HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20000905 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000
4:00 PM WORKSESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL, AND HPC ON TECHNIQUES TO
CONTROL HOUSE SIZE (COUNCIL CHAMBERS)
5:30 PM REGULAR MEETING (SISTER CITIES ROOM)
I. WORKSESStON WITH CITY COUNCIL AND HPC ON TECHNIQUES TO
CONTROL HOUSE SIZE (4:00) (Council Chambers)
II. MINUTES FROM 6/27, 7/11, 8/1 (5:30) (Sister Cities)
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIOUS MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS, CHRIS BENDON,
OPEN AND CONTINUE TO 10/3
V. PL3_NNINO AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETINGS
A. 610 EAST HYMAN SPECIAL REVIEW, FRED JARMAN, CONTINUED
FROM 8/15 (PLEASE BUG APPLICATION MATERIALS FROM
PREVIOUS
B. SANDUNES DESIGN tLEVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE VARIANCE AND
STREAM ~'O~GIN R~VIEW, F~D J,~N, CONT~UED EROM 8/15
(PLEASE BRING APPLICATION' MATERIALS FROM PREVIOUS
MEETrSG) ~-0
VI. ADJOURN
TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE. 'WE RECOMMEND APPLICANTS ARRIVE AT LEAST
¼ HOUR PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED TIN[ES
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director--JTV
FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner r � •
RE: Sandunes Stream Margin Review, Accessory Dwelling Unit, and Variances
from Residential Design Standards — Public Hearing
DATE: September 5, 2000
APPLICANT:
Susan H. Horsey
REPRESENTATIVE:
Jennifer M. Causing of Krabacher Law
Offices
LOCATION:
815 Vest Main Street
ZONING:
R-15 (Moderate density Residential)
LOT SIZE: 51,811 SQ. FT.
CURRENT LAND USE: Vacant
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Stream Margin Review /Accessory
Dwelling Unit / Variances from
Residential Design Standards
SUMMARY:
Applicant is requesting Stream Margin
Review to construct a single-family
dwelling and an accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) and Variances from Residential
Design Standards for Lot 1 of the
Sandunes L. P. Annexation located at
815 'West Main Street.
ti 'iwfl'S )ash -osa'A t v w. F C
��.i :"..�.I'�•-'.:iJ!`Tw��'r�ii•'iW�'T'fi.i.4.+if4�:i y�iTsrlh�� .a�.. �.�.
North «7estern view of the subject property (Lot 1)
REVIENA' PROCEDURE:
1. Steam Margin Review: No development shall be permitted within the Stream Margin unless
the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development
complies with all requirements set forth in Section 26.435.040(C);
2. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): The Community Development Director, in accordance
with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter and of Common Development
Review Procedures, Section 26.304, shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a
land use application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Staff feels that the review for the ADU
be combined as part of this land use application;
3. Variances from Residential Design Standards: The Board of Adjustment, in accordance
with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter shall approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove a development application for variances to the terms of this Title. If
the application for a variance is part of a consolidated application process authorized by the
Community Development Director pursuant to Section 26.304.060(B)(1), the Planning and
Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission may review the application for
a variance using the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant, Susan H. Horsey, represented by Jennifer M. Causing of Krabacher Law
Offices, requests a stream margin review for a single family dwelling and accessory dwelling
unit and variances from residential design standards for Lot 1 of the Sandunes L. P.
Annexation located at 815 West Main Street, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado.
The parcel is currently located in both Pitkin County and the City of Aspen, approximately
86% and 14% respectively. A 50% Lot Split was granted by the County in 1992. The City
takes the position that it does not recognize the Sandunes Lot Split since the City did not
formally approve or sign the final Lot Split approval in 1993. Further, the City required the
applicant to annex the portion of the property located in Pitkin County in order to obtain City
water service.
A Petition for Annexation of the Sandunes parcel into the City of Aspen was filed on April
20, 2000. The Petition for Annexation is conditioned upon the applicant's exemption from
the Growth Management requirements of a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split pursuant to
Section 26.470.070(i) and that the conditions of approval for the prior Pitkin County Density
Reduction Lot Split application identified in Resolution 93-169 be revoked. City Attorney,
John Worcester agreed to waive the applicant's application fees for this Lot Split application.
Therefore, at the City's request, a Petition for Annexation of the entire parcel into the City of
Aspen has been submitted and is pending.
Staff review and discussion of the application resulted in recommending a consolidated
approach that incorporated the separate requests (Stream Margin Review, ADU, and
Variances) into one application to be brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission to
be considered at one time. Normally, the Planning and Zoning Commission would only
consider review of the development in the stream margin and associated DRAC Variances.
Sandunes Memorandum
Staff felt this consolidated approach was the most efficient process for the applicant and
allowed the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the whole development at one
time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Stream Margin Review to construct a single-family dwelling
including a 743 sq. ft. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Variances from Residential Design
Standards with the following conditions:
l . That the applicant agrees the land use approvals decided upon in this application for Stream
Margin Review, Accessory Dwelling Unit and Variances from Residential Design Standards
for a single-family dwelling including a 743 sq. ft. ADU are contingent upon successful
annexation of the Sandunes L. P. Lots 1 and 2 into the City of Aspen. Failure of this
annexation into the City shall render all land use approvals by the City of Aspen null and void
pursuant to this Resolution;
2. That the applicant submits a drainage mitigation plan meeting with the approval of the City
Engineering Department to address temporary sediment control and containment plans for
run-off for the construction phase and erosion control, soil stabilization, and re -vegetation in
disturbed areas;
3. That the applicant shall install a sprinkler system because the residence is larger than 5,000
square feet as per the requirements of the City of Aspen Fire Department;
4. That the applicant shall not line public roads ,vith equipment or trucks during regular
construction. Enforcement by the Building Department may result in project shutdown:
5. That the applicant submits a construction traffic maintenance plan to the Engineering
Department for approval;
6. That the applicant shall indicate the top of slope and a line drawn at a 45 degree angle from
top of slope for the stream bank by a Professional Land Surveyor using the three point
method;
7. That the applicant submit adequately scaled site cross sections performed by a Professional
Land Surveyor;
8. That the applicant submit a site survey which is dated within the past 12 months and fully
represents the easements of record;
9. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A NA'ashed rock
or other style mud rack must be installed during construction;
10. That the applicant delineate and place appropriate construction and silt fencing at the 15-foot
setback line from the top of slope which shall remain untouched and unaltered during and
after construction;
Sandunes Memorandum
11. That the building envelope previously determined by Pitkin County be revoked upon
annexation into the City and that the applicant shall adopt all dimensional requirements set
forth in the R-15 zone district;
12. That if the ditch is to be turned off for construction, it is only allowed so for 12 hours.
Otherwise approval shall be obtained from the City of Aspen Parks Department prior to
rerouting of the ditch;
13. That no lining or placement of large rocks in the ditch is allowed;
14. That no storage of construction materials occur within the dripline of existing trees and that
construction fencing be installed to protect all existing trees, and that no excavating within the
dripline of existing trees occur;
15. That the applicant grant a fishing easement for Castle Creek to the City of Aspen;
16. That the applicant submit a utility plan to the City Utility Department prior to the application
of a building permit;
17. That the applicant shall enter into a new raNv water agreement with the City Water Department
for the lot. Two separate agreements will be required to show the applicable square footage to
be irrigated on each lot;
18. That the water service for the new lot can come from SH 82, but may need to be relocated
based upon the CDOT SH 82 realignment in the near future. Therefore it may be more
feasible to receive service from 7th St;
19. That the current service tap for the lot containing the old barn structure shall be abandoned in
accordance with City standards;
20. That a new 8" service line be installed from 7th Street as required by the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District (ACSD) because the existing sewer service lines are inadequate to alloy
proper additional flow from the new structure; and
21. That the applicant present detailed seNver service plans to ACSD so that an accurate
estimation of fees is calculated.
RECOn1N1ENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series 2000 of the Planning and Zoning Commission
approving an application by Susan H. Horsey for Stream Margin Review to construct a single-family
dwelling including an Accessory Dwelling Unit and Variances from Residential Design Standards for
Lot 1 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation located at 815 West Main Street, City of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado with the conditions set forth in the draft resolution."
