, thus, the two ADUs were to be deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. Now, the applicant is NOT seeking FAR bonuses for either-ADU. Nevertheless, the two ADUs, if approved, will be deed restricted, registered with the housing office, and be available for rental to eligible working residents of Pitkin County. By providing the ADUs, the applicant would obtain GMQS Exemptions, enabling the property owner to construct the new residences pursuant to City Land Use Regulations. Community Development staff recommends that the Amendment to the approved Conditional Use for the two (2) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) at 934 West Francis Street (Lots 1 and 2 of the Hower Subdivision Exemption Plat) be approved, subject to conditions. APPLICANT: Running Bear, LLC., represented by Rich Pavicek of Charles Cunniffe Architects. LOCATION: 934 West Francis Street (Lots L, M, N, and O, Block 3, City of Aspen and Part of the W 1/2 of Section 12, T 10 S, R 85 W of the 6th P.M., County of Pitkin, State of Colorado) is located at the westerly end of and on the north side of West Francis Street. ZONING: Medium -Density Residential (R-6) . CURRENT LAND USE: The two lots currently contain a split-level single-family house that straddles the property line adjoining Lots 1 and 2. The existing house would be demolished prior to redevelopment of the site. LOT SIZE: Lot 1 of the Hower Subdivision Exemption Plat contains 6,735 square feet of land, and Lot 2 has an area of 6,000 square feet. The R-6 zone requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet per unit, and ADUs are not considered units of density. ALLOWABLE FAR: Lot 1 has an allowable FAR of 3,331 square feet, and Lot 2's allowable FAR is 3,240 square feet. 3,329 square feet of FAR is proposed on Lot 1, and 3,239 square feet of FAR is proposed on Lot 2. PROPOSED LAND USE: Two detached single-family residences where each of the two primary residences would have an Accessory Dwelling Unit. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) require conditional use approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. It is a one-step review that requires notification to be published, posted and mailed in accordance with Section 26.52.060(E). The following sections of the code are applicable to this conditional use review: Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units; Section 26.28.040, Medium -Density Residential (R- 6); and, Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses. BACKGROUND: City of Aspen Ordinance Number 39, Series of 1997 approved a Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split creating the two subject lots. Under the terms of this ordinance, both lots are required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code. The prior existence of a house on the property would have entitled one of the two new lots to a floor area credit that could have been put toward a cash -in -lieu payment; however, instead of building one ADU and paying cash -in - lieu for the other lot, the applicant has decided to construct two ADUs. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units Both of the currently proposed ADUs would be attached to the rear of the corresponding primary residences, below the garages. As proposed, each of the two ADUs would contain approximately 381 square feet of net livable area, and would have its own kitchen, bathroom, and access. No internal connections between the ADUs and their respective primary residences are depicted on the plans. One (1) off-street parking space will be provided on - site for each ADU. The proposed off-street parking for the ADUs would be located parallel to (along) the alley and on the corresponding lot, but separate from (not stacked behind) the driveways to the garages that serve the primary residences. As required by code, both ADUs would be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units, limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. The owners of the principal residences will retain the right to set the rental rates and select a qualified employee(s) of his/her choosing in their ADU. Therefore, the proposal complies with the requirements of Section 26.40.090(A)(1). 2 Pursuant to Section 26.40.090(A)(2), the development, including the ADUs, is subject to all of the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district, Medium -Density Residential (R-6). All of the dimensional requirements will be met, including those associated with floor area, height, site coverage, and setbacks. Since the ADUs would be attached to the primary residences, Section 26.490.090(A)(3) is not applicable. Section 26.40.090(A)(4) states that "an attached accessory dwelling unit shall utilize alley access to the extent practical. " The proposed ADUs and their parking would be accessed from the alley at the rear of the lots. Section 26.40.090(B), Development Review Standards, requires that "the proposed development be compatible with and subordinate in character to the primary residence located on the parcel as well as development located within the neighborhood, and assuming year-round occupancy, shall not create a density pattern inconsistent with the established neighborhood. " The proposed ADUs would be virtually indistinguishable in terms of external appearances as they have been designed to appear as part of the primary residences (houses) with the exception of a stairway down from the ground level at the rear of the structures; thus, they will be compatible with and subordinate in character to the primary residences. This property is located in an established residential neighborhood which is, for the most part, made up of single family residences, many of which have attached or detached accessory dwelling units associated with them, and multi -family residences. The proposed ADUs will be compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood and will not create a density pattern incompatible with that already established in the area. Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, a development application for a conditional use approval shall meet the following standards: (A) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. Staff Response: The stated purpose of the R-6 zone district "is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses ... Lands in the Medium -Density Residential (R-6) zone district are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, contain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences, and are within walking distance of the center of the city. " The proposed ADUs would be in harmony with the purpose of the R-6 zone district since they would provide for long-term residential use (or customary accessory use), be located within the original Aspen Townsite, be within walking distance of the center of the city, and be in close proximity to transit (the 8th Street bus stop is one block away). ADUs are allowed as conditional uses in the R-6 zone district. One of the stated themes of the AACP with regard to "revitalizing the permanent community" is to "increase resident housing." Also, the proposal is consistent with the following purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the AACP: • "Promote, market and implement Cottage Infill and Accessory Dwelling Unit programs;" • "Develop small scale resident housing which fits the character of the community and is interspersed with free market housing throughout the Aspen Area and up valley of Aspen Village;" and, "The public and private sectors together should develop . . . employee -occupied accessory dwelling units, to achieve the identified unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents." Staff finds that this conditional use application for two ADUs complies with Section 26.60.040(A), and that the provision of the two ADUs would be wholly 'consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and standards of the AACP. While staff recognizes that the requested amendment to the approved conditional use application for two ADUs at 934 West Francis Street would result in a less desirable situation than that approved originally, staff also recognizes that, if the amended application were the original (and we never saw the first proposal), a recommendation of approval would have been forwarded to the Commission. That is, the new application, standing on its own merits, satisfies this review criterion. (B) The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Staff Response: The subject parcel is surrounded by residential uses, some of which have accessory dwelling units, and the proposed ADUs would be both consistent and compatible with the existing residential development in the immediate vicinity. Also see the last paragraph of the Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units portion of this memo, above. (C) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Staff Response: As mentioned earlier in this memo, the proposed ADUs would appear as part of the principal residences; thus, their location, size and design will minimize any potential adverse visual impacts. Like all of the surrounding properties, the ADUs' parking and trash service would be accessed from the alley at the rear of the properties. No noise, vibration, or odor related impacts are anticipated. The proposed ADUs would operate like any other residence or ADU found in the neighborhood. The impacts should be negligible. (D) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Staff Response: There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the proposed uses. The structures would be within an existing, well -established neighborhood. (E) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Staff Response: While the proposed development of two ADUs would not generate an increase in the employment base, the applicant will be supplying two ADUs which, pursuant to Section 26.40.090(A)(1), will be deed restricted, registered with the housing office, and available for rental to eligible working residents of Pitkin County for periods of not less than six months in duration, thereby serving the need for increased affordable housing in the City of Aspen. 4 "' The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title. Staff Response: The proposed conditional use will comply with all additional standards imposed on it by the AACP and by all other applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, such as those contained in Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards. Also, please refer to the staff response to criterion (A), above. STAFF FINDINGS: Based upon review of the applicant's land use application, Community Development staff finds that there is sufficient information to support the requested Amendment to the Conditional Use approval with conditions. With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposal meets or exceeds all standards applicable to the review of Accessory Dwelling Units as conditional uses. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development staff recommends that the requested Amendment to the Conditional Use approval granted in Resolution 98-23 be approved with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall: a. Verify with the Housing Office that the net livable floor area of each Accessory Dwelling Unit will be between 300 and 700 square feet, and the units shall be totally private, having private entrances and no rooms (i.e., mechanical rooms, etc.) that might need to be accessed by people in the principle residences; b. Verify with the Housing Office that each 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. Provide the Housing Office with a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, a copy of which must be obtained from the Housing Office, for each of the two ADUs; d. Clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on building permit plans as separate one -bedroom units, separated from the primary residences; e. Provide a minimum of one 8.5' x 20' on -site parking space for each ADU, and indicate these designated parking spaces on the final plans; f. Install any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not within the public rights -of - way; g. Locate any additional proposed construction, including trash facilities, in such a way that it does not encroach into an existing utility easement or public right-of-way; h. Agree to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval of this application; i. Submit working drawings to verify all height, setback, site coverage, and floor area calculations, as well as lot size and lot area calculations; j. Complete and record a Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Agreement; k. A tap permit(s) must be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; 1. If either building is found to contain 5,000 square feet or more of gross area, approval and subsequent installation of an automatic fire suppression system will be required; m. Verify that the proposed plans for the ADUs will comply with all UBC requirements including but not limited to those addressing natural light and ventilation standards, as well as sound attenuation walls both between each ADU and the principal residences and between each ADU and the garages located above them; and, n. Submit building permit drawings which indicate all utility meter locations; utility meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. The plans must also indicate a five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer for snow storage. o. Provide all conditions of approval, as indicated in the approved Resolution, as notes on the building permit application plan sets. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall: a. Submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit; b. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering, and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval; and c. Provide the Community Development Department with as -built drawings for keeping in the planning case file records. 3. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. The applicant shall provide a roof overhang or other sufficient means of preventing snow from falling on both the stairway leading to the doors and the area in front of the doors to the ADUs; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairway' is also required. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, any needed tree removal permit(s) must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). The applicant shall also make a good faith effort in working with the Parks Department to preserve the trees numbered as 8, 13, and 14 on the Site Improvement Survey. 7. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 8. In the driveways that serve as access to the garages of the primary residences, only parallel parking shall be permitted, and standard head-in/out parking in these driveways is prohibited due to inadequate depth. This shall be noted on the Building Permit application plan set, and on the as -built plan sets required,before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 0 9. All fencing located forward of the front setback lines of both lots shall be visually permeable with a height not to exceed four (4) feet from finished grade. 10. