HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19991116 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1999, 4:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. COMMENTS
A, Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
HI. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. WORKSESSION
4:00-4:45 A. Code Amendments, Chris Bendon -~'~h°Oq ~ ~ 'C~
V. PUBLIC HEARING
5:00- 5:30 A. ~,~ ~'/'cR~ 4~3..~ ~: ~
Second Aspen Subdivision. Lots~:~ and #7 ~AD~Ud, Special Review, Nick
Lelack
5:30- 6:00 B. Cod~ Amendment- Planned Unit Develo. pment, Chris Bendon
VI. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
6:oo. ?:o0 A. Gramiger 70/30 Sketch Plan Public Meeting with City Council and
Stakeholders, Julie Ann Woods
VII. ADJOURN
Times are approximate. We recommend applicants arrive at least 1/2 hour prior to the scheduled time.
13 ---,
f
f'
1
l
rY BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
A2.1 SGALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
23'-S"
I MAIN LEVEL FLOOR FLAN
A2.f SCALE: 1/4" =1'-O"
VI
0
m
n
F.A.R. BONDS ® OF NET LIVA15LE
MAIN LEVEL:
NET -LIVA LE _ 564 S.F.
BASEMENT:
NET LIVABLE= 156 S.F.
NET LIVABLE TOTAL = "t 00 S.F.
ALLOT ADU BONUS = i00 S.F. / 2 = 550 S.F.
N
�u
a i s s If 11 a
SCALE: 1/8" = V-0"
T3US EXI LAUDER ID CE -A
Aspen, Colorado
Net Livable for Determmmg ADU F.A.R. Bonus Bill Poss and Associates
November 2, 1999 Architecture and PlanninM
Aspm Colorado
2 BA5EMENT FLOOR FLAN
A2.1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
I MAIN LEVEL FLOOR FLAN
MAIN LS\1Ei.:
6R0SS=6Cq S.F.
BASEMENT:
F'SR'IMETER= 16.8'
5.6'/g8.8=6%
6% OF 60q S.F. (6KOSS)
TOTAL = 563 S.F.
EW ILDIN6 TOTAL S.F.=
60q + 56.5= 6453 S.F.
0
I
R ��i i
. 1 2 s N �+ is a
SCALE: 1/8" =11 0"
LAUDER RESIDENCE . Al-'ro""" U
Aspen, Colorado
13
AnV F.A.R. Bill Poss and Associates
November 2, 1999 .Acaprchitecture and Planning
.ate-,
�A.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM:
Christopher Bendon, PlanneI&
RE:
Land Use Code Amendments — Work Session
DATE:
November 16, 1999
SUMMARY:
On November 2, 1999, staff distributed an annotated version of the Land Use Code
chapter headings. Prior to your November 16th meeting, please review the packet
with your copy of the Land Use Code. Staff has provided comments on each section
and either tasks or questions for the Commission to consider. Please bring your
packet to the work session.
The purpose of this scoping process is to create a general direction. The packet will
then be used as a "guide -book" and staff will initiate individual code amendments
based on the guide. During these discussions, there will be a fine balance between
discovering a philosophical direction for certain Land Use Code provisions and the
more fine-tuned wording of the actual regulations. The Commission should
concentrate on the philosophy of the regulation, the appropriate process, and the
major themes around which criteria for the specific types of development should be
tailored. Remember, this is a guide and the specific code language will come back
through the Commission — staff is seeking a general direction to which language can
be written, not the specific language itself.
Considering the time constraints that are typical of more recent Commission
meetings, staff does want to point out that this process will take several meetings and
there is no expectation to cover the entire packet in on sitting. After this initial work
session(s), staff will prepare draft language and notice future meetings at the
appropriate time to gather the input of interested citizens.
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Nick Lelack, PlannerK
RE: Second Aspen Subdivision Lots 6 & 7, Conditional Use ADU, Residential
Design Standards, Special Review for Subdivision Variance - Public Hearing
DATE: November 16, 1999
APPLICANT:
Laura and Gary Lauder
REPRESENTATIVE:
Alice Davis, Davis Horn Inc.
LOCATION:
Second Aspen Company
Subdivision Lots 6 and 7
870 and 866 Roaring Fork Drive
ZONING:
R-15, Moderate -Density Residential
CURRENT LAND USE:
Two (2) vacant, undeveloped lots.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Single family house with a
detached 700 sq. ft. ADU.
LOT SIZE:
65,027 square feet for both lots.
FAR:
Allowable: 5,525 sq. ft.
Proposed: 5,500 sq. ft.
SUMMARY:
This is a 3-part application: 1) Conditional Use
approval of a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU), providing an exemption from GMQS; 2) A
variance from the Residential Design Standards; and
3) Special Review for a subdivision variance to
reduce the fire lane and emergency access easement
from 20 feet to 16 feet.
1
STAFF COMMENTS:
Laura and Gary Lauder have applied for the following:
1) Conditional Use approval for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU);
2) A variance from the Residential Design Standards for a single family house;
and
3) Special Review for a subdivision variance to reduce the fire lane and
emergency access easement from 20' to 16' .
The single family house and ADU are to be located on lots 6 and 7 in the Second
Aspen Company Subdivision. An ADU will provide for an exemption from
GMQS.
AD U
The detached ADU includes approximately 700 square feet of net livable space.
The plans include one bedroom plus a study, one bath, and generous kitchen and
living area on the main level, as well as an office and a storage/mechanical area
in the basement. Based on comments from staff, the applicant has proposed one
shared driveway access for the single family house and detached ADU, and
located the ADU parking space behind the ADU barely visible from the street.
The ADU meets or exceeds all development standards and has been reviewed and
recommended for approval by the appropriate referral agencies. The unit far
exceeds the minimal living conditions typically provided, and should provide for
a high quality living environment for the family's caretaker.
Residential Design Standards
The applicant is requesting a waiver of one Residential Design Standard
concerning the volume standard for windows within 9 to 12 feet of floor height
on the primary residence. Section 26.410 of the Land Use Code states that
"Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor
level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above
the finished first floor." Waiving the window standard will allow the. placement
of these windows as proposed without a Floor Area penalty.
Staff does not find the variance criteria to be met and does not support the
variance. The window standard allows for larger windows but requires a floor
area penalty. The purpose of this standard is to allow either large houses or large
windows — but not a large house with large windows. This is a vacant lot with no
constraints and the house can be designed to meet the City's Residential Design
Standards.
The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC), or as in this case the Planning
and Zoning Commission, may waive the Residential Design Standards upon
finding the proposal meets one of the variance criteria for each of the standards.
Staff s response to these criteria are included in Review Criteria and Staff
Findings, in Exhibit A.
2
Subdivision Variance
Pursuant to Section 26.580.020(f), Engineering Design Standards, all
subdivisions are required to have fire lane and emergency access easements
twenty (20) feet in width where required by the fire marshal. The applicant is
requesting Special Review for a subdivision variance to reduce this easement
from 20' to 16' .
City Engineer Nick Adeh has approved the conceptual site plan showing the
easement reduction. Aspen Fire Marshal Ed Van Walraven signed a letter
supporting the reduction in exchange for a legally binding agreement from the
owner of lot 7A (the Lauder family) to provide a 50 feet turning radius into the
building site, a full fire truck turn -a -round at the future residence, and upgrade
the required 13D fire sprinkler system to a 13R system. Staff supports this
request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending:
1. Approval of the detached ADU with conditions;
2. Denial of a variance to place a street facing principal window in the "no
window zone" on the South elevation; and
3. Approval of the subdivision variance to reduce the emergency access
easement from 20 feet to 16 feet with conditions.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
• Conditional Use for ADU. The Commission shall approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove the application at a public hearing.
• Residential Design Standards. Upon receipt of an application for Residential
Design Standards, the Community Development Director shall determine if
the development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Standards. If
an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Standards, the
applicant may either amend the application or seek a variance. The Design
Review Appeal Committee (DRAG) may grant relief from the Residential
Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be:
a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or,
b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question;
or,
c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
• Special Review for subdivision variance. The Commission shall by
resolution approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development
application, after recommendation by Community Development.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, deny
the variance from the Residential Design Standards, and approve the Special
3
Review for a subdivision variance to reduce the emergency access easement from
20 feet to 16 feet"
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A --
Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B --
Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C --
Vicinity Map
Exhibit D --
Development Application
Exhibit E --
Site Photographs
M
EXHIBIT A
LAUDER ADU, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, SUBDIVISION VARIANCE
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.425.040, Standards Applicable to all Conditional Uses
(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 Finding:
A deed restricted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is consistent with the purposes,
goals, objectives, and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP).
Supplying and increasing the affordable housing stock is clearly a goal of both the
AACP and Land Use Code.
The intent of the City's R-15 zone district is "to provide areas for long term
residential purposes with customary accessory uses." ADU's meet the "long term
residential purposes" intended for this zone district because they are rented for terms
of no less than six (6) months. In addition, ADUs are customary accessory uses
throughout Aspen.
(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 Finding:
The proposed detached ADU is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity. The subject property is surrounded by single family houses,
some of which have accessory dwelling units, and vacant parcels. The detached
ADU enhances the neighborhood because of its size, location, and design.. Detaching
the unit from the single family house produces two (2) structures that are smaller in
size than one large combined house/ADU. The smaller sizes of the two (2) structures
is consistent with the neighborhood, particularly on the City side of the Roaring Fork
River.
(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.
5
Staff Finding:
The ADU's location, size, and design will be visually compatible with the primary
residence on the property and in the immediate vicinity. Similar to the surrounding
parcels, the unit's trash and service deliveries will be accessed from the street in front
of the property, Roaring Fork Drive. Based on comments from staff, the applicant
has proposed one shared access for the single family house and detached ADU, and
located the ADU parking space behind the ADU. The parking space will be barely
visible from the street, thereby minimizing the impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation. Staff is appreciative that the applicant eliminated a separate access to the
ADU and moved the parking space from the side of the unit, completely visible from
the street, to the back of the unit.
The proposed ADU is a one story structure containing 700 square feet in a one -
bedroom plus study, one bath layout. There will be a living room and full kitchen
plus substantial mechanical/storage space. Staff believes these are important
characteristics which promote high quality living environments.
No noise, vibrations, or odor related impacts are anticipated.
(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 Finding:
Infrastructure capacity is sufficient for this development and utilities are available.
The applicant will need to complete a tap permit for sanitation service and is subject
to connection fees. The ACED may require the provision of separate taps for each
unit. Park fees are payable at building permit for the difference in the number of
bedrooms per unit.
(E) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
Staff Finding:
The conditional use mitigates itself. The family's caretaker of seven years will
occupy the unit year -around. The unit will be deed -restricted for working resident
usage.
(F) The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards
imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other
applicable requirements of this title.
Staff Finding:
The development appears to be in conformance with all other applicable standards of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and land use code. The only exception is the
request to reduce the width of the access from 20 feet to 16 feet, for which the
applicant has gained approval.
Section 26.520.020, Development Review Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units
A. General provisions.
l . Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred
(300) square feet and not more than seven hundred (700) square
feet. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the Housing
Authority's guidelines for resident occupied units. If the unit is rented,
it 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.
Staff Finding
The proposed detached ADU will contain approximately 700 square feet in a one
bedroom plus a study, one bath layout on the main level, with a subgrade office. The
applicant understands that the unit will be deed restricted, registered with the housing
office, and available for rental to eligible working residents of Pitkin County for
periods of no less than six (6) months. The Lauder family plans to rent the unit to
the family's longtime caretaker; the caretaker plans to live in the unit year -around.
One ADU parking space -is provided for behind the unit and is barely visible from the
street.
2. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to all other
dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district.
Staff Finding
This standard is not applicable because the proposed unit is detached.
3. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall utilize alley access to the
extent practical.
Staff Finding
This standard is not applicable because the proposed unit is detached and there is no
ally access to the unit.