Sandunes Memorandum
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIENA" CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
-- STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
-- ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
-- VARIANCES FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
-- SITE LOCATION MAP
-- SUPPORTING SITE PLANS AND DRAWINGS
-- RESOLUTION # , SERIES 2000
Sandunes Memorandum
EXHIBIT A
STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
The following section provides land use code criteria regarding this proposal for Stream Margin
Review pursuant to Section 26.435.040. No development shall be permitted within the Stream
Margin unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed
development complies with all requirements set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development, which is in the Special Flood
Hazard Area, will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for
development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado '%vhich shows that
the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing
mitigation techniques on or off -site -vi-hich compensate for any base flood elevation
increase caused by the development; and
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds .that no development will take place in the Special Flood Hazard Area.
2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks / Recreation / Open
Space / Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the
proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic
public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A
fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high Nvater boundaries of
the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and,
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the Aspen Area CommunilN,
Plan in the proposed development. Further, the applicant has agreed to enter into a Fishing Easement
Agreement for Castle Creek. which abuts the applicant's property.
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made
outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be
designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any
demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until
the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; and
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that no vegetation within the 100-year flood plain will be removed or damaged resulting
from the proposed development. Slope grade outside the required setbacks and 15' setback from top
of slope will not be affected or altered. The applicant has agreed to erect silt fencing and construction
fencing around the building envelope prior to obtaining the building permit, which shall remain in
place until the applicant receives a Certification of Occupancy.
Sandunes Memorandum 6
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the
river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during
construction. Increased on -site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to
prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained
outside of the designated building envelope; and
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds the proposed development will nor pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the
river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and /or sedimentation during construction. On sight
drainage will be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks.
The proposed development does not include any pools or hot tubs on the site.
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any
alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that the applicant does not intend to alter or relocate the watercourse of Castle Creek.
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies
to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood
carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that the applicant has guaranteed that in the event a water course is altered or relocated,
that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying
capacity on the parcel will not be diminished.
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within
the one -hundred -year floodplain; and
STAFF FINDING
The applicant does not propose any work within the one hundred -year flood plain.
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place
below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline,
whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation
and bank stability. (See Figure "A" below for illustrative purposes); and
STAFF FINDING
As part of this proposal, there will be no development other than approved native vegetative planting
taking place below the top of slope or within 15 feet of the top as it is the most restrictive lying well
above the high waterline.
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not
exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground
Sandunes Memorandum 7
level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community
Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.0.1.100 and
method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 (See Figure "A" below for
illustrative purposes); and
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that the proposed development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope
does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from the ground
level at the top of slope. .
10. A landscape plan is submitted -with all development applications. Such plan shall limit
new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated
building envelope on the river side to native riparian vegetation; and
STAFF FINDING
A proposed landscape plan has been submitted with this application, which details the amount.. type,
and approximate location of planned and existing vegetation. The applicant does not intend to disturb
the grade of the slope leading to Castle Creek. The applicant will restore any vegetation along the
ridge that is disturbed.
11. All exterior lighting is loNv and downcast Nvith no light(s) directed toward the river or
located down the slope and shall be in compliance with section 26.575.150; and
STAFF FINDING
All lighting will be low and downcast with no lights directed towards the river or located on
the slope and shall comply with Section 26.575.150 Outdoor Lighting.
12. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer
are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope,
and pertinent elevations above sea level; and
STAFF FINDING
The applicant submitted a site section map, drawn by Richard Braunthal of Braunthal
Associates. The site sections accurately indicate existing and proposed site elements, top of
slope, one hundred year flood plain, forty-five (45) degree angle drawn at top of slope, and
pertinent elevations above sea level.
13. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. (Ord. No.
47-1999, §3)
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that the applicant has submitted adequate and accurate information identifying
wetlands and riparian zones in the one hundred year flood plain.
Sandunes Memorandum 8
ExHIBIT B
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
All Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) shall conform to the following design standards
unless otherwise approved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review:
1. An ADU must contain bet«'een 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of
which must be a closet or storage area.
STAFF FINDING
The applicant proposes an ADU, which will contain 743 net livable square feet, including
closets and storage areas. The ADU specifically comprises of 669 square feet and the storage
area is 74 square feet. The unit contains a bedroom/ living area, kitchen, and a full bath.
2. An ADU must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes the
following:
a) An ADU must be separately accessible from the exterior. An interior
entrance to the primary residence may be approved by the
Commission, pursuant to Special Review;
b) An ADU must have separately accessible utilities. This does not
preclude shared services;
c) An ADU shall contain a kitchen containing, at a minimum, an oven, a
stove Nvith t%i,o burners, a sink, and a refrigerator with a minimum of
6 cubic feet of capacity and a freezer; and,
d) An ADU shall contain a bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a
toilet, and a shower.
STAFF FINDING
The proposed ADU (located in the lower level of the single family residence) shall have a
separate entrance and is accessible from the exterior. It will also have separately metered and
accessible utilities. The kitchen will include an oven, stove, sink, and a refrigerator and
freezer. The ADU will contain a full bath to include a sink, toilet, and shower with a full size
tub.
3. One parking space for the ADU shall be provided on -site and shall remain
available for the benefit of the ADU resident. The parking space shall not be
stacked with a space for the primary residence.
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds the applicant has adequately indicated on the site plan that the ADU will have its
oven on -site parking space that is not stacked with a space from the primary residence.
4. An ADU shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the zone
district in Nvhich the property is located.
Sandunes Memorandum 9
EXHIBIT B
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
All Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) shall conform to the following design standards
unless otherwise approved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review:
1. An ADU must contain betriveen 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of
`which must be a closet or storage area.
STAFF FINDING
The applicant proposes an ADU, which will contain 743 net livable square feet, including
closets and storage areas. The ADU specifically comprises of 669 square feet and the storage
area is 74 square feet. The unit contains a bedroom/ living area, kitchen, and a full bath.
2. An ADU must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes the
following:
a) An ADU must be separately accessible from the exterior. An interior
entrance to the primary residence may be approved by the
Commission, pursuant to Special Review;
b) An ADU must have separately accessible utilities. This does not
preclude shared services;
c) An ADU shall contain a kitchen containing, at a minimum, an oven, a
stove with trivo burners, a sink, and a refrigerator with a minimum of
6 cubic feet of capacity and a freezer; and,
d) An ADU shall contain a bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a
toilet, and a shover.
STAFF FINDING
The proposed ADU (located in the lower level of the single family residence) shall have a
separate entrance and is accessible from the exterior. It will also have separately metered and
accessible utilities. The kitchen will include an oven. stove, sink, and a refrigerator and
freezer. The ADU will contain a full bath to include a sink, toilet, and shower with a full size
tub.
3. One parking space for the ADU shall be provided on -site and shall remain
available for the benefit of the ADU resident. The parking space shall not be
stacked with a space for the primary residence.
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds the applicant has adequately indicated on the site plan that the ADU will have its
own on -site parking space that is not stacked with a space from the primary residence.
4. An ADU shall be located -vvithin the dimensional requirements of the zone
district in which the property is located.
Sandunes Memorandum 9
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that the ADU drawings submitted with the application show the unit to comply
with the dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district.
5. The roof design shall prevent snovi' and ice from shedding upon an entrance to
an ADU. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing
snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided.
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that the roof design of the primary residence will prevent snow and ice from
shedding upon the entrance of the ADU. The applicant will also provide sufficient means of
preventing snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs accessing the ADU.
6. ADUs shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of this title, «'hich
apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not limited
to, the Uniform Building Code requirements related to adequate natural light,
ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression, and sound attenuation bethveen living
units. This standard may not be varied.
y
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that the proposed ADU will meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements
for natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression, and sound attenuation between the
unit and the primary residence.
7. All ADUs shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the property shall
be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070�Deed Restrictions. This
standard may not be varied.
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that the applicant has agreed to register and deed restrict the unit with the Aspen
/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
Sandunes Memorandum 10
EXHIBIT C
VARIANCES FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
Variances from the Residential Design Standards [Section 26,410.040] may be granted by the
Design Review Appeal Committee as established in Chapter 26.222. An applicant who
desires to consolidate other requisite land use reviews by the Historic Preservation
Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to
have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land
use application. This is a consolidated application; therefore, the applicant elects to have the
Planning and Zoning Commission hear the proposed variances from the Residential Design
Standards.
The applicant is proposing a single-family residence on a land locked parcel accessed via a
private easement over a neighboring parcel from Seventh Street. As such, the lot does not
face any particular street. Further, the lot is not visible from Seventh or Main Streets.