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the application for Amendment of the Conditional Use approval granted in Resolution 98-23 for the two (2) Accessory Dwelling Units at 934 West Francis Street (Lots 1 and 2 of the Hower Subdivision Exemption Plat) with the conditions outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated December 15, 1998." EXHIBITS: "A" - The submitted Application "B" - P&Z Resolution 98-23 "C" - Approved minutes from the 9/15/98 Commission Hearing 7 P&Z Resolution 98- > I Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON LOT 1 OF THE HOWER SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT, AND ANOTHER ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON LOT 2 OF THE HOWER SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT, 934 WEST FRANCIS STREET (LOTS L, M, N, AND O, BLOCK 3, CITY OF ASPEN AND THE W 1/2 OF SECTION 12, T 10 S, R 85 W OF THE 6TH P.M.), CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Resolution 98-= WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Running Bear LLC., owner, for an Amendment to the Conditional Use approved in Resolution 98-23, where the amendment provides for two (2) below -grade Accessory Dwelling Units, each having approximately 381 square feet of net livable; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.40.090 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Accessory Dwelling Units may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as Conditional Uses in conformance with the requirements of said Section, and pursuant to Section 26.60.080(B), requests for amendments to previously approved Conditional Uses can also be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the proposed amendment and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 15, 1998, at which time the Commission received and considered public comment, and approved by a to (_-� vote the proposed amendment to the approved conditional use for the 934 West Francis Street Accessory Dwelling Units with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: The Amendment to the Conditional Use approval granted in Resolution 98-23 is hereby approved for two (2) Accessory Dwelling Units each containing approximately 381 square feet of net livable area and attached, below grade, to the corresponding residences on Lots 1 and 2 of the Hower Subdivision Exemption Plat (Lots L, M, N, And O, Block 3, City Of Aspen and the W 1/2 of Section 12, T 10 S, R 85 W of the 6th P.M.), with the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall: a. Verify with the Housing Office that the net livable floor area of each Accessory Dwelling Unit will be between 300 and 700 square feet, and the units shall be totally private, having private entrances and no rooms (i.e., mechanical rooms, etc.) that might need to be accessed by people in the principle residences; b. Verify with the Housing Office that each 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. Provide the Housing Office with a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, a copy of which must be obtained from the Housing Office, for each of the two ADUs; P&Z Resolution 98-3C7 Page 2 of 3 d. Clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on building permit plans as separate one -bedroom units, separated from the primary residences; e. Provide a minimum of one 8.5' x 20on-site parking space for each ADU, and indicate these designated parking spaces on the final plans; f. Install any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not within the public rights -of - way; g. Locate any additional proposed construction, including trash facilities, in such a way that it does not encroach into an existing utility easement or public right-of-way; h. Agree to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval of this application; i. Submit working drawings to verify all height, setback, site coverage, and floor area calculations, as well as lot size and lot area calculations; j. Complete and record a Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Agreement; k. A tap permit(s) must be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; 1. If either building is found to contain 5,000 square feet or more of gross area, approval and subsequent installation of an automatic fire suppression system will be required; m. Verify that the proposed plans for the ADUs will comply with all UBC requirements including but not limited to those addressing natural light and ventilation standards, as well as sound attenuation walls both between each ADU and the principal residences and between each ADU and the garages located above them; and, n. Submit building permit drawings which indicate all utility meter locations; utility meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. The plans must also indicate a five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer for snow storage. o. Provide all conditions of approval, as indicated in the approved Resolution, as notes on the building permit application plan sets. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall: a. Submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit; b. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering, and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval; and c. Provide the Community Development Department with as -built drawings for keeping in the planning case file records. 3. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, 0 The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. P&Z Resolution 98-39 Page 3 of 3 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. The applicant shall provide a roof overhang or other sufficient means of preventing snow from falling on both the stairway leading to the doors and the area in front of the doors to the ADUs; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairway is also required. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, any needed tree removal permit(s) must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). The applicant shall also make a good faith effort in working with the Parks Department to preserve the trees numbered as 8, 13, and 14 on the Site Improvement Survey. 7. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 8. In the driveways that serve as access to the garages of the primary residences, only parallel parking shall be permitted, and standard head-in/out parking in these driveways is prohibited due to inadequate depth. This shall be noted on the Building Permit application plan set, and on the as -built plan sets required before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9. All fencing located forward of the front setback lines of both lots shall be visually permeable with a height not to exceed four (4) feet from finished grade. 10. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having authority to do so. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on December 15, 1998. APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Attest: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk c:\home\mitchh\p&zmemos\934reso2.doc Planning and Zoning Commission: Sara Garton, Chairperson P&Z Resolution 98-� Pace t 6/4+1iFrT ..B. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON LOT 1 OF THE HOWER SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT, AND ANOTHER ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON LOT 2 OF THE HOWER SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT, 934 WEST FRANCIS STREET (LOTS L, M, N, AND O, BLOCK 3, CITY OF ASPEN AND THE W 1/2 OF SECTION 12, T 10 S, R 85 W OF THE 6TH P.M.), CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Resolution 98- 43 WHEREAS, The Community Development Department received an application from Running Bear LLC., owners, for a Conditional Use Review of two (2) Accessory Dwelling Units having approximately 416 square feet of net livable area (Lot 1) and 423 square feet of net livable area (Lot.); and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.40.090 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Accessory Dwelling Units may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as Conditional Uses in conformance with the requirements of said Section; and WHEREAS, the Housing Office, City Engineering, City Zoning, Sanitation, and the Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 15, 1998, at which time the Commission approved by a 6-0 vote the Conditional Use for the 934 West Francis Street Accessory Dwelling Units with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department as amended. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: The Conditional Use for two (2) Accessory Dwelling Units containing approximately 416 square feet of net livable area (Lot 1) and 423 square feet of net livable area (Lot -2) and attached to the corresponding residences on Lots 1 and 2 of the Hower Subdivision Exemption Plat (Lots L, M, N, And 0, Block 3, City Of Aspen and the W 1/2 of Section 12, T 10 S, R 85 W of the 6th P.M.), is approved with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall: a. Verify with the Housing Office that the net livable floor area of each Accessory Dwelling Unit will be between 300 and 700 square feet, and the units shall be totally private, having private entrances and no rooms (i.e., mechanical rooms, etc.) that might need to be accessed by people in the principle residences; b. Verify with the Housing Office that each 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. Provide the Housing Office with a signed and recorded Deed Restriction requiring mandatory occupancy, a copy of which must be obtained from the Housing Office, for each of the two ADUs; 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 423443 10/20/1998 11:13ii RESOLUTI DAVIS SIL4I 1 of 3 R 16.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO P&Z Resolution 98-,=(, Page d. Clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on building permit plans as separate one -bedroom units separated from the primary residences by lock -off doors of the variety typical of hotel suites (set of two adjoining doors); e. Provide a minimum of one 3.5' x 2W on -site parking space for each ADU, and indicate these designated parkin` spaces on the final plans: f. Install anv new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above around equipment on an easement provided by the properri owner and not within the public rights -of - way; Cr. Locate anv additional proposed construction, including trash facilities, in such a wav that it does not encroach into an existing utility easement or public right-of-wav; r h. Agree to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing, improvements in adjacent public - rights -of -way; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval or this application; i. Submit working drawings to verifv all height, setback, and floor area calculations, as well as lot size and lob area calculations; j. Complete and record a Sidewalk. Curb & Gutter Agreement; k. A tap permit(s) must be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; , 1. If either building is found to contain 5.000 square feet or more of gross area, approval and installation of an automatic fire suppression system will be required; m. Verify that the proposed plans for the .-\DUs will comply with all LAC requirements including but not limited to those addressing natural light and ventilation standards, as well as sound attenuation walls between each ADU and the principal residences; and, n. Submit building permit drawings which indicate all utility meter locations; utility meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. The plans must also indicate a five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer for snow storage. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall: a. Submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprint, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit; and, b. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 3. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The Citv Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 423443 10/20/1998 11:13q RESOLUTI DAVIS SILyI 2 of 3 R 16.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CJ P&Z Resolution 98- Page 3 5. The applicant shall provide a roof overhang or other sufficient means of preventing snow from falling on both the stairway leading to the doors and the area in front of the doors to the ADUs; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairway is also required. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, any needed tree removal permit(s) must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). The applicant shall also make a good faith effort to preserve the trees numbered as 8, 13, and 14 on the Site Improvement Survey. 7. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 8. In the driveways that serve as access to the garages of the primary residences, only parallel parking shall be permitted, and standard head-in/out parking in these driveways is prohibited due to inadequate depth. 9. All fencing located forward of the front setback lines of both lots shall be visually permeable with a height not to exceed four (4) feet from finished grade, and shall allow for compliance with the open space requirements of the zone district. 10. The applicant shall receive an FAR bonus on each lot equal to 50% of the net livable area of the ADU on that lot. 11. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having authority to do so. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting_ont. September 15, 1998.... APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1 David Hoefer, Assistant ity Attorney Attest: • 11-• ,11 Pill 423443 10/20/1998 11:33p RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 3 of 3 R 16.00 0 0,00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Planning and Zoning Commission: Sara Garton, Chairperson EkhVIT it , Garton reminded commissioners of the Given Institute AACP update on 10/0 1/98. Clauson cordially invited the commissioners to the Elks Club on September 30th. malTiMm KII&QU11212M Sara Garton disclosed speaking to Nick Lebby regarding the trash problems in the alley behind LaCocina. No other commissioners disclosed any conflicts. MINUTES Sara Garton complemented the minutes as well done. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of 21 July, 4 August and 18 August, 1998. Bob Blaich second. APPROVED 6-0. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, requested proof of notice be brought to the city clerks office by 5pm, Wednesday, 9/16/98 with the understanding the hearing will be considered null and void, if the proper notice was not received. He stated, that in the future, if staff did not have proof of notice, the public hearing would not proceed. The applicant Dale Hower, was sworn in by the Deputy City Clerk, Jackie Lothian. Mitch Haas stated that neighbors had told him that they were notified. Hoefer asked when the notice was posted on the property, where the list of neighbors was obtained from and when the mailing occurred. Ms. Hower responded that was at least 3 weeks ago. She stated that neighbors also told her that notices were received. (Notice received by deputy city clerk on 09116198). Haas explained the request was for conditional use approval to construct 2 ADUs; one on each lot. The lot split was approved by city council last year. The proposed ADUs would be located above the attached garages along the alley. There would be a GMQS exemption for each house with approval of the ADUs and they requested the FAR bonus. Haas stated they were made aware there would be a condition of mandatory occupancy if the FAR bonus was granted. Haas noted the change in representatives. The Lot 1 ADU would contain a net livable 416 square feet and Lot 2 would be 423 square feet; the bonus would only ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 count as '/z of what would be counted in calculating the total FAR on the lot. Each ADU would have its own entrance off the alley. Haas stated the applicant also requested a series of variances from the residential design standards. He said it was made very clear to the applicant during the application process there was a choice of DRAC for the volume variances or P&Z; one or the other, not both. If the one chosen did not grant the variances, there was no right to go before the other board afterwards. Haas circulated drawings with highlighted areas for the window volume variances. He said staff did not recommend approval for these variances on the east or west elevations; the windows could be re -designed to comply. The north elevation in the ADU had more than UBC required natural light and glazing areas; they were not necessary in terms of providing light. Haas said if the windows were rectilinear, they would comply. He said there was a no window zone of 9' - 12' for rectilinear or orthogonal windows; the no window zone for non -orthogonal windows was from 9' - 15' . Staff recommended the windows be re -designed to comply with the residential design standards. Haas stated the deed restriction for the ADUs would be required mandatory occupancy 'because the applicant was seeking an FAR bonus with a condition granting that FAR bonus. He said there would be a condition with lock -of, f doors between the ADUs and the main residence. He said condition 98 had to do with parking. There were conditions concerning the fencing and trees. Sara Garton inquired about referral agency comments. Haas replied that the city council did not want to see the referral agency memos; just to make the concerns part of the staff memo. He said the conditions reflected the concerns. Garton noted the land use commission needed to review engineering, housing, HPC, environmental health and. fire comments if applicable. Bob Blaich questioned the memo statement on page 5 regarding the appeal decision making process. Haas clarified P&Z would be the board if they chose to go forward on the design standards review tonight; no other board would review. Ron Erickson inquired as to the enforcement of a qualified renter for the ADU. Haas replied that was part of the deed restriction. Hoefer stated a letter from the Attorney's office would be sent from a complaint. Erickson asked if tenants could be screened through the housing office. Haas said it would be the honor system to 3 send the tenant to the housing office. Scott. Sambrowski commented the old housing rules applied. Garton stated that if a FAR bonus was granted; quid pro quo would be mandatory occupancy for the ADU. There was discussion of the FAR bonus; mandatory occupancy for the ADU and the conditions of approval. Chris Bendon clarified the existing Housing Guidelines reflected recommendation for approval with mandatory occupancy as a deed restriction for the FAR bonus. Roger Hunt said the legal lot split should entail 2 separate addresses instead of the 934 West Francis. Haas responded that legally they could be Lots 1 & 2 of the Hower subdivision. Julie Ann Woods explained that at building permit, the addresses would be assigned. Sambrowski and Hower decided to pull the design standards from the P&Z meeting tonight. Haas explained prior to building permit, the designs would be submitted for Ordinance 30 review. If the designs would not comply, then a separate application would be required for that design review and a separate fee. The record reflects the design standards variance requests not part of any approval or reflected in the conditions of approval. Public Comments: Frances Pearce, 923 West Francis, stated concern for the parking problems in the neighborhood. She asked that no street parking be allowed from these 2 new houses; that all parking be contained on the lots. Haas said the parking was addressed with a 2 car garage per house; 1 parking pad per ADU accessed from the alley. He said any street parking would have the standard residential parking permits (1 per unit). Haas noted these parking spaces met the requirements. Kim Keilin, 939 West Francis, stated that notice was not received and would like to be notified in the future. She asked if it could be conditional to have one spot per bedroom. Haas said the site plan wouldn't allow that because of the trees. Keilin asked if the ADUs could be limited to one vehicle for each. Haas said there was a condition for one parking space per ADU on site to be indicated on the final plat. Hoefer explained the city regulations had no authority to restrict parking on public streets. Keilin asked if contractors could park on 8th Street. Hower agreed about parking problems in the area and would request the contractor to park on 8th and obtain parking passes. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 Lucy Talenfeld, 915 West Francis, said that she was also concerned about the parking. She said the alley would be open. Garton noted during the building permit process; the question could be posed. Sambrowski stated if parking could be in the alley they would take that opportunity; he'll check with the fire Marshall. Garton stated the ADUs being occupied would be a benefit to the community to house people in the urban areas. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the conditional use request for the two (2) ADUs at 934 Nest Francis, Aspen finding the conditions provided by the city attorney's office have been met and with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall: a. Verify with the Housing Office that the net livable floor area of each Accessory Dwelling Unit will be between 300 and 700 square feet, and the units shall be totally private, having private entrances and no rooms (i.e., mechanical rooms, etc.) that might need to be accessed by people in the principle residences; b. Verify with the Housing Office that each 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. Provide the Housing Office with a signed and recorded Deed Restriction requiring mandatory occupancy, a copy of which must be obtained from the Housing Office, for each of the two ADUs; d. Clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on building permit plans as separate one -bedroom units separated from the primary residences by lock -off doors of the variety typical of hotel suites (set of two adjoining doors); e. Provide a minimum of one 8.5' x 20' on -site parking space for each ADU, and indicate these designated parking spaces on the final plans; f. Install any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not within the public rights -of -way; g. Locate any additional proposed construction, including trash facilities, in such a way that it does not encroach into an existing utility easement or public right-of-way; h. Agree to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval of this application; i. Submit working drawings to verify all height, setback, and floor area calculations, as well as lot size and lot area calculations; j. Complete and record a Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Agreement; k. A tap permit(s) must be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; 1. If either building is found to contain 5,000 square feet or more of gross area, approval and installation of an automatic fire suppression system will be required; in. Verify that the proposed plans for the ADUs will comply with all UBC requirements including but not limited to those addressing natural light and ventilation standards, as well as sound attenuation walls between each ADU and the principal residences; and, n. Submit building permit drawings which indicate all utility meter locations; utility meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. The plans must also indicate a five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer for snow storage. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall: a. F ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 Submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprint, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit; and, b. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 3. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. The applicant shall provide a roof overhang or other sufficient means of preventing snow from falling on both the stairway leading to the doors and the area in front of the doors to the ADUs; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairway is also required. 6. Prior to the issuance of anv building permits, any needed tree removal permit(s) must be obtained from the Parks Department for, any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). The applicant shall also make a good faith effort to preserve the trees numbered as 8, 13, and 14 on the Site Improvement Survey. 7. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 8. In the driveways that serve as access to the garages of the primary residences, only parallel parking shall be permitted, and standard head-in/out parking in these driveways is prohibited due to inadequate depth. 9. All fencing located forward of the front setback lines of both lots shall be visually permeable with a height not to exceed four (4) feet from finished grade, and shall allow for compliance with the open space requirements of the zone district. 10. The applicant shall receive an FAR bonus on each lot equal to 50% of the net livable area of the ADU on that lot. 11. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having authority to do so. Bob Blaich second. roll call vote: Hunt, yes; Mooney, yes; Buettow, yes; Blaich, yes; Erickson, yes; Garton, yes; Tygre, abstain. APPROVED 6-0. R Q NEW TREE d TO MITIGATE EXISTING TREE WITH DRIP LINE d PER SURVEY ----�- NEW FENCE WEST HOUSE ALLEY r—s=•-----------•-----•—• ------------------------ PARKING DRIVE i FOR A.D.U. I r— �_�- �I -- uj I Ii I ( BIZ I +I� '�7- Cl- ;m uj O- co 1 Ll. I II I ❑ / I +I I +i I I i I I I I I ii I I• ii I ► +i ❑ Ii 'i II Q• �• v >3+� iK d > ' �• Q g . I r H c'd• � � d r �6 ,. FRANCIS STREET EAST HOUSE SITE PLAN C,A ISSUED FOR: DATE: U w � 1 Q W w - O Z s U y w Q V 0 U 0 J o Q Z w w CQ C m U U 0 m 0 Z m 0 Q c4 z 0 J DRAWING 108 NO. 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. SITE SHEET OF GROSS AREA (953 SF PERIMETER WALL 222 FT PERIMETER WALL AREA 222 X 95 - 2JO9 SF EXPOSED WALL AREA 326 SF PERCENTAGE 326/2JO9 •155 1557 X 1953 • 3027 SF APPLIED TOWARDS F.AR. EXPOSED 24 SF EXPOSED r 66 SF EXPOSED 34 SF ❑ ❑ LOWER LEVEL PLAN F.A.R. SUMMARY LOWER LEVEL 302.7 SF MAIN LEVEL 1,290 SF GARAGE 105.5 SF UPPER LEVEL 1,631 SF TOTAL F.A.R. 3,329 SF GROSS AREA 1.290 SF GARAGE AREA 1055 SF (451-250 - 211 X 5-105.5) ALLOWABLE F.A.R. FOR SITE LOT AREA 6,735 SF ALLOWABLE FAR 3,33/ SF ALLOWABLE DECK AREA 3,33I SF X .I5 = 500 SF PROPOSED DECK AREA 388.6 SF MAX. SITE COVERAGE -ALLOWABLE 38% MAX. SITE COVERAGE -PROPOSED 1,842.51 6735 = 27.35% MAIN LEVEL PLAN GROSS AREA 1.657 SF UPPER LEVEL PLAN ISSUED FOR: DATE: "J L o U w � Z U C Q w Z O V s UF- w 1 }2 S U 0 0 J o 0 U �\ w Lu ru a. m �2 CQ M Z Y V U Z g m Z 0 Z m o � Q C J f- 0 J DRAWING FAR CALCULATIONS JOB NO. 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. FAR—W SHEET OF Ommx+rt owns Q"sm nvo [crs p: \9821\9821w\9821 f ar . tlgn Nov . 18, 1998 09: 19: ALLEY /00 >a NEW TREE d TO MITIGATE EXISTING TREE • WITH DRIP LINE d -PER SURVEY ——�—�— NEW FENCE SITE PLAN - WEST UNIT Ac - r-o" - - - _-------------------------------------------I 1 I I F— — — — — I I I I I I I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �7 I I I I I ( I I i i i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i 1 I i LOT 1 I b i g g N 75' 09'11' W -- 120.94-----•-------------------- NOSTE�S:: g E S(/R/ g SCIpARL CqC Mp/CHApE CPp S DArED 15l 985 2 CDAErP�ARRTMENT TiREESFTO BETWFIGATED J. FINAL �/NpNERADI NgGy AND LANDSCAPING ARCHIT UAT 4. ACCURAiFT ANDS(/S�OTF?ESPONS(�LE FOR ERRRRRROHS AND OMISSIONS Imp--qmm ISSUED FOR: DATE: o U Lu Z � V Q W ZV Z Z V W Q V 00 M DRAWING JOB NO. 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. AlA W SHEET OF tDCD toff ousts axr n ,vn ntcrs P: \9821\9821w\9821a11w.dgn Nov. 18, 1998 09: 19: 23 ADU = 381 S.F. �LOWER LEVEL - WEST UNIT I/q" - 1'-o„ mop"--qwm ISSUED FOR: DATE: L o U W Z � V Q �u ZU Z w s U W C Q � Z � U M DRAWING JOB NO. 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. A2.1W SHEET OF 6DCOP Off awes CLMM APDi= w\9821a21w . dgn Nov. 18, 1998 09: 19: 2 A ISSUED FOR: DATE: ON V � !8 R 7' EACH GARAGE 106 V � Q DIMENSION PER MANF. W ZE SPECS.- PROVIDE I HOUR FIRE RATED SHAFT CONSTRUCTION Ov s / V s MASTER BATH `� J toa � L '< i i MUD i i a -------------------- � o t i DN ---------- O i i 0 W.I.C. J O J U t� 1PTREAD TYP. UP ZO R R 6.6' EACH Z W �-------------- — g ENTRY Z� co 04 Z m SEALED GAS APPLIANCE 8 8 Z Q INSTALL PER MANF.SPECS- J MASTER BEDROOM toe B N O 0 ENTRY PORCH t000 1:1 SHEET NO. A2.2W MAIN LEVEL - WEST UNIT SHEET OF Ccmwaff awls axra n Apnin rs P:\9821\9821w\9821a22w.dgn Nov. 18, 1998 09:19:24 IMP - ISSUED FOR: DATE: GUARDRAIL PER U.B.C. vJ � 0 N U $ ' w " Ql i W.I.C. GUEST MASTER BED 2� zo7 V C Qw w ---------- ,y o m ------ PANTRY ` � ----- 0 z DhWENSION PER MANF. G. BATH Z SPECS.- PROVIDE I HOUR FIRE RATED SHAFT s CONSTRUCTION7u .� � V KITCHEN 2oa i 'TQ y °P WD�ER V ---------------------- DN O DINING ;.;.. ................... ........... EEI V o GUARDRAIL `J O PER UB.C. J V 04 i Z GUARDRAIL LLJ ` Q `Q PER U.B.C. M U Z o Z DECK LIBRARY 1 O m O 0 > C INSTALL GAS LNINGAjF SPECS ER Z QZ ►J I' .............. ......... DRAWING WINDOW SEAT JOB NO. 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. UPPER LEVEL - WEST UNIT A2.3W 114.1 ' V-01. SHEET OF ©WmvGff av" amm nrn rtcers P:\9821\9821w\9821a23w.dgn Nov. 18, 1998 09:19:25 D --r [j-• ............................... .. b: Ij D� :p b,.......... _.................... :D N o�N . v..... V ..... v..... v ..... 0 V V� I2/0 VALLEY:FLASHING TYP. RIDGE VENT - TYP. N I I HEAT TAPE ROOF ------ DRAIN TYP. -- --- - T- o a.IFT.-TYP. SLOPE TO DRAI D GUTTER & DONN D SPOUT W/ HEAT D vI TAPE TYP. D 1 b I :D TYP ERECLEATS IDICATED N o_ D N D I D � I SLOPE TO GRAIN �. �� l; 2:10 �D I I 1 1 I 1 I I I o I 1 T 1 I NI I I CRICKET i� CRICKET I I I I 'W I 1 I I � I I I I f I /2•/0 I 12:10 SLOPE � TOYDRAIN -��f-T �- � _ TI o I N� I .... ............ ...................% ............... ......................... I� I ROOF PLAN - WEST UNIT 00" 0 ISSUED FOR: DATE: o U x� U � Q LQI'1 � m Z Lil U Z Z s U 04 U DRAWING JOB NO, 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. A2.4W SHEET OF OCOMM rt OWM C-*" [ wa cers o:\9821\9821w\9821a24w.dgn Nov. 18. 1998 09:19:25 lk F.D. PLATE ' ---------------------------------- EL•124'-/O' T.0. PLAT EKih EL•I20'-6' IV UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLYWOOD ------------------- -------------- EL•l11'-O MAIN LEVEL T.O.PLYW00D --------------- -- -------------- EL•100'-O' 1 I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I LOWER LEVEL TD. SLAB ------------------------------------------- --------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------1------------------------------------- ---------'------------ EL•89'-O' SOUTH ELEVATION - WEST UNIT 1/4" • r-o" KEYNOTES aSTONE VENEER 2❑ STUCCO ❑3 SHINGLE SIDING ❑4 VERTICAL WOOD LAP SIDING 51 TIMBER POST / BEAM a6 ALUM CLAD WOOD W/ LOW E GLASS aCEDAR SHAKE ROOF aGUARDRAIL PER UBC. EAST ELEVATION - WEST UNIT Imo'/■■■■ � ■■■ `� ��� lily ■■ i■-�■ � i) V i r �� 1lhsllll - � I f m C — I TD-PLATE --------------------------------------- ---------------- EL•120' 6" UPPER LEVEL T.O.ri PLYWOOD EL•ll1'-O ------------------------------------ EL•l09'- 4%2' Y LEVEL - - T.O.PLOOD EL•1OO'-0' 1 I i I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I i I i I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 i I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I i I I i I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 i I LONER LEVEL I T.O. SLAB -------------------------------------------------I---------------------- - - - --- ------'----------------------------------------- ------------ EL-•891-0' AM ISSUED FC CATE:I DRAWING jCs NO. 9821 DATE ll-18-98 SHEET NO. MAW SHEET CE Cc109MljGW OVMB CUMFE AAQQIK(S D:\9821\9821w\9821a31w.dgn Nov. 18, 1998 09:19:26 T.O. PLATE -��--EL-124`10` El ' �E T.O. PLATE - - ----------------------------------------------------------------- -- -----------------------------------•-----------------•---------------A- -------------- - TE TD_-PLA - ---- - - - - - — - - - - - - - - - EL-120'-6' - I I nil UPPER LEV T.O. PLYW000EL -- r------------------- '--------- '------------------------ -------- EL•ll1'-0- b EB FE X] _ lR 71 /O IS - - I I II gE II I 1 i I -F 1 I 1 1 I 111 II I i I I 1 1 I I I Iil 11 I I I 1 I I I I I Iil BD II I I I I I I I I® I 111 II I I I ( I 1 i t I III II I I I I I t I I t 111 II I I I _ i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 ------1- 1 1---- I 1 WEST ELEVATION - WEST UNIT KEYNOTES EDSTONE VENEER aSTUCCO SHINGLE SIDING ❑4 VERTICAL WOOD LAP SIDING 5 TIMBER POST / BEAM F6 ALUM CLAD WOOD W/ LOW E GLASS CEDAR SHAKE ROOF FBI GUARDRAIL PER U.B.C. NORTH ELEVATION - WEST UNIT MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLYWOOD ------------------------- ------------ EL=100 0 - LOWER LEVEL T.O. SCAB EC 89 -0' TD.PLAT£ Ak -------------------- EL---•l20'-61 - UPPER LEVEL T.0 .PLYWC00 -------------- -- -------------- EL-l!t'-0 MAIN LEVEL T-O.PLriY000 ----------------- -------------- EL-100'-O' I 11 t----I 111 11 I I II I II I II I 1 III it I I! I II 1 II 1 I ill 11 I � it O I II I I I I I , 111 gA II i I I 1 I I- I 11 1 I 111 II I � II I li i I 111 it I, II I II I II 1 1 I11________-I I it I \✓ I i ---------- I II I I I I I --- i i LOWER LEVEL i-------------- II I I IO.SLAB EL•89'-0• , mmwp-'-� 0 ISSUED FOR: C m M Nd F= GRAWWNG JC3 NO. 