HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950905
(
,.-
I
,
>,
AGE N D A
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
September 5, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
city Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.
525 W. Hallam Landmark Designation, Amy Amidon
B. Snowbunny Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Dave Michaelson (continued from 8/22)
C. Vickery Text Amendments, Mary Lackner (continued
from 8/22)
IV. WORK SESSION
A. Ordinance 30, Amy Amidon & Leslie Lamont
V. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: September 5, 1995
Regular Meeting - September 19
Water Place Affordable Housing Work Session (DM)
Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA Plan (LL)
Shadow Mountain AH Conceptual Submission, etc. (ML)
Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 1 PUD Amendment & Subdivision (DM)
Special Meeting - September 26
AH/RO (CH)
AACP Update (CH)
Regular Meeting - October 3
Small Lodge Text Amendments (CH/AA)
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 525 W. Hallam Street, Landmark designation
DATE: September 5, 1995- PUBLIC HEARING
SUMMARY: The applicant requests landmark designation for the
property at 525 W. Hallam. The house, the Horace Severeux House,
was built in approximately 1886. Two outbuildings exist on the
property.
APPLICANT: Julie Wyckoff.
LOCATION: 525 W. Hallam Street, Lots C,D, and the west 1/2 of Lot
E, Block 29, City and Townsite of Aspen.
LANDMARK DESIGNATION
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three -step
process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public
hearing), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation
Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at
second reading.
HPC recommended approval of landmark designation unanimously on
June 28, 1995.
LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land
Use Code defines the five standards for local Landmark Designation,
requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least two
of the following standards:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a
principal or secondary structure or site commonly
identified or associated with a person or an event of
historical significance to the cultural, social or
political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of the
United States.
Response: This standard is not met.
B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site
reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct
or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or
site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a
significant or unique architectural type, (based on
building form or use), or specimen.
Response: The house is a simple Victorian miner's
cottage with some alterations. It appears that the
building was originally a duplex, given the presence of
a pair of chimneys, a pair of bay windows, and the
original form of the roof,, which was two parallel gables.
Portions of the rear of the original structure appear to
have been removed and an enclosed porch at the rear of
the structure must have been added after 1904. A
historic outbuilding with it's original siding is located
on the alley.
The house has been covered with asbestos siding, which
will be removed as part of a planned restoration of the
building.
C. Designer: The structure is a significant work of an
architect or designer whose individual work has
influenced the character of Aspen.
Response: The architect or builder is unknown.
D. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a
significant component of an historically significant
neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or
site is important for the maintenance of that
neighborhood character.
Response: The surrounding neighborhood contains a number
of significant historic structures and Aspen Landmarks.
This structure represents the historic scale and
character of the West End neighborhood.
E. Community Character: The structure or site is
critical to the preservation of the character of the
Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of
size, location and architectural similarity to other
structures or sites of historical or architectural
importance.
Response: This site is representative of the modest
scale, style and character of homes constructed during
the mining era, the community's primary period of
historic significance.
Recommendation: Staff and HPC recommend P&Z approve Landmark
Designation of Lots C, D, and the east 1/2 of Lot E, Block 29, City
and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met.
POI
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community -Development Director
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner
RE: Snowbunny Equity Ventures, LLC Conditional Use Review For
an Accessory Dwelling -Unit (ADU) - Public Hearing
DATE: September 5, 1995
----------------------------
----------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to
construct a 640 square feet ADU within a new duplex on the parcel.
The ADU is proposed below -grade, and does not qualify for FAR
bonus. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for an
accessory dwelling unit with conditions, with the finding by the
Commission that the compatibility issues in the area have been
addressed.
APPLICANT Snowbunny Equity Ventures, LLC represented by Jan
Derrington, Project Architect
LOCATION: 1225 Snowbunny Lane (Lot 7, Block 1 Snowbunny
Subdivision
ZONING: R-15
LOT SIZE: 16,750 s.f.
FAR: Existing = 2,094 s.f.
Allowed = 5,025 s.f.
Proposed = 5,015 s.f.