Typically, Staff has consistently held that houses in similar cases be oriented to the private
drive. However, in this case, Staff supports the proposed house position because it is not seen
from any public street and is not bordered by any public walkway or sidewalk.
Staff realizes the land locked nature of the parcel presents design difficulties for the
applicant. There are no "streets" to orient to in order to meet the intent of the Code. Given
this, Staff supports the proposed orientation of the house indicating that this is not the typical
situation for which the Code was written.
The proposed design meets secondary mass and single -story element provisions with the
garage; however, discussion ensued indicating something should be done with respect to the
approachability of the house. The garage is the first element seen as you enter the lot off the
private drive. This question was raised that the garage should be side loaded if possible
while adding some design elements to add character to that facade of the house. As a result of
this situation, the applicant must apply for the following variances from residential design
standards [Section 26.410] based on the lot's location:
26.410.040(A)(1) Building Orientation
The front facades of all principal structures shall be
parallel to the street. On comer lots, both street -facing
facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On
curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures
shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the
arc of the street.
STAFF FINDING
Yes. No.
I � I
1 7
Yes.
Staff finds that the proposed house is not oriented to any street. In this case, the parcel is land
locked and does not face any street; however, there is a private drive providing the only
access to the parcel. Staff has consistently held that houses be oriented to a private drive in
cases such as these. However, in this case, Staff supports the house position because it is not
seen from any public street and is not bordered by any public walkway or sidewalk.
Sandunes Memorandum 1 1
26.410.040(C)(b) Garage Placement
The front facade of the garage or the frontmost supporting
column of a carport shall be set back at least ten feet (10'
0") further from the street than the frontmost Nvall of the
house. Additionally, The garage doors shall be single stall
doors.
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that the Land Use Code calls for the placement of
garages to be located 10 feet back from the front facade of the
house and preferably accessed from an alley of private drive.
I th' h d
n is case, t e garage is in eed accessed from a private drive;
however, the house is also supposed to be facing the street, or in this case, the private drive
access because there is no street. Again, given the constraints and nature of this landlocked
parcel, Staff supports the proposed location of the garage.
26.410.040(D)(1)(c) Street Facing
Windows �
A street -facing principal «-indow
requires that a significant windo`v or {Ei LD
group of windo«Js face street. One
Story <—' Principal
STAFF FINDING Element--> Window.
Staff finds that as a result of the t
misaligned front facade of the house,
there will obviously be no street facing windows. This also requires a variance, which Staff
supports with the same logic used for the building orientation.
26.410.040(D)(2) One Story Street Facing Element
All residential buildings shall have a one-story street -facing element the width of which
comprises at least tv",enty (20) percent of the building's overall width. For example, a
.one story element may be a porch roof, architectural projection, or living space.
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that as a result of the misaligned front facade of the house, there will obviously be
no street facing single -story element. This also requires a variance, which Staff supports with
the same logic used for the building orientation.
Sandunes Memorandum 12
EXHIBIT D
SITE VICINITY MAP
. . . ......
Sandunes Memorandum 11)
ExHIBIT F
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2000)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR STREAM MARGIN
REVIEW, ACCESSORY DNITLLING UNIT, AND VARIANCES FROM
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LOT 1 OF THE SANDUNES L. P.
ANNEXATION LOCATED AT NEST MAIN STREET, CITY OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-123-17-001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Susan H. Horsey, applicant, represented by Jennifer M. Causing of Krabacher Law
Offices for a Stream Margin Review, Accessory Dwelling Unit, and Variances from
Residential Design Standards; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.430.020, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this
Chapter, shall by resolution approve, approve . with conditions, or disapprove a
development application for Stream Margin Review, after recommendation by the
Community Development Department pursuant to Section 26.435.040; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the application
for Stream Margin Review, Accessory Dwelling Unit, and Variances from Residential
Design Standards for Lot 1 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation located at 815 West Main
Street, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado in the R-15 zone district and
recommended approval; 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; and,
NN"HEREAS, 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, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 5, 2000, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a _ to _ (_-_) vote, approval of
the Stream Margin Review application for the Lot 1 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation
located at 815 West Main Street in the R-15 Zone District; and,
NVHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
Sandunes Memorandum 14
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the application for Stream Margin Review, Accessory Dwelling Unit, and Variances from
the Residential Design Standards for Lot 1 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation located at 815
West Main Street, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado is approved with the following
conditions:
That the applicant agrees the land use approvals decided upon in this application
for Stream Margin Review, Accessory Dwelling Unit and 'Variances from
Residential Design Standards for a single-family dwelling including a 743 sq. ft.
ADU are contingent upon successful annexation of the Sandunes L. P. Lots 1 and
2 into the City of Aspen. Failure of this annexation into the City shall render all
land use approvals by the City of Aspen null and void pursuant to this Resolution
2. That the applicant submits a drainage mitigation plan meeting with the approval
of the City Engineering Department to address temporary sediment control and
containment plans for run-off for the construction phase and erosion control, soil
stabilization, and re -vegetation in disturbed areas;
3. That the applicant shall install a sprinkler system because the residence is larger
than 5,000 square feet as per the requirements of the City of Aspen Fire
Department;
4. That the applicant shall not line public roads Nvith equipment or trucks during
regular construction. Enforcement by the Building Department may result in
project shutdown;
5. That the applicant submits a construction traffic maintenance plan to the
Engineering Department for approval;
6. That the applicant shall indicate the top of slope and a line drawn at a 45 degree
angle from top of slope for the stream bank by a Professional Land Surveyor
using the three point method;
7. That the applicant submit adequately scaled site cross sections performed by a
Professional Land Surveyor;
8. That the applicant submit a site survey which is dated within the past 12 months
and fully represents the easements of record;
9. That the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A
washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction;
Sandunes Memorandum 15
10. That the applicant delineate and place appropriate construction and silt fencing at
the 15-foot setback line from the top of slope which shall remain untouched and
unaltered during and after construction;
11. That the building envelope previously determined by Pitkin County be revoked
upon annexation into the City and that the applicant shall adopt all dimensional
requirements set forth in the R-15 zone district;
12. That if the ditch is to be turned off for construction, it is only allowed so for 12
hours. Otherwise approval shall be obtained from the City of Aspen Parks
Department prior to rerouting of the ditch;
13. That no lining or placement of large rocks in the ditch is allowed;
14. That no storage of construction materials occur within the dripline of existing
trees and that construction fencing be installed to protect all existing trees, and
that no excavating within the dripline of existing trees occur;
15. That the applicant grant a fishing easement for Castle Creek to the City of Aspen;
16. That the applicant submit a utility plan to the City Utility Department prior to the
application of a building permit;
17. That the applicant shall enter into a new raw water agreement with the City Water
Department for the lot. Two separate agreements will be required to show the
applicable square footage to be irrigated on each lot;
18. That the water service for the new lot can come from SH 82, but may need to be
relocated based upon the CDOT SH 82 realignment in the near future. Therefore
it may be more feasible to receive service from 7th St;
19. That the current service tap for the lot containing the old barn structure shall be
abandoned in accordance with City standards;
20. That a new 8" service line be installed from 7th Street as required by the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) because the existing sewer service lines
are inadequate to allow proper additional flow from the new structure; and
21. That the applicant present detailed sewer service plans to ACSD so that an
accurate estimation of fees is calculated.
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
Sandunes Memorandum 16
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 September 5, 2000.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Robert Blaich, Chair
CAMN' Documents\Current Cases\Sandunes\SandunesMemoPZ2.doc
Sandunes Memorandum 17
0
ISSUE:
SHEET TITLE
SITE SECTION
HAYf—:IHIS
FjzsfAgip F12cpM A
vr -04� H by �
1�: r I t.,
001 01
47
NA7l WILOFLSSESOW£R
GRA
CAMBELLI OAK
GROVE
Lot 1
Adams Sub&l lsion
Book 236, Page 425
' C07'7M4i cOD 4 "
JO"
FIN
r
4?
—i-n s�
-: 12' COMONOOOD
p5�
6
,`1 SpEN PSpEN
2 ASP£N5
9" COT70NH000
2-24' COTTONWOODS
6" COTTONWOOiPl.