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. 4 3.2 V l7 SHEET OF -C�rnrrclart ot�ua ctraarra: tiearr[crs P 1\9821w\9821a32w.dgn Nov. 18, 1 EXPOSED WALL 24 SF EXPOSED 'WALL 66 SF EXPOSED 'WALL 34 SF GROSS AREA 1,991 SF PERIMETER 'WALL 230 FT PERIMETER WALL AREA 230 X 9.5 - 2.I85 SF EXPOSED WALL AREA 257 SF PERCENTAGE 25712)85 -I1.7 12Y X 1991- 239 SF APPLIED TOWARDS F.AR. LOWER LEVEL PLAN /B" - 1'-0„ (D- F.A.R. SUMMARY LOWER LEVEL 239 SF MAIN LEVEL 1,323 SF GARAGE 105 SF UPPER LEVEL 1,572 SF TOTAL F.A.R. 5,239 SF GROSS AREA 1.323 SF GARAGE AREA 105 SF (460-250 - 210 X .5 •105) ALLOWABLE F.A.R. FOR SITE LOT AREA 6,000 SF ALLOWABLE FAR 5,240 SF ALLOWABLE DECK AREA 5,240 SF X J5 = 486 SF PROPOSED DECK AREA 426.75 SF MAX. SITE COVERAGE -ALLOWABLE 40% MAX. SITE COVERAGE -PROPOSED 1,814.51 6000 = 30.24% MAIN LEVEL PLAN GROSS AREA 1,572 SF UPPER LEVEL PLAN ISSUED FOR: DATE: vJ o vXX' LL Tom. V N tt� W - Zai U Z (� s U 0 V J O �\ C4 W CL CO m c+i Y U U o Z � an Q L� z O J DRAWING FAR CALCULATIONS JOB NO. 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. FAR-E SHEET OF ZCaFYFC F OWM CLYNFFE APXH as P:\9821\9821e\9821far.dgn Nov. 18, 1998 09: 01: 45 - — — — —---------------------------- NEW TREE $ e TO MITIGATE EXISTING TREE • 'WITH DRIP LINE d PER SURVEY ------ NEW FENCE SITE PLAN - EAST UNIT ALLEY 102 04 yy I.■111111111� } E' n�■■.■■■■■■] �1 1 c • cr FRANCIS STREET NOTES: E U �y B I. CARYI CHApp��CCPppu DA H l0 13 9B55 CCJ��ARL 2• DEPARTMENT TTREES TO BET VITI NA D J. FINAL JNRADING AND LANDSCAPING 4. PARCHI T ASWil)wFOR o AT E S ISSUED FOR: DATE: FORK ERRORS AND 011S IONS � o V � V Q W o Z s V W Q � V O O W m CQ M v U o Z � m 0 Zm o C4 Z V) F- 0 J DRAWING JOB NO. 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. All E SHEET OF ^smnwart O RLB OxMM MCHMM p:\9821\9821e\982lalle.dgn Nov. 18, 1998 09: 01: 40 1 ISSUED FOR: DATE: ADU = 381 S.F. rT-------I—i II II U d I I I I W 1 1 - - - - - - ' I i I I I I I LIGHT - o I I 20 R 6b' UP WELL \ I I I I 1 I C L------------ \ Q W 2 X 4 FURRING W/ s RIGID INSULATION MEN REC. ROOM 0 WINE ROOM W 0 576 SF U REQUIRES 58: SF GLASS PROVIDED 67: SF GLASS WINE SHELVES 1 I I I 1 I 1_1 T.O.SLAB LIGHT 89'-v 3'-O'GUARDR IIL C) WELL PER UB.C. i U o ._.A EGRESS Q WINDOWS PER UBC. ARCHED OPENING UP I C4 Z Lu m m m 174 SF UNDRY REQUIRES 18: SF GLASS i , ` .� O PROVIDED 20. SF GLASSEii] v I z�co BEDROOM D 1V i ►� co O Eii:l VENT DRYER 0 PER UB.C. Z c� Z - a o j4'0 E � P a ME I NICA n FT B06 DRAWING PROVIDE ONE HOUR CONST. THROUGHOUT JOB NO. 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. A2.1E LOWER LEVEL - EAST UNIT SHEET OF ©G7ffXW OWAB CUWfn nzanxa X-9 GUARDRAIL PER UB.C. Y-O' GUARDRAIL PER UB.C. UP ISSUED FOR: DATE: v! � U � W U �A L ui Z O U Z s U m s W - a U 0 0 z Lu CL m CV cli 0 J DRAWING JOB NO. 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. A2.2E MAIN LEVEL - EAST UNIT OF Ocwl N av" a~ff Mai= p:\9821\9821e\9821a22e.dgn Nov. 18, ISSUED FOR: DATE: DECK 3'-0' GUARDRAIL PER UBL. r ^ " J � 1 V � w W.I.C. GUEST MASTER BED i DUMBWAIT 1 I C DIMENSIONEPER Q MANF. SPECS.& PROVIDE ONE HOUR SHAFT LQ CONSTRUCTION LLw - -------- - PANTRY Z 1 v az --REF - - ---- . w STOVE HOOD G.BATH U s D N 1 r ...............:.......: .. NI C I KITCHEN g i '- POWDER U ON O r) DININGr --....._.._........ ................... ........... U g J O �! U 3'-O' GUARDRAIL 3'-O' GUARDRAIL PER U.B.C. PER UBL. Z iYC4 Lu CL cQ CQ cYi Y U POST Z U m `\ MM O GAS LOG FIRE PLACE �Z W 0 INSTALL PER MANF.SPECS Z & VENT PER U.R DECK LNING m LIBRARY Q C� z O • -----.•---:1"ltiBER:aRQSS::rSEE::Si"RU�t7..::::::::: I MELT ECK DRAWING 3'-O' GUARDRAIL PER U.B.C. JOB NO. 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. UPPER LEVEL - EAST UNIT A2.3E , l/1' 0" SHEET OF QCOF=l f otwig CLUMfE vn rtFc i p:\9821\9821e\982la23e.dgn Nov. 18, 1998 09: 01: 42 GUTTER & DONN SPOUT W1 HEAT TAPE GUTTER & DOWN SPOUT W1 HEAT TAPE .................................. .... ............................. ..................................... ........................ ........ ................... ................................... VALLEY FLASHIN O \> RIDGE VENT ........... ........ V ....17. V ...V.. 17 V ..... V.... V SNON CLEATS 40� --------- ---- --- - O RI V \)VT 2> VALLEY P SLOPE —17-1— FLASHING PE 0 �4� V/4 DRAIN W1 J AL f6tC- IL OPE LOPE 4 4 DRAIN HEAT iD 10 NT GUTTER 8e DONN SPOUT W1 HEAT TAPE > RIDGE VENT > t> . > VALLEY FLASHING > SNOW CLEATS > VALLEY Lu FLASHING OPE SLOE 4 4'lt I <—� L�lj DRAJ V W1 �A TAP6 IL --Lk > Ni t> ...... — — -------------- GUTTER & DONN > SPOUT W1 HEAT TAPE UFT R & DONN > ............................. L --J.. ............... ........ SP V11 HEAT TAPE > ---� 0 ROOF PLAN — EAST UNIT 1/4 " - l'— 0 " ISSUED FOR: DATE: o u Q �2 V) C4 0 0 u QQLIJz u U 0 ca z C4 z ul) 1-- 0 o DRAWING JOB NO. 9821 DATE 11-18-98 SHEET NO. A2.4E SHEET OF tC5MVQff QWaB CUWM uamcrs n:\9821\9821e\982la24e.dQn Nov. 18, 1998 09:01:4 rD. PLATE 120'-6'--—---—------------—---------——--- — —— ❑❑ I W1111111'' I r -T _ r0. PLATE — i` 3 Fj-5 ff-= � �Jll II ----------- T.9._PLYW000— ■o. som■■ ■■ �■,�■ � IIIIIIIIII I" r� T.O. PLYYlOOD `J —-------------- l00'-0 ------------ ro.SLae------------=-----------------------------------------------' KEYNOTES ❑l STONE VENEER 21 HORIZONTAL WOOD LAP SIDING 3❑ SHINGLE SIDING ❑4 TIMBER POST/ BEAM ❑5 ALUM CLAD WOOD W/ LON E GLASS SH METAL CHIMNEY CAP a7 CEDAR SHAKE ROOF aGUARDRAIL PER UBG. SOUTH ELEVATION EAST UNIT cA ISSUED FOR: ;ATE: _ i �a d 0 d u T.D. DEDK o ❑❑❑❑ LaFIL FIE111EE11 I I III I I I I 8 O 8 _rD. DECK 2 5 4 _ l_I� i � / I _ �I ,f —ld \ � � \ CRA`MNIG LP;J ! JC3 NO. 9621 LATE 11-18-98 � , t ' SHEET NO. - -! ------------ A3o1E EAST ELEVATION EAST UNIT S4EFf OF ?mmuair auxin UM2MFFi MCH1T c I — ——rD.PLrWoaD irr-d— _TD. PLrWOODDi i2a=a - tI I� � 1 I I I 111 it I I I' III ,I i I 1 I I ' 111 O II I 11, III II � I I I ' 1 11 6a I I I III III I i 1 I I I I I 1 III II 1 i II III i' I I I I I ' III II I 11, III II 1 I I i t I I 1 T.O. SLAB ------------------------'----------I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ — — — — —---------89,-0' — WEST ELEVATION EAST UNIT F STONE VENEER �T:.PLATE -----------`� �'l2a-e R2 HORIZONTAL NOOD LAP SIDING aSHINGLE SIDING ❑4 TIMBER POST/ BEAM aALUM CLAD WOOD W/ LOW E GLASS [6 SH METAL CHIMNEY CAP 77 CEDAR SHAKE ROOF �TTA. PLYN000 F8 GUARDRAIL PER UBC. III----------1 If----_-lrr==111 I II l O ' ili ill 1, I II 1 I rD.sLAa' -------------------------------------- --------------------- NORTH ELEVATION EAST UNIT C CA 15SUED FOR: CATS: u d d u LW I� CRAYANO jC8 NO. 9821 CATS 11-18-98 SHEET NO. I' A3e2E SHEET OF C; CfJP1UCW owes a,%IAFFE AWiUC5 ^ DEC 18 '3 B 12: ---DjBPM cHAP.LE�uIT, IFFE p.2 AD U APPLICANT: RUNNING BEAR, LLC represented by Rich Pavicek of Charles Cunniffe Architects LOCATION: 934 WEST FRANCIS ACTION: AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR TWO ADUs STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL CONDITIONAL USES: The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title. County of Pitkin } } SS. State of Colorado } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION SECTION 26.52.060 (E) i being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the,)6� day of Aot/ ,1990 (which is _ days prior to the public hearing date of 16. 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 3 day of 6nl , 199,?' (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full t PU13LIC NOTICE. DATE rIME_L.,�n_ PLACE ��5 y e�'�ft� G PURPOSE 4Npl7NML, Use kYIE0j -{uk40q� &104) -� AGE y My commission expires: � vco No Public n Notary Public's Sigr_atme PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 934 WEST FRANCIS STREET, REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR TWO (2) ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 15, 1998 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Asper', to consider an application submitted by Running Bear, LLC., represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects, requesting an Amendment to a Conditional Use approval. The original approval was to construct two (2) accessory dwelling units (ADUs) above the alley -accessed garages of the associated primary residences. The amendment requests approval to locate the ADUs below the garages instead of above, as previously approved. The property was split into two separate parcels via Ordinance Number 39, Series of 1997, and the current application continues to request approval to place one ADU on each of the two parcels. The property is located at 934 W. Francis and is legally described as Lots L and M, and Lots N and 0, Block 3, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095, or by email at mitchh@ci. aspen. co.us. s/Sara Garton, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on November 28, 1998 City of Aspen Account g:/planning/aspen/notices/934adu2.doc The, Inn any Aspen RESORT er CONFERENCE HOTEL O&V V 1 12 L �tv, a - 25- Fax 970 037 9 9 Reservations: 1-800-952-1515 Nv«,xv.innataspen. com innataspen@aspeninfo.com i ✓4J�i CE���i!'�5 I �'t�'r�" � � �CU� � CeoYd�h - u N O m O r.4 N r-1 e-ti r♦ r-a r-4 N r-, ­4 O -4 e q , 1~ -+ .e--q r-i , r- r-, r-,1 r-1 r-4 r-4 N r-4 '-+ r-1 r-i �.p t-4 r-4 r-4 N -4 N r-1 N 1-4 L1 N r-1 r-I r-4 r-, N r-4 r-4 1-4 * * O N O N m r--q mr O �O O \10 r-1 \10 r-1 \0 r-+ 1.0 r� �10 r-i m m \10 r-1 \10 r-4 \10 \0 r I r-+ r-1 \�O ­4 \0 r--4 \0 r-4 O O \0 r-4 \0 rr 110 ri �.D r~ m � r-4 \0 r 4 \0 r4 \0 r-4 I'D r--q 110 \10 r-, r-.4 r--L \0 r-+ \0 r-4 �0 '-+ * * N O N O r-, ON O m �p 00 00 00 00 00 m 00 00 0o 00 m 00 00 00 \0 m m 00 00 m x 00 m m 00 00 00 00 00 0o 00 * 00 0o 00 � O O O O O aw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O a u u U. u u u v U U u U. u U a u u u U w U U U u U U U U U U U U U w u * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * z z z z z Q z z z z z z z z U z z z w z z W Q z w z w z w z w z w z w z z w z w z w z w u �yaawawawwa,aaawawaaa�,aaaaawaaP-4p w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w v� U d ­4 U <�-:4 Ud Q Q as * * * * * � Q Q Cn L �r p * * a H o H w (> N H (� H mn Lo xN x W LO W H O N H a* u 0 � U z_ P7 t �r-qD r+ O 00 N O m oo O, U z N NQ-i O 0 H �/ a \0 r-4 X tr-+ w N � X d4 X z m X a z .zr y Z Q' r~ � m 00 �7 N w * z z Zo Om '� 00 z w w v 0 0= 0 0 0 O 0 Q apa LZn O rm co co as cA � c�i c i O Ln O O m 0 0 ° m o m O O O O O ,`r4 O * n N cc r-, U z fy z x z Nu N z * L u * z. Qi z o cHn a U ,--1 a w W r-t w a a p 0 cn cn * * * z 0 a z W C7 w u O a c O N X�° N Xm U a U U a N O m O N* z O O 0 O u � u U = OO XO 0U * LO w U aUU a4 a aW� U a` 'in)a a cn O * r� O z u 0 NH W��'' a a � p w «' p w z0 V U U O a _ O U w u u x x Q O w u 0 w �� 0 Z O u x awa x O x x 0 G r q cn U N Z a '� Z O cxn u w v a, } W p a cn x U Q z HHOU vwo a� �� �0Cw7¢� �Zp UW c��7 w �'��"'Q0 F.1 cHn z w r�Aq a4 z 2 z N O r4 a Oa) U0 W � a mn �, `�' w mn w Q x� z z O ` U u 0 w w o p 0w a U) Q ww H s z p x c� w au zc� U mn 0�u�-'z u O w��HOj�az Q ,� v w W m PZ W Pa W, W m U U O U R! U w u p I.- A4 W a O s a W s mn U mn x m x m A4 m H m H W H O H N O r-+ N r-4 r•+ w N \,D O \0 N \O N m M" IRt m N m m w m N \0 m \0 mT m \0 N" m \0 m 'd4 O m �o d+ m \0 m d+ m r-i m r-1 O O m d+ O 'I,W \0 N M N rn N o0 00 N m r-4 m " m IW m m m m mT N LO N cM m M O M W r-4 m O N N `0 N N\0 M ON N " m M N N"" \0 mT N M O M N M" mA O Ln L!) M O\ cM N " M N r-4 M e-i LO " M \,O N r-1 O r♦ O O O O O e-1 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O ri O O O O O r-t O O O r-, O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O r-i O �i Ci (X 04 P4 R-, 94 P4 04 04 0 04 04 L 4 Ri 04 P4 P4 i 4 �4 Lam-, 1:4 Ri 04 04 04 04 0 04 P4 04 N O r-t O et+ O r-4 ri N O Lo O m O L!) O 00 O r-4 O Ln r-, N C) dL 0 N 0 It 0 N 0 N o r1 0 rq Ln '!t 0 m 0 r-, 0 "0 0 (7� 0 N 0 m e L LO O CO O r-, O r.-I O N O O r4 r4 m r1 O 00 -4 N 0 0 O Cl O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O O O m O" 0 0 r-� N \6 r-4 4 e-1 4 e-a \O r-, m O 4 " O N 44 r-t N O O O 4 r-4 44 r-1 4 O N 00 O r-1 O N r� " O O O N N m 4 r-q 4 e-♦ 41 r.4 r-L O e-ti m O L1 O m O 4 r1 4 r-, 00 N N r-, N r. N O O r-1 N N r� m N r-q m N r1 m cV r-4 m N rV m N r-1 m N r-1 N N r-i m N r-1 m N ri m N r-a m N ri 1- N r q A N r-i N N r-q m N r-q N N ri m N -4 m N r-r N N r-i N N r-t m N r-, m N r-, m N r-q N N r-4 m N r-4 m N "q m N r•1 N N r-1 m CV r-, m N r1 m N r-1 4 N r-4 N N r-4 N N r 4 m N r-1 m N r A Lo CC) L! m L1 m Ln m LC) m Ln m Ln m Ln m L! m L! m L1 m Lt m L1 m Ln CM Ln cn L1 m L1 m L1 m L! m L1 m Ln m Ln m Lf cM L! m Ll m L! m Ln m Ln m Ll m LL m L1 m Lf m LC m L1 m Ln m Ln m LL) m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N N N 04 N N N N N 04 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N (V t, N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r~ RE: 934 WEST FRANCIS STREET, REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR TWO (2) ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 15, 1998 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Running Bear, LLC., represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects, requesting an Amendment to a Conditional Use approval. The original approval was to construct two (2) accessory dwelling units (ADUs) above the alley -accessed garages of the associated primary residences. The amendment requests approval to locate the ADUs below the garages instead of above, as previously approved. The property was split into two separate parcels via Ordinance Number 39, Series of 1997, and the current application continues to request approval to place one ADU on each of the two parcels. The property is located at 934 W. Francis and is legally described as Lots L and M, and Lots N and O, Block 3, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095, or by email at mitchh@c i . aspen. co.us. s/Sara Garton Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on November 28, 1998 City of Aspen Account g:/planning/aspen/notices/934adu2.doc Public notice 1. General. Prior to a public hearing on a development application, notice shall be provided to the public, pursuant to the terms of this section. Table 6-101 establishes the steps in the development review process at which time notice is to be given. 2. Content of notice. Every notice shall include the name and address of the applicant, the type of development application sought, date, time and place of the hearing, the address and legal description of the subject property if applicable, a summary of the development application under consideration, and identification of the decision -making body conducting the hearing and such other information as may be required to fully apprise the public of the nature of the application. 