B. Development review standards. The review standards for an 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 located within the neighborhood, and assuming year -
VA
around occupancy, shall not create a density pattern inconsistent with
the established neighborhood;
Staff Finding
The detached ADU will be similar in design and materials to the primary residence,
and therefore will be compatible with the primary residence and development within
the neighborhood. The primary unit will be centrally located. on the property and
consist of over 4,000 square feet; the detached ADU will consist of 700 square feet
and be located off to the side and downslope from the primary residence. Hence, the
ADU will be compatible and subordinate in character to the main house and
neighborhood development. In addition, the ADU will be occupied year -around but
should not create a density pattern inconsistent with the established neighborhood
because the main residence and ADU are being constructed on two (2) lots, giving
the appearance of one house per lot. As a result, this unit exceeds this standard.
2. For detached accessory dwelling units, 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.
Staff Finding
The applicant is not requesting variances from the dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district.
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 Sections
26.520.030(B)(2)(a) through (8) provided that the nonconformity is
not increased.
Staff Finding
This standard is not applicable because the subject property is vacant.
4. Conditional use review shall be granted pursuant to Section 26.425,
Standards applicable to all conditional uses.
Staff Finding
Conditional use review approval is also being requested in this application. Refer to
the previous Review Criteria and Staff Findings discussion for Conditional Use
approval.
C. Bandit Units.
Any 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
N.
requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as determined by the Chief Building
Official.
Staff Finding:
Does not apply. This is not a bandit unit.
D. GMQS/Replacement Housing Credits.
Accessory dwelling units shall not 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 of approval of the
housing designee and the standards of Section 26.100.090 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, "Residential Multi -Family Housing Replacement Program."
Staff Finding:
Does not apply. Multi -Family housing replacement applies to structures of three or more
units.
E. FAR for Accessory Dwelling Units.
For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose
principal use is residential, the following shall apply:
The allowable floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall be excluded up
to a maximum of three hundred fifty (3 50) 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 shall only apply to accessory dwelling units which are
subject to conditional use review and approval pursuant to section 26.425 of this
code. In addition, the units shall be deed restricted, registered with the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority, and rented to an eligible working resident of Pitkin
County. The owner shall retain the right to select the renter for the unit.
The floor area of a detached accessory dwelling unit separated from the principal
structure by a distance of not less than ten (10) feet with a minimum footprint of six
hundred twenty five (625) square feet, shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of the
allowable floor area up to seven hundred (700) square feet of floor area.
Staff Finding:
The proposed detached ADU qualifies for the maximum 350 square feet of Floor Area
exclusion because the unit will be detached by more than 10 feet with a footprint of 625
square feet..
r
Section 26.575.020, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations for Window
Variance
The applicant's proposed development is subject to an FAR penalty because the
principal street facing window on the south elevation violates the following
Residential Design Standard:
All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than 10
feet shall be counted as 2 square feet for each I square foot of floor
area. Exterior expressions shall be defined as facade penetration
between 9 and 12 feet above floor level and circular, semi -circular, or
non -orthogonal fenestration between 9 and 15 feet above floor level.
In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following
findings:
a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or,
Staff Finding:
The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP). The Residential Design Standards are a direct outcome of
the AACP. Thus, this standard is not met.
b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or,
Staff Finding:
According to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the "Volume"
standard "is to ensure that each residential building has street -facing architectural
details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking
experience, and reinforce local building traditions." The standard specifically says
no windows in this area unless the house size is reduced by the Floor Area penalty.
The proposed window covers the entire nine (9) to.twelve (12) foot area, and does
not provide a human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience; or
reinforce local building traditions, particularly because it is on the street facing
elevation.
Staff does not believe this standard is met and, therefore, recommends the window be
allowed only if the Floor Area penalty is imposed.
c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Staff Finding:
The site is buildable with virtually no unusual physical conditions (i.e., topography,
natural hazards, etc.) where reasons of fairness would dictate that the proposed street
facing principal window must be included in the design. Staff does not believe there
exists a hardship which prescribes this variance.
10
26.480.050 Review Standard for Subdivision Variance.
A. General requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
The Aspen Area Community Plan generally discusses health and safety. Staff feels
that the reduction in easement width will not compromise the goals of the AACP.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of
existing land uses in the area.
Staff Finding
Reducing the driveway/emergency access by four (4) feet will result in less pavement
and slightly more building volume on the property, which is consistent with the
character of existing land uses. The fact that the single family house, ADU and
adjoining Lot 7A will share the driveway/emergency access is an attractive feature
because it will minimize curb cuts and the amount of pavement in this moderate
density, relatively undeveloped neighborhood.
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Staff Finding
This subdivision variance will not adversely affect future development of
surrounding areas. The driveway/emergency access easement reduction will not
impact development on Lot 7A, also owned by the Lauder family, because the
driveway/access will continue to provide adequate access to Lot 7A via Lots 6 and 7.
The City Engineer and Fire Marshal have reviewed and approved the proposal.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this Title.
Staff Finding
The request is for a variance from this Title, but is deemed consistent with the Title
by the Engineer's and Fire Marshal's approvals and conditions.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on
land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock
or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep
topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be
11
harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the
proposed subdivision.
Staff Finding
Reducing the width of the driveway/emergency access will not be harmful to the
health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. The result will
be a smaller driveway/access in exchange for a slightly larger single family house on
the property.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be
designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies,
duplication or premature extension of public facilities and
unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding
The proposed variance will not create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies,
duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
The City Engineer and Fire Marshal believe the proposed emergency access will
provide adequate access to the single family home, ADU, and undeveloped Lot 7A
with the 'condition that the owners of Lot 7A sign a legally binding agreement to
provide a 50 feet wide turning radius into the building site, a full fire truck turna-
round at the future residence, and upgrade the required 13D fire sprinkler system to a
13R system. The reduced width access actually increases spatial efficiency on the
property.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be
provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by
special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been
met:
l . A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence
to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility
with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring
development areas, and/or the goals of the community.
Staff Finding
Strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would not result in
incompatibility with Aspen Area Comprehensive plan, the existing neighboring
development areas, and/or the goals of the community. However, the variance is not
incompatible with the plan or neighborhood or community goals either.
Nevertheless, this standard is not met.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested
and provide justification for each variation request, providing design
recommendations by professional engineers as necessary.
12
Staff Finding
The applicant has specified the design standard variation requested, provided
justification for the request, and provided a design recommendation by the City
Engineer (and Fire Marshal). The justification for the request is to increase the
allowable floor area for the property. Staff accepts the justification and is supportive
of this variation request for two reasons: first, it will allow for a larger and more
livable ADU, and second, the applicant agreed to eliminate a separate access and
publicly visible parking space for the ADU. The result will be slightly more building
volume on the property gained from an increase in FAR from a smaller emergency
access easement, but one less curb cut, far less pavement, and an ADU parking space
barely visible from the street. Thus, this standard is met.
D. Affordable housing_ A subdivision which is comprised of replacement
dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance
with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A
subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to
provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter
26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding
This standard is met because the applicant is providing affordable housing in the
form of an ADU.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication
Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Finding
This standard is not applicable because this is not a new subdivision. Instead, it is a
variance from a subdivision standard.
13
Resolution #99 - lP
(SERIES OF 1999)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT,
AND SUBDIVISION VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE WIDTH OF THE
EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT FROM 20 FEET TO 16 FEET, AND
DENYING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR VOLUME,
LOCATED ON THE SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION LOTS 6 AND 79
870 AND 866 ROARING FORK DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735-121-04006
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Laura and Gary Lauder, owners, represented by Alice Davis of Davis Horn, Inc., for a
Conditional Use Review for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit of approximately seven
hundred (700) square feet of net livable area to be located on Lot 7 of the Second Aspen
Company Subdivision, at 870 and 866 Roaring Fork Drive, City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, Lots 6 and 7 of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision together are
approximately 65,027 square feet, located in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) Zone
District, and are currently vacant parcels; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.710.050, Moderate -Density Residential,
26.520.020, Accessory Dwelling Units, and 26.425.040, Standards Applicable to All
Conditional Uses, of the Aspen Municipal Code, Accessory Dwelling Units in the R-15 Zone
District may be approved, at a public hearing, by the Planning and Zoning Commission as
Conditional Uses in conformance with the requirements of said Sections; and,
WHEREAS, the Housing Office, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City
Engineering, and the Community Development Department reviewed the Conditional Use for
an Accessory Dwelling Unit and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's application for
compliance with the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 of the Aspen
Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with
Standard 26.410.040(D)(3)(a), Windows, of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to the
street facing principal window on the South elevation of the proposed single family house;
and
WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if
an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with
any item of the Residential Design Guidelines, the applicant may either amend the
14
application or appeal staff s findings to the Design Review Appeal Board pursuant to Chapter
26.222, Design Review Appeal Board; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(D)(3)(a) of the Aspen
Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Board as it applies to the street facing
principal window on the South elevation; and
WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of
Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design
Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an
exception, namely the proposal must:
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan;
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds
to; or
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant requested Special Review for a subdivision variance to reduce
the emergency access easement from 20 feet to 16 feet; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.430.020, Special Review, the Planning and
Zoning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a subdivision variance,
after recommendation by the Community Development Director; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Engineer and Fire Marshal reviewed the subdivision
variance request to reduce the emergency access easement from 20 feet to 16 feet and
recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on November
161 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission, which also served as the Design Review
Appeal Board, approved the Conditional'Use for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit to be
located at 870 and 866 Roaring Fork Drive, with the conditions recommended by the
Community Development Department, denied a variance from the Volume standard of
Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to the street facing
principal window on the South elevation because it did not meet any of the review standards,
and approved the subdivision variance to reduce the emergency access easement from 20 feet
to 16 feet for the Second Aspen Company Subdivision Lots 6 and 7, with conditions, by a
vote of to
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
15
Section 1
That the proposed design of a single-family residence at 870 and 866 Roaring Fork Drive,
Aspen, Colorado, is denied a variance from Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(a), Windows, of the
Residential Design Standards as it applies to the street facing principal window on the South
elevation of the single family house because it does not satisfy the review standards.
Section 2
That the subdivision variance to reduce the emergency access easement is approved with the
following condition:
1) A legally binding agreement from the owner of Lot 7A to provide a 50 feet turning radius
into the building site, a full fire truck turn -around at the future residence, and upgrade the
required 13D fire sprinkler system to a 13R system.
Section 3
That the Conditional Use for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit of approximately seven
hundred (700) square feet of net livable area to be located on the main level of a single family
residence at 870 and 866 Roaring Fork Drive, is approved with the following conditions:
1) The building permit application shall include:
a) a copy of the agreement from the owner of Lot 7A to provide a 50 feet turning
radius into the building site and a full fire truck turn -around at the future
residence.
b) a copy of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission resolution.
c) a copy of the Administrative approval for an insubstantial amendment to an
approved plat to move the emergency access easement/access to Lot 7A
designated on the plat to the west as indicated on the proposed Accessory
Dwelling Unit site plan.
d) a current Site Improvement Survey indicating the nature of all easements of
record indicated on the property title commitment; the updated survey must be
wet sealed and signed, and reflect full monumentation of both lots, and that states
"all easements of record as indicated on title policy number , dated, are
shown hereon."
e) a completed and recorded sidewalk, curb, and gutter construction agreement and
an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of
constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment
formula.
f) a completed and recorded ADU deed restriction on the property, a form for which
may be obtained from the Housing Office. The deed restriction shall be noted on
the building permit plans.
g) a drainage report and a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared
by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on -
site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil
16
percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 year storm
frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. If drywells
are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with
percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type system. Drywells may not be
placed within utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be
separate from storm drainage, must be detained on site, and must be shown on the
drainage plan. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the
drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the retention volume
meet the design storm.
h) a tree removal or relocation permit from the City Parks Department for any trees to
be removed or relocated.
i) tree protection fencing shall be installed at the dripline of all existing vegetation
within the construction envelope before any construction activities begin. No
storage of construction backfill or materials will be permitted within this tree
protection zone. The --large cottonwood is within the area which needs tree
protection fencing.
j) a completed tap permit with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The
applicant shall connect the ADU to the sanitary sewer in a manner acceptable to
the ACSD superintendent.