2' CO DNWOOD
-24' COTTONWOODS
-18" corroNHocos
8' COTTONWOOD
V•;
r
r
';4" COTTONWOOD
2-5' COTTONW000S
2-8" COTTONWOODS
Alk 9" COTTONWOOD
CO FO5 TTONW000S
-8' C07TCNHVCOS
7" corrONwoocs
COTTON
-4 10' COTr
COTTONW
3' TO 7" COTTONWOODS
i' COTTONWOODS
Lot 3
F
18 0
PINE
SINGLE STORY
WOOD FRAME
BUILDING G
H
SINGLE STORY /
WOOD FRAME
BUILDING l
I
�o
0
DRAIN
INLET
CURB
STOP
ASPHAL T
Z 0n�
w VCIO 0
01O
U! N N �
W
w0W
H IL
C W
® N
y 0
a0
m I_ Q o
awQ
U M
NNIp
0
L!.
0 �-
W uJ
W
Z 0 00
W = U�
Z Z o
Vl
W Q Z
Na
W o�
Z�
Q
/
r
ISSUE:
/ ,•
PROGRESS:
^'
MAY 12, 2000
/
REVISION:
MAY 19, 2000
CITY REVIEW:
AUGUST 15.2000
/
F
CONCRETE
DRI VEWA Y .-
ti�SHEET TITLE
NDSCAPE
PLAN
Book 513
Page 889 MM
1 8 16 �z
SCALE: 1/1E" = 1'-0"
2MA2
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060 (E)
.17 M a1�ls'� being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the
following manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid
1,
U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject
property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of ,199_ (which is —
days prior to the public hearing date of ).
ting a si'an in a conspicuous place on the subject property (a-s it could be seen
d that the said sign was posted and visible continuously
(tilust be posted for at leaf, ten (10) fizll
photograph of the posted sign is attached 'hereto.
!' Tic
NO TIME 9rj{�Q
PACE
P'URPo-2 =L _
_REQuF�TSE
71
FROM REs DANCE
�s1GN S NAq �
T
Signed bef re me this day
1� ,4�4 bya�
WITNESS NIY HAI D AMID OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission eYp,�Ies�,�R
RA
l r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
5
Jo yce Ohlson, Deputy Director `Ap
FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner's
RE: 610 E. Hyman St. Special Revievi• for Trash / Utility Service Area
DATE: September 5, 2000 (Continued from 8/15/00)
APPLICANT: Charles Cunniffe
LOCATION: Lot M, Block 99, City and
TovN7nsite of Aspen
PARCEL ID: 273 7-182-12-004
ADDRESS: 610 East Hyman Street,
Aspen Colorado 81611
ZONING: C-1 (Commercial)
CURRENT LAND USE: Professional Office
PROPOSED
LAND USE: Professional Office
LOT SIZE: 3,000 sq. ft.
NET LEASABLE SPACE: 2,924
FAR: Existing: 2,582.5 sq. ft.
Allowable: 3,000 sq. ft
LgLK
ALLEY BLOCK 99
REQUEST:
The applicant requests a variance to reduce the trash / utility service area requirements for the
rear of an existing office building to accommodate a three (3) car garage addition.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove a development application for Special Review, after
recommendation by the Community Development Department.
STAFF COAENIENTS:
The applicant, Charles Cunniffe of Charles Cunniffe Architects, requests Special Review for
a variance to reduce the trash / utility service area requirements for the rear of their existing
office building to accommodate a proposed three car garage addition The applicant requests
this variance to accommodate a three car garage «7hich would cover the existing off-street
parking area located off the alley directly behind the office building. The roof over the
garage would extend to the northern property line (alley) to provide cover for the existing
pathway to the rear entry and trash / utility service area. This proposed pathway is 41" wide.
The proposed garage extends to the north property line abutting the alley. The proposed
garage will be built fully to the eastern property line. The proposed 41 " pathway access to the
back door, patio, and trash service area will extend along the «vest property line and be
enclosed with a half wall extending from the existing building to the alley and covered with
the garage roof extension as indicated on the site plan.
Staff review and discussion held that even though the current permitted use as a "professional
office" use in the C-1 Zone District does not generate enough waste to require a larger trash /
service area at the present time, any future change in the permitted or conditional use of the
building such as a Food Market, Service Commercial Establishments (Catering), or
Restaurant would be encumbered by not being able to provide the required adequate trash /
utility service area needed because of the locked -in situation created by this proposed
development. Further.. Staff indicated that the applicant could reduce the garage to a two car
garage alleviating adequate space to access the trash /utility service area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the variance from trash / utility service area requirements as part
of a proposed garage addition located on the rear of the Charles Cunniffe office building at
610 East Hyman Street, finding that the Review Standards have not been satisfied.
ALTERNATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval allowing a variance from trash / utility service area requirements
as part of a proposed garage addition located on the rear of the Charles Cunniffe office
building at 610 East Hyman Street with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant reduce the proposed three car garage to a two car garage alleviating
adequate space to access the trash / utility service area from the alley;
2. That the applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department for design
of improvements. This includes grading, drainage, transportation, streets,
landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way;
3. That the applicant receives approval from the Streets Department for mailboxes,
finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways;
4. That the applicant submits a drainage report. The site development approvals must
include the requirement meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code
Section 26.580.020(A)(6)(a). Further, prior to the building permit application, the
610 E Hyman Memorandum Page
applicant submit a drainage mitigation plan (24"06" size plan sheet or on the lot
grading plan) to meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design
Standards for review and approval by the Engineering Department;
5. That drainage onto the public right-of-way is restricted pursuant to City of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 21.04.120 - Draining'Vater Onto Public Right -of -Way
Restricted. Due to lack of open space on the property and the abundance of
impermeable surface, all drainage must be retained onsite. All roof drains, foundation
drains, and building guttering systems must be contained on site via dry wells;
6. That all proposed improvements including landscaping and street cuts to the public
right-of-,,vay must be approved by the City of Aspen Engineering Department and
must adhere to the latest version of the City of Aspen Interim Design and
Construction Standards; and
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2000 for Special RevieNv of a variance from
trash / utility service area requirements as part of a proposed garage addition located at the rear
of the Charles Cunniffe Architects office building at 610 East Hyman Street with the conditions
in the draft resolution."
CITE' MANAGER:
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A -- REVIEN'1' CRITERIA, STAFF FINDINGS
EXHIBIT B -- ORTHO PHOTO OF PARCEL 2737-182-12-004
EXHIBIT C -- PHOTO OF EXISTING SPACE FOR THE PROPOSED GARAGE
EXHIBIT D -- APPLICATION LETTER
EXHIBIT E -- RESOLUTION No. , SERIES OF 2000
610 E Hvman Memorandum Page
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
SECTION 26.575.060 UTILITY / TRASH SERVICE AREAS
A. The following provisions shall apple to all utility,/trash service areas:
1. All utility/trash service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from
the street, and such fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade. All fences
shall be of sound construction and shall be no less than 90% opaque.
STAFF FINDING:
The proposed utility / trash service area will be screened from the street by the nature of the
proposed covered walkway, back wall of the proposed garage, and half wall which forms a
41" NN"ide pathway to the proposed utility / trash service area. There is no need for a fence in
this case as the area will be unseen from the alley.
2. Whenever this Title shall require that a utility / trash service area be
provided abutting an alley, buildings may extend to the rear property line
if otherwise allowed by this title provided that an open area be provided
which shall be accessible to the alley, and which meets the dimensional
requirements of Chapter 26.480.
STAFF FINDING:
The proposed (T-10" x C-11") utility / trash service area does not abut the alley however. it
is provided Nvith a pathway open to the alley. Staff finds, pursuant to this criterion. that
buildings may extend to the rear property line provided that an open area is provided which
shall be accessible to the alley. However, the applicant proposes a pathway that is 41" wide
to access the open area. However, staff finds this proposed pathway width is too restrictive
for other future permitted and conditional uses, which might occupy the space and generate
much more waste than the current use. Staff finds that the proposed development does not
meet this criterion.
3. A minimum of fifteen (15) linear feet of the utility / trash service area
shall be reserved for box storage, utility- transformers or equipment, or
building access, and a minimum of five (5) linear feet of the utility/trash
service area shall be reserved for trash facilities, unless the dimensions of
the area are authorized to be reduced by the Planning and Zoning
Commission by special revieNv (see Chapter 26.430) and in accordance
«ith the standards set forth below at Section 26.575.060(B).