3. Manner of notice. Every notice shall be given in one or more of the following manners, as specified in Section 26.52.060(E)(4). a. Publication of notice. Publication of notice shall be provided by the planning agency at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing through publication in an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen in the legal notice section. The content of the notice shall be that described in Section 26.52.060(E)(2). b. Posting of notice. Posting of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a copy of the form from the planning agency, which shall be posted at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, by posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the property subject to the development application. The sign shall be made of suitable, waterproof materials, shall be not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and shall be composed of letters not less than one inch in height. The content of the notice shall be that described in Section 26.52.060(E)(2). C. Mailing of notice. Mailing of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a copy of the notice from the planning agency, which shall contain that information described in Section 26.52.060(E)(2). At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be sent by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail, or at least five (5) days if sent by hand delivery, to all owners of property within three hundred (3 00) feet of the property subject to the development application, and at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be sent by first class, postage pre -paid U.S. mail or hand delivery to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that owns-Troperty 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 no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. WITNESSES: (1) <T!`M G.t�2-7i SP (2) Roe* (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: I Staff Report ( Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check If Applicable) A1649 ee-Q-u I pta> No-rA AA&Wc. �tEAR) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check It Applicable) E 5 MOTION: VOTE: YES NO SARA GARTON YES NO JASMINE TYGRE YES NO ROGER HUNT YES NO TIMOTHY MOONEY YES NO ROBERT BLAICH YES NO STEVEN BUETTOW YES NO RON ERICKSON YES NO TIM SEMRAU YES NO _1 ^' L-.,tJC.,` :_f dl o TO: C'Am3s Edon C7NL Claude Ntoredi Ind'yfike, Davis ., CA.%: —zz CC; Tom Baker, Stan Ben-mi= Sim Chris 1e. Betsy irp, Randy Rudy, Edward Swft-ney Did' . 11 December , G98 1, R:i�5?saC;io�a aturiin �e: Trans rtaton Issts _ 9gfq This rr erporaandum responds to V our request fbr i ments on transportation issues rested to the proposed. NU\A/SkiCo Housing Project at Burlingame. More specific„ay, ,iou asked us to investigate t'he project might have on the MAA shuttle service, and. {2) questions relaxed to providing sate =sings of 1,11gh-" ay S Z for pedestrians. lw.Awms oN � SHu=F, 5FRvx,,v Our evaivation or possible impacts on the _VAA shuttle considered otuy one sonmin-o, In this sce=ito �-e sought to determine the feasibithy of e ctenditg the shuttle to the project without itcreasing the number o'Lvehicles or drives from today's levels_ The results of our analysis are i luwated by the map and timetable attached as Yigures A and S_ They indicate that an =ension under these conditions would indeed be possible. We caution to note, however, that implementation of lids scenario would require some reduction in service quabity to and fi-om the Music School campus on Cas le Creek 'Road. While buses would stW leave the =pus every 110 minutes, the running time, to points in town would increase by approxi =ely 15 minutes for every alternate bus. Similarly, the ;running time for every other bus froze points in town to the campus would likewise increase by 15 minutes. The incrse in mmning time is caused by the need to deU= to the Burl ame housing project. Service ftqueacy between the Burfingame housing project and bath aspen and the campus would be one bus per hour. Burlingame residents would also have the option of Busing the-valleyf buses passim, by on Mglnvay 8� �o reach Aspen or (pia transfer to the Castle Maroon sm-A e) the opus_ Valley buses currently pass Buttemiik headed for .A,speA at :04 and :34 past each hour. Heading out of !aspen, the valley buses pass Buttex7nilk at :21 and -51 past each hour. Reliance on the valley buses Nvould require MAAsxtco.tOC -7- DE,--. 1 9e A:- provision fa6ities Afor Saxe cToss�� of ----Ughway 3' by toot. -,'Keflance on e 11 e-; buses -,night akso require miviniz the -,Suttern- Ik bus stop Icacifities -5-om their !;UrrerA g location in Tdont ofll-hL, TnD at %'uqen to a more convemient location -6Mqer -.vest. A HIGHWAI M ?,?DESTRLkAN IFACM=1:5 E%4.,stinq Camddawt (--,urren-E,-,-Aossing conditions oklestTians along HiRhwav �Z ',n the "J"Icinity of the prol'ect. are ";ery ; oor. No fortnallcxcissing f=ijtles =St -,vitffin reasonable-,vakngdistance %)f the project ate_ The �-,,,Oseg A =iuti e-,msting es -are iocated at the New Stage JKoad underpass to the �:ast and the -AimorVA-ABC Rqgadzed intersection to the ;vest- Neither of these r"aclatles, however, -Iould -,e&sqna6iy be to accommodate project residents. 4 The wrrmlack of crossing Adities, makes t,raveTqMg a2hway .3'. hazardous for -pedestrians. Traffic �olume on the project site is an travel I - . Gear the pr J ,, , d speeds afe high. Current summer and wine-er ADT levels axe approximateiv 27, 30 )Q -and T wever, -vtl 'Cie$ Z4,'00 veblcles, zesvectively,' The spez-d jimir ��S 45 wh. I O 1. , typically travel about -5 to ILO mph abovetIms tevel. O-Taps in the tTaLr, Aream -are rare and tend to be of irsufficl ent duration to allow pedestrians ?o cross the Wghway without having to run. 7ai5 incre=s thefisk of tripping or �Iirping on ice 1,-,elalestrians are exposed to or owim -trace in the roadway. Aso, no median =iststoseparate the east and -westbound tzaffic tlo-ws. A median would :,ncrease effective (,Pap lenzhby Uowing pedestrians the option of Bossing only one direction of tmffic at a time, Futum Conw-fions. C-DOT will Noon re-�,-cnstrjct Egh way SZ in the �Aciiniri of the project. The reconqruction will involve widening -the road to two lanes in each direction between the .ABC and a point just east -;f the Buttermilk sid vm Owi Creek Road Will be relocated to intersect Highway 32 at ButterzWk -md a 3ignal will be installed at this intersection, 1 he transit stops located along -the .ajghwsy '11 (eventually) be consolidated and moved to the west. Frinafly, a bicycle./pedest4an underpass will be wnstructed near the e:dsting intersection of Owl Creek Road and TUghway 82. If implernented properly, these changes should generally improve conditions for pedestrians vAshing to cross the Wgft-,vay. 'Trope' implementation in this case would mean the following: ne -dgnalized intersection at Butfemitk is deli its accommod.-le the need ofpedesiriam. Pedestrian needs include 1) clearly marked crosswaVo across both Eighway 82 and relocated (>M Creek Road; (2) "countdown" and other elemonic pedestrian control devices incorporated into the signal fixtures; and (3) a cubed and AAA -compliant pedestrian Urefluge" incorporated into a ' S=ma ADS` is based ou data for the month5 d Ame. July and Auggta Winter= is based on data for the months dDeoember. Januazy. Fcbnmn,- and Much.. UAASKICO.DOC 2 �,i�h' way �2 median that is at bast eight iee �Nid�� ?he I����v�y �2 croqswaik should be located on the Aston side of located Owl Creek Row. 'M � {JW i�ciel VGN�i a}L! _fG Ulld,%I fi.w55 1 r••�+jnsr •.����.e a !4[!• i0 die eCi1.�l as��•7IV1{JIG. This =ui� +�edilce the amotnrnt �' �u;-of-directian : alldng required 10 travrl 'oetween -the --project Fite and the Buttesmvlk .area. Currmt r4 DOT pians :;all four locating the undemass aporaxuMtely 500 -Feet -vest ox the point "'vherc residents or the prejet v wouid access the trail that runs psra.ilel to the north side of -Eahwav U., see Figureigure ;. caiionn -would thus require ap roxizxmeiv =isoo feet of out -or -direction tzvei. -%rerage walk* speed -,s abouz 2.6.5Beet _minute. Talus, the deiay -=used by the need to travel out_,)z directzon is about f 60 this d.elav ov moving -he underpass �Cjfl-or_sa eet to the east -,vill create incezztives or �roje� residents to (a) use the Dedesularn underpass in Hew of the less-s, at -grade pedestrian crosswaik at the Butterrrnillc ;n rseci�oxn; �.;► walk afe to the 3utterrniik 15;i area imtead i-)f drive; and (c) walk to the Highway 32 eastbound transit Aop -and ride -the bus mitead of drive into Aspen. # e 13ic;�c'�✓t ec s artUnderpass is dengwd r 5cw C'yciLls E1poP Ffrttry Exit. Desi:enjmg the underpass for rapid entryr and exit by *ychsts poses a substantiai risk of bicycleipedestfiazn collisions. Such collisions are o mr fatal. Them. is a itrong :teed to sicxw cyclists down at points fiz rest; icted visibi 1iV and maneuverabihty Duch as underpasses. i A sic c.,Igpedesr _an �-zil is conoruc.ed on Ate oath side ref )Wgimay 31 between ;*e Ululerass c ciButtennilk one underpass wR11 only be useful to accommodate petdestri.an travei bcvxtea the project and Butterrr ik if a trail, is con 'acted ben.veen tese paints. Con edom- eriad Concern You and odms have expressed coznom, about the tknitng of the wn-L auction work on Highway 82. vis-a-vis the toning of the MAAlSkiCo housing project. These concerns relate to dk od that the project 1MIl be complete and ready far occupancy before the pedestrian imwovments to the highway are finished. We understand that it is }1e intention of SIdCo to have the project ready for occupancy by the late fall of 1999. CDOT anticipates that the highway construction will begirt before this time, but will not be Complete until at least several months later_ Lack of safe pedestrian crossing acilities during the highway construction -period would likely require SldCo to operate a dedicated employee shuttle service to and from the project during the 1999/2000 sk season. This price would be in addition to any service provided for zts =plovees elsewhere, We bave corzsidered the possibility that CDOTi could install the signal at ButterMlific as one of the first steps it takes during construction. Early availability of a signal could allow M"'RKICOMM skico to awid --he necessiry at rur=2 the ShUttie. This ;Slr,�ecau-e The signal vouid I ' ely. : Mr cross die nighway saf Safe :,-rossing o�ik'the higilway, 'n ' rL allow 'SMCO 2hw would J'llow the =ViOY_eeS tO access,access,U g oil!z hi - -other than LraVej *o Md -.I_XOM'NOr.k "TI A aeakated .ihutfle. W'Ze "efly discussed this issue wjt�q the conswl'=Ts C-DOT '.,as tjjjf,-d �,o desigr, mie Ixav 4 provide new highway. We intend totdflow up On this WOvamon..md hope to beable to 2l more ixiformticn to tou on the "Vwin-9ness Of `O 4Wc?�M this proipos . L 'M - madvle'O simai at PIAI=e keep in that a pc�$ANe aitc nans _,Ss - Pedest Ilk he ?�ghway during the B=ermilk zouid 10c to use 4"*JIa9_1zeM" '0 q (,Nons,tmction period. pr I dkeiy :0 Recommended oriliesfor.,nWroving..,,yighway 32 C7ossings- Because it is be easiest and cheavest to =Dleanenf_ we rxecon=end 'I hat improxiernent to the at-SI Ide Near -testa g of H-Srhway 3- at Buttermilk be 3iven top priority or i -tam pedestrian -Crassin I Ar I � implementation. ideally:, this will mean t-hat CDOS' .'x�staW a signal at the Butterm.i.k imersection eariy­on during the highway constmcton project. We frurther =Ommend that the second priority should be to construct the underpass It 301, S-diP approx=atefy the point -where the runway rotecon zone lyatersects lighwaY uch construction vUL of course. also require zctmuction of a bicycleioedestrian path on the south side of the hiw hway to i the undervass. to Buttermilk. -Ki in A good cotnpliMent to either or both of these actions would be to re-Ic ca te the -­ 'St 9 A RF'Tik bus stop,-, from the InAn at Aspen to a point a f�w hundred feet ".-0 the -'west- 'I'lis •would reduce vali g distance ftOM the N'IAA/SIdCO OrOj= (as well as the Maroon Creek affordabie housing), and would thus create an .ncerAjve f6r project residents to travel by bus more often- MAASKXO,D,OC OWN P it • DE, :-+s-_e y6: �LI ,-+_. _,..-l�lE,: -7e _4-e _0 ��e : � igurme ux ia� -Rube Rubey Park Bu ie► a Cam its Box 1 3:20 3:25 &.45 9100 9.30 �+ Bus .2 3:�Q 3:15 9:05 0:10 -- p.� 9.00 9:20 9:25 945 ,0:00� 10 : r Q Bin ' 9:30 9:5 i�}:OS0:10 - Bus 10:00 �0:25, 1O:4 1 Bus 2 10:30 1Q:d5 11:05 11:10 Bus 1 (etc:) ( -� �cfic.) ( ,;t (etc,) (ctc.) (etr.) MAaS .M-S \ If L low, jZFC77D8 ROV77E TOTAL P.07 •ti MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director THRU: Mitch Haas, Interim Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner I'm RE: Burlingame Seasonal Housing -- Conceptual Planned Unit Development DATE: December 15, 1998 SUMMARY: The City of Aspen, represented by Jim Curtis and Tom Baker, has applied for Conceptual, Planned Unit Development approval for a 69 residential unit, 203 bed, seasonal affordable housing facility to be located within the Burlingame Ranch parcel just north of the Maroon Creek Club affordable housing units. This area has been commonly referred to as "parcel B" during discussion about the Burlingame Ranch. There are two projects being discussed for the Burlingame Ranch parcel; the "Burlingame Seasonal Housing" and the `Burlingame Village." This is an application for the seasonal housing only and does not have any review or recommendations concerning the larger "Burlingame Village" project. The expected users of the seasonal housing would be the Aspen Music Festival and School (a.k.a. the Music Associates of Aspen) and the Aspen Skiing Company. The plan includes a conveyance of a newly created parcel to the MAA after completion of the Subdivision/PUD process. The MAA would then build, own, and operate the facility. There may also be shoulder season tenants of the facility that are not currently defined. Staff has summarized many of the issues related to this proposed development in the "Staff Comments" section of this memorandum and will present these during the meeting. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for this Burlingame Seasonal Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development, with conditions. APPLICANT: The City of Aspen, owner. Represented by Jim Curtis and Tom Baker on behalf of the Music Associates of Aspen and the Aspen Ski Company. LOCATION: Owl Creek Road and State Highway 82. See location map attached as Exhibit B. ZONING: The property is currently in Pitkin County and zoned AR-2 (2 acre residential). The land is proposed for annexation and will be rezoned to either AH 1-PUD or RMF-A- PUD. LOT SIZE: The entire Burlingame Ranch parcel is approximately 215 acres. This specific parcel, parcel B, has riot yet been subdivided and is not a legal lot. The subdivision will proceed with the final application. The proposed parcel is approximately 3.75 acres. LOT AREA, FAR: The application for final PUD will have an accurate lot area for the purpose of density and FAR calculations. CURRENT LAND USE: Vacant. PROPOSED LAND USE: Seasonal affordable housing and accessory uses. 69 residential units consisting of 203 beds (66 three -bedroom units. 2 two -bedroom units, and 1 one -bedroom manager's apartment). Accessory uses include a common facility with a lounge, laundry machines, and practice rooms for music students. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered this application. REVIENN' PROCEDURE: Conceptual Planned Unit Development. The Commission shall recommend City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Conceptual PUD's do not require a public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen purchased the Burlingame Ranch parcel in January of 1997. The subject area of this proposal was generally referred to as "parcel B" in discussions about the Burlingame Ranch. STAFF COMMENTS: There are two Burlingame projects that are currently being discussed. The "Seasonal Housing" and the "Burlingame Village." This is the seasonal housing project and does not include any review or recommendation concerning the larger Burlingame Village project. That project is still in its infancy and, while there are still public meetings on occasion and much public discourse, there has been no formal application made for Burlingame Village. 