2. The building permit plans shall reflect/indicate:
a) Conformance with all aspects of the City's .Residential Design Standards.
b) The proposed ADU is labeled as such and meets the definition of an Accessory
Dwelling Unit.
c) The ADU will contain a kitchen (having a minimum of a two -burner stove with
oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer) and a bathroom
(having a minimum of a shower, sink, and a toilet).
d) The ADU has the minimum one (1) off-street parking space provided; the
building permit plans shall indicate the designated ADU parking space. The ADU
space must have clear access and cannot be stacked with a space for the primary
residence.
e) The ADU meets all applicable UBC requirements for light and air.
f) An overhang shall cover the ADU entrance designed to prevent snow and ice from
falling on, or building -up on, the entrance to the ADU.
g) Conformance with the City's requirements for driveways. Driveways must be
separated by 25 feet or more (including neighboring driveways), and must be paved
from the edge of the street to the property line. Paving alternatives may be
approved by the City Engineer.
h) A fire suppression system if the gross square footage of the structure exceeds 5,000
square feet.
i) A five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer for
snow storage at the edge of the street paving.
17
3. The applicant shall provide separate utility taps and meters for each residential unit.
4. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the
applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for
access to pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site
improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be
obstructed.
5. The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights -of -way from the
appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox
and landscaping from the City Streets Department.
6. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not within
public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets
Department. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition.
7. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the
hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday - Saturday.
8. Before applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning
Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza
Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this
fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution.
9. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
10. Utility stub outs to Lot 7-A shall be installed at the time of development of Lot 7 in order to
prevent further damage to the recently repaved Roaring Fork Road.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 16, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Robert Blaich, Chair
C:\home\Active Cases\Lauder - 2nd Aspen Subdivision\Lauder PZ memo.doc
18
EXHIBIT E
Proposed access to ADU and single family house.
This is the approximate site of the single family house.
19
G -if," 05 " I S
To: Nick Lelac, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer 11;1Z-1ti
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer C-F-
Date: November 2, 1999
Re: Lauder Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit -
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their
October 6, 1999 meeting, and we have the following comments:
General — (1) These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is
accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward
exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to
complaints related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." (2) If there ar any
encroachments into the public right-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject
to current encroachment license requirements.
1. Improvement Survey — The improvement survey submitted with the application is deficient in
several aspects. The building permit application needs to include an updated improvement survey
that is wet sealed and signed, that reflects full monumentation of both lots, and that states "all
easements of record as indicated on title policy number , dated , are shown hereon."
2. Site Drainage - The existing City storm drainage infrastructure system does not have additional
capacity to convey increased storm runoff. The site development approvals must include the
requirement of meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a
requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size
plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) and a report signed and stamped by an engineer registered in
the State of Colorado, must meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design
Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The
mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and containment plan for the
construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be
provided with percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type system. The drainage plan must
contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property owner(s) to ensure
continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within utility easements. The
1
foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed
on site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to building permit drawings. The drainage may
be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if Ahe drainage report demonstrates that the percolation
rate and the detention volume meet the design storm. Drainage from the driveway is of special
concern.
3. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - The development plans need to indicate a five foot wide
pedestrian usable space with a five foot buffer for snow storage, where feasible, along Roaring Fork
Road. The applicant needs to sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement, and pay
recording fees, prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. Revised Access Easement — The revised access easement needs to be documented by an
amended Replat of Lots 7 & 7-A, Second Aspen Company Subdivision, or by a recorded easement.
5. Fire Marshal — The approvals of the fire marshal in the letter dated September 17, 1999, need
to be documented in the P & Z Resolution or by plat notes on an amended plat.
6. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District — The applicant should be required to install utility
stub outs to Lot 7-A at the time of development of Lot 7 in order to prevent further damage to the
recently repaved Roaring Fork Road.
7. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120)
for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance, and streets department (920-5130) for
mailboxes , street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the city community development department.
DRC Attendees
Staff Karma Borgquist, Ed Van Walraven, Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon, Stephen Kanipe, Tom
Bracewell, Chuck Roth
99M161
N
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nick Lelack, Planner
FROM: Sarah Oates, City Zoning Officer v
RE: Lauder Residence Conditional Use for an ADU
DATE: November 3, 1999
Lots 6 and 7, Second Aspen Company Subdivision, create a 65,027 square foot parcel
located in the R-15 zone district. The following dimensional requirements apply to this
parcel:
Front yard setback
Side yard setback
Rear yard setback
Site Coverage
Open Space
Height
25 feet
10 feet
10 feet
No requirement
No requirement
25 feet
A large portion of the parcel contains slope in excess of 20-30% requiring that slope
reduction be applied when calculating the permitted floor area. Per a certified slope
analysis survey, as well as exclusions for an easement and portions of the property under
water, the lot square footage from which floor area is calculated is 32,077 square feet,
allowing for 5,525 square feet of floor area.
Revised plans, dated November 2, 1999, reflect an increase in the net livable space of the
ADU, allowing for a floor area bonus of 350 square feet and sufficient floor area for both
the ADU and main house. The height of the main residence conforms to the City zoning
regulations. These figures, and the height, will again be verified at the time of the
building permit application on a full size set of plans. These figures may change if the
ADU is reconfigured during the land use review process.
The applicant should discuss any UBC requirements for the ADU subgrade office in
terms of light, ventilation and egress with the Building Department. Should any
additional exposed wall area be needed to meet UBC requirements, it will affect the floor
area figures.
Aspen Consolidated sanitation District
Sy Kelly * Chairman John Keleher
Paul Smith * Treas., Frantz Loushin
..�
Michael Kelly * Secy Bruce Matherly, Mgr
October 8, 1999
Nick Lelack
Community Development
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Second Aspen Sub. Lots 6 & 7
Dear Nick:
0� 3 1 2 1999
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient collection and treatment
capacity to serve this development. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District rules,
regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office.
Our primary concern is with the proposed conceptual site access. The applicant proposes to "shift
the existing access easement on lot 7 for the ADU ." The proposed alignment encroaches upon
the District's 20 foot sanitation easement and would place our entry hatch for a siphon line in the
middle of the access road. This would be a violation of the District's regulations. The access road
to the ADU must not be located over our easement in this area. The conceptual access road to the
ADU needs to be moved or our facilities could be relocated to a new easement in the area at the
applicant's expense.
Our second concern would be that utility service access be planned and provided now for lot 7A if
there is any potential for the lot to be sold and developed at a later date. In other parts of our
service area we have dealt with service access problems to due a lack of initial planning by the
developer or lot owners. Lot 7A could easily become inaccessible for future utility connections if
a potential utility alignment is not planned now.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
&, -, I�K
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537
OCT 20 199 10:51AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
P.1
TO: Nick Lelack, Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: October 20, 1999
RE: Second aspen Subdivision Lots 6 and 7
Laura and Gary Lauder Property
DUESThe applicant Is requesting approval to construct a one -bedroom detached
accessory dwelling unit.
BR09MUIVI.i: According to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, an accessory
dwelling unit shall contain not less than 300 square feet and not more than 700 square feet. The
proposed development needs to be compatible and subordinate in character with the primary
residence located on the property and with the development located within the neighborhood.
L61M,. When the blousing Office reviews plans for an accessory dwelling unit, there are
particular areas that are given special attention. They are as follows:
1. The unit must be a totally private unit, which means the unit must have a private entrance
and there shall be no other rooms in this unit that need to be utilized by the individuals in
the principal residence; i.e., a mechanical room for the principal residence.
2. The kitchen includes a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-
cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer.
3. The unit is required to have a certain percentage of natural light Into the unit; i.e., windows,
sliding glass door, window wells, etc., especially if the unit is located below grade. The
Uniform Building Code requires that 10% of the floor area of a unit needs to have natural
light. Natural light is defined as light which is clear and open to the sky.
4. Should the unit be used to obtain an FAR bonus, the unit MUST be rented to a qualified
employee,
5. A deed restriction MUST be recorded PRIOR to building permit approval. The deed
restriction shall be obtained from the Housing Office.
REDDA iV1ENt9ATION: After reviewing the application, the Housing Office recommends approval
as this is a detached unit, located above ground, therefore, falls under conditions 1-5 stated
above. Prior to C.O. the Housing Office requests a site visit to inspect the unit,
1
Site plan shows no significant tree impacts on this large property.
Tree protection fencing shall be installed at the dripline of all exsisting, vegetation within the construction
envelope BEFORE any construction activities begin. No storage of construction backfill or materials will
be permitted within this tree protection zone. The large cottonwood is within the area which needs a tree
protection fencing ...
This requirement will be inspected in the field!!!!
'�, 0,\�, s-, f QA-,L-�
Attachment #7
605 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE 9701925-4755
FACSIMILE 9701920-2950
September 17, 1999
Mr. Nick Adeh, City Engineer
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Conceptual Engineering Review Second Company Subdivision Lots 6 and 7
Dear Nick,
Please confirm the following information discussed in our meeting to the review the
conceptual Site Plan for the residence and Accessory Dwelling for Laura and Gary
Lauder on Roaring Fork Road and sign below if the information meets your approval.
Please also review the attached letter of conceptual approval of the Fire Department.
Exception to engineering requirements for drive separation and widths are
granted for the proposed configuration of two driveways (One shared between
the Main House and access to 7A and one for the ADU) for the following
considerations:
a) The design maintains natural grades and vegetation while minimizing
the slopes of the driveways.
b) Because the future access to Lot 7A branches off the main drive midway
into Lot 7 with an immediate transition down, the ADU is higher in
elevation than the drive. A separate drive for the ADU is necessary.
c) Roaring Fork Road has no curb and gutter and minimal street parking.
d) Vegetation between the driveways will be kept at a minimum to maintain
proper view angels.
e) Further separation of the drives would cut into the hillside and natural
vegetation requiring regrading of more than 30" within the Front Setback.
s 00
al
'r
e,
Page 2
Conceptual Site Review
City Engineering
f) Fire Department dictates width requirements of driveways for fire truck
access.
Further, no exception is taken to the relocation of the existing Access Easement
on Lot 7 to allow for the ADU. In addition to moving the Access Easement, the
applicant has requested a variance of four feet in the width of the easement to
match the width of the driveway. Because Utilities are located in a separate 20
foot wide utility easement along the east property line, a 16 foot wide easement
for the drive access is acceptable.
I have reviewed the above information and attached letter addressing Fire department
issues and find it to be consistent with our meeting. I approve the conceptual site plan
for the residence of Laura and Gary Lauder conditional of final review at submission
of the Building Permit.
Approved
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
Date
Thank you for your assistance in the pre -submittal review of this project.
Sincerely,
B.iLF"b" ss and Associates architects,
Julie Maple, project architect
605 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE 9701925-4755
FACSIMILE 9701920-2950
September 17, 1999
Mr. Ed Van Walraven, Aspen Fire Marshal
Aspen Fire Protection District
420 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Conceptual Site Access Review, Second Company Subdivision Lots 6 & 7
Dear Ed,
Please confirm the following information discussed in our meeting September 16, 1999
to the review the conceptual Site Plan for the Residence and Accessory Dwelling for
Laura and Gary Lauder on Roaring Fork Road and sign below if it meets with your
approval.
The general layout and access to the Main Residence, Lower Lot 7A, and
separate drive to the detached ADU were reviewed and found acceptable with
the following revisions:
1) The main drive with shared access to lower lot 7A needed to be
increased from 15 ft. wide to 16 ft wide.
2) In order to access the back of the Main House, Truck #1 with the areal
extension would need to be used. This requires an extension of
approximately 5 1/2 feet to the garage turn -a -round and widening of the
portion opposite for the trucks 40'-6" turning radius and overhang.
