Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20001003AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR INEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2000 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM SITE VISIT OF 1105 EAST UTE AVENUE AT 4:00 PM (MEET IN ALLEY BEHIND CITY HALL) I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES FROM 9/19 III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIOUS MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS, CHRIS BENDON CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 5`h B. 309 NORTH THIRD STREET DRAC AND BOA VARIANCES, SARAH OATES b Q-4c, Y(U4 A-P•P"1%iz�7b s; ---o F0A SCT(�)A-C-V- k*1 Ik-N CC- b ffOlt-M C. 1105 EAST UTE AVENUE DRAC V�RIANCE AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, NICK LELACK , , o D. PETRICK REZONING, 33 PITKIN MESA DRIVE, NICK LELACK 4 V. ADJOURN -I-- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner RE: Lodge Preservation Program — Information Item 1st Annual Review DATE: October 10, 2000 SUMMARY: Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999, revised the regulatory environment for lodges in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District. This is the first anniversary of the revised legislation and a summary of the LP actions that have occurred in the past year. There have been three LP projects approved and two additional projects are "in the pipeline." In total, the three approvals relate to 15 lodge rooms and 5 associated affordable housing units. The St. Moritz was approved for an addition of eight lodge rooms and 2 affordable units. The Molly Gibson Lodge has approval for one affordable housing unit. And, the Boomerang Lodge was approved for.7 lodge units and 2 affordable housing units. Still in the approvals process are two projects: the Christiannia Lodge and the Hotel Aspen. Both of these projects are in the Main Street Historic District, which requires a greater level of architectural review. In total, these pending projects relate to 17 lodge units and 4 affordable housing units. There have been no other formal actions in the LP sector, although staff occasionally holds (confidential) pre -application conferences with potential applicants. There are 29 lodge allotments remaining in the growth management "bucket" for LP lodges. This growth category remains separate from the tourist accommodations "bucket." Staff believes the intent behind the Lodge Preservation amendments is being met. There is some activity in the LP sector and, more importantly, the actions have been in the direction envisioned by those who worked on the LP Ordinance. The results of the previous LP program (1996 through 1999) saw a decrease of 82 lodge units within the LP system. The revisions have effectively reversed this trend. This report is restricted to lodges within the LP Zone District and may lead to a false impression of the overall bed base. There are several "small lodges" that are not zoned LP and the entire base of Aspen Mountain is not within the LP system. Other than the potential Grand Aspen redevelopment, there has been little activity in the bed base and there are glaring examples, such as the vacant Aspen Manor Lodge, of development opportunity. The positive direction of the LP Program is not necessarily indicative of the entire bed base. Community Development Department staff is proposing a more in-depth look at the overall bed base in the 2001 work program in response to Economic Sustainability goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The City Attorney's office is currently investigating Fractional Ownership and the land use implications this ownership arrangement may present to the City. This report is for information purposes only. As such, no action is required by the City Council. If further action, analysis, etc., is desired, City Council should direct planning staff to provide that additional assistance. A copy of this report was provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Summary of Lodge Preservation Actions 2 V1 • .� pp 4-o � � O .. ct ' cq O � � ["Im© N 1 1 N rn o O O O • • w � 4i � oct •POO AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR INEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2000 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM SITE VISIT OF 1105 EAST UTE AVENUE AT 4:00 PM (MEET IN ALLEY BEHIND CITY HALL) I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES FROM 9/19 III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIOUS MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS, CHRIS BENDON CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 5`h B. 309 NORTH THIRD STREET DRAC AND BOA VARIANCES, SARAH OATES b Q-4c, Y(U4 A-P•P"1%iz�7b s; ---o F0A SCT(�)A-C-V- k*1 Ik-N CC- b ffOlt-M C. 1105 EAST UTE AVENUE DRAC V�RIANCE AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, NICK LELACK , , o D. PETRICK REZONING, 33 PITKIN MESA DRIVE, NICK LELACK 4 V. ADJOURN -I-- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner RE: Lodge Preservation Program — Information Item 1st Annual Review DATE: October 10, 2000 SUMMARY: Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999, revised the regulatory environment for lodges in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District. This is the first anniversary of the revised legislation and a summary of the LP actions that have occurred in the past year. There have been three LP projects approved and two additional projects are "in the pipeline." In total, the three approvals relate to 15 lodge rooms and 5 associated affordable housing units. The St. Moritz was approved for an addition of eight lodge rooms and 2 affordable units. The Molly Gibson Lodge has approval for one affordable housing unit. And, the Boomerang Lodge was approved for.7 lodge units and 2 affordable housing units. Still in the approvals process are two projects: the Christiannia Lodge and the Hotel Aspen. Both of these projects are in the Main Street Historic District, which requires a greater level of architectural review. In total, these pending projects relate to 17 lodge units and 4 affordable housing units. There have been no other formal actions in the LP sector, although staff occasionally holds (confidential) pre -application conferences with potential applicants. There are 29 lodge allotments remaining in the growth management "bucket" for LP lodges. This growth category remains separate from the tourist accommodations "bucket." Staff believes the intent behind the Lodge Preservation amendments is being met. There is some activity in the LP sector and, more importantly, the actions have been in the direction envisioned by those who worked on the LP Ordinance. The results of the previous LP program (1996 through 1999) saw a decrease of 82 lodge units within the LP system. The revisions have effectively reversed this trend. This report is restricted to lodges within the LP Zone District and may lead to a false impression of the overall bed base. There are several "small lodges" that are not zoned LP and the entire base of Aspen Mountain is not within the LP system. Other than the potential Grand Aspen redevelopment, there has been little activity in the bed base and there are glaring examples, such as the vacant Aspen Manor Lodge, of development opportunity. The positive direction of the LP Program is not necessarily indicative of the entire bed base. Community Development Department staff is proposing a more in-depth look at the overall bed base in the 2001 work program in response to Economic Sustainability goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The City Attorney's office is currently investigating Fractional Ownership and the land use implications this ownership arrangement may present to the City. This report is for information purposes only. As such, no action is required by the City Council. If further action, analysis, etc., is desired, City Council should direct planning staff to provide that additional assistance. A copy of this report was provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Summary of Lodge Preservation Actions 2 V1 • .