2 e. Staff has provided an analysis of the Seasonal Housing project in relation to specific topic areas. This discussion is detailed below. Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." A location Map of the property is included as Exhibit `B." A copy of the AACP Housing map is included as Exhibit "C." Agency referral comments have been included as Exhibit "D." The application has been included as Exhibit "E." AACP. The Burlingame parcel was not identified as a potential affordable housing site in the 1993 AACP. Nevertheless, two adjacent sites which provide some guidance for this review were identified with the following recommendations: The Zoline parcel: 1 ("great" rating), deed restricted lots via the growth management process. If this property ever submits a growth management application for development this would be an appropriate location for deed restricted lots. Pfister (Maroon Creek.Club AH): 2 ("good" rating), if in the event the Development Corporation cannot put the 39 deed restricted units in the location as approved at the intersection of Stage Road and Highway 82, the location should be re-evaluated and perhaps units should be dispersed throughout the property in a less -dense manner. The Community Plan is broad is scope and advisory in nature. While it gives a direction for the community, it does not give a specific recommendation for this property. There are goals in the Plan which speak to providing affordable housing opportunities in the metro area and within walking distance to transit service. There are goals of providing housing within the community where the users can contribute to the existing social fabric and not feel isolated. And, there are more neighborhood specific goals, not necessarily in the AACP, to preserve existing open space and native landscapes within the town center and the periphery of town. Relative to the goals of the AACP, the appropriateness of the Burlingame Seasonal Housing proposal at this location depends upon the philosophical opinions of the various Boards making decisions. There are goals of the AACP which do support this location. Berms. Simply -put, staff is concerned the proposed berms will be overwhelming in size. At their highest point, this landform represents a 28 foot gain in elevation -- higher than the allowable height limit in all of the City's residential zone districts. The internal courtyard level is approximately 8 feet below the base level of the adjacent Maroon Creek Club affordable housing. This modification of the land form is substantial and could be tempered while still providing an adequate buffer from the Highway. The applicant has indicated the berms can be lowered, and staff does not want to give the perception of a staff/applicant disagreement. But, staff generally believes that buildings do not necessarily need to be hidden. 3 Architecture. Staff has concerns about the architectural typology being suggested. The proposal is very modern in appearance and is in a prominent location on the entrance to Aspen adjacent to a more "barn -like," new rustic architectural style of the Maroon Creek Club affordable housing. Gate The proposal calls for a gating be installed at the entrance to the primary parking area for the facility. The main driving force behind this is explained as the need to protect the availability of one parking space for each residential unit. A gate with a parking pass is a simple solution to managing the potential problem. This may be more of a philosophical discussion, but the concept of a gated community congers - up a negative connotation about the place and its integration with the larger community. Jurisdiction. The Burlingame Ranch property is one undivided interest owned by the City of Aspen and located in Pitkin County. The entire parcel is proposed for annexation. Because the property is in the county, all land use actions are subject to annexation and are essentially considered pre -annexation agreements contingent upon the property becoming part of the City. If for some reason the property is not annexed, the land use decisions made by the City for this property would be invalid. ,S'ubdii4sion. The seasonal housing parcel, or parcel B, has not yet been subdivided or legally described as separate from the Burlingame Ranch parcel. The applicant will be applying for a Subdivision concurrent with the application for final PUD. Zoning. The applicant is considering a few options for the zoning of the property. As the Commission knows, the AH 1 /PUD was primarily established as an incentive zone for the private sector. With 100% affordable housing projects, the incentive zone is not necessarily needed and there may actually be a zone district which provides a better "fit" for this parcel. The applicant may be considering the RMF-A Zone District, with a PUD overlay, as a more appropriate condition. Transit. The transit conditions are more fully described in Exhibit "A." Generally, there are future plans for the Highway 82 corridor which affect the transit viability of this project. Interim strategies are important for an expected 2-3 year period and the applicant has been asked to provide a detailed plan for the final application. Ped/Bike Underpass. One of the obligations of the Maroon Creek Club is a pedestrian and bike underpass near the Highway 82 and Owl Creek Road intersection. This facility will improve pedestrian movement to and from transit. In fact, the final placement of the underpass may better benefit the seasonal housing if placed closer to the Base of Buttermilk. There are, however, some limitations as to how close to the intersection this facility may be placed considering grade changes and utility placements. Airport. The development is proposed just outside of the "Runway Protection Zone." This is the triangular -shaped delineation on the site plans and is essentially where the planes are most likely to crash. The applicant will need to apply for an avigation 4 easement with the FAA. The Airport administrator has also suggested the applicant use noise reduction construction techniques for the residences. A 30 dba reduction from exterior to interior is a common standard and one which Pitkin County requires through their land use code. Staff will most likely recommend this as a condition of the final PUD. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the Burlingame Seasonal Housing project, with the following conditions: l . This recommendation and any other City land use action on this application are subject to annexation. Failure to annex this property shall render any land use action by the City void. 2. The final PUD application shall include: a. an application for Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review, Growth Management, and Residential Design Standards. A pre -application conference with a member of the Community Development Departments required prior to submitting an application; b. delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD. This includes all variations; c. a proposed subdivision plat and a Lot Area analysis of the property for purposes of density and allowable floor area calculations; d. a transit plan addressing the interim and long-term conditions for the Summer, Winter, and Shoulder Seasons; e. a construction plan delineating minimal areas of construction activity and a plan to protect as much of the natural vegetation as possible. The plan shall also delineate the any special provisions for site access and staging, any necessary Highway 82 traffic mitigation measures, a planned route for modular delivery (considering bridge heights), a dust mitigation plan, provisions for contractor parking and any incentive programs for carpooling; f. delineation of the short-term and long-term maintenance of the site landscaping There shall be submitted a plan or documents describing the on -going maintenance of all common areas and provisions which ensure landscape success for a three-year period; g. incorporation an appropriate number of planting buffers in the parking areas. The requirements for said buffers are located in the Special Review section of the Land Use Code. The final application shall also delineate an appropriate amount of snow storage area. 3. The applicant is encouraged to lower the berm heights to a necessary minimum. 4. The applicant shall investigate the ability to provide temporary vehicular and emergency access to the center of the proposed courtyard with the Fire Marshall. A member of the City Planning Department is available to facilitate this discussion if desired. S. The applicant is encouraged to identify with the City Engineer all reports necessary for a full evaluation and submit those reports with the final application. Examples of typical information requested are a soils report and a drainage report. 6. The applicant is encouraged to submit a "mock-up" plat for review, submit with the final application a draft plat and draft Subdivision Improvements Agreement, and make the necessary amendments to said documents prior to second reading of the final Ordinance by City Council. k, 7. 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. 8. 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 the recommendation, unless otherwise amended by an entity with the authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend City Council approve this Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the Burlingame Seasonal Housing project, subject to final annexation of the property, with the conditions outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated December 15, 1998." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -= Location Map Exhibit C -- AACP Housing Map Exhibit D -- Referral Agency Comments Exhibit E -- Development Application Exhibit A Burlingame Seasonal Housing Conceptual PUD Staff Comments: A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements: 1. General Requirements: A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: AACP: The proposed development site is not specifically identified in the 1993 Community Plan. Nevertheless, two sites which provide some guidance for this parcel were identified with the following recommendations: The Zoline parcel: 1 ("great" rating), deed restricted lots via the growth management process. If this property ever submits a growth management application for development this would be an appropriate location for deed restricted lots. Pfister (Maroon Creek Club AH): 2 ("good" rating), if in the event the Development Corporation cannot put the 39 deed restricted units in the location as approved at the intersection of Stage Road and Highway 82, the location should be re-evaluated and perhaps units should be dispersed throughout the property in a less -dense manner. The Zoline parcel may not be developed as lots, but there has been presented the opportunity for a partnership with the City to develop an affordable housing project on a portion of the Zoline parcel. The Pfister parcel (Maroon Creek Club) was developed in the original development pattern (not re-evaluated). The affordable housing units were a mitigation requirement by the County and the property is now within the City of Aspen. Community Vision: The proposed development increases housing opportunities for seasonal workers in a location close to town and within a short commute. The housing is somewhat separate from tow and does not contribute well to the town's social fabric. Community Vitality: The proposed development is 100% affordable, addressing the community's desire to provide affordable housing opportunities. Open Space and Environment: While the proposed development would take place on an area that is undeveloped, it would be compact and allow for the preservation of open space at the Aspen Meadows Campus. Staff Comments 1 The AACP does not provide specific recommendations for this parcel. And, this is appropriate -- community plans are broad in scope and advisory in nature. This land use and the expected land users would be more consistent with the community plan if proposed in a location where they could better be a functioning part of the community's social fabric. As many of the elected and appointed officials realize, these user groups have historically been interspersed throughout the community and this has been a defining characteristic of the town. There is no question that preserving the opportunities for visiting students and promoting better living conditions for seasonal workers is a laudable effort. But, locating this facility in a more central location could better contribute to the sense of place and would allow the users to be a part of town, and feel less isolated. However, the opportunities in town are limited when there is such a large desire to preserve open areas and natural sage at the Aspen Meadows Campus. Thus, there is no clear direction from the AACP. This is an example of needing to balance competing community goals that have been expressed in the AACP. In general, staff believes there are goals in the AACP which support this proposal. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Developed to the southeast is affordable housing in several multi -family buildings and the primary Maroon Creek Club facilities. The parcel is bordered by the highway to the west and steeply ascends Deer Hill to the immediate north. Across the highway is the base of Buttermilk Mountain, and there is virtually no development, or potential for development, to the Southeast of the site. The proposed multi -family affordable housing development is compatible with the surrounding land uses. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The immediate area to the west is essentially built -out with the Maroon Creek Club facilities and their affordable housing. Other lands adjacent to the proposed site are either unbuildable because of the topography, the flight path, or the proximity to the highway. The proposed site does not affect the development potential of lands across the highway at the base of Buttermilk. This site is not expected to adversely affect the development potential of the remainder of the Burlingame parcel. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Staff Finding: If the application is to be approved, it must receive development allotments for 69 affordable residential units. This process is not necessary for the conceptual review. The Staff Comments 2 rowth Management Commission will consider this case and make a recommendation to City Council during the Final PUD review process. 2. Density: A. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if: 1. There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed development; 2. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development; 3. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of slope, ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers; 4. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution; 5. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the city; or 6. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding: There are sufficient utilities to serve this proposal considering the required upgrades and extensions. The land itself is suitable for development as there are no reported adverse natural or manmade conditions which cannot be adequately addressed. The final design for the subdivision (how much land will actually constitute the parcel) is in a somewhat conceptual stage. The applicant will be proposing a subdivision boundary line during the final application. Also, the applicant is considering zoning alternatives between the AH 1 and RMF-A Zone Districts. Density is a measurement of the number of homes per unit of land. Because the amount of land to be in the final subdivision has not be finalized, the density number are easier to discuss in lay terms -- 69 units, 203 beds. The amount of land under those units may vary between conceptual and final, but the number of units is not expected to change. Based on the applicant's expected lot size of 3.75 acres and a of AH1-PUD the Zoning Officer made the following comments: The number and size of units require approximately 245,030 square feet of Lot Area (after subtracting slopes) and the applicant would need to seek a density variance through the Special Review process allowed in the AHl Zone. (paraphrased) Under the RMF-A scenario, the applicant would most likely not be requesting a density variance but may need the flexibility of varying the minimum open space percentage through the PUD process. Staff Comments 3 Again, this is more of a technical consideration for the applicant to consider when locating the lot line and designating the zoning. The density requirement will be more fully addressed during the final application when a more accurate lot size is provided. B. Reduction in density for slope consideration. l . In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the following manor: a. For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district. b. For lands between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district. C. For lands between thirty-one (3 l) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone district. d. For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be allowed. 2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit. For parcels resting in more than one (1) zone district, the density reduction calculation shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district. 4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Definition of Lot Area. Staff Finding: Because the lot has not been defined yet, the applicant has not provided a Lot Area analysis. This, again, is for the applicant to consider when locating the subdivision boundary line. Areas of steep slopes and areas within dedicated surface easements do not contribute to this number. The final application will need to delineate the Lot Area for the purpose of density and allowable floor area, as recommended in the conditions of approval. 3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or ro«, house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district. . Staff Finding: This conceptual application does not include a proposed Zone District. The property is actually in Pitkin County and zoned AR-2, two acre residential. To answer an obvious question about jurisdiction, any approvals granted by the City prior to annexation essentially become pre -annexation agreements contingent upon final annexation and rezoning approvals. But, if the property remains in the County the City approvals would be invalidated. Staff Comments 4 The final application will propose either AH 1 /PUD or RMF-A /PUD, both of which allow for the uses which are being considered. 4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance between buildings; b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); C. Minimum front yard; d. Minimum rear yard; C. Minimum side yard; f. Minimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area; h. Trash access area; i. Internal floor area ratio; and j. Minimum percent open space. If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted shall be clearly indicated on the final plat development plan. Staff Finding: The final PUD will establish the dimensional requirements for the lot created. At this point, the applicant has not requested any variations to the dimensional requirements. However, depending upon the Zone District proposed, there may be a request in final review for variation. This could be in the open space requirement of the development. The reason for asking for such a variance would rest on the applicant's desire to limit the final size of the property. With very "tight" boundaries, the percentage of open space on the site would be less even though the final product would primarily be the same as if it were developed on a larger lot. The applicant has provided the expected dimensions in the application. Heights, setbacks, and distance between buildings all seem to be in conformance with either zone district being considered. These will be confirmed during the final review. At the time of final PUD, the applicant will propose the dimensional requirements and any variation. And, the final PUD approval language will be specific to those allowances and any variations. 5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. b. The parking need of any nonresidential units. C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Comments 5 d. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the city. Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change Staff Finding: The applicant has -suggested 80 parking spaces for the development. This is one space per residential unit (69) and I I "guest" spaces. The applicant has consulted with the property manager at the Marolt Housing project in considering the number of parking spaces that should be provided as a minimum. As many elected and appointed officials realize, there is a concerted effort by the City to minimize the reliance on the automobile in all land use decisions. This has the obvious consequence of balancing the desire for a "no car town" and the more realistic needs of people who will live and have a car here. The Marolt project was an effort in providing fewer spaces than "what the market would dictate." Their parking supply is roughly 1 space for every two residential units (4-6 beds), but their property manager has reported the parking issue as an on -going problem. Staff divides the parking issue into car storage and car use. In almost any scenario, the overwhelming desire is to limit the reliance on the automobile in everyday life. There exists, and there will continue to exist, a need to have a car even if use is infrequent. So, while there may be an opportunity to use a car less, there is still a need to store the car while it is not being used. Staff has a concern about this parcel becoming a parking lot with an accessory housing development and is, thus, appreciative of the applicant seeking to limit the availability of parking to a practical minimum. In either zoning scenario being contemplated, parking for affordable housing can be reviewed under the Special Review provisions by the Commission. Staff is in agreement with the proposed parking scenario. If, however, there are Commission concerns about parking, those concerns should be raised and discussed to give the applicant an opportunity to address those concerns with the final application. Staff is concerned with the lack of parking buffers to break-up the extent of asphalt. There are specific standards for planting buffers which may be varied by the Commission through the Special Review procedures. The applicant should be aware of these standards for the final application. 6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a Staff Comments 6 common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it: a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is intended. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities. Staff Finding: The final application will need to demonstrate how the common areas are maintained and the manner in which they are owned. The applicant will most likely remain the owner and operator of the facility. However, this may not always be the case and the continual maintenance of these areas will need to be defined and ensured. 7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: The Conceptual Development Plan includes a Landscape Plan that specifies an appropriate treatment. The final application should explain the treatment for the bermed area (to ensure landscape success for at least three years) and the expected maintenance of the entire property grounds. 8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. ' Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the presen-ation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. Staff Finding Building envelopes have been placed appropriately considering the natural terrain and surrounding land uses. Likewise, the proportions and massing of the buildings seem to be appropriate, however some one-story elements may provide relief and visual interest. Staff Comments 7 Staff has concerns about the architectural character of the development. While staff understands that the intent of this provision is not to "control [the] architectural character" or "stifle the design," the primary concern, and reason for raising the issue, is compatibility with the adjacent development and the visual entrance to town. While the very modern typology is consistent with the Meadows Campus, it is very different from the more "barn -like," new rustic character of the Maroon Creek Club Housing. This concern about the architecture may not be shared by the Commission or by Council; however, if there is a concern it should be raised during this review so the applicant has an opportunity to respond. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Staff Finding: Lighting should be downcast and no up -lighting of landscape elements or architectural features should be allowed. The applicant has, in concept, agreed to these requests and would probably, from staffs understanding, light the project in an appropriate manner without such a request. Staff has recommended the final application specify how the project will be lighted. Compliance with the criteria will be recommended condition of final approval. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Staff Finding: The development has been appropriately clustered. 11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Staff Finding: The applicant has received comments from many of the utility agencies during the referral process. The costs of the utility upgrades will be the responsibility of the applicant unless specific waivers are granted. The applicant's waiver requests will be considered by Council during the final PUD review. One primary concern of staff is the review and construction schedule the applicant is pursuing. Very early in the process, the applicant submitted an aggressive time line and staff has made every effort to accommodate that schedule. To that end, staff is suggesting a few time strategies for the applicant. Plat and SIA. The applicant should submit a plat "mock-up" for review during this conceptual review process -- the earlier, the better. The final application should include a Staff Comments 8 draft plat and draft Subdivision Improvements Agreement. These documents can be reviewed with the final PUD, amended, and resubmitted for the final hearing with the City Council., This could save up to 4-6 weeks. The applicant should determine the requirements for each utility agency and provide letters of intent or letters of agreement with the final application if possible. This could save up to 2-4 weeks. Building permits. The applicant should meet with the Building Department to review all criteria for pre -built structures (off -site construction), all criteria for utility work and site preparation that can be done without a building permit, and any state housing requirements for modular construction. The applicant should fully understand all utility installation timing requirements (the Fire Marshall may want all fire suppression infrastructure in -place prior to the modulars arriving, etc.). Another concern of staff s relates to the road cut for emergency access. This is the graded area to the north of the buildings. A cut like this may visually separate the building site from the base of Deer Hill. Staff has expressed a desire for the emergency access to be incorporated in the courtyard area by widening the sidewalks. - This could eliminate the need for the cut, reduce maintenance needs, and provide the ability for residents to drive in the interior on "move -in day." Staff is recommending the applicant investigate this alternative with the Fire Marshall for the final application. Staff can facilitate that discussion, if needed. The Neater Department expressed a concern about the applicant's base mapping information. The applicant should clarify the existing conditions with this department. The Parks Department has expressed concerns about the proximity of the trail to Highway 82, the affects of highway snow removal, and drainage across the trail. Also, the final application should delineate construction activity areas which will protect as much of the native vegetation as possible. The final application will need to include a PM10 mitigation plan and a dust control plan for the construction phase. The Sanitation District will require a line extension, a collection system agreement, and possibly shared service agreements. Also, the existing house has a manhole near the front steps. An easement to access this manhole should be granted to the ACSD. 12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation. a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. Staff Comments 9 C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing access to a public street. e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances. Staff Finding: The proposed street appears to meet the City's requirements. Each dwelling unit will have access to the private road which connects to the public road system. Not all of the residential buildings will be within 60 feet of the roadway (criteria d). In fact, some units are as far as 260 feet from the roadway. Providing an access drive, even on a temporary basis, could address this concern and provide an easier method in moving furniture, etc. The non-residential commons building does have direct access to the proposed roadway. Staff is recommending the applicant consider this internal driveway option. The street should be retained in private ownership without becoming a City -maintained facility. The Planning Department has concerns about the number of "unbroken" parking spaces without intervening planting buffers. There exists a parking buffer requirement for multi- family housing which the Commission can vary through Special Review. As currently proposed, there is little to visually break-up the parking and provide shade. Staff is recommending the applicant consider the planting buffer requirement. Traffic. The applicant has submitted a full traffic report to the City's Transportation Planner. The report analyzes the intersection performances before and after the trip generation from the proposed project and finds no significant deterioration of those capabilities resulting from the project. Transit. There is currently a downvalley bus shelter across from Buttermilk and an upvalley bus shelter at the Inn at Aspen. Currently, the only way to access the upvalley stop is running between highway traffic, which is not acceptable to staff. There is planned a future pedestrian/bike underpass traversing Highway 82 and a signalized intersection at West Buttermilk Road. These improvements will make "getting to the transit" much simpler and safer. The transit concerns break down to Summer and Winter and short-term and long-term, as follows: Staff Comments 10 Summer Winter Short -Term Long -Term MAA shuttle MAA shuttle services' services No Plan Transit from Provided Buttermilk For summer use, the MAA has indicated they will be seeking a service arrangement with RFTA as part of their summer loop. For the