BACKGROUND: At a pre -application conference, staff voiced concerns
that the initial orientation of the structure was not consistent
with the Design Standards of Ordinance 30. On July 27, 1995, the
applicant requested a variation from the Design Review Appeals
Board (DRAB) from the building orientation standard due to site
constraints.
The design standard states that "the orientation of the principal
mass of all buildings must be parallel to the streets they face.
On curvilinear streets, the principle mass of all buildings must
be tangent to the midpoint of the arc." The request to allow for
a variance to the orientation requirement was denied by the Design
Review Appeals Board (DRAB), and the applicant has reoriented the
structure to conform to the cited design standard. A vicinity map
(Exhibit A), site plan (See Exhibit B), elevations (Exhibit C) and
floor plan (Exhibit D) are attached.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see comments from the Parks Department,
the Housing Office, and the Engineering Department (See Exhibit F) .
Parks Department: Parks requested that if the lilac hedge is
located in the public right-of-way, the majority of the hedge
should remain. Planning staff notes that the applicant has
represented that all existing vegetation along Snowbunny Lane will
remain, and additional plantings shall be used to revegetate the
abandoned accessway (staff will have a landscaping plan available
at the hearing) .
Engineering Department: Engineering has concerns regarding the
appropriateness regarding additional duplex units on Snowbunny
Lane. Staff notes that a duplex is a allowed by right in the R-
15 zone district. Comments regarding two curb cuts are no longer
applicable based on revision eliminating one existing cut.
Engineering also requested a five (5) foot pedestrian usable space
be included on the final development plan, and noted that the
city's storm drainage system is inadequate and historic flows must
not be exceeded on the site.
Housing Office: Housing requested that an alternative access be
provided to the mechanical and storage room. Planning staff would
suggest that the elimination of the access from the ADU to the
staircase would create a totally private unit (see note on Exhibit
D) . A kitchen has been included in the revised site plan.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 24-7-304, the criteria
for a conditional use review are as follows:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
purposed to be located;
RESPONSE: The applicant's intend on demolishing an existing
single -story home, and constructing a duplex with an ADU in the
garden level of Unit 1 (see Exhibit D). The ADU, as depicted,
exceeds the minimum net livable requirement of 300 square feet.
The unit must comply with the Housing Guidelines and shall be deed
restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents of
Pitkin County.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture
2
of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development;
RESPONSE: Nearly 50% of the units in the Snowbunny Lane area have
transitioned into duplexes, which is permitted as of right in the
R-15 zone district. The ADU "replaces" a single bedroom in Unit
1. Staff has had several meetings with residents in the immediate
vicinity who voiced concerns regarding the perceived impact of the
ADU. In short, the concern is that by pursuing progressive
policies regarding employee housing, the addition of the ADU within
the proposed duplex creates the neighborhood impact of a triplex.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties;
RESPONSE: The ADU is accessed from a covered, descending stairwell
located at the west side of Unit 1. Impacts to public services
are identical to the development of a duplex. Each unit has a
double -garage located between the units, accessed from Snowbunny
Lane by an existing circular drive with two curb cuts. The
applicants intend on simplifying access by abandoning the west
access point, and using the remaining single curb cut to access the
site. The abandoned access would be revegetated with a lilac
hedge, similar to the existing lilacs that front Snowbunny Lane.
Based on the landscape plan, several (5) spruce and cedar trees
exceeding 6" in caliper will be removed to accommodate the duplex.
Consistent with comments from the Parks Department, the existing
hedges and vegetation located within the public right-of-way will
remain.
Staff notes that the additional ADU may generate additional
incremental impacts on the neighborhood beyond what can be expected
with the development of a duplex.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools;
RESPONSE: No additional infrastructure is required for the ADU.
A duplex is considered a use by right in the R-15 zone district,
and approximately 50% of the neighborhood is occupied by duplex
units. THe ADU "replaces" a bedroom in a portion of the unit 1.