� pp 4-o � � O .. ct ' cq O � � ["Im© N 1 1 N rn o O O O • • w � 4i � oct •POO Exist Aspens New Aspen LO CM U O m a N Em c� n L- O O O r LL II C _ N 60 E a r (z m I I I I I I I I I a---------------- o-----------------d v ', N to 00 ai °' LO 0 rn cfl — :D ro 0 a) Q O d O CO CC M O Q O O C 5 (ts co f i O � O O Cc O [E.2 ........ .................................................................................................................... . C: - _� ^ T LL - M W T .........................................................................................:.•. ..............................•••••••,•••�•.. c N N N L 0 LL S r 0 T N N N O m- O � N r m n a u a s a- a (n u �w �w i-w F-w F w I I I I ;cri iscr i lY I � I IW I I I I I Lt lEm f I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I II I i II \, i i II ii----------H � i I I i ----------- I i I --------- ( I I D i ( I ( I I D ;I ------ i � II i � II I I I ---------- II J S zo N o= o w c bo 0 LL In CZ aCZ o r T Attachment 4 DRAC Standards for Granting a Variance DRAG Proposed Variance 309 N. 3rd St. Aspen, CO According to the DRAG standards for granting a variance under paragraph (c), it is our understanding that any decision to approve our application would be, as stated, "... clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific contraints". On behalf of the owners, we look forward to any approval that you might grant to us under these circumstances and feel strongly that your approval would reflect the very site specific contraints which exist on this property. AF 1, J J to IN ON } I � N Exist Aspens New Aspen El LAW OFFICES OF PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C. PAUL]. TADDUNE 323 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 301 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 925-9190 TELEFAX (970) 925-9199 INTERNET: taddune@compuserve.com WILLIAM GUEST, OF COUNSEL ANDREW H. BUSCHER, OF COUNSEL Ms. Kathryn Koch Aspen City Clerk 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Ms. Jackie Lothian Secretary of the Board of Adjustment 1.30 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 AFFILIATED OFFICE FOWLER, SCHIMBERG & FLANAGAN, P.C. 1640 GRANT STREET, SUITE 300 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 TELEPHONE (303) 298-8603 TELEFAX (303) 298-874` October 16, 2C00 Ms. Sarah Oates Zoning Enforcement Officer 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 1e: gallant Variance - 309 North Third Street Dear Kathryn, Jackie and Sarah: I have been contacted by Mr. and Mrs. Alma Sirkin, the o;vners of 426 West Halla i-, Street, to monitor any further action and oppose, if necessary, any appeal or reconsideration of the request for a variance by their neighbors, Mr. and. Mrs. Gallant, at 309 Nr.-rth Third Street. I assume that this matter .vas concluded when the Board of Adjustment did not grant the variance at its October 3, 2000 iiaeeting. However, if there is any further acti, on this matter by way of appeal or reconsideration, please advise me immediately. Mr. Mrs. Sirkin have returned to Miami and, therefore, need the assistance of someone locc-: oversee this matter for them in their absence. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Very truly yours, PAUL J. TADDUNE' P.C. Paul J. Taddune PJT:kc pc: Alan & Alicia Sirkin 3500 S. Bayhomes Drive Miami, FL 33133 C : \%%' P\ PJ T\ Lt,\ K-h.10.9.00-1. d W PAUL J. TADDUNE 323 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 301 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 925-9190 TELEFAX (970) 925-9199 INTERNET: taddune@compuserve.com WILLIAm GUEST, OF COUNSEL ANDREW H. BUSCHER, OF COUNSEL Ms. Kathryn Koch Aspen City Clerk 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C. October 16, 2000 Ms. Jackie Lothian Secretary of the Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 AFFILIATED OFFICE FOWLER, SCHIMBERG & FLANAGAN, P.C. 1640 GRANT STREET, SUITE 300 DENVER, COLORADO 80203, TELEPHONE (303) 298-8603 TELEFAX (303) 298-874: Ms. Sarah Oates Zoning Enforcement Officer 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Gallant Variance - 309 North Third Street Dear Kathryn, Jackie and Sarah: "I have been contacted by Mr. and Mrs. Alan Sirkin, the owners of 426 West Halla,z. Street, to monitor any further action and oppose, if necessary, any appeal or reconsideration of the request for a variance by their neighbors, Mr. and .Mrs. Gallant, at 309 North Third Street. I assume that this matter was concluded when the Board of Adjustment did not grant the variance at its October 3, 2000 meeting. However, if there .is any further actin on this matter by way of appeal or reconsideration, please advise me immediately. Mr. Mrs. Sirkin have returned to Miami and, therefore, need the assistance of someone loci oversee this matter for them in their absence. Thank you in advance for your assistance. 3 I Very truly yours, PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C.,- Paul J.*Taddune, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C. WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 301 ASPEN, COLORADo 81611 • TO: Planning and Zoning Commission/Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director �o FROM: Nick Lelack, Planne RE: Hoag Lot 4, 1105 E. Ute Avenue - 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standard Variance for a Driveway Cut Exceeding 2-feet in the Front Yard Setback DATE: October 3, 2000 APPLICANT: Thomas Coleman REPRESENTATIVE: Jack Miller, Francis Krizmanich LOCATION: Ute Avenue, Hoag Subdivision EXISTING LAND USE: Duplex PROPOSED LAND USE: Duplex with detached garage ZONING: R-15 PUD LOT SIZE: 17,107 sq. ft. FAR: Existing: 3,356 sq. ft. Allowed: approx. 3,890 sq. ft. Proposed: approx. 3,890 sq. ft. The driveway cut would be into this hillside. SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to build an addition to an existing duplex and a new detached garage. The development requires 8040 Greenline Review, and a variance from the Residential Design Standards - Parking, Garages and Carports standard. REVIEW PROCEDURE The 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standards variance requests are combined in one application. This consolidated application is a one-step review at a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny either or both requests. STAFF COMMENTS: Thomas Coleman ("Applicant"), represented by Jack Miller of Jack Miller & Associates Architecture / Planning, is requesting approval for an 8040 Greenline Review and a Residential Design Standard variance for an addition to an existing duplex and a new detached garage. The Land Use Code states that No development shall be permitted at, above, or 150 feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all of the review criteria, which are discussed in Exhibit A. This property is within 150 feet of the 8,040' elevation. Staff recommends denial of the 8040 Greenline Review finding that not all of the review criteria have been met. One of the criterion Staff