3) 12" of grass pavers need to be installed on either side of the 12 foot
wide ADU driveway that can support the weight of a 50,000 Lb. truck.
4) The applicants request to shift the existing Access Easement on Lot 7
for the ADU and reduce the width from 20 ft. to 16 ft. will be supported
by the Fire Department in exchange for a legally binding agreement from
the owner of Lot 7A to provide a 50 ft turning radius into the building site,
a full fire truck turn -a -round at the future residence, and upgrade the
required 13D fire sprinkler system to a 13R system.
A" 27 -
Y-
i tip
-'-FOP
5-q
-K-A
J?EA�
Aa f
_
A
'W
�A--Z
I - mo q�P-
-
Page 2
Conceptual Site Plan Review
Aspen Fire Protection District
I have reviewed the above account of the meeting of September 16, 1999 and approve
the conceptual site plan for the residence of Laura and Gary Lauder with the stated
revisions. Final review for compliance will occur at Building Permit submission.
1
t
Approved
Ed Van, alraven, Aspen Fire Marshal
Date
Thank you for your assistance and early review of this project. Agreements for Lot 7A
are in progress and will be forwarded to you when they are complete.
Sincerely,
ass and Associates Architects,
Maple, project architect
F&P
Bill
:Aff
CIA,,
€ Q� ����� ) I
200 1 200 400 Feet
4) Location Map -
trrh�� D
Davis Horne
,._,
PLANNING &REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
September 6, 1999
Chris Bendon
Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Department
130 Galena Street
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: Second Aspen Company Subdivision Lots 6 and 7:
The Laura and Gary Lauder Property
Dear Chris:
Davis Horn Incorporated and William Poss and Associates represent Laura and Gary
Lauder who own two lots in the Second Aspen Company Subdivision. The Lauders
intend to develop the two lots with one single family residence and a detached accessory
dwelling unit (ADU). This letter is a land use application requesting the necessary
approvals for the development of the house and ADU including the following:
1. ADU REVIEW pursuant. to section 26.520.020 of the Code;
2. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW for the ADU pursuant to Section
26.425.040 of the Code;
3. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW for the single family home and the
ADU pursuant to Section 26.410.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code;
and
4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION for the detached single
family dwelling unit according to Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code.
The following summarizes some of the important facts regarding the subject property.
CURRENT LAND USE: Two vacant, undeveloped lots
PROPOSED LAND USE: Single family home with a detached accessory dwelling unit
LOCATION: 870 and 866 Roaring Fork Drive
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 6 and 7 of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision
ZONING: R-15
LOT SIZE: 65,027 square feet including both lots
LAND AREA AVAILABLE FOR FAR: 32,113 square feet including both lots; and
ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 5,526 square feet.
The following section of this application gives each of the applicable review standards for
the ADU review, the Conditional Use Review and the Residential Design Review. Each
standard is followed by our response demonstrating compliance with the standard.
ALICE DAVIS, AICP S GLENN HORN, AICP
215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. - SUITE 104 • ASPEN, CbLORADO 81611 • 970/925-6587 - FAX: 970/925-5180
Section 26.520.020, Accessory Dwelling Units
A. General Provisions.
1. Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three
hundred (300) square feet and not more than seven hundred (700) square
feet . The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's
guidelines for resident occupied units. If the unit is rented, it 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.
RESPONSE: The proposed detached ADU will contain approximately 625 square feet in
a one bedroom plus a study, one bath layout. There is also a 625 square foot
mechanical/storage area below grade, beneath the finished accessory dwelling unit. The
applicant understands that the unit will be deed restricted, registered with the housing
office, and available for rental to eligible working residents of Pitkin County for periods of
no less than six (6) months. It is also understood by the applicant that, as the owner, he
will still have the right to set the rental rates and choose the renter, provided the renter
qualifies under the applicable Housing Guidelines. It is the applicant's intention to rent the
unit to a caretaker. A floor area bonus is allowed according to Section 26.575.020(A)(6)
of the Code, but the section also provides that there is no mandatory occupancy provision
on the deed restriction as the ADU is a detached accessory dwelling unit and separated
from the principal structure by more than 10 feet. The floor area bonus is 50% of the size
of the ADU or half of the 700 square foot maximum size allowed for ADUs, whichever is
less. The ADU as proposed contains 625 square feet of net livable area and 650 square
feet of floor area according to the City's method for calculating floor area. One parking
space will be provided at the rear of the ADU, hidden from the street.
2. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to all other
dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district.
RESPONSE: The proposed ADU is not attached and therefore this is not applicable.
3. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall utilize alley access to
the extent practical.
RESPONSE: This standard is not applicable as the proposed ADU is not attached and
there is no alley access available to the subject property.
A. Development review standards. The review standards for an 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 located within the neighborhood, and assuming year -around
occupancy, shall not create a density pattern inconsistent with the
established neighborhood;
2
RESPONSE: The proposed ADU is designed to be just what its name indicates, a
dwelling unit accessory to the primary residence. The detached ADU will be similar in
design and materials to the primary residence, but is of a much smaller, subordinate scale.
It is located off to the side and downslope from the main residence. The proposed home
and ADU will be compatible in terms of external appearances with the other homes in the
area.
The Lauders intend to have a caretaker occupy the ADU year round. The density patterns
will not be inconsistent with the neighborhood . The primary residence is being built on
two, separately developable lots which could be developed with two single family homes,
each with an ADU. The overall density of the two lots is therefore being reduced by half,
from four units to two units. There are several vacant lots on the same side of the street
as the subject property, so the subject will be setting a favorable precedent by developing a
very desirable, detached ADU, subordinate in character to the primary residence.
In summary, the single family home plus the ADU will not only be compatible with the
homes in the neighborhood, but the ADU should also be quite compatible with and
subordinate in character to the primary residence.
2. For detached accessory dwelling units, where the proposed
development varies from the dimensional requirements of the underlying
zone district, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that such
variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence than
the development in accord with the dimensional requirements.
RESPONSE: No variances from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone
district are needed or requested for the proposed detached ADU.
3. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic
Preservation Commission may exempt existing nonconforming structures,
being converted to a detached accessory dwelling unit, from Sections
26.520.030(B)(2)(a) through (h) provided that the nonconformity is not
increased.
RESPONSE: This standard is not applicable as no nonconforming structures exist.
4. Conditional use review shall be granted pursuant to Section 26.425,
Standards applicable to all conditional uses.
RESPONSE. Conditional use review approval is being requested in this application.
The remaining ADU review standards including Section 26.520.020 C regarding bandit
units, and Section 26.520.020 D regarding GMQS/replacement housing credits are not
applicable to the subject property. The standard found in Section 26.502.020 F simply
refers to the Code section regarding the method for calculating the floor area ratio and
allowable square footage for accessory dwelling units,.
3
CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
Next, this application will address the review standards for conditional use review which are
found in Section 26.425.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code.
,Section 26.425. O40, ,Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses
Pursuant to Section 26.425.040, a development application for a conditional use approval
shall meet the following standards:
(A) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in
which it is proposed to be located.
RESPONSE: The stated intent of the City of Aspen's R-15 zone district is "'to provide
areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Lands in the
Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district typically consist of additions to the
Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. " ADUs provide long term
residential uses as they are limited to rental terms of no less than 6 months. ADUs
therefore meets the "long term residential purpose" intended for the R-15 zone district.
Also, caretaker units are customary accessory uses on the residential properties in and
around Aspen.
The proposed ADU 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";
• "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"; and
• A theme found throughout the AACP is to increase resident housing in order to
"revitalize the permanent community".
(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.
4
RESPONSE: The subject parcel is surrounded by residential uses, some of which have
associated accessory dwelling units. There are several vacant lots on the subject's side of
Roaring Fork Drive and the development of these lots with single family residences will
require an ADU (or cash in lieu of an ADU) to be built on the lots. Therefore, more
ADUs should be built in the immediate vicinity. The proposed ADU will be both
consistent and compatible with the existing and anticipated residential development in the
immediate vicinity and should enhance the mixture of uses and activities in the area. Such
a desirable, detached accessory dwelling- will be a benefit to the character of the
neighborhood.
(C) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional
use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on
surrounding properties.
RESPONSE: The size, location and design of the proposed ADU will be visually
compatible with the primary residence on the lot. The ADU is intended to be occupied on
a year round basis. The caretaker who will reside in the ADU has been caretaking for the
Lauders for over seven years and will ensure that the properties are well maintained and
operated in order to minimize adverse impacts. Similar to the surrounding properties, the
ADU's parking, trash and service deliveries will be accessed from the street in front of the
property, Roaring Fork Drive. The parking space for the ADU will be located behind the
ADU and will not be visible from the street. No noise, vibration, or odor related impacts
are anticipated.
The proposed ADU is located in a one story structure containing 625 square feet in a one
bedroom plus study, one bath layout. There will be a living room and a full kitchen plus
substantial mechanical/storage space, a very desirable feature for an ADU. The 625
square foot unfinished subgrade mechanical/storage area will be accessed from the exterior
by an outdoor stairway.
Attachment 7 to this application is a letter from Nick Adeh, City Engineer. Nick has reviewed
the access driveways for the subject property and written this letter to verify his request that the
two driveways be 30 feet apart at the property line in order to maintain a proper distance
between the two drives while still acknowledging the most appropriate development of the
driveways, given the slope and vegetation constraints of the site.
(D) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use
including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police,
fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage
systems, and schools.
RESPONSE: There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the proposed use
as indicated by the adequate provision of services to the other homes in the subdivision.
5
(E) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for
increased employees generated by the conditional use.
RESPONSE: The proposed development of the conditional use, an ADU, will not
generate any new employees. In fact, the applicant will be supplying an ADU which will
help meet the housing needs of the community. It is the owners intention to rent the ADU
to the caretaker which has been working for the family for over seven years.
(p) The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it
by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of
this title.
RESPONSE: The proposed conditional use will comply with all reasonable standards
imposed on it by the AACP and by all other applicable requirements of the Code.
RED DENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW
The Residential Design Review found in Section 26.58 of the City of Aspen's Land Use Code
will be addressed in this section of the application. The applicant's representatives, William
Poss and Associates and Davis Hom Incorporated have held several meetings with the
Community Development Department in order to verify compliance with floor area
requirements and Residential Design Review Standards. Please refer to Attachment #1 to this
letter where the standards of the Residential Design Review are addressed. The proposed
home and ADU either meet or request a variance from all standards of the Design Review.
Sarah Oates and Chris Bendon of the Community Development Department have reviewed the
plans of the home and have verified that all standards have been met or will be met if the
requested variances are granted. Please refer to Attachment #l.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION
The applicant is requesting a growth management exemption pursuant to Section
26.470.070(B) of the Land Use Code. This exemption is for "detached single family or duplex
dwelling units" and states:
"The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and
competition procedures: (1) the construction of one or two detached residential units
or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel
prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section
26.480.020(E) " (Subdivision -Applicability and Prohibitions)
The subject parcel was created in September, 1961 as shown on the Second Aspen Company
Subdivision Plat recorded in Ditch Book 2A, Page 263A.
According. the Section 26, 470.070(B) (1) Single Family, one of three standards must be met
for the exemption to be granted: an ADU must be provided, an affordable housing fee must be
paid or a resident occupancy deed restriction must be recorded on the single family dwelling
unit being constructed. The applicant is providing the 625 square foot detached ADU
proposed in this application and therefore has met this requirement for the growth management
exemption. -
6
SUMMARY
This application has shown compliance with the standards and requirements for Conditional
Use and ADU Review in order to obtain approvals for the single family home and ADU
proposed for the Lauder property at 870 and 866 Roaring Fork Drive. Residential Design
Review approval is requested for both units. The following documents are attached for your
information and review:
Attachment 41: Residential Design Review - standards and responses to those standards;
Attachment 92: Vicinity map of the subject property;
Attachment 93: The Lauder ADU - floor plans and elevations (24" x 36");
Attachment #4: The Lauder Residence Site Plan (24" x 36");
Attachment 95: The Lauder Residence - floor plans and elevations (24" x 36");
Attachment 46: Neighborhood block plan and corresponding photos;
Attachment #7: Letter from Nick Adeh, City Engineer, regarding subjects driveways;
Attachment 98: Authorization letter from the Lauders, owners of the subject property;
Attachment 99: Proof of ownership;
Attachment 910: Pre -application conference summary sheet;
Attachment 911: Fee Agreement between owners and City of Aspen.