STAFF FINDING:
The applicant pursuant to the Land Use Code is required to provide 1.5 spaces for every
1,000 square feet of net leasable area. The building currently contains 2,924 sq. ft. of net
leasable space that equates to required provision of 4.3 off -site parking spaces. The
placement of the required minimum of fifteen (15) linear feet would not allow the applicant
to provide the existing off street parking, thereby creating hardship. Staff finds the existing
610 E Hvman Memorandum Paae 4
provision of three off-street parking spaces, which will remain as part of this development.
could be accommodated with a reduction in this fifteen (15) linear feet requirement while
allowing for an adequate utility/trash service area.
B. Review standards for reduction of dimensions. The Planning and Zoning
Commission may reduce the dimensions of a utility / trash service area by follo-vying the
special review procedures set forth at Chapter 26.430 if:
1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the
building and its total square footage, the utility / trash service area proposed to
be provided NN,,ill be adequate.
STAFF FINDING:
Staff finds the proposed utility /trash area is inadequate. The building is owned and occupied
by Charles Cunniffe Architects, which contains eleven (11) employees. Currently, the
cleaning service employed removes trash and recycling from the site essentially eliminating
the need for an exterior trash storage area. Staff finds that even though the current permitted
use as a "professional office" use in the C-1 Zone District does not generate enough waste to
require a larger trash /service area at the present time, any future change in a permitted or
conditional use of the building such as a Food Market, Service Commercial Establishments
(Catering), or Restaurant would be encumbered by not being able to provide the required
adequate trash / utility service area because of the locked -in situation created by this
proposed development. Further, Staff indicated that the applicant could reduce the garage to a
two car garage eliminating the west ,vall of the garage enlarging the access to the utility /
trash area.
2. Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate.
STAFF FINDING:
The proposed development provides three ways of access to the utility / trash service area:
1) a 41 " wide covered pathway from the alley, 2) the existing rear entry of the building,
and 3) a lower level door on the basement level opening to the existing light well area
which is adjacent to the utility / trash service area. Staff finds this development provides
inadequate access to the utility / trash service area via the 41" pathway which would
encumber future uses from providing adequate space to the area.
3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily
movable by trash personnel.
STAFF FINDING:
Staff finds that even though the current permitted use does not generate enough waste to
require a larger trash /service area at the present time therefore requiring minimal trash bins
easily maneuvered through the 41" pathway, any future change in a permitted or conditional
use could be encumbered by not being able to provide the required adequate trash /utility
service area or access because of the locked -in situation created by this proposed
development.
610 E Hvman Memorandum Paae
4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the
proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction
by other developments on the block.
STAFF FINDING:
Staff finds that trash compaction is not necessary for this development.
5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and
safe for the placement of utilities.
STAFF FINDING:
Utility meters will be easy and safe to read by the personnel from access from the rear entry
door and the pathway from the alley.
6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the
access area.
STAFF FINDING:
The proposed access to the area from the alley and existing rear entries will remain open.
However, staff finds it to be too restrictive for potential future use.
610 E Hvman Memorandum Pate 6
PHOTO OF PARCEL: 2737-182-12-004
EXHIBIT B
cr)
0
Corn
rn
2.
CD 3
> M
00
CD
0
ov
(n
cm
610 E Hyman Memorandum Paae 7
EXHIBIT C
PHOTO DOCUMENTATION OF EXISTING SPACE
Southerly View showing cars in the rear of the Charles Cunniffe office building located at 610 East
Hyman Street where the proposed three -car garage will be located.
Southerly view of the rear entrance to the office
building. Trash / Utility Service Area is proposed in
adjacent to this entrance.
7
Existing light well /patio adjacent to the rear of the
office building and served by a basement door.
610 E Hyman Memorandum Page 8
rAk-1L1+ Dt
CHARLES CLTNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
610 E HYMAN
' --7N CO
�,70. 925 • 5590
EXECUTIVE
FAX 970. 925 • 5076
A RCHITECT'U RA L
FAX 970. 925 • 4557
WWW.CUNNIFFE.COM
June 14, 2000
Nick Lelack
City of Aspen
Panning Department
Dear Nick:
Subject: Special Review
CHARLES L. CUNNIFFE, ALA
PRINCIPAL/ CEO
JANVER C. DERRINGTON, AIA
PRINCIPAL
The proposed 610 building project is to add a garage behind Charles Cunniffe Architects office building at 610 East
Hyman Ave. We are proposing to enclose the existing off street parking adjacent to the alley, create a covered
pathway to provide access to existing rear egress from the office building and use the unheated basement space
below the garage as storage. The development complies with Commercial (C-1) zoning in that it will not change
the use of the property, the height limit will not be exceeded, the lot will remain greater than 25 0 open space and
the external floor area ratio will remain unchanged.
we seek a variance to supplementci regulation 26.575.060, utility/trash service areas. This se;.ticn has three
requirements of the area:
1. A minimum of six foot high fencing is installed for visual screening from the street:
2. The utility/trash service areas abut an alley and;
3. A minimum of fifteen linear feet be reserved for the area with a minimum of five fee` be reserved for the trash
facilities.
The proposed utility/trasl": service areo will be screened from the street. The proposed 17'-10" x 6'-1 1 ") utility/trash
service area does not abut the alley however, it is provided with a pathway open to the alley. If the area is to
comply with the fifteen linear foot re uirements, we would be unable to provide the exisng off street parking,
thereby creating hardship.
Review standards, to which we comply, for the reduction of utility/trash service area are:
1. The area is adequate. The building is owned and occupied by Charles Cunniffe Architects. The cleaning
service employed removes trash and recycling from the site essentially eliminating the need for a trash area.
2. Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate. The pathway to the existing rear entry to the building is
adjacent to the trash area.
3. The trash bins, located behind the proposed garage, will be screened from view of the public way and bins will
be purchased with wheels for ease of mobility.
4. Trash compaction will not be necessary.
5. Utility meters will be easy and safe to read by personnel.
6. Access to the area will remain open to the existing rear entry as part of the proposed development.
Two variances are on record at the clerk's office. While both are in the commercial core zoned district, there is
precedence for granting a variance for the reduction of a utility/trash service area. For more information regarding
each case, please see the attached or case files for, 78-8, Mazza, Anthony J., 434 E. Cooper Street, Lot K, Block 87,
City of Aspen; 79-1, Fliesher, Donald J., Tom Thumb Building, 400 E. Hyman, Lots K & L, Block 88 City of Aspen.
Respectfully,
Charles Cunniffe, AIA
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS
ASPEN • CARBONDALE - TELLURIDE • VAIL
.-j-1 �• � � �� 1lf
4 r I ���
ic Am"
5 ��T`
C o t0`*' r- ��
P��cel
d •, y t��?��Q ,off;- �; c Q i -• �' �n/6,
to
red
c ;,,,,. l5 a�ey (a ` *ZG' �`�f J ;JS A� +• � � . �',
' _ �, ..,r1S rrT yr"es:�i Q �,•"' ��� 0+' a/��,J j ?,
�• o R
P � t o`u34 IL
Oy ,•'` "'�lS Jri�R/�1�i f Q `� '` Q J�J ,o�,�,/�,f�, ; QF d
Un ilk,
pad .._.y �,r `Gt� ���� , J Q
SW-.- !Sitver Oueen
'ti, � ev�,� -' (V •'C Gondola- - - - - - - -. _
tom,; �LJ
it- to
fir
LT
lb
opeejq
u-I 4veat1
IleCreekDr fPo
netery LnP
eCD
c
�n
r
1
.'/oH
1
Jr C� r
tie
Cgs
! -.Ply uwi
e
�
,� a
N Ykq N
A V ENv
E
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
610 E. HYMAN
ASPEN. COLORADO
)cK
99
i
Pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning Regula-
tions of the City of Aspen, a building constructed in the
commercial core area is required to have a 30' x 10' x 10'
trash access area. It is the contention of applicant that
this requirement when applied to this particular lot would
create a hardship.