does not believe has been met is Criterion 4, which states: The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Although the application states that the removal of vegetation and all grading will be minimized, this development will create large cuts, require significant grading, and cause the removal of a substantial amount of vegetation on the parcel. Staff believes this development will negatively change the character of the hillside and mountain as a scenic resource, cause a degradation to the environmental quality of the site, and therefore is not compatible with the terrain of the parcel. The site contains a significant amount of dense, mature vegetation and very steep slopes. Based on the site plan provided by the Applicant, Staff believes the proposed addition would be built on approximately 38% slopes. The proposed driveway would be built on slopes ranging between 30%- 70%, and the garage would be built on slopes of approximately 44%. The proposed Residential Design Standard variance is from the Parking, Garages and Carports standard. Specifically, the variance is from Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d), which states, "When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade. Currently, there are two curb cuts to the property off of Ute Avenue. These cuts create access to the property via a circular driveway. The driveway is approximately 17 feet wide, which appears wide enough to accommodate parking on one side and vehicles to pass the parked cars on the other side. i�I�II�1011�111ii11I1�IlUlllllllllllllllllllll�I iv No garage currently exists on this lot. The only on -site parking is on the circular driveway. The photographs on the previous pages show the approximate locations of the proposed garage and driveway cut. Staff believes the proposed location and cut would substantially impact the hillside. Staff and the Applicant discussed the potential of moving the garage closer to the street and driveway to minimize the impacts on the steep hillside. However, moving the garage closer to the property line would require a set back variance because accessory buildings must be set back 30 feet from the property line. Variance requests are decided by the Board of Adjustment; although the Board can grant variances for garages, they have typically not granted such variances because not having a garage is not viewed as being a hardship. Though Staff doesn't believe the review criteria are met for either the setback variance or the Residential Design Standard variance, the Applicant will argue that Criteria C: Clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, is applicable in this case. Staff believes that existing off-street parking on the circular drive is adequate for the parcel; Staff further believes that a lack of a garage does not constitute unfairness pursuant to Criteria C. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the variance finding that none of the review criteria have been met by this development proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of the 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standard variance, finding that the review criteria are not met for either request. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE: "I move to approve Resolution No.� Series of 2000, approving the 8040 Greenline Review for the addition and garage, and Residential Design Standard variance for a duplex located at 1105 E. Ute Avenue." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application EXHIBIT A 1105 UTE AVENUE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.435(C) ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW 8040 greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. Staff Finding The parcel is developed with a duplex, and the parcel above the subject lot is currently under development. The Applicant is committed to stabilizing and revegetating soils, and removing any hazardous or toxic materials if they exist. Staff recommends a Condition of Approval that the Applicant provide the City Engineer with a soils test demonstrating that the parcel is suitable for additional development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. The Condition further states that if the soils test does not demonstrate that the parcel is suitable for additional development, then the Resolution shall be rendered null and void. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Staff Finding Staff is concerned that the cuts and grading required to build the addition, garage and driveway may adversely affect runoff and soil erosion. A series of Conditions of Approval are included in the draft resolution to attempt to mitigate impacts caused by this development, if it is approved. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff Finding Staff does not believe the proposed development will have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff Finding Staff does not believe the proposed development is compatible with the terrain on the parcel. The parcel contains steep slopes and dense, mature vegetation. The garage would be built into the hillside, requiring significant disturbance of the vegetation across the western front half of the parcel. Therefore, staff does not believe the location is appropriate for a garage. The design of the residential portion of the addition matches that of the existing duplex and is located partly behind the existing structure. However, Staff believes this development proposal will change the character of the mountain and is not compatible with the terrain. Staff does not believe this criterion has been met. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff Finding The application states that "a "shot-crete" system will be used on the deeper excavation areas to eliminate the major over -excavation normally required on a steep slope to minimize the disturbance of terrain and vegetation on the site. Staff agrees that the proposed grading will minimize the grading to the extent practical disturbance to the terrain, vegetation, and natural land features. However, the nature of this development requires significant grading that will disturb the hillside and its natural features. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff Finding The duplex, proposed addition, and garage would span across almost the entire front of this lot. The garage and extended driveway would require significant cutting and grading. In addition, Staff does not believe the structures are clustered in a manner that preserves the mountain as a scenic resource or allows for compatible development to the terrain on this parcel. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Finding The proposed residential addition (23 feet high) is lower than the existing duplex (27 feet high) and partly set behind it, reducing its visibility from the street. The garage would mostly be located below grade to accommodate a driveway grade meeting the City's Engineer's standards. Staff believes the height of the addition could be further reduced to more effectively blend into the hillside. Staff does not believe a garage should be constructed on this site because of the steep slopes, and dense/mature vegetation. Staff does not believe this criterion has been met. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Finding The property is currently served by all utilities. Conditions of Approval in the draft resolution indicate that additional fees and services may be required to serve the addition; the fees and services would be determined and due at the time of building permit. Staff believes this criterion has been met. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be property maintained. Staff Finding The property is served by Ute Avenue. Access from Ute Avenue is achieved by a circular driveway that is located both on the property and in the City right of way. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Finding A Condition of Approval is that the Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve a fire suppression system for the addition, interior remodeling, and garage, as well as adequate ingress and egress. SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) 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. Variance requested from the following standard: Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(d) Parking, Garages, and Carports. "When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade." 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: Part of the intent of the AACP Parks, Open Space & the Environment component is to "Preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area." This component's goal "E" is to "Protect and enhance the natural environment." Staff does not believe building an extended driveway and garage into the hillside on a parcel with adequate access and on -site parking meets this criterion. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the proposed driveway cut far in excess of two (2) feet more effectively addresses the standard in question. Staff does not believe this criteria is met for either variance. c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe any unusual site specific constraints exist on this lot that would warrant granting the requested variance. Access to the parcel and on -site parking is achieved by the circular driveway. Staff does not believe that the lack of a garage causes unfairness for the property owner. Therefore, Staff believes the existing access and parking are sufficient for this steep, visible, environmentally sensitive site. Staff does not believe this standard has been met. RESOLUTION N0. Al- RESOLUTION OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, AND GRANTING A VARIANCE OF THE PARKING, GARAGE, AND CARPORTS RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR LOT 4, HOAG SUBDIVISION, 1105 UTE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-182-68-022 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Thomas Coleman ("Applicant"), represented by Jack Miller of Jack Miller & Associates, for an 8040 Greenline Environmentally Sensitive Area Review, and for a variance from the Parking, Garages and Carports Residential Design Standard for an addition to an existing duplex and new garage at Lot 4, Hoag Subdivision, 1105 Ute Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 17,107 square feet, and is located in the R-15, Moderate Density Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at or 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the I review criteria set forth in Section 26.435.030(C) 8040 Greenline review; and, WHEREAS, the subject property and proposed development are located at an elevation within 150 feet of the elevation 8040 feet above sea level; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the 8040 Greenline Review with conditions; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant a variance, 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 Planning Staff, in a report dated October 3, 2000, recommended denial of the variance from the Parking, Garages and Carports Residential Design Standard finding that none of the criteria have been met; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 3, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a _ to _ (_-_) vote, the 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standard variance for the Lot 4, Hoag Subdivision, 1105 Ute Avenue, with conditions recommended by the Community Development Department; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 That the 8040 Greenline Review for the Lot 4, Hoag Subdivision, 1105 Ute Avenue is approved with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those _fees shall be payable according to the agreement. c. The City Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for the parcel, including the proposed addition, driveway, and garage. d. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. e. Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be approved by the City Engineer. f. The Applicant shall submit and the Parks Department and Community Development Department shall approve a detailed landscaping plan. g. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off -site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. 3. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a soils test performed by a professional licensed geotechnical engineer in the State of Colorado demonstrating that the parcel is suitable for additional development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the soils test does not demonstrate that the parcel is suitable for additional development, then this Resolution shall be rendered null and void. c. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. d. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. e. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve ingress and egress to the property. 4. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 5. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not within public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees' shall abide by the parking limitations of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 6. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 7. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza. Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 8. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 9. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 10. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities. 11. Colors shall tend to be earth tones to make the building compatible with the hillside. 12. There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 Greenline Review. Section 2 That the Residential Design Standard variance from the Parking, Garages and Carports Residential Design Standard for a driveway cut in excess of 2-feet in the front yard setback is approved for a the property located at Lot 4, Hoag Subdivision, 1105 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4-- This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Spetinn I; - If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 3,d day of October, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:\home\nickl\Active Cases\1105 E. Ute Ave 8040 DRAC.doc Robert Blaich, Chair FROM Y 1.10 ZMAN I CH PHONE NO. : 970 927 4263 Sep. 26 2000 10:38AM P2 (:. 8040 greenline review standards No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (I50) feet below the 8040 green line unless the Planning and zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. RESPONSE: The Project is a remodel and addition to the existing residence on Lot 4, Hoag ---Aivision. If hazardous or toxic soils are encountered during construction, the Applicant will dispose theta in a manner acceptable to the City, 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. RESPONSE: The proposed addition to the existing development will have minimal impact on the natural watershed because of it's small size and location. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air duality in the city. RESPONSE: The proposed addition will add one bedroom to an existing duplex residence. No additional air quality impacts are expected from this project. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. RESPONSE: The property is steep and contains mature evergreen trees. The proposed addition orientation has been designed to minimize the loss of existing vegetation. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features, RESPONSE: A "shot-crete' system will be used on the deeper excavation areas. This will eliminate the major over -excavation normally required on a steep slope. This technique will help to minimize the disturbance of terrain and vegetation on the site. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. FROM : KRIZMANICH PHONE NO. : 970 927 4263 Sep. 26 2000 10:39AM P3 RESPONSE: The construction of the addition next to the existing residence minimizes terrain impacts. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain, RESPONSE: The existing residence blends with the site. The proposed addition is designed to complement the original design of the home while minimizing terrain and vegetation disturbances. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. RESPONSE: The residence is served by existing utilities. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained, Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. RESPONSE: The property is adjacent to, Ute Avenue and includes the development of new driveway that will improve access to the residence. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. RESPONSE: This criteria is not applicable to the proposed addition. Y t o!7 ACTION: 8040 Greenline Review The provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above eight thousand forty (8040) feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen, and to all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline, unless exempted by the Community Development Director. 8040 greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the air quality of the city. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. - over - 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE CRITERIA DRAC may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards if the variance is found to be: In greater compliance with the goals of the AACP, or A more effective method of addressing the standard in question, or Clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. CITY OF ASPEN PRE APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY LANNER: Nick Lelack, 920-5095 DATE: 8/9/00 PROJECT: Coleman Residential Design Standards Review REPRESENTATIVE: Jack Miller & Associates OWNER: Thomas Coleman TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances from Residential Design Standards DESCRIPTION: The applicant may apply for three variances from the residential design standards for an addition to and existing duplex and a new detached garage for a property at 1105 Ute Avenue. It appears that residential design standard variances may be requested from the following standards: street facing garage forward of the front facade of a house; a driveway cut in excess of two (2) feet; and windows in the "no - window zone" between 9 and 12 feet on the front facade of the addition to the duplex located on the western side of the property. Applicable Land Use Code Section(s) Section 26.410.040, Residential Design Standards Review by: Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG). Public Hearing: Yes, it is a public hearing. Notice Requirement: For the DRAC hearing, the applicant needs to post the property with a notice sign at least five (5) days before the scheduled hearing; these signs may be obtained from the Community Development Department office, as can the affidavit, which must be presented at the meeting demonstrating the notice requirements have been met. Referral Agencies: None Planning Fees: DRAC application fee is $480 Referral Agency Fees: None Total Deposit: $480.00 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $195/hour). To apply, submit the following information: (Also see Section 26.304.030, Application and Fees) 1. Proof of ownership. 2. Signed fee agreement. 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 5. Total deposit for review of the application. 6• 8 copies of DRAC submittatpackage• f Aspen. 7, 8 1/2" by 11" vicinityy'map locating the parcel within the City of the current status, including all 8. �,�Le improvement survey including topography and vegetation sh ered land surveyor, licensed in the easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a regi waived b the Community Development state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be y Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) describin how 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form the proposed development complies with one of the criteria for granting a variance. Pleas include and p p clearly indicate existing conditions as well as proposed. 10. Copies of prior approvals. ed construction techn i ques to be used. 11. A written description of propos 12. For Residential Proposals (Ord. 30): F' Neighborhood block plan at 1"=50' (available from City Engineering Department) Graphically show E a) Neighborho P front portions of all existing buildings on both sides of the block and their setback from the sheet in the po in and front entry for each building and locate any accessory feet. Identify park dwelling units along the g Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one alley. story (only one living level). ' round floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed, and,: b) Site plan at 1 10 . Show g property footprints of ad jacent acent buildings for a distance of 100' from the sidelines. Show topographyof .. the subject site with 2' contours. c) All building elevations at 1 /8" = 1' -0 • both sides of the block, including present d) Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on sentation board. condition of the subject property. Label photos and mount on a pre Copies of prior approvals 15. All other mat q P materials re uired ursuant to the Residential Design Review and Conditional Use Review submittal requirements packets. • onl and is not binding on the City. The opinions * The foregoing summary is advisory.on y • are based on current .zoning and refgulations, which are subject to contained herein and u on factual representations that may or may not be change in the future, P accura te. The summary does not, in any way, create a legal or vested right. S-WWW FIVI HopKills Fax Number 949-859-1451 Page I of 1 A I . x-,tuwiiue xamioutll, MtU4U96 Scale: 1:6,400 Detail: 15-0 JACK MILLER & ASSOCIATES, A. I.A. ARCHITECTURE/PLANNING September 8, 2000 Nick Lelack, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Subject: Addition to Duplex Located at 1105E Ute Avenue Dear Mr. Lelack P.O. BOX 4285 ASPEN, CO. 81612 303-925-6930 The owner/applicant proposes to create an addition to an existing duplex of 1,647 square feet to relocate a kitchen, master bedroom and add a bedroom suite. Also, a new detached garage of 790 square feet is proposed. The following items are in conflict with Aspen Ordinance 30 standards, along with reasons for requested variances: 1) Garage Entry Facade Not Perpendicular to Front Street. Due to the steepness of the site, structural orientation and position of major trees, the drive is very limited in location and direction. The garage facade is set at approximately 37' on axis with the street. In addition, the floor of the garage is 15' above the street, the door will be approximately 60' back from the center of Ute Avenue. Also, the site is heavily treed by major size spruce, so the visibility of the garage door will be limited. The garage itself will be totally under grade exempt for the garage door facade. One 16' garage door is proposed to minimize the width of the front facade, however the door will be designed to appear as 2-car garage doors. 