most part, the MAA students will be on a regular schedule of going into town in the morning and returning after the day's events. This condition is not expected to change with the long-term improvements in the immediate area, and the service arrangement would be expected to continue. The winter condition is vastly different. The long-term solution works fairly well. Upvalley, downvalley, and Highlands service will be easy to access with the signalized crossing. And, those employed at Buttermilk will not need the use of transit to get to work. The short-term condition needs some system other than people running across Highway 82 to catch a bus. This is not a solution, it is a dangerous condition and one that should not be allowed. The applicant recently met with the City's Transportation Planner and a representative from RFTA. There are some ideas to address the interim transportation condition that, in concept, sound feasible and appropriate. Staff remains confident that a reasonable solution will be presented during the final review. There is one other time frame -- the "shoulder seasons." Both expected user groups have a rather defined season but there may be off-season users who lease the facility. Their transit needs are less defined but should be considered. Again, the long-term condition is more accessible and may not need any special transit provisions. The short-term condition is less desirable and may need additional transit service, depending upon the user group(s) who may lease the facility. The applicant will need to provide a transit plan that addresses the Winter, Summer, and "shoulder seasons" for both the interim and long-term Highway 82 crossing scenarios. "Running across the road" is not an acceptable option. Staff Comments 11 4* j.5 7 1 7 J- - EXPRESS� 4. annexed is a* adjacent zonwio L CONTEXT AND ZONING MAP v Wes ot the ro"ay ��o the cwvt*rW* of J 1he h.ghway. BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING f MAROON "=Emma= CREEK CLUB 0 300 600 750 1500 GOLF COURSE I'S300'-O" JOEDE SCHOEBERLEIN - SITE PLANNING OCTOBER 16,1998 MAROON CREEK BRIDGE H A A A y T E A G LI E A A C 14 1 T E C T S A N Cory Point 0� 3 i 1 :9 a I f ivror�e cAt... ,Z .4(% (,�� HOUSING (Metro Area) Aspen Area Community PI, Legend Potential Affordable Housing Sites --•---- Aspen Citv Limits ----- White River National Forest bound i 5 Red Mountair, i �� Gtee16 6 \. HAQ . J �' I 4rI 10 12 r _ . 9 �. 15 ' -9 i Smuggler Mountain a 8 a IAspen I2� Gee Mountain 13 14 I ��¢' I------�---------------------------- ----� 0 cc White River i National Forest - — tD N MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer e z- Date: November 23, 1998 Re: Burlingame Seasonal Housing -- Conceptual P.U.D. The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their November 11, 1998 meeting, and we have the following comments: 1. P.U.D. Plat - The application includes a number of drawings, many of which may not be needed to be included in the final plat. Rather, certain information may need to be transferred to plat sheets. The final plat needs to meet the requirements of Code §26.88.040.D. La and 2.a. The entire parcel must be shown and the subdivided portion. The subdivided portion must be fully monumented. In addition to the certificates specified in the above referenced Code section, also include certificates for the Parks Department, Environmental Health, Fire Marshal, Airport Administrator, and each of the utilities. Be sure that the surveyor states that all easements of record as indicated on title policy number , dated [within past 12 months] are shown on the plat. Include the avigation easement. Note that information shown on any sheet of the final plat must be consistent with the same information appearing on any other sheet. The final plat (and the subdivision improvements agreement) should be submitted concurrently with the final PUD application in order to reduce critical path time elements to construction and occupancy. The existing conditions map should include any glacially deposited boulders larger than 5' that are on the surface, and, if there are any, they should be preserved and indicated on the landscaping plan. 2. Parking - The project appears to provide sufficient vehicle parking spaces to accommodate the needs. 3. Construction Phase - Item number 11 below discusses an environmental protection plat sheet that shows construction delivery, staging, storage and parking areas. It should be a condition of, approval that the majority of construction workers leave their vehicles at park and rides and travel to the jobsite by RFTA bus or by shuttle vans or buses provided by the project contractor. For the current Highlands construction, the County has granted permission for construction workers to park at the airport intercept lot. The applicant should obtain such permission from the County before the final PUD application. A temporary access permit will be required from CDOT for the construction phase. 4. Site Drainage - The site development approvals need to include the requirement of meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and Engineering Department's interim design and construction standards. The final plat should include drainage mitigation plan (24"06". size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan), as well as a temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. 'These and a report must be signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. The drainage plan must be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer prior to signing the final plat. 5. Trash & Utilities - All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. For pedestals and transformers, easements must be provided and should be indicated on the final plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. Any units that may be condominiumized must have separate utility service connections and meters. The applicant indicated that existing overhead utilities along the southwesterly property will be undergrounded in conjunction with the proposed development. This is consistent ,with other developments in the City. 6. Environmental health Department - The application did not include a PM-10 mitigation plan for the increased traffic nor a fugitive dust control plan for the construction phase. These must be reviewed and approved prior to signing the final plat. Another requirement of the project mitigation will be to provide bicycle racks. These should be shown in the final plat. 7. Fire Protection District - Various fire protection details are not yet clear on the draft plat and need to be remedied for the final plat. These will relate to access around the perimeter, hose lengths, hydrant locations, sprinklering, turning radii, turn arounds. Any gates across emergency access routes must be locked with Knox box or lock. Emergency access width is required to be 20 feet and to be maintained and drivable, free of snow and obstructions, on a year round basis. This should be documented in the project approvals, subdivision improvements agreement and any other agreements, such as declarations or covenants, that may be drafted for the project. 8. City '"later Department - The project will be subject to well development charges. The proposed water utility engineer has good knowledge of the City system and requirements. The applicant needs to consult with the Water Director concerning connection and looping requirements. Cautionary: Backflow preventers require a large amount of space. Be sure to provide sufficient space in utility rooms. Water line easements must be 10' on each side of the centerline of the water line as constructed for a total width of 20'. The easements must be conveyed by plat amendment at the time of acceptance by the Water Department of the water lines, which must be prior to acceptance of any building permit applications. There is concern about the conceptual water plan that the system is not correctly planned to accommodate the proper location of fire hydrants and perhaps other fire protection requirements. The .proposed Highway 82 underpass that is discussed in the application will require the relocation of a 30" water line. The Water Department will need to know the timing of underpass construction. 9. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - Although the District was unable to be represented, a standard comment is that the applicant needs to meet with ACSD to determine project. requirements and performance standards. 10. Parks Department - The trail alignment along Highway 82 needs to be further from the highway, beyond the limits of highway snow removal impacts. Trails must be built to City trail standards with 10' wide, 6" thick concrete, and 2' shoulders that are roadbased, topsoiled and seeded. The site is located on one of the quickest disappearing eco-system types. A separate sheet for the plat should be provided, titled environmental assessment plan, or similar title, that clearly reflects the preservation intent, and should show protective measures, including Type R fencing, to prevent disturbance outside of approved building and construction activity envelopes. (The plan should also show proposed material delivery and staging locations, parking for cranes and concrete trucks, concrete truck clean out locations, construction parking, and so on.) The site restoration plan will require specific grass seed mixes that need to be approved by the Parks Department. 11. Building Department - Regarding the request for expedited construction schedule on page 10, item 2, of the application, it will be the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all design work with engineers and utilities proceeds in an orderly manner so that each utility company will have necessary service agreements and design work completed to permit signing the plat and meeting the City Engineer's approval. In addition to fast tracking the final plat so that the building process is not slowed down, the applicant should also be preparing the subdivision improvements agreement for the same reason. The water system, including fire protection capabilities, will need to be in place before the foundation permit is issued. On page 11, item 6 discusses a license for grading and landscaping on adjacent City owned land. This could be approved during the PUD process and conveyed on the final plat. 12. Airport Administrator - Proposed construction within 20,000 feet from the nearest point of a runway must file a notice with the FAA. Construction may not extend vertically into a plane of 100:1 slope within that zone. 3 At this time, there is no FAA regulation regarding noise attenuation in construction practices within the above stated zone area. (The PUD process allows local governing authorities to condition land use approvals as deemed reasonable and advisable. Since the local airport authorities and the FAA recommend 30 dba reduction doors and windows, this should be entered as a condition of approval.) 13. Planning Office - The Planning Office will compile all comments. At this time, there are some preliminary observations. The proposed berm along Highway 82 is too high. The proposed gate is not consistent with community policies to avoided gated conditions. There are too many parking spaces in a row without being broken up by trees, or other landscaping. There needs to be sufficient light (down cast) in the parking lot for comfort and safety without resulting in light pollution. There may be some opportunity for the applicant's, to improve the revenue stream by use of rooms by non-profit organizations during shoulder seasons. 14. Sno`v Storage - The applicant needs to designate snow storage areas on the final PUD site plan. 15. Improvement Districts - The applicant should be required to agree to join any improvement districts that are formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of - way and to provide a signed and notarized agreement with recording fees prior to the final building inspection. 16. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes , street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of - way from the city community development department. DRC Meeting Attendees Staff: Phil Overeynder, Nick Adeh, Stephen Kanipe, Ed Van`,Valraven, Scott Smith, Betsy Kipp, John Krueger, Stephen Ellsperman, Chris Bendon, Mitch Haas, Stephanie Millar, Chuck Roth Applicant's representatives: Jim Curtis, Michael Hassig, Tour Baker 98M 191 EI To: From: Date: Re: MEMORANDUM Chris Bendon, Community Development Department Betsey Kipp, Environmental Health Department 6�- November 30,1998 Burlingame Seasonal Housing - Conceptual Review RFC, C0444 AS"FND01998 CO%M r The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Depai°tment has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 : "It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal device." The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the increased flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD. The applicant must provide documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal. At detailed submission, the applicant must provide a letter of intent from ACSD that they will provide wastewater service for the Burlingame housing project. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55: "All buildings, structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system." The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen Water Department needs to determine if adequate water is available for the project. The City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality. A letter of agreement to serve the project must be provided. A letter of agreement from the Water Department must be provided at detailed submission. WATER QUALITY RYIPACTS: Section 11-1.3: "For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted." A drainage plan to mitigate the water quahl}- impacts from drive and parking areas will be evaluated by the City Engineer. This application is not expected to impact down stream water quality. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Bendon, City Planner FROM: Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer RE: Burlingame Seasonal Housing - Conceptual Review DATE: December 1, 1998 The Burlingame Seasonal Housing project will be reviewed as a PUD which allows for the dimensional requirements, with the exception of maximum allowed floor area and permitted density, to be established through the PUD process. A topographic survey and slope analysis for the subject parcel will need to be provided by the applicant in order for staff to provide an accurate determination of lot area, density and allowed floor area. Staff does not feel that the proposed floorplans of the units meet the definition of "dormitory" in that each of the units contains separate bathroom and kitchen facilities and are entirely self-sufficient. The units do however meet the definition of dwelling unit. The AH 1-PUD zone district requires the following minimum lot area per dwelling unit for multi -family dwellings on a lot subdivided from a parcel of more than 27,000 square feet: 1 bedroom: 1,250 2 bedroom: 2,100 3 bedroom: 3,630 Based on the proposed 66 three bedroom units, 2 two bedroom units and 1 one bedroom unit, a minimum of 245,030 of net lot area is required. The subject parcel contains approximately 163,350 square feet of gross lot area, without taking the required slope reduction into account. The applicant will therefore have to receive a density variance through the special review process. Until an accurate determination of lot area is provided, staff does not have adequate information to calculate the permitted floor area for the parcel. All dimensional requirements will be verified at time of building permit application as the information provided in this packet does not contain adequate detail for this level of review.