Attachment 912: List of adjacent property owners within 300 feet for public hearing purposes.
Attachment 913: Letter from Mitch Haas of the Community Development Dept. verifying
that Stream Margin Review is not required for the subject property. Also,
that the elimination of the property line between the two lots is not required
for developing the two lots as one.
Please call Davis Horn Incorporated at 925-6587 (Alice Davis)or William Poss and Associates
at 925-4755 (Julie Maple or Kim Weil) if you have any questions or concerns. If we have
inadvertently neglected to address any item or if you need further clarification or additional
information, please feel free to call. Thank you for your help with this application and we look
forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ALICE DAVIS, AICP
7
ATTACHMENT # 1
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS
This section of the application demonstrates compliance with the Residential Design
Review standards found in section 26.410 of the Aspen Land use Regulations (formerly
Section 26.58). For both proposed structures, the primary residence and the ADU, the
applicant is in compliance with all standards except for one where a design review
variance is being requested.
Each design standard is not repeated here, but each is addressed on the following pages
under the five major headings: Site Design; Building Forms; Parking, Garages and
Carports; Building Elements and Context. Several of the design standards are most
applicable to the uniform, rectangular lots found in the Aspen Original Townsite and
surrounding additions to the Original Townsite; lots similar to those found in the West
End and East End of town. The standards are often less applicable to larger lots in
subdivisions created in the past sixty years, such as the subject which is located in the
Second Aspen Company Subdivision.
Julie Maple and Kim Weil of Bill Poss and Associates and Alice Davis of Davis Horn
Inc. have had several meetings, together and in some cases individually, with Sarah
Thomas, Sarah Oates and Chris Bendon of the Community Development Department to
gain their input. Sarah Oates, the new City of Aspen Zoning Enforcement Officer and the
staff member to the Design Review Committee, has agreed that the applicant is in
compliance with the standards, except that one variance (the "no window zone") for one
window will be required. That variance is requested in this attachment.
SITE DESIGN
The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address
the street in a manner which creates a consistent `facade line "and defines the public and
semi-public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist, or are
proposed, it is intended that they be zcsed to define the boundaries of private properties
without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street.
Building Orientation
The principal mass of the buildings face south toward Roaring Fork Road. The front
facade is generally parallel to the Roaring Fork Road.
Build to Lines
The subject parcel consists of more than 15,000 square feet, and it is not a corner lot so
this standard does not apply.
Fences
There is an existing fence which may be removed during construction if not removed
during the City's current road and utility improvements in the subject neighborhood.
Even if not removed, the fence is not more than 42 inches tall.
BUILDING FORM
The intent of these standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by
creating new homes which are more similar in their massing, by promoting accessory
units off of the City alleys and by preserving solar access.
Secondary Mass
The subject's proposed ADU is a completely detached dwelling, detached from the
primary residence and not connected by a subordinate element. This is an excellent
example of an appropriate use for the required "secondary mass".
PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS
The intent of this standards is to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and
auto traffic through proper parking location or by minimizing the presence of garages
where alleys do not exist.
No alley or private road exists for access to the subject homes. The subject lot is greater
than 15,000 square feet, so this standard applies. The garage is even with the front facade
of the primary residence. This is allowed since the garage doors are perpendicular to the
street (side -loaded). The driveway cut within the front setback does not exceed two feet
in depth, and therefore the subject meets the requirement applicable due to the natural
grade change between the street and the garage. The garage entrance is not greater than
the 24 feet allowed. The garage doors will be single stall doors.
BUILDING ELEMENTS
These standards are to ensure that each residential building has street facing
architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the
walking experience and reinforce local building traditions.
Street oriented entrance and principal window
Both the primary residence and the ADU have a street oriented entrance and a street
facing principal window. Both meet the requirements for the entry door and covered
entry porches.
One story element .
The subject has two one story elements which meets the requirements of this standard, a
porch along the front facade and a single story entry canopy.
Windows
No window zones. Street facing windows are not allowed to span the area where a
second floor level would typically exist, which is between 9 and 12 feet above the
finished floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first
landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this
standard. There is a floor area penalty if this is not met.
The applicant is requesting a variance on the street facing principal window (the south
shed Living Room dormer facing the street). If granted, we understand that the floor area
penalty will not be applied.
Variance to the No window Zone Pursuant to Section 26.222.020, as follows:
1) Yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan:
The window variance does not specifically enhance any of the goals of the Aspen
Area Community Plan.
It should be noted however, that per the 98/99 AACP. Update, `Housing Goals
this project is building a detached ADU instead of paying cash -in lieu. Also, per
`Design Quality "the Primary Residence and ADU represent an increase in the
quality of design and construction of neighboring structures.
2) More effectively address the issue a given standard or provision:
The shed window for which the variance is requested, more effectively addresses
Item D, of the Residential Design Standards in its requirement for a street oriented
principal window from a Living, Dining or Family Room space. With the
inherent massing and character of the designed residence it is necessary to
accentuate the window within the facade of the structure for it to be distinguished
as an element of importance. If the window did not break the roof plane and plate
height it would not distinguish itself as a separate element on the facade. In the
historical reference of the east lake window illustrated in the Design Standards as
a principal window, the window is made prominent by its scale and proportion in
contrast to other windows on the facade.
3) Necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints:
Because the Residential Design Standards have been fashioned for neighborhood
characteristics inherent in the urban texture of the west end neighborhoods, it is
unfair to impose these design standards in the strictest sense to this project. This
Roaring Fork Road neighborhood differs in character dramatically from the
gridded urban street pattern predominant throughout the West End. The curving
form of Roaring Fork Road, sloped topography at the river bank and non -
orthogonal Lot configurations make it uniquely rural. The Victorian scale of
massing elements, small individual window openings, and roof slopes represented
in the graphic illustrations of 26.410 Residential Design Standards are not
consistent with the context of this neighborhood. Its context is in fact much more
closely related to the vernacular established in the county residences on the
opposite bank of the river at the same elevation. The visual features of these
residences include roof slopes in excess of 12/12, Log and timber detailing with
regional stone. Windows are predominantly large expanses of glass framing the
views instead of small individual openings.
Non -orthogonal windows/lightwells. No non -orthogonal window are found in the
subject structures. No areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells are not located on the street
facing facade, so this standard does not apply.
CONTEXT
These standards are to reinforce the unique character of Aspen and the region by
drawing upon Aspen's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in
designing new structures.
Materials
The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application are consistent on all
sides of the proposed buildings. Materials are used in ways that are true to their
characteristics. No highly reflective materials have been used for exterior materials.
Inflection
The one story ADU meets the inflection requirement. There is an adjacent, flat roofed,
one story home to the east and the ADU has a complementary one story design. The
adjacent home is beige with white trim and is photos is found in the in the neighborhood
block plan photos in attachment #6 to this application.
SUMMARY
This attachment has shown compliance with all the residential design standards except
one. A variance requested to the "no window zone" in a effort to accentuate the required
street facing primary window would give it the prominence intended by the Design
Standards. The Aspen Area Community Plan Update supports an awareness of
"contextual appropriateness"-. encouraging expressions of Aspen's diverse context over
and above its Victorian History alone. The project needs to be considered in its entirety:
meeting or exceeding the all standards but one, that the variance is requested in order to
strengthen a required element in its design, it provides a detached home for the
caretakers, and it fulfills the communities desire to improve the quality of the design and
construction in all its neighborhoods.
Sarah Oates of the Community Development Department has reviewed the applicant's
proposal for zoning issues and compliance with the above Residential Design Review
Standards. Sarah has agreed that the project is in compliance, if the one "no window
zone" variance is granted.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Single Family Home
ADDRESS:
ZONING CODE ANALYSIS
Zone District:
Minimum Lot Size:
Required Open Space
Min. Front Yard setback
Min. East Side Yard Setback
Min. West Side Yard Setback
Min. Rear Yard Setback
Maximum Height
Off-street Parking
AREA CALCULATIONS - LOT 6 and 7
1. Gross Lot Area
2. Less Area Underwater
3. Less Drive Access Easement
4. Lot Area Available for Floor Area Calculation
5. Maximum Floor Area
6. Minimum Floor Area (75% of max)
Analysis by Slope Reduction
7. Lot Area Available for Floor Area Calculation
8. Less slopes over 30 %
(21,351 SF less 384 SF in Drive Access)
9. Less 1/2 slopes btwn. 20 & 30%
(4,472 SF less 258 SF in Drive Access)
10. Less Area Under Water
11. Less Drive Access Easement
12. Lot Area Available for Floor Area Calculation
13. Floor Area Based on Slope Reduction
New Construction
November 2, 1999 Revised
Roaring Fork Road, Aspen
Lots 6 & 7
R - 15
15,000
No Requirement
25 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
25 ft.
2/dwelling
65,027 SF
(5,884 SF)
(1,773 SF)
571370 SF
6,747 SF
51060 SF
651027 SF
(20,967 SF)
(4,215 SF)
(5,884 SF)
(1,884 5jF
32)077 SF
5525 SF
Total Allowable Floor Area (Larger of lines 6 & 13) 5,525 SF
Page 2
Zoning Code Analysis
November 2, 1999 Revised
Floor Area (F.A.R.) Code
Actual
Main Level --
2308 SF
Upper Level --
1965 SF
Basement Level --
1250 SF
(5,281 SF Gross 22% Exposed Wall Area)
Sub -Grade Level --
52 SF
Detached ADU --
650 SF
Less ADU Bonus (50% of 700 SF Net Livabie)
(-350 SF)
Less Garage Bonus 250 SF + (50% of 250 SF)
(-75 SF
Total F.A.R. 5,525 SF
51500 SF
Deck Area (15 % of 5,525 SF F.A.R.) 828 SF
828 SF
NOV-16-1999 "TUE 03:46 PM FAX NO. P. 01
County of Pitkin ) AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
) ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060 (E)
Le 00, ul <2 , being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that Z have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.304,060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. in the
following manner;
-tf%rvugh Aotza4 Lne, (spy 1d,4
I. By mailing of noticea 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
s�
property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of NbU., 1997 (which is i S
days prior to the public hearing date of
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 /t o u. 199 (Must
.� (M be posted for at least ten (I0) full
days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
h
1.1PUBLIC NOTICE
�C)ou A'J
r _
Signature
l Signed before me this Ko day
._, l 9nby
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: -1
n n [\ . n
otary public
Notary Public's Signature
YP
..... IA
�p�'gNAN
W►�Ot�
V OF CQe
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the
Aspen Land Use Regulations
State of Colorado)
SS.
City of Aspen )
The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
I, Alice Davis, personally certify that the Public Notice of
the land use application for a Conditional Use Review for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit and Residential Design Review for Lots 6
and 7, Second Aspen Company Subdivision (the Lauder Property) was
given by posting notice containing the information required in
Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. This
posting of a sign occurred on November 1, 1999, 15 days prior to
the public hearing date of November 16,1999. (Posting requirement
is ten days prior to the public hearing.) The posting of the sign
was in a conspicuous place so it could be seen from the nearest
public way, Roaring Fork Drive. The sign was posted and visible
continuously from the 1st of November through the hearing date.
A,. • J
*99C&r ng Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged and
shed re me this day of 01 —t' L 9�8�.
4 Nov. lft�
SS my hand and official seal.
commission expires: - b3la000.
NOTARY PUBLIC
44
. 1
. J
�.