2) Driveway Cut in Excess of 2'. Again, due to the steepness of the site and the distance required by the 30' setback, a cut of approximately 14' will be retained at the maximum height by the by a natural boulder wall with in fill vegetation. 3) Windows in "No Window Zone". The existing duplex was built in 1979 and designed in a rather natural organic "Wrightian" style which fits and blends very well into the site. The addition is designed to maintain the same style and detailing, including the window fenestration, i.e. glass that carries up under the 2 x 12 pitched gables which encroaches into the no window zone. We appreciate your consideration regarding the above variances. S cerely, ac Miller J MILLER AND ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES—COLEMAN DUPLEX Standard construction techniques, i.e. standard wood framing per UBC, standard concrete will be employed with the exception of the rear concrete walls under grade. A "shot crete" excavation system will be used on the deep excavation cuts, in which the vertical rear cut of excavation will pinned with shot crete over to stabilize the earth, then the concrete wall will be formed against in a one -form system. This eliminates the major over excavation normally required which greatly disturbs the natural vegetation. PROJECT: Name: Location: 0;4T, LAND USE APPLICATION 73 �' 0 _. d�'t �€ .�" CCU I `�✓ d"� F r;� � Y %��'r`f ��"�� EeF 6�`tiwr �4/7 r�4 /�/i�� p (Indicate street address, lot*& block numb r, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: j M a t,7 Address: Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address:-'` Phone #: �2 , i'-3 0 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): [ Conditional Use Conceptual PUD [ Conceptual Historic Devt. [ Special Review Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) [ Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal Conceptual SPA [ Minor Historic Devt. 1 GMQS Allotment 0, Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) F ] Historic Demolition L GMQS Exemption Subdivision C] Historic Designation [ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream Subdivision Exemption (includes [] Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane �] Lot Split [ Temporary Use [ Other: [ Lot Line Adjustment Ej Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of 1 UN4 6 . buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Have you attached the folio ing? F� Pre -Application Conference Summary Attachment #l, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form LJ' Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents [_-] Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application a FEES DUE: S a 7 i Oo IfoNr iyl I m ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project:. Applicant: Location: Zone District: 12, fir Lot Size: l ®,y L !o 3 f � Lot Area: 4. • -(;; 0- (for the pufposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing.. Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: 2- Proposed: 2 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 4;;� Proposed: -7 -2; if ��- Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ---� DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: �73'7 Proposed: Principal bldg. height: Existing 5. Allowable: V�) Proposed: 25 Access. bldg. height: Existing: /2- Allowable: Proposed: On -Site parking: Existing: C, Required: Proposed: /0 % Site coverage: Existing: - Required: -- Proposed: - % Open Space: Existing: - Required. -Proposed.- Front Setback: Existing: 2 7 -Required.- 54 Proposed: ' Rear Setback: Existing •__ Required: Proposed. - Combined F/R: Existing: 3q f Required: Z0 1 Proposed: Side Setback: Existing:_ - Required: ID � Proposed: Side Setback: Existing. 2, o Required. • /0 ! Proposed. Combined Sides: Existing: "r Required: ',76 ! Proposed: -•, Existing non -conformities or encroachments: ' A/0 61,/ Variations requested: 45Q 4 ilo 1- ., (IV,4dowr I /V'p U"81YdUJ 4lal e. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner 4--- RE: Petrick Initial Zoning, R-15, Moderate Density Residential - Public Hearing DATE: October 3, 2000 APPLICANT: Richard Petrick REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC LOCATION: 33 Pitkin Mesa Drive CURRENT ZONING: Agriculture, Forestry, Residential - 10 (acres), Pitkin County PROPOSED ZONING: R-15, Moderate Density Residential CURRENT LAND USE: Single Family Residence under construction PROPOSED LAND USE: Duplex with 2 ADUs LOT SIZE: 4.41 acres FAR: Proposed: 9,800 sq. ft. AFR-10: 15,000 sq. ft. R-15: 11,283 sq. ft. The Petrick residence is under construction in Pitkin County. The property is located near Cemetery Lane at the base of Red Butte. SUMMARY: The Applicant is proposing to annex the subject property into the City of Aspen and rezone the parcel to R-15. The City Zone Districts surrounding the parcel are Park and R-15 (see map on page 2). Rezoning to R-15 is the most appropriate zone district because surrounding residential neighborhood is already zoned R-15, and the lot would conform to most of this zone district's dimensional requirements. RmEw PROCEDURE • Rezoning: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution recommend City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the rezoning. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant, Richard Petrick, has submitted a petition for annexation into the City of Aspen and the petition has been accepted by the City Council as complete. The annexation process now requires a determination by City Council on the merits of annexing the property and that step has not been completed. As part of annexation, the City of Aspen is required to assign property to an appropriate zone district. This initial zoning is a process originated by City staff, although applicants often follow the process and supply analysis as needed. In this case, the applicant has submitted analysis supporting the designation of this land as Moderate Density Residential (R-15) . Based on staff analysis and the supporting information provided by the applicant, this R-15 designation is the most appropriate for this area of town. The application also requests approval for two (2) accessory dwellings, and an 8040 Greenline Review exemption; the exemption request is based on the fact that all proposed changes would occur inside the structure. These reviews will be conducted by the Community Development Director if the property is annexed. This property is currently within the Pitkin County "Agriculture/Forestry/ Residential - 10" (AFR-10) Zone District. The minimum parcel size is 10 acres. This Zone District allows for single-family development by right and duplex development by Special Review. Caretaker dwelling units are also allowed pursuant to Special Review approval. A single-family home of approximately 15,000 square feet is allowed with this zoning. The most similar City Zone District is the "Low -Density Residential" (R-30) Zone District. The minimum parcel size is 30,000 square feet, the lowest density residential zone district in the City. However, the property is surrounded by the Moderate Density Residential, R-15, Zone District. In addition, the dimensional requirements for both zone