Applicant intends to build a three story building,
1/2 story of which shall be below grade and 2-1/2 stories
shall be above grade. Due to the fact that applicant is in
the Main Street view plane, applicant would not be able to
construct a three story building above grade due to the afore-
mentioned view plane. The only way applicant could build a
three story building would be to place a 1/2 story below crade,
as planned, cr a full story below grade. By placing a full
story below grade, applicant would be forced to increase the
length and dimension of the stairways and stairwells neces-
sary to provide access to the lower level (see plans tendered
herewith), thereby creating less greenery in the open space
(corner of Mill Street and Fast Hopkins). Furthermore, due
to the grade of this lot, to construct a floor below grade,
applicant would have to excavate approximately 1-3/4 stories
below grade. The depth of said below -grade story would
markedly increase the number of steps in the open space area
(the computation of stories (feet) below grade and increased
number of steps in the open space caused by placing a story
below grade will be fully explained by our architect, Welton
Anderson, at the public hearing). Also, due to the grade of
the lot, the placement of 1/2 or 1 full story below grade would
necessarily delete,300 square feet of buildable space from
each of applicant's first 2 stories (this will also be fully
explained by Welton Anderson at the public hearing). It is,
therefore, the contention of applicant that from an aesthetic
and practical point of view, a building 1/2 story below grade
and 2-1/2 stories above grade would be best suited for this
piece of property.
twofold:
The reason for the aforementioned three stories is
(1) In order to achieve a 1:5 to 1 F.A.R., or 4500
square feet, applicant has to incorporate a
third floor when considering the open space and
trash access area requirements. Pursuant to
present regulations, applicant would only be
allowed to construct 1950 square feet on each
of the first two floors. Therefore, a third
story is mandated.
(2) Applicant desires to provide two units of
employee housing. In order to do so, a third
floor is required. To comply with existing
requirements, applicant can only place 1950
square feet on each of the first two stories.
Applicant, in order to construct two employee
housing units, would have to construct 2100
square feet on the third floor. By virtue of
adding the extra square footage to the third
story, which addition is necessitated by cur-
rent regulations, applicant would be forced
to provide a second stairway and hallway to
the top floor. This requirement would effec-
tively preclude construction of employee
housing on the top floor because same would be
a
rendered architecturally unfeasible.
It is, therefore, the contention of applicant that
a hardship is created by virtue of the trash access area
2.
requirement and that a variance should be granted, and in
fact is mandated, namely, reduction of the reauired trash
area to a square footage which would facilitate trash storage
and trash removal on applicant's land. Such a variance would
provide more retail space on the two lower stories and per-
mit applicant to construct a top floor with square footage
which would not require a second stairway to the top floor,
thereby permitting applicant to construct two employee housing
units on the third story. If a variance were not granted, an
additional hardship would be created with reference to the
building due to the fact that the two lower levels of appli-
cant's building would lose 300 square feet of retail space
per floor due to the present trash access area requirement
when coupled with the view plane requirements and grade of
the lot.
3.
January 10, 1979
Mr. Clayton Meyring
Board of Zoning Adjustment
City of Aspen
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
Re: Tom Thumb Project
Dear Mr. Meyring:
The proposed Tom Thumb Building Project is comprised
TFof approximately 6,500 s.f. of renovated existing
building space and approximately 5,400 s.f. of new
construction, of which 1,900 s.f. is devoted to
employee housing. The project is located in the CC
Zone and is within a Historic overlav district.
C7
We seek variance to Section 24- 3. 7 (h) (4) of the
.,J 17'No zoningcode which basically requires that the entire
q
length of the building adjacent to the alley be
devoted to covered trash access (1011t. high and 10
ft. deep) .
As denoted in the project plans, an area 30 ft. long
(by the code requirement height and width) has been
provided exclusively for trash storage and access.
By any standards of trash generation and normal refuse
pick up for a commercial/residential building of this
size the dimension requested is more than adequate.
This project has been reviewed by various agencies
required for Growth Management Plan (GMP) approval
in 1978. In response to a concern of the Historic
Preservation Committee the refuse area was moved
inward from the alley intersection with Mill Street
to nullify the negative visual effect of refuse near the
street (pedestrian view) and to achieve visual continuit
with nearby buildings who similarly did not locate
refuse areas adjacent to street/alley intersections.
The building was subsequently planned under this
criteria. The written report from the HPC (Sec. 24-9.15)
prior to Board of Adjustment action on this request
should verify this concern.
We request approval of this variance on the grounds that
it will result in a reasenable use of the land, building
and structure consistant with the intent of the zoning"
code and HPC and that the GMP approval constitutes a
special condition that did not apply to other properties
620 East Hyman Avenue • Aspen, Colorcdo 81611 • Telephone: =3) 925-2122
January 10, 1979
Mr. Clayton Meyring
Page 2
in the vicinity.
Respectfully submitted
Donald J. Fleisher
for
Aspvail Investments
EXHIBIT E
Resolution No.
(SERIES OF 2000)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A VARIANCE FROM TRASH / UTILITY
STORAGE SPACE REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF A PROPOSED GARAGE
ADDITION LOCATED ON THE REAR OF THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING
AT 610 EAST HYMAN STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2737-182-12-004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Charles Cunniffe, represented by Steve Dunn, for Special Review for a variance from trash /
utility service area requirements as part of a proposed garage addition located on the rear of
their existing office building at 610 East Hyman Street, Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.430 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning
and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of
this Chapter, shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a
development application for Special Review, after recommendation by the Community
Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and
recommended denial for Special Review for a variance from trash / utility service area
requirements as part of a proposed garage addition located on the rear of their existing office
building; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered this
Special Review for a variance from trash / utility service area requirements as part of a
proposed garage addition located on the rear of their existing office building under the
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered
the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered
public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Special Review for a
variance from trash / utility service area requirements as part of a proposed garage addition
located on the rear of an existing office building meets or exceeds all applicable land use
standards and that the approval of the variance, vNrith conditions, is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers
and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
610 E Hyman Memorandum Paae 9
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on September
5, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission, approved a Special Review for a variance
from trash / utility service area requirements as part of a proposed garage addition located on
the rear of their existing office building at 610 East Hyman Street, Aspen, Colorado, with
conditions, by a vote of to
NO`A7, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section l:
The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission does hereby approve a Special Review for a
variance from trash / utility storage space requirements as part of a proposed garage addition
located on the rear of their existing office building at 610 East Hyman Street, Aspen,
Colorado with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant reduce the proposed three car garage to a two car garage alleviating
adequate space to access the trash / utility service area from the alley;
2. That the applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department for design
of improvements. This includes grading, drainage, transportation, streets,
landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way;
3. That the applicant receives approval from the Streets Department for mailboxes,
finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways;
4. That the applicant submits a drainage report. The site development approvals must
include the requirement meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code
Section 26.580.020(A)(6)(a). Further, prior to the building permit application, the
applicant submit a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot
grading plan) to meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design
Standards for review and approval by the Engineering Department;
5. That drainage onto the public right-of-way is restricted pursuant to City of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 21.04.120 - Draining Water Onto Public Right-of-I'Vay
Restricted. Due to lack of open space on the property and the abundance of
impermeable surface, all drainage must be retained onsite. All roof drains, foundation
drains, and building guttering systems must be contained on site via dry wells; and
6. That all proposed improvements including landscaping and street cuts to the public
right-of-way must be approved by the City of Aspen Engineering Department and
must adhere to the latest version of the City of Aspen Interim Design and
Construction Standards.
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, are hereby
610 E Hyman Memorandum Pate 10
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.