� �7 '
OF
(SEAL)
r
By
Alice Davis
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, Janet Lynn Raczak, do hereby certify that I placed in the United States Mail, First -Class
Postage Prepaid, on November 1, 1999, a copy of the attached Public Notice for Bermuda
Properties Land Use Application for Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit -
Second Aspen Subdivision, Lots 6 &7, Special Review, to individuals listed on the List of
Adjacent Property Owners, also attached hereto.
.net Lynn R czak
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT- SECOND ASPEN SUBDIVISION, LOTS 6 & 7, SPECIAL REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday,
November 16, 1999, 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 Bermuda Properties, 676 Fifth Ave. 401h Floor, New
York, NY 10153, requesting a Special Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit. The property is described as Lots 6 & 7, Second Aspen Subdivision of
the City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Nick Lelack at the
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970)
920-5095.
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 29, 1999
City of Aspen Account
ATTAGNMENT 1
State of Colorado )
ss AFFIDAVIT OF JANET RACZAK
County of Pitkin )
I, JANET RACZAK, Afliant, being of lawful age and duly sworn upon my oath, do depose and
state as follows:
1. On September 7, 1999, I visited the Pitkin County Assessor's Office to review the records of
adjacent land owners who were to receive Notice for the Lauder land use application.
2. Based on my research the most current list was provided to Glenn Horn of Davis Horn.,
Incorporated, representative for the Applicant, for submittal to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Community Development Office.
3. I made a good faith effort to obtain an accurate list 'of the names and addresses of the land owners
adjacent to the subject parcel (see Exhibit "A" ), property assigned Parcel ID No. 273712104006
located on the maps at the Assessor's Office.
4. The submittal also includes a copy of the mapping obtained from the Assessor's Office (see
Exhibit "B").
FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
L—
J t L. Raczak
The foregoing instrument -was acknowledged and signed before me on September 8, 1999 by
Janet L. Raczak.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: OZ pi pWda
(SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC
Helen Ecclestone Stone
One John's Island Road
Vero Beach FL 32963
Ray & Rosemarie Lavender
POB 1129
Aspen CO 81612
Marvin Josephson
33 E 70"' Street
NY NY 10021
H.L. Hawkins III
415 Lafayette # 100
New Orleans LA 70130
John & Kathryn Cheek
5001 Clommel Road
Nashville TN 37220
Robert & Betsy Dubofsky
5 Harbor Way
Kings Point NY 11024
Howard C. Draft, Trustee
c/o Louis R Malikow
14 Corporate Drive
Clifton Park NY 12065
Daniel & Karen Lee
95 Brentwood Drive
Glencoe IL 60022
Albert & Susan Kern
Box 389
Aspen CO 81612
247 of Aspen, LLC
c/o Levinson
POB 2012
Aspen CO 81612
Joseph & Elizabeth Musser
W 3080 First National Bank Building 332
St. Paul MN 55101
LIST OF OWNERS
WITHIN 300 FEET
OF SUBJECT
Parcel No. 273512104006
JWV Associates
1825 W. Mockingbird Land
Dallas TX 75235
Arthur & Audrey Greenberg
223 N. Carmelina Ave
Los Angeles CA 90049
Elizabeth Grindlay LLLP
POB 2154
Aspen CO 81612
Jack & Gesine Crandall
POB 1066
Aspen CO 8161.2
Ecclestone Trust
POB 3267
West Palm Beach FL 33402
Leonard & Evelyn Lauder
2 E. 67 h Street
NY NY 10021
Gary Lauder & William Lauder
767 - 5' Avenue, 40' Floor
NY NY 10153
Gail & James Merriam
1884 Mountain View Drive
Tiburon CA 94920
Edward Arthur Goldstein Trust
416 Comstock Avenue
Los Angeles CA 90024
David Koch
c/o Koch Industries
4111 E. 37 h Street North
Witchita KS 67220
David Koch
c/o Koch Industries
POB 2256
Witchita KS 67201
EXHIBIT "A" - Page 1
k
Stephen Marcus
POB 1709
Aspen CO 81612
Sant Maralyn Viersen Rev. Trust
Bridgeport 111 #200
6450 South Lewis .
Tulsa OK 74136-1059
4
Merle Chambers
4750 S. Dahlia Street
Littleton CO 80121
Merle Chambers
c% Axem Resources, Inc.
4750 S. Dahlia Street
Littleton CO 80121
Wood Duck Realty Corp.
c/o Darryl Dworman
65 W. 55d' Street #4A
NY NY 10019
Walnut Creek Ranch
4520 Main Street #1050
Kansas City MO 64111-1816
Selim Zilkha Trust
750 Lausanne Road
Los Angeles CA 90077
Anne Farish
2200 Willowick 16E
Houston TX 77027
Jeffrey Hale Johnston
1751 W. Citracado Parkway
Escondido CA 92029
Paul Starodoj & Robert Starodoj
POB 1121
Aspen CO 81612
Walter Paepcke Life Ins. Trust
c/o Holland & Hard
600 E. Main Street
Aspen CO 81611
John & Brenda Duncan
5851 San Felipe #850
Houston TX 77057
Linda & John Gersh
c/o Robert Gersh
802 N. Elm Street
Beverly Hills CA 90210
Phillips Family Trust
1540 S. Coast Highway #204
Laguna Beach CA 92651-3260
George & Susan Fesus
1340 Clay Street 31 P
San Francisco CA 94109
Willoughby Ponds
c/o Matthew Bucksbaum, Trustee
POB 1536
Des Moines IA 50306
Bruce Halle
14631 N. Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale AZ 85254-2701
Terry & Roberta Turkat
130 N. Beverly Glen
Los Angeles CA 90024
Golda & Sheldon Friedstein
POB 7917
Aspen CO 81612
Music Associates of Aspen
2 Music School Road
Aspen CO 81611
Aspen Institute Inc.
1000 N. 3rd Street
Aspen CO 81611
EXHIBIT "A" - Page 2
LM
C4
\ ' N' O r J x ha
0
Z)
0
CD
IN
fj--
"j-
0
V-
03 `'! = -r`r- .SKI
ot
IJ
L
-rj
k 40
an
O
s. Rf � — ., , t"' � , �� \s`Y- ir4 � /�S/�Js t+a3e � SY+'•Jew iY1�itI -. �� + S 15�,\�.�-�'a h ::i�< ..:,o +t#�r,l??,,..
cci
C4
C4
V-
C4
en
IN,
p
C-4
/ ,/ \/ Q%'r o
C4
cl;
gs
Cq
4-0
C
se L
921
fn
10
CL—
EL
LD
V
C:
I LLJ
cei I ! � i 1
mo
6Z!
111 lblqq
fLhll�ll� If: (�
�(aL;fl�lf�l�
NAME OF PROJECT: LAAAr,>t�F�
CITY CLERK:
STAFF:
WITNESSES: (1) Au CE —D O9 U IS
(4)
(5)
EXHIBITS: I Staff Report ( (Check If Applicable)
2 Affidavit of Notice (Check If Applicable)
3 Board Criteria Sheet ( (Check If Applicable)
C!
MO'n�a5 I \�- �p p
"' WI�TF�L� y a.l'1
"2 Sri Y'ews.0
4—1 !
4AVOTE: YES NO
Z
YES' NO
ROGER HUNT YES A`f NO
ROBERT BLAICH YES � NO
XT
YES NO
�s2 .0
�NO
JASMINE TYGRE
YES
TIMOTHY MOONEY
YES V-VNO'
STEVEN BUETTOW
YES /NO
U
YES NO
'ill(, ICLq
ACTION: CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR AN ADU
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.
rhiv,,conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
imm diate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and
surrou ding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses
and acti It
in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
developme t.
tion, s' , design and operating characteristics of the proposed
con ' ' nal use 'nimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts,
impacts on destr n and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service
delivery, not e, ibra ions and odor on surrounding properties.
There are adequat u lic cilities and services to serve the conditional
use including but n i ite o roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste,
arks, police, fire roteVti , e ergency medical services, hospital and
P P P
medical services, draina ymAem and schools.
The applicant commits to suppl
incremental need for increased
use.
ble housing to meet the
0�generated by the conditional
The proposed conditional use complies witK ap a ditional standards
imposed on it by the Aspen Area ComprehedsWe Plan and by all other
applicable requirements of this title.
ACCESSORY D LLING UNITS:
Accessory dwe 'ng units shall contain not less than three hundred (300)
square feet and n ore than seven hundred (700) square feet of net
livable area. The un shall be deed restricted, meeting the Housing
Authority's guidelines r resident occupied units and shall be limited
to rental periods of not le than six (6) months in duration. Owners
of the principle residence sh 1 have the right to place a qualified
employee or employees of his o her choosing in the accessory dwelling
BANDIT UNITS:
Any 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.
GMQS/REPLACEMENT HOUSING CREDITS:
Accessory dwelling units shall not be used to obtain points in the
affordable housing category of the Growth Management Quota
System. Only those units meeting the housing size, type, income
and occupancy guidelines of approval of the housing designee
and the standards of Section 26.100.090 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, "Residential
Multi -Family Housing Replacement Program."
FAR FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS:
For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor
area for a lot whose principle use is residential, the following shall
apply: the allowable floor area for an above -grade attached
accessory dwelling unit shall be excluded to a maximum of 350
square feet of allowable floor area or fifty percent of the size of
the accessory dwelling unit, whichever is less. This floor area
exclusion provision only applies to accessory dwelling units which
are subject to review and approval by the P and Z pursuant to
conditional use review and approval, Section 26.60.030 of this
code, and the units must be deed restricted, registered with the
housing office, and available for rental to an eligible working
resident of Pitkin County. The owner retains the right to select
the renter for the unit. An ADU separated from a principal
structure by a distance of no less than ten feet with a maximum
footprint of 450 square feet shall be calculated at 50 percent of
the allowable floor area up to 700 square feet of Floor Area.
Any element linking the principal structure to the accessory
structure may be no more than one story tall, six feet wide, and
ten feet long.
compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement
Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with
the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication
Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630.
/�O
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE CRITERIA:
For a variance to be granted, it would have to be based on one of the following
three criteria:
The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the
P
As en Area Community Plan, or /p .
The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem
the given standard responds to, or A)v
A variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual
site specific constraints. N�
KX3
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
• -9 L i jk.
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
Christopher Bendon, Planner 4M
Code Amendment — Planned Unit Development — Public Hearing
Section 26.445
November 16, 1999
SUMMARY:
The City of Aspen recently revised the regulations for Planned Unit Development
(PUD) reviews. This is the most flexible land use tool the City has and the one used
for the majority of large projects. The regulations allow all properties of more than
27,000 square feet (one half block) to go through this process. In addition, any
property within a zone district which either requires or allows dimensions to be
established through a PUD may also go through this process. These zone districts are
Affordable Housing, Lodge Preservation, Public, and Park.
However, there may be parcels in town where there may actually be a significant
public benefit to be gained by allowing the project to be considered through the PUD
process and which do not fall into one of these PUD categories. In fact, one such
property has recently come to the attention of City officials: the Community Banks
parcel and the area directly east of the building. This vacant area could well be used
to promote the goals expressed in the AACP, but does not currently have the ability to
be reviewed as a PUD. This is only one example of small, infill opportunities that
may exist throughout town.
This code amendment proposes that the flexibility of PUD be extended to these
smaller properties if, prior to the process being initiated, it is determined that the PUD
process would best serve the interests of the community. This caveat will ensure that
the Community Development Department is not inundated with a PUD request on
every parcel in town without at least a "heads -up" and the ability to make a
recommendation on the appropriate review process.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a
recommendation of approval to City Council for this text amendment
concerning the allowance of small parcels to be reviewed under the PUD
regulations.