districts are nearly identical. Some of the differences include: minimum lot size, lot area required for each dwelling unit, and minimum lot width. Requirements for floor area, height, setbacks, etc. are the exact same. Further, the list of permitted and conditional uses are nearly identical with the only difference being that lodges are allowed in the R-15 Zone District but not R-30. The only dimensional requirement that this lot and structure would not conform to in the R-15 or R-30 Zone District is height. The County's AFR-10 Zone District allows 28-foot high structures and the R-15 and R-30 Zone Districts only allow 25-foot high structures. No City zone district with an allowed height above 25-feet would be appropriate for this parcel because those zone districts would create numerous other non -conformities. For example, the Conservation Zone District allows 28-foot high single family residences, but the minimum lot size is 10 acres and the maximum floor area is 5,000 square feet. Hence, the Conservation Zone District would create at least two (2) non - conformities rather than just one (1) with the R-15 designation. Therefore, Staff believes the R-15 Zone District is the most appropriate zone district for the subject property. Staff has received a few telephone calls (no written correspondence) on this application. Neighbors have expressed two concerns with this property. One concern is the potential for increased density on the site. The R-15 Zone District allows a duplex by right as well as one accessory dwelling unit per half of duplex; therefore, up to four (4) units could exist in the structure. In the County, a single family residence is the only permitted use for this structure. A duplex would require Special Review and Growth Management Quota System review and approval, including gaining a development allotment or the purchase of a Transfer Development Right (TDR) for the second half of the duplex. In addition, only one (1) caretaker dwelling unit may be allowed pursuant to Special Review. Hence, in the County, the most units allowed this structure would be three (3); two (2) of which would require additional land use reviews and approvals. The second concern is the amount of time the structure has been under construction and may continue to be under construction if the interior is extensively remodeled to accommodate additional dwelling units. 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of initial zoning for the parcel to R-15. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. O'Series of 2000, recommending City Council include the property at 33 Pitkin Mesa Drive, upon annexation, in the Moderate Density Residential (R- 15) Zone District." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B Referral Agency Comments Exhibit C Development Application 4 EXHIBIT A PETRICK INITIAL ZONING TO R-15 REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.310.020, Standards Applicable to Amendments to the Official_ Zone District Map In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the initial zoning of this parcel to Moderate Density Residential, R-15, would be in conflict with any portions of this title. The parcel would conform to most aspects of this zone district, including floor area, lot size, lot area per dwelling unit, etc. Some characteristics of the residence under construction would not conform to the R-15 Zone District, such as height. Staff is recommending that if City Council decides to annex the property, the annexation agreement include requirements that any and all future redevelopments of the parcel comply with the City zoning in effect at that time. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff believes the rezoning complies with the AACP. The AACP's Growth Philosophy states that the City of Aspen agrees to accept greater density within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary, and the proposed development is located within this area. Greater density would be achieved in the City if it becomes a duplex with two (2) accessory dwelling units - allowed by right in the R- IS Zone District. In addition, the community would gain two affordable housing units, particularly if they are deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: The proposed zoning for the parcel mirrors the existing zone districts and land uses surrounding the property in the residential areas. Although the residence currently under construction is built into Red Butte, the Park Zone District for Red Butte does not fit this parcel because of the property's land use - residential. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding. R Rezoning the property should only have minimal impacts on traffic generation and road safety. Both Cemetery Lane area residential zone districts (R-15 and R-30) have the same list of permitted residential uses - single family residential, duplex, and accessory dwelling units. And, several of the parcels near this property have been developed as duplexes. Therefore, either zone district would have the same impact on traffic generation and road safety. The site plan shows adequate parking on -site for both sides of the duplex and two accessory dwelling units. Specifically, the site plan shows 7-8 on -site parking spaces, four of which would be located in a garage. Each half of the duplex would require 2 parking spaces, and each ADU would require 1 parking space, for a total of 6 on -site parking spaces for the four units. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether 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: All appropriate utility agencies and the City Engineer were referenced on this application and reported the ability to serve this parcel. If the property is annexed and rezoned to R-15 in the City, the Applicant will be required to submit a change order to the existing building permit for the additional dwelling units - second half of the duplex and accessory dwelling units. The Applicant will be required to mitigate any public impacts that this change causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. School, park, .water, sanitation, and other impact fees will be due prior to approving the change order. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Rezoning the property will not itself create adverse impacts on the natural environment because the structure is currently under development. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: Staff believes the proposed initial zoning of the property to R-15 is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen, particularly because rezoning the parcel will not change its expected land use - residential. Increasing the density of the parcel from single family residential to a duplex with the potential for two (2) accessory dwelling units meets the goal to increase density inside the growth boundary. Staff believes this criterion is met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Z Staff Finding: Annexing the property would be a changed condition affecting the subject parcel and the surrounding neighborhood to support the proposed 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: Staff does not believe the proposed zoning would be in conflict with the public interest and believes it is in harmony with the purpose and intent. of the Land Use Code. 7 RESOLUTION NO.L�� (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REZONING TO R-159 MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 PITKIN MESA DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel Identification No. 