Section 5--
A duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 5"' day of September, 2000, at
5:00 in the Sister Cities Room, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on September 5, 2000.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
PLA.NTTING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Robert Blaich, Chair
CAM), Documents\Current Cases\Special Review\610 E Hyman Special review\610 E Hyman Memo.doc
610 E Hvman Memorandum Pace I I
d
CONNER WARREN J UND 10/20% INT
CONNER MARGARET A(12/20THS)
CONNER MARGARET A
534 E HOPKINS AVE
CONNER WARREN J & CLAUDE
534 E HOPKINS AVE
N, CO 81611
M(4/20THS EACH)
ASPEN, CO 81611
534 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
A COLORADO BANKING
A COLORADO BANKING
A COLORADO BANKING
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
600 E HOPKINS AVE
600 E HOPKINS AVE
600 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
CLARK ROBERT TRUST
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
A COLORADO BANKING
620 E HOPKINS 95
A COLORADO BANKING
CORPORATION
ASPEN, CO 81611
CORPORATION
600 E HOPKINS AVE
600 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
624 E HOPKINS AVE
A COLORADO BANKING
A COLORADO BANKING
ASPEN, CO 81611
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
600 E HOPKINS AVE
600 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
CLARK ROBERT TRUST
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
HOPKINS ST VENTURE
620 E HOPKINS #5
A COLORADO BANKING
C/O MULARZ TED
ASPEN, CO 81611
CORPORATION
PO BOX 1328
600 E HOPKINS AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
ASPEN, CO 81611
',K ROBERT TRUST
CLARK ROBERT TRUST
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
620 E HOPKINS #5
620 E HOPKINS #5
A COLORADO BANKING
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
CORPORATION
600 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
CLARK ROBERT TRUST
CLARK ROBERT TRUST
A COLORADO BANKING
620 E HOPKINS #5
620 E HOPKINS #5
CORPORATION
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
600 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
CLARK ROBERT TRUST
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
A COLORADO BANKING
620 E HOPKINS #5
A COLORADO BANKING
CORPORATION
ASPEN, CO 81611
CORPORATION
600 E HOPKINS AVE
600 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
CLARK ROBERT TRUST
CLARK ROBERT TRUST
CLARK ROBERT TRUST
620 E HOPKINS #5
620 E HOPKINS #5
620 E HOPKINS #5
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
TRO MAURICE
CLARK ROBERT TRUST
CLARK ROBERT TRUST
1 OPICANA HOTEL & BEACH CLUB
620 E HOPKINS #5
620 E HOPKINS #5
29620 TORRE MOLINOS
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
COSTA DEL SOL, MARBELLA SPAIN
CLARK ROBERT TRUST ASPEN PLAZA COMPANY BASS CAHN PROPERTIES
62() E HOPKINS #5 PO BOX 1709 PO BOX 5078
fit, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
TROUSDALE JEAN VICK BASS CAHN PROPERTIES MYSKO BOHDAN D
611 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 5078 DOMINION SHIPPING CORPORATION
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 515 W RICHEY
HOUSTON, TX 77090
BOGAERT FAMILY TRUST MASON & MORSE INC BASS CAHN PROPERTIES LLP
PO BOX 1166 514 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 5078
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
SJA ASSOCIATES LTD 60% LAZY J RANCH LLC PITKIN COUNTY BANK 80%
PO BOX 1709 C/O W A WALTON 534 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 665 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
HORSEFINS LLC GELD LLC GELD LLC
C/O PITKIN COUNTY TITLE MEYER LOWELL C/O MEYER LOWELL C/O
601 E HOPKINS AVE P O BOX 1247 P O BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612-1247 ASPEN, CO 81612-1247
LLC GELD LLC EDGETTE JAMES J & PATRICIA
MEYER LOWELL C/O MEYER LOWELL C/O 19900 BEACH RD STE 801
P O BOX 1247 P O BOX 1247 JUPITER ISLAND, FL 33469
ASPEN, CO 81612-1247 ASPEN, CO 81612-1247
GELD LLC ELMORE JOHN A II ELMORE JOHN A II
MEYER LOWELL C/O PO BOX 381 PO BOX 381
P O BOX 1247 WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC 28480 WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC 28480
ASPEN, CO 81612-1247
GELD LLC TAYLOR E NORRIS 1/2 GELD LLC
MEYER LOWELL C/O 602 E HYMAN AVE #1 MEYER LOWELL C/O
P O BOX 1247 ASPEN, CO 81611 P O BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612-1247 ASPEN, CO 81612-1247
GELD LLC 610 EAST HYMAN LLC GELD LLC
MEYER LOWELL C/O C/O KRABACHER LAW OFFICES PC MEYER LOWELL C/O
P O BOX 1247 201 N MILL ST STE 201 P O BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612-1247 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612-1247
7) LLC SIMMONS RICHARD P & DOROTHY P FURNGULF LTD
NFL YER LOWELL C/O SIMMONS BRIAN P & AMY P A COLO JOINT VENTURE
P O BOX 1247 1500 LAKESHORE DR APT 18 A 616 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81612-1247 CHICAGO, IL 60610 ASPEN, CO 81611
ELMORE JOHN A II
PCB -.BOX 381
'HTSVILLE BEACH, NC 28480
WOODS FRANK J III
205 S MILL ST STE 301A
ASPEN, CO 81611
WOODS FRANK J III
205 S MILL ST STE 301A
ASPEN, CO 81611
517 E HYMAN LTD
A COLORADO LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
517 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
DINGILIAN DIKRAN A S
160 W 225 ST
NEW YORK, NY 10463
-)RIAN SQUARE LLC
C/O GARFIELD & HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC
C/O GARFIELD & HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC
C/O GARFIELD & HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
VOTIS GEORGE T
GALT INDUSTRIES C/O
767 5TH AVE 5TH FL
NEW YORK, NY 10153
PATIO BUILDING COMPANY LLC
PO BOX 1066
ASPEN, CO 81612
LESTER THOMAS D & LINDA T
1353 BLAIRMOOR CT
GROSSE POINTE, MI 48236-1022
MOUNTAIN RESORT TRUST
C/O FISHER D
PO BOX 4273
ASPEN, CO 81612
VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC
C/O GARFIELD & HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC
C/O GARFIELD & HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC
C/O GARFIELD & HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
LONG GERALD P & PATRICIA D
TRUSTEES
490 WILLIAMS ST
DENVER, CO 80218
BOOGIE'S BUILDING OF ASPEN LLC RODGERS PORTER R JR
WEINGLASS LEONARD C/O RODGERS CAROL L
PO BOX 11509 1300 S MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81612 SEARCY, AR 72143
PITKIN CENTER CONDO OWNERS
ASSOC
517 W NORTH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
ARCADES ASSOCIATES LTD
RJS-RS INC C/O
304 S GALENA STE A
ASPEN, CO 81611
WOODS FRANK J III
205 S MILL ST STE 301A
ASPEN, CO 81611
MTN RESORT TRUST
C/O FISHER D
PO BOX 4273
ASPEN, CO 81612
VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC
C/O GARFIELD & HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
LEMOS D & J 1/3 INT
PO BOX 321
ASPEN, CO 81612
SPRING STREET PO
C/O GULFCO LTD
616 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
TENNESSEE THREE RENTALS
MRS A E MILLER C/O
3506 HONEYWOOD DR
JOHNSON CITY, TN 37604
HANNAH DUSTIN BUILDING ASSOC
PO BOX 2238
ASPEN, CO 81612
TSE JAMES M & CAROLYN A NIELSON COL STEVE & CAROL D YERAMIAN CHARLES
-)T 35.821%
501 S FAIRFAX PO BOX 12347
34425 HWY 82 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
HELLINGER FAMILY TRUST
HFT,,LINGER FRANK AND FLORENCE
TEES
,uYCLIFF DR
OKLANDO, FL 32803
KIEFER KAREN B TRUST 1/4
2130 NW 95TH ST
SEATTLE, WA 98117-2425
SCHNITZER KENNETH L & LISA L
4023 OAK LAWN AVE
DALLAS, TX 75219
BISCHOFF JOHN C
502 S VIA GOLONDRINA
TUCSON, AZ 85716-5843
SCHNITZER KENNETH JR
4023 OAK LAWN
DALLAS, TX 75219
'EAU ASPEN UNIT 21-A LLC
BLDG 421-G AABC
ASPEN, CO 81611
SHUMATE MARK -
1267 STILLWOOD DR
ATLANTA, GA 30306
HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLP
C/O M & W PROPERTIES
205 S MILL ST STE 301A
ASPEN, CO 81611
FERRY NATALIE
PO BOX 166
GLENCOE, IL 60022
14ABER WILBUR A
HABERSANDRA
20409 KISHWAUKEE VALLEY RD
MARENGO, IL 60152
CURRIE VICKIE
3101 BRYN MAWR
DALLAS, TX 75229
TREUER CHRISTIN L
981 E BRIARWOOD CIR N
LITTLETON, CO 80122
MNI INC
57 BURNBANK STREET
NEPEAN
ONTARIO K2GOH2 CANADA,
HENDIRCKS JOHN AND BONNIE 1/2
INT
254 N LAUREL AVE
DES PLAINES, IL 60016
GOFEN ETHEL CARO
455 CITY FRONT PLAZA
CHICAGO, IL 60611
JOYCE EDWARD
11 S LA SALLE ST STE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-1211
ARTLA LTD PARTNERSHIP
WM C KING 406 BUCKING1 AM RD
PITTSBURGH, PA 15215-1555
CAMERON JAMES 77.5%
COATES CHRISTIAN C 22.5%
4504 BELCLAIRE AVE
DALLAS, TX 75205
ABELLO ROSA
PO BOX 1569
ASPEN, CO 81612
WILLOUGHBY MARIAN V TRUST
12322 RIP VAN WINKLE
HOUSTON, TX 77024
Sep. 6. 2000�1 2:55PM Rid CHARLES CNNNIFFE ARCHITECTS MX NU. No,1954 P. 2/2 u;�iUz
County. of Pik ^ } AFMAVrY OF N01WT PURSUA14T
I sg• TO ASPEN LAND USE UGUL,ATION
Statt of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060 (E)
._,,.,,.. y �, bei acre ►,resenting an
Applicant to the pity of spec, persoual,ly cep zf r tba� Z ha G co apUcd with the pub& notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen T,atid Use RaSuMons in the
following mauve:
1, By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hz�eto, by C-class} postage prepaid
U.S, Mail to all owners of property 'with three hundred (�00) fevt of the subject
property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of 199 (which is
days prior to the public hearing date of.