APPLICANT:
Community Development Department, City of Aspen.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Text Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the
application at a public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or
denial to City Council.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Under this system, a developer would first bring an idea to the Community
Development Department to gain staff input. The idea could then be presented to
City Council with the opportunity for staff to discuss the project's relation to the
AACP and the merit of allowing the project to proceed through a PUD process. City
Council could decide to allow the project to be reviewed under the PUD standards
with no guarantees of its success as a PUD. At that point, an application could be
submitted under the PUD standards, subject to the full review.
It should be noted that the City Planning Department will be proposing code
amendments to create an Infill Program encouraging greater densities and increased
development downtown. Staff s preference for this Infill Program is to closely define
the parameters of acceptable development rather than allowing each project to be
reviewed under a PUD. Once an Infill Program is defined, projects may come
forward as either "by -right" projects or with lesser review requirements. In this
manner, the development parameters may be intimately reviewed once rather than
with each project — saving significant amounts of staff time.
In that light, this code amendment may seem to contradict staff s preference for an
effective Infill Program. An Infill Program, however, will not be initiated until the
Spring of 2000 and may take 6 months to gain adoption. This code amendment
would allow projects to go forward on an individual basis and may also serve as good
test cases for a broader program. In addition, staff has intentionally inserted an
additional "check" that requires the. developer seek the status to be reviewed as a
PUD. With this extra step, staff does not expect an overwhelming rush of
applications.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Council a
recommendation of approval to amend the Planned Unit Development applicability
provisions, Section 26.445.020, to allow properties smaller than 27,000 square feet to
be reviewed as PUD's
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend City Council amend the Planned Unit Development
applicability provisions to allow properties of less than 27,000 square feet to be
reviewed as PUD's, as provided in Resolution 99-."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Proposed P&Z Resolution
2
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL AMEND APPLICABILITY PROVISIONS
OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SECTION 26.445.020 OF THE LAND
USE CODE.
Resolution No. 99 -
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.304.040, City Council may initiate text
amendments to the Land Use Code and did so initiate this text amendment to the Land
Use Code after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Director;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council may approve Amendments to the text of the Land
Use Code after taking and considering recommendations from the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed
public hearing, and taking and considering public testimony at a duly noticed public
hearing in conformance with the review criteria set forth in Section 26.310; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department analyzed the amendment,
pursuant to Section 26.310, and recommended the applicability section of the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) regulations be amended to allow parcels of less than 27,000
square feet in size to be reviewed under the provisions of PUD, as provided herein; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 16, 1999, the
Planning and Zoning Commission considered a recommendation made by the
Community Development Director, took and considered public testimony, and
recommended, by a _ to _ vote L-J, City Council amend the applicability provision of
the Planned Unit Development Section of the Land Use Code, Section 26.445.020, as
provided herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the City Council should amend the applicability provisions of the Planned Unit
Development regulations with the inclusion of the following underlined text to be
included in Section 26.445.020:
A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by
the property owners of any proposed development in the City of Aspen that is on a parcel
of land equal to or greater than twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for
residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes.
A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by
the property owners of any proposed development in the City of Aspen that is on a parcel
of land less than twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for residential,
commercial, tourist or other development purposes if, prior to application, the City
Council determines, by Resolution, the development of the property may have the ability
to further one or more goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and that the provisions
of the Planned Unit Development land use review process will best serve the interests of
the community. By virtue of this determination, the application shall not be granted any
special rights or privileges and shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all
applicable portions of this chapter.
A development application for a Minor Planned Unit Development (Minor PUD) may be
applied for by the property owners of a parcel of land located within the Lodge
Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District intended for development consistent with the
purpose of the LP Overlay Zone District.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 16, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
C:\home\CERISB\CASES\PUD-27k\PZ—RESO.doc
Robert Blaich, Chair
TR ffm Ilk -
STAFF COMMENTS: Code Amendment
Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed code amendment would allow these smaller properties to be reviewed
under the provision of Planned Unit Development. This PUD process ensures
compatibility with all portions of the Land Use Code through a heightened review
process involving many referral agencies, input from elected and appointed Boards and
Commissions, input from the general public. Staff believes this criteria has been met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The amendment would allow these smaller properties to be reviewed as PUD if, prior to
application, there is a determination that the parcel has the ability to promote goals of the
AACP. This determination does not bind the hands of reviewing agencies or approval
bodies when the project comes back as a PUD. The PUD criteria also require that the
project demonstrate the manner in which it conforms or promotes the goals of the
Community Plan. Staff believes the ability to demonstrate how a small parcel can
promote the goals of the AACP is consistent with the Community Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding:
These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text
amendment. The PUD provision require that the proposed development demonstrate how
these concerns are addressed and adequately mitigated.
Staff Comments 1
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities,
including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
This text amendment will not, itself, introduce additional demands on public services. In
fact, the PUD process itself has several criteria addressing the provision of infrastructure
and the project's ability to be served. The PUD process may, in fact, ensure to a greater
degree that these concerns are appropriately considered.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
The PUD process, in part, is intended to ensure the proposed development does not have
a significant negative effect upon the natural environment or that those impacts are
realized and mitigated to the extend practicable. Allowing additional projects to be
reviewed under these standards, therefore, would further protect the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The ability for smaller parcels to be reviewed through the PUD provisions may actually
ensure a higher compatibility with the character of this community with the additional
public hearing requirements and criteria of the PUD review. Staff believes this criteria is
met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
This criteria applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
The PUD process ensures the project's compatibility with the public interest. The caveat
statement that requires the parcel first be deemed a parcel that may contribute to the
community interest prior to initiating the process will prevent a "flood" of applications
for every small parcel in town. Staff believes this statement is in the public interest.
C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\PUD-27k\PZ EX A.doe
Staff Comments 2
City of Aspen Community Development
r
To: Mayor and City Council, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director �
Date: 11 /11 /99
RE: Gramiger Sketch Plan
At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Tuesday, November 16th at
6PM, we will be reviewing our first Sketch Plan Review under the revised Land Use
Code. That section of the code is very specific about who should review the plan, the
input being sought, and provides limited guidance to the developer. Below is the
language from the code that should guide us in this review.
Sketch plan review. If the Community Development Director, in consultation with the
applicant, determines that a proposed development application may be complex,
have the potential for significant community interest, involves a public facility, or the
proposed project would benefit from additional community input, the Community
Development Director may schedule a joint meeting with the City Council and either
the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, or both,
for a sketch plan review. A sketch plan review may be held either before or after an
application is submitted and determined to be sufficiently complete by the Director of
the Community Development Department. If it is scheduled after an application is
determined complete by the Community Development Director, the sketch plan
review meeting shall be conducted prior to any other land use review proceeding
required by this Code. A sketch plan review meeting shall be noticed by publication,
mailing and posting, (See Section 26.304.060(E)(3)), and the joint meeting shall be
conducted as a public meeting. The minutes of the joint meeting shall become part of
the formal record of the proceedings before the City Council and the decision -making
body which has been invited to attend the joint meeting with the City Council. A
.quorum of the City Council shall not be required to conduct a sketch plan review
hearing. The Community Development Director may invite particular members of the
public (stakeholders) to attend and participate in the sketch plan review hearing. At
the conclusion of the public meeting, - the members of the City Council, decision -
making body invited to attend the joint meeting, and stakeholders (if invited to attend)
may offer the applicant advisory suggestions regarding the proposed application, but
shall not make any decisions regarding the application for development. Applicants
shall not be entitled to rely upon any decisions, comments, or suggestions made by
the members of the joint public meeting as no attempt shall be made to approve a
development proposal even on a conceptual level at a sketch plan review.
11/11/99 City of Aspen Community Development Dept.: Gramiger Sketch Plan 2
The applicant, Hans Gramiger and Rob Cumming, and I have met to discuss this
case, and agree that there is value in seeking community input at this early stage in
the process. This sketch plan review is being requested prior to the submittal of a
formal application. The staff has noticed this meeting as required by the Land Use
Code, and public notices were sent to all property owners within 300' of the property.
Members of the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission and stakeholders
should offer the applicant advisory suggestions regarding the proposed application,
but should not make any decisions regarding the application for development. The
applicants and I have discussed, and they are fully aware that they should not rely
upon any decisions, comments, or suggestions made by the members of the joint
public meeting. It is the intent of the meeting to provide the applicant with input as to
issues that may come up on the project, whether his sketch plan appears to be
heading in the right direction, and provides a forum for the applicant to hear from the
neighborhood as well as the decision -makers.
Staff encourages the Council and Commission to visit the site prior to the meeting in
order to make this a productive session for us all. (I am available to walk the site with
you, if you prefer). Attached is a Vicinity Map that highlights the Gramiger parcel.
Also attached is a copy of the Sketch Plan and a narrative provided by the applicants
that will be the subject of the Sketch Plan Review. If you have any questions
regarding this project, please feel free to contact me at 920-5100.
Attachments
\� �\
� ' �'
i
,��
�'
��
�'�
.,`
Gramiger/Shadow Mountain
Sketch Plan Review
Aspen City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission Joint Meeting
November 16, 1999
Robert M. Cumming, Jr.
5680 Grand River Drive
Ada, Michigan 49301
616.682.9270, 616.292.2986
Gramiger/Shadow Mountain Sketch Plan Review
Aspen City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission Joint Meeting
November 16, 1999
Project deed
County and city elected and appointed officials recently set a goal for the Housing
Authority to bring at least 600 affordable housing units on-line within the next two years.
The finding by a panel of housing experts released last week states that the Housing
Authority will need help from outside sources to achieve this goal. This project, pro-
posed by a private -sector applicant under the AH zone district, will make great strides
towards reaching that goal.
Project Description
The Gramiger/Shadow Mountain site is a unique opportunity to build a high quality
"We are seeking to create a community of a
affordable housing and free-market residential neighborhood with a considerable open
size, density, and diversity that encourages
space component. Its in -town location, with easy access to the commercial core, and
interaction, involvement and vitality among its
frequent and reliable RFTA service, responds to the goals and principles of the Draft
people."
Aspen Area Community Plan for affordable housing. The ability to complete gaps in the
Draft Aspen Area Community Plan, page 2
trails system as identified in the Parks Department's Trails Master Plan and to preserve
a key parcel located adjacent to town as open space also responds to the Draft Aspen
Area Community Plan's goals for parks and open space.
Highlights of the project include:
❑ 32 affordable housing units, with a mix which addresses currenthousing needs;
❑ 9 free-market housing units, with a mix of duplex and detached unit types;
❑ a neighborhood park, similar in character to Aspen's Triangle Park;
❑ trail connections along West Hopkins Avenue and Seventh Street Extended; and
❑ the preservation of a portion of Shadow Mountain as open space.
Meeting Goal
In addition to receiving general comments on the overall project, the applicant would
like to discuss key threshold issues. These issues are:
❑ project scale, inQluding building setbacks and height; and
❑ parking ratios.
Robert M. Cumming, Jr.
5680 Grand River Drive
Ada, Michigan 49301
616.682.9270, 616.292.2986
._wFsr
C)
1 /
F :c
ShadowMountain
ROBERT M GUMMING, JR 5680 GRAND RIVER DRIVE ADA, MICHIGAN
I
300.
A STUDIO, 2 BDRMS, &. COMMUNITY ROOM
B STUDIOS, 1, 3, & 4 BDRMS
C STUDIOS, 1, 3, & 4 BDRMS
D 1 & 2 BDRMS
E 2BDRMS
Free Market Housing
F 3 BDRM TOWNHOMES
G. 3 BDRM TOWNHOMES
H 4 BRDM HOME
1 4 BDRM HOME
J 4 BDRM HOME
K 4 BDRM HOME
L 4 BDRM HOME
Site Features
1 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
2 - COVERED PARKING
3 CORNER PARK
4 ENTRANCE PATIO
5 BASE OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN TRAIL
6 CONNECTION TO MAROLT BRIDGE
I Conceptual Plan
DESIGN WORKSHOP, INC 120 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO
NOVEMBER 10, 1999 jOk
7"7
NORTH 0 25' 50' 100'
Shadow Mountain Masterplan
ROBERT M GUMMING, JR 5680 GRAND RIVER DRIVE ADA, MICHIGAN
Street View
DEISGN WORKSHOP, INC 120 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO
NOVEMBER 10, 1999
s
DEISGN WORKSHOP, INC 120 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO
ROBERT M CUMMING, JR 5680 GRAND RIVER DRIVE ADA, MICHIGAN
NOVEMBER 10, 1999
Gramiger/Shadow Mountain Sketch Plan Review
Aspen City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission Joint Meeting
November 16, 1999
Your Comments for the Applicant and Project Team
Please leave your comment form with the applicant at the meeting or, if your prefer, mail to the
address below. Thanks.