2735-013-00-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Richard Petrick, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, LLC, for an initial zoning to R-15, Moderate -Density Residential, for a property located at 33 Pitkin Mesa Drive, City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, City Council has accepted a petition for annexation through Resolution No. 99-101, and Resolution 99-118; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 4.41 acres and upon annexation must be designated with a zone district in the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310 of the Land Use Code, the City Council may approve Amendments to the Official Zone District Map, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Marshall, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City Water Department, City Engineering, City Parks Department, and the Community Development Department reviewed the parcel and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 3, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a _ to _ (_-_) vote, to recommend City Council approve of the Petrick initial zoning to R-15, Moderate Density Residential, with conditions contained herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fords that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMNIISSION as follows: Section 1 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the initial zoning of the Petrick property, located at 33 Pitkin Mesa Drive, upon annexation, to R-15, Moderate Density Residential. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 3, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Chair MEMORANDUM To: Nick Lelack, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: September 12, 2000 Re: Petrick Annexation, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, ADUs, 8040 Greenline Review The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Petrick Annexation, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, ADUs, 8040 Greenline Review application at their August 30, 2000 meeting and has compiled the following comments: General 1 Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is conceptually 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. 2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights -of -way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. lqitp RP-Vip-W 3. Fire Protection District — Information — As of the request of the Fire Protection District revisions need to be made as follows: a. There needs to be detailed information on plans and in writing on how the proposed ADUs and residences will work together for the sprinklers. b. A fire alarm may be required due to the massive structure size. c. Detailed plans for the building showing units needs to be submitted to the fire department so that when smoke is detected in a unit then the firemen know what level and location to go to. 4. Building Department — Requirement — The following requirement has been provided by the Building Department: a. A detailed set of plans showing all unit separations and points of entry and exit must be submitted before issuance of a building permit. Page 2 of 4 September 12, 2000 Petrick Annexation, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, ADUs, 8040 Greenline Review 5. Parking — Requirement — The following requirement has been provided by the Parking Department: a. No on street parking will be allowed on Pitkin Mesa Drive. 6. Engineering Department — Requirement- The following requirements have been provided by the Engineering Department: a. All on site drainage needs to shown. As a condition of approval of the building permit, drainage must be approved by the Engineering Department. b. The south driveway is to steep pursuant to City of Aspen Municipal Code. Therefore the driveway needs to be regraded to meet the 10% to 12% maximum slope requirement of the City Code. 7. Streets Department — Requirement- As of the request of the Streets Department revisions need to be made as follows: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. b. No on street parking will be allowed on Pitkin Mesa Drive. 8. Housing Office — Information — The following information has been provided by the Housing Office: a. NONE 9. Community Development — Information — The following information has been provided by the Community Development Office: a. The building will not be exempted from 8040 greenline review for future remodel. b. The building will not be exempted from residential design standards for future remodels. 10. Emergency Management Disaster Coordinator — Requirement - The following requirement has been provided by the Pitkin County Disaster Coordinator: a. NONE 11. Parks — Requirement- The following comments have been produced by the. Parks Department: a. Do not plant trees on top of service lines. 14. Utilities: A utility plan was not submitted with the application. For the utility departments to properly comment, a utility plan must be submitted - Water.• City Water Department - Requirement — As a request of the City of Aspen Water Department, revisions need to be made as follows: Page 3 of 4 September 12, 2000 Petrick Annexation, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, ADUs, 8040 Greenline Review a. The existing tap for this home is not adequately sized to provide for a fire sprinkler system. The sprinkler designer based his system on a 2" tap. The existing system is only a 1 " tap with a long run of service line that would cause a significant head loss in order to provide design deliveries for a fire sprinkler system. The applicant must replace the service line with a minimum of 2", or whatever is calculated by the sprinkler designer to provide the required flows. This is particularly critical in view of the low water pressure as indicated during the DRC meeting. b. There will be new tap fees for the reconfiguration of the building use. c. A shared service agreement is required for the use of City water off of one line for many different users. d. Metering and ownership of the water lines needs to be expressed through the condominium association and in the condominium ization documents. - Wastewater. Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Requirement — As a request of the Consolidated Waste District, revisions need to be made as follows: a. There will be new tap fees for the reconfiguration of the building use. b. A shared service agreement is required for the use of ACSD services off of one line for many different users. c. A set o1rdetailed plans showing all units need to be submitted to ACSQ so that a detailed estimate of service fees can be performed. - Construction: Work in the Public Right of Way Requirement — Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage, transportation/streets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920- 5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways. 4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department Page 4 of 4 September 12, 2000 Petrick Annexation, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, ADUs, 8040 Greenline Review DRC Attendees Staff: Nick Adeh Applicant's Representative: Mitch Haas Ben Ludlow Denis Murray Nick Lelack Rich Ryan Becca Schickling Tom Bracewell Joyce Ohlson Ed Van Walraven Phil Overynder Cindy Christensen Jack Reid ACTION: Amendment to the Land Use Code Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive 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. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed 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.