?. By posting a Sign in a cons icuotcs plane on the Subject property (as it coWd be sewn
fro= the nasrest public wkv) and that the said SlEn Nvas posted and visible continuously
fmta the �Prwdavofas . ('vfusz be posted For at le�=t reu (10) ill
days before the hear g date, Aphotograph of the posted sign is attachcd hereto,
Signature
S=ed before me this 45 Q •% t. day
r A by
d
v� SS MY � .- OFFICIAL Ste.
My co=zssxoa expires.
�r�tasy �
l
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Chris Bendon, Long -Range Planner
RE: New Urbanism Principles — Information Item
DATE: September 5, 2000
I recently attended the annual meeting of the Congress of the New Urbanism in Portland,
Oregon, and thought I would pass along some interesting notes.
When this group started, it was criticized for being `just a group of architects,' but has now
broadened to include planners, engineers, developers, financiers, and many elected officials.
Their approach to planning is primarily physical although their underlying purposes are
generally to create places of interest, social well-being, civic pride, economic vitality, and
that celebrate natural and built legacy. I believe their principles are most important in
counteracting placeless sprawl that alienates people and consumes mass quantities of the
natural environment.
I also believe that this movement represents the future of responsible land use planning.
Interestingly enough, this group is most critical of planners and the planning profession for
creating the current mess we now know as suburbia. I have to say that I agree. In fact, I
couldn't agree more — there is no worse development pattern than the purgatory between
urban and rural that represents a total disrespect to both environments. But I do believe it is
the public sector's challenge and obligation to be change agents. Some of this change is
evident in our recently adopted Community Plan and I expect the Infill Program to address
many of these issues.
Attached is a list of the Principles for New Urbanism. Each of the principles is a precis to an
essay which comprises a book — Charter of the New Urbanism. Most of these are very well
written and each has a different author — some of whom are even planners. These are general
in nature and are widely applicable. If you have an interest in any one of the principles, let
me know and I can copy the respective essay for you. If you have a greater interest in New
Urbanism, there are many books out there but I have copies of the four most important (in my
opinion).
PRINCIPLES OF THE NEW URBANISM
THE REGION: METROPOLIS, CITY; AND TOWN
ONE
The metropolitan region is a fundamental economic unit of the contemporary world. Governmental
cooperation, public policy, physical planning, and economic strategies must reflect this new reality.
Two
Metropolitan regions are finite places with geographic boundaries derived from topography,
watersheds, coastlines, farmlands, regional parks, and river basins. The metropolis is made of
multiple centers that are cities, towns, villages, and with its own identifiable center and edges.
THREE
A metropolis has a necessary and fragile relationship to its agrarian hinterland and natural
landscapes. The relationship is environmental, economic, and cultural. Farmland and nature is as
important to the metropolis as the garden is to the house.
FOUR
Development patterns should not blur or eradicate the edges of the metropolis. Infill development
within existing areas conserves environmental resources, economic investment, and social fabric,
while reclaiming marginal and abandoned areas. Metropolitan regions should develop strategies to
encourage such infill development over peripheral expansion.
FIVE
Where appropriate, new development contiguous to urban boundaries should be organized as
neighborhoods and districts, and be integrated with the existing urban pattern. Noncontiguous
development should be organized as towns and villages with their own urban edges, and planned for
a jobs/housing balance, not as bedroom suburbs.
Six
The development and redevelopment of towns and cities should respect historical patterns,
precedents, and boundaries.
SEVEN
Cities and towns should bring into proximity a broad spectrum of public uses to support a regional
economy that benefits people of all incomes. Affordable housing should be distributed throughout the
region to match job opportunities and to avoid concentrations of poverty.
EIGHT
The physical organization of the region should be supported by a framework of transportation
alternatives. Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle systems should maximize access and mobility
throughout the region while reducing dependence on the automobile.
NINE
Revenues and resources can be shared more cooperatively among the municipalities and centers
within regions to avoid destructive competition for tax base and to promote rational coordination of
transportation, recreation, public services, housing, and community institutions.
NEIGHBORHOOD, DISTRICT, AND CORRIDOR
.cN
The neighborhood, the district, and the corridor are the essential elements of development and
redevelopment in the metropolis. They form identifiable areas that encourage citizens to take
responsibility for their maintenance and evolution.
ELEVEN
Neighborhoods should be compact, pedestrian friendly and mixed -use. Districts generally emphasize
a special single use, and should follow the principles of neighborhood design when possible.
Corridors are regional connectors of neighborhoods and districts; they range from boulevards and rail
lines to rivers and parkways
TWELVE
Many activities of daily living should occur within walking distance, allowing independence to those
who do not drive, especially the elderly and the young. Interconnected networks of streets should be
designed to encourage walking, reduce the number and length of automobile trips, and conserve
energy.
THIRTEEN
Within neighborhoods, a broad range of housing types and price levels can bring people of diverse
ages, races, and incomes into daily interaction, strengthening the personal and civic bonds essential
to an authentic community.
)URTEEN
ransit corridors, when properly planned and coordinated, can help organize metropolitan structure
and revitalize urban centers. In contrast, highway corridors should not displace investment from
existing centers.
FIFTEEN
Appropriate building densities and land uses should be within walking distances of public transit
stops, permitting public transit to become a viable alternative to the automobile.
SIXTEEN
Concentrations of civic, institutional, and commercial activity should be embedded in neighborhoods
and districts, not isolated in remote, single -use complexes. Schools should be sized and located to
enable children to walk or bicycle to them.
SEVENTEEN
The economic health and harmonious evolution of neighborhoods, districts, and corridors can be
improved through graphic urban design codes that serve as predictable guides for change.
EIGHTEEN
A range or parks, from tot lots and village greens to ballfields and community gardens, should be
distributed within neighborhoods. Conservation areas and open lands should be used to define and
^onnect different neighborhoods and districts.
BLOCK, STREET, AND BUILDING
NINETEEN
A primary task of all urban architecture and landscape design if the physical definition of streets and
public spaces as places of shared use.
TWENTY
Individual architectural projects should be seamlessly linked to their surroundings. This issue
transcends style.
TWENTY-ONE
The revitalization of urban places depends upon safety and security. The design of streets and
buildings should reinforce safe environments, but not at the expense of accessibility and openness.
TWENTY -Two
In the contemporary metropolis, development must adequately accommodate automobiles. It should
do so in ways that respect the pedestrian and the form of public space.
TWENTY-THREE
Streets and squares should be safe, comfortable, and interesting to the pedestrian. Properly
configured, they encourage walking and enable neighbors to know each other and protect their
communities.
TWENTY-FOUR
Architecture and landscape design should grow from local climate, topography, history, and buildinc
practice.
TWENTY-FIVE
Civic buildings and public gathering places require important sites to reinforce community identity and
the culture of democracy. They deserve distinctive form, because their role is different from that of
other buildings and places that constitute the fabric of the city.
TWENTY-SIX
All buildings should provide their inhabitants with a clear sense of location, weather, and time.
Natural methods of heating and cooling can be more resource -efficient than mechanical systems.
TWENTY-SEVEN
Preservation and renewal of historic buildings, districts, and landscapes affirm the continuity and
evolution of urban society.
Source: Abstracts from twenty-seven essays, Charter of the New Urbanism, McGraw Hill, 2000.
• lctp%
keAr
-011
to
i -Olvo (W r� 1
. Y h