Robert M. Cumming, Jr.
5680 Grand River Drive
Ada, Michigan 49301
616.682.9270, 616.292.2986
Gramiger/Shadow Mountain Sketch Plan Review
Aspen City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission Joint Meeting
November 16, 1999
Applicant and Project Team
o Hans R. Gramiger
P.O. Box 67
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970.925.7733
o Robert M. Cumming, Jr.
5680 Grand River Drive
Ada, Michigan 49301
616.682.9270
o Design Workshop, Inc.
Richard Shaw
Sheri Sanzone
120 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970.925.8354
o Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer
Jay Hammond
118 West 6th Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
970.945.1004
o Charles T. Brandt & Associates
Charles T. Brandt
420 East Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970.920.1018
o Freilich Myler Leitner & Carlisle
David J. Myler
106 South Mill Street, Suite 202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970.920.1018
Robert M. Cumming, Jr.
5680 Grand River Drive
Ada, Michigan 49301
616.682.9270, 616.292.2986
Co o e- ftf-t=4vuuJZ0(,
with the standards in Expansion of a Non
Conforming Use. The property is located at 300
Redstone Boulevard and is described as a tract
of land situated in the NE 1/4 of Section 17,
Township 10 South, Range 88 West of the 6th
P.M. The application/resolution are available for
public inspection in the Community
Development Department, City Hall, 130 S.
Galena St., Aspen CO 81611. For further informa-
tion, contact Gabe Preston at (970) 920-5092.
Jeanette Jones,
Deputy County Clerk
Board of County Commissioners
Published in The Aspen Times on October 30,
1999. (52666)
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Annual Report of the Gayla W. Coulter
Family Foundation for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 1998 is available at its principal
office at 950 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, Colorado
81611 during regular business hours by any citi-
zen on request made within 180 days after the
date of this publication. The foundation manag-
er is Rob Gile, telephone (970) 920-4653.
Published in The Aspen Times October 36, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Notice is hereby given to the general pub-
lic of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of
Aspen -and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised
Statutes, pertaining to the following described
property: 550 Aspen Alps Road of.the City and
Townsite of Aspen, by Resolution No. 19, Series
Of 1999 of the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission.
For further information contact Julie Ann
Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St, Aspen,
Colorado (970) 920-5090.
s/Kathryn S. Koch,
City Clerk, City of Aspen
Publish in The Aspen Times on October 30,
1999. (52652)
PUBLIC NOTICE
A copy of the 1998 Annual Report of the
Flatirons Foundation is available for inspection
at its principal office, 514 East Hyman, Aspen,
Colorado, 81611, during regular business hours,
on request made within 180 days after the date
of this publication.
Robert F. Starodoj, Secretary
Flatirons Foundation
Published in The Aspen Times on October 30,
November 6, 13, 1999. (52649)
PUBLIC NOTICE Now
RE: CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE AMEND-
MENT: SECTION 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVEL-
OPMENT (PUD).
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on November 16, 1999, at a meeting
to begin at 4:30 P.M. before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting
Room, City Hall 130 South Galena, Aspen, to con-
sider an application submitted by the City of
Aspen Community Development Department,
requesting approval for a Proposed Code
Amendment to Section 26.445, Planned Unit
Development. The request is to include text to
allow properties of less than 27,000 square feet
in size to be reviewed under the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) provisions. For further
information contact Chris Bendon at the Aspen
/Pitkin Community Development Department,
130 South Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072,
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times October 30, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTIre
COUNTY COURT, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 99C194
ORDER FOR PUBLICATION AND CHANGE OF
NAME
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE
CHANGE OF NAME OF:
Erin L. Fernandez, Petitioner.
ORDER FOR PUBLICATION
The Court having read and considered the
Petition for Change of Name and the petitioner's
affidavit, and the Court being sufficiently
advised,
FINDS: That the allegations made in said
petition and affidavit satisfy all statutory
requirements;
AND THE COURT. FURTHER FINDS: That
the desired change of name is proper and not
detrimental to the interests of any other person.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. That pursuant to statute, petitioner
shall give Public notice of such change of name
by publication of Public Notice three (3) times in
The Aspen Times, a legal
newspaper, published in said county. This publi-
cation is to be made within 20 days of the date
of this Order. Proper proof of publication shall
be filed with the Clerk of the Court upon final
publication.
2. That upon proof of publication being
filed with the Clerk of the Court, the name of
Erin L. Fernandez will he chanaPri r„ n.i.,
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
TRUSTEE'S SALE
No. 99-17
To Whom It May Concern: This Notice is given
with regard to the following described Deed of
Trust:
Robert P. Gillman, Trustee of the
Gillman Trust dated October 24, 1983 Original
Grantor (Borrower)
Vectra Bank Colorado, National Association (for-
merly Pitkin County Bank & Trust Co.)- Original
Beneficiary
Vectra Bank Colorado, National Association
(formerly Pitkin County Bank & Trust Co.)
Current Owner of the Evidence of Debt Secured
by the Deed of Trust
September 8, 1997- Date of Deed of Trust
October 16, 1997- Recording Date of Deed of
Trust
Pitkin- County of Recording
409524- Reception No.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the
owner of the evidence of debt, the original prin-
cipal amount of which was Five Hundred
Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($500,000.00) dol-
lars, and which is secured by the Deed of Trust
described above, has filed written election and
demand for sale as provided in said Deed of
Trust. The outstanding principal balance due
and owing upon the evidence of debt secured by
the above -described Deed of Trust being fore-
closed is $100,000.00 as of July 8,1999.
The real property being foreclosed is all of
the property encumbered by said Deed of Trust,
and is described as follows:
Lot 30, The Divide, according to the Plat
thereof recorded August 28, 1989, in Plat Book
23 at Page 27. County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado. also known by street and number as:
189 Aspen Way, Snowmass Village, CO 81615.
THE LIEN OF THE DEED OF TRUST BEING
FORECLOSED MAY NOT BE A FIRST LIEN.
-THEREFORE, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that 1
will, at 10:00 o'clock a.m., on the date of
November 17, 1999 at the south front door of of
the Pitkin County Courthouse, 506 East Main
Street in Aspen Colorado, sell at public auction
to the highest and best bidder for cash, the real
property described above, and all interest of
said Grantor, the heirs, successors and assigns
of said Grantor, for. the purpose of paying the
indebtedness provided in said evidence of debt
and Deed of Trust, attorney's fees, and the
expenses of sale, and will deliver to the pur-
chaser a certificate of purchase, all as provided
by law.
Thomas Carl Oken, Public. Trustee, Pitkin.
County, State of Colorado.
By Carol L. Foote,
Deputy Public Trustee.
October 1, 1999
First publication date: October 9, 1999
Last publication date: November 6, 1999
Name of Publication: The Aspen Times
Attorney for owner of evidence of debt -
Ronald Garfield, Garfield & Hecht; P.C., 601 East
Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
Published in The Aspen Times October 16, 23,
30, November 6, 13 1999. (51648)
PUBLIC NOTICE
ORDINANCE NO.41
(SERIES OF 1999)
kN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE
" ITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO AMEND THE
)EFINITION OF "RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY
-IOUSING," SECTION 26.104.100 OF THE LAND
JSE CODE.
:opies of the ordinance are available in the
dice of the city clerk, 130 S. Galena Aspen,
;olorado, during normal business hours..
'INALLY adopted passed and approved this
,6th day of October 1999.
Rachel E. Richards,
ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Mayor
Published in The Aspen Times October 30, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
ORDINANCE NO. 48,
SERIES OF 1999
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING SECTION 5.04.040(a), REGARDING
THE ASPEN LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY'S
TERMS FOR MEMBERS BY INCREASING THE
TERM FROM TWO YEARS TO FOUR YEARS AND
BY PROVIDING FOR AN ALTERNATE MEMBER
WHEREAS, Section 5.04.040(a) of the Aspen
Liquor Licensing Authority currently provides
for a two year term, and
WHEREAS, Section 5.04.040(a) of the Aspen
Liquor Licensing Authority currently provides
that "No person shrill serve or continue to serve
as a member of the Aspen Liquor Licensing
Authority for more than two consecutive
terms," and
WHEREAS, because of the inability of Council to
find qualified members and the desire of
Council to increase the length of terms, and
WHEREAS, City Council believes that the
appointment of a member should be for a period
of four (4) years and that no person should
serve more than two consecutive terms "unless
qualified replacement members are unavail-
qualified replacement meml
Further, no person shall sc
serve as a member of the A
son or any member of his im,
or may hereafter obtain any
the operation of any busine
relating to the sale or dispen
malt beverages or alcoholic
to Articles 46 or 47 of Title 1
Statutes, as amended.
(fv) Vacancies created by
or disqualification of a memt
shall be filled by appoint
Council and such appointme.
remainder of the unexpired t
lar member resigns, the alter
automatically be appointed a,
in replacement.
- (v) All members of the Aut,
ject to removal by the City C,
Section 2.
Effect on past or present men
present member may serve
four year term once his/t
expires and be eligible for cc.
ship thereafter if "qualified r
hers are unavailable."
Section 3.
If any section, subsection,
phrase, or portion of this or
reason held invalid or uncon
court of competent jurisdictic,
and such holding shall not af:
the remaining portions thereo
Section 4.
This ordinance shall not affec
gation and shall not operate a:
any action or proceeding now
by virtue of the ordinance am,
the same shall be conducte(
under such prior ordinance.
Section 5.
A public hearing on the ordini.
on the 8th day of November 1c
the City Council Chambers, As
South Galena, Aspen, Colorado
INTRODUCED AND READ as p,
the City Council of the City of
day of October 1999.
ATTEST. Kathryn S. Koch, City
Published in The Aspen Times
PUBLIC N07IC:
ORDINANCE NO.
(SERIES OF 199!
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO-,
MASTER DEED RESTRICTION r
OCCUPANCY AND RESALE OF T
ILY PROJECT OF THE MOORE F
UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
WHEREAS, the Boart
Commissioners (BOCC) of
Colorado, granted subdivision
Moore Family Planned Uni
(Moore Family PUD) by adol
Numbers 95-30 and 98-57, and r
dition that the James E.
Partnership, LLLP, enter into
Restriction Agreement for
Resale of the Moore Family Proj
with the Aspen/Pitkin Cc
kuthority, and the Agreement
mtered into on August 10, 1998:
WHEREAS, on June 28, 19
idopted Ordinance No. 24, Seri
)rdinance),which approved th,
he Moore Family PUD; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Sch
ehalf of the James E.
artnership, LLLP, has requeste
mendment to the Agreement; a
WHEREAS, the Communit
epartment has received and p.
:)mments from the Housing Aut
)ry recommendations from the
id BOCC; and,
WHEREAS, the City Counc:
)irit and intent of Ordinance 24
furthered by the adoption of
id that the changes to the
�striction for Occupancy and
()ore Family Project is in the h
e City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Counci.
Ainance furthers and is necess
)tion of public health, safety, a
)W, THEREFORE, BE IT ORD.
TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O
tADO, THAT:
etion 1:
e Moore Family PUD Master D.
Occupancy and Resale of the
>ject be amended to contain.
visions:
Require an employee who
)en School District for less thc.
o owns and occupies a "categ(
unit within one year aftc
ployment with the Aspen S
1, when the unit is offered for:
ool District will be offered th