Parking may be constrained, however staff has found this not to be
incompliance with the Code as the ADU represents one bedroom within
a two -bedroom duplex complete with a two -car garage. Section 24-
5-510 (A)(1) specifically exempts one -bedroom units from parking
3
requirements. No additional trash/storage or utility areas have
been identified by the applicant.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use;
RESPONSE: Not Applicable.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The dwelling unit must be deed restricted for
residential occupancy, and provides an additional unit for working
residents of Pitkin County.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the Commission finds that the
compatibility issue has been resolved, Planning Staff recommends
approval of the ADU with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall comply with the following:
A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction
to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval.
Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing
Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction
with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with
proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The
deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit
meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the
definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented,
shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; and
B . Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to
ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in
ADUs.
2. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling
Unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. 35
sound attenuation requirements.
3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning
Department shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with
the conditions of approval.
4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a drainage plan
shall be submitted that confirms historic runoff shall be
maintained on the site. In addition, the applicant shall
identify any additional trash/storage, recycling and utility
areas on the site.
4
5. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed
on -site.
6. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way, and
the Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain
permits for any work or development, including landscaping,
within public rights -of -way from the City Streets Department.
7. The internal access to the ADU from the ascending staircase
shall be eliminating consistent with the requirements of the
Housing Office regarding total privacy of ADUs.
8. The western access point on Snowbunny Lane shall be
eliminated, and shall be revegetated as represented on the
landscape plan.
9. A five (5) foot pedestrian usable space shall be shown on the
Final Development Plan.
10. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a tree removal
and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be
required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater
than 6" caliper.
11. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use at 1225
Snowbunny Lane with the conditions as outlined in the Planning
Office Memo dated September 5, 1995.
ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to deny the conditional use at 1225
Snowbunny Lane, on the finding that the proposed ADU is not
compatible with the characteristics of the neighborhood in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed project."
Exhibits:
"A"
- Vicinity Map
"B"
- Proposed Site Plan
"C"
- Elevations
"D"
- Floor Plan
"E"
- Referral Comments
5
r l � • : VL1�4• . • .r .i . 1
hi -bit A
Iv
�
It
} �.', 6''
SHEET 4
-�Elk l ._.__`� j9 ` wit �•7 a /�/ j q' T__ ITE _
� �d _.PROJEC
Lti i �j 1i`l\ aQ d
0
(� � � '� � � , ` t � � �� / �`� '� � � �. Y� � , to .�•�`. ' � t � -
��\""'_'
to
o4,��` z :
o
i
U L / •1 i t •
1;
VICINITY MAP _,.UORT .
/
yv�
•�r� ' i t.t `K�. 1 •
S�
I
a
z{
a
J
CL
3N b� LAJ�
o cn�
IE � I► ���■ 9LOS-ste/o[E VJ O6S".-sZb%Oj6 (131 0� 'N3d51+
t 199fy 07 'k I NCNSL�fOBrtS ANM MONS
.� toc 31M AV NWMA-k u`r3
^ o
— - a
h n
_ A �
I� O
S.L.7.?.LIH�brY ,7.�.�:Nh'!1� S3T3fYH� 7d,'JQ .ty.'n'!]�JItO1�S
I I
I I
Exhibit C
Jill
- F-M
CL
OL
ts
• �-- �� i.._ tea` }� .t - .
I-
UOS-SZ6/01.6 :XVJ 06SS--SZ6/01.6 --M
tt991 00 'N3dSV
+, tot 3Lns "3nr w".w iSV3 On
SJJ7JIHJFY SddINNlIJ S379YHO
t
� Q
00 'N3dSV
N09SWO&'?S ANNnemoNS
t X0010 'L 101
X37dfIQ AMMEAMS
0
I�A
rO
co w
UOS-SWOZ6 :XV! 069S-SZ6/046 --M
11991 00 '43dSV
1OC 31Jn5 -2AV NWAN 1SV3 OZS
S.L03,LIHDWY 3ddINM20 S17TdYH0
Q
az
,.
3
tL
00 'N3dSY
Naswaam mNnemomS
1 Noo-M 'L 10l
X37d1I Q ANNI7 ff.AONS
Cb
0 1
nm
ON N
1
Q o
:YV-4 069;-CZ6/OL6 -UL
tiggi H Idsv
I OZ 2jnS -3AV "VVJ-1 !SV'-)
An
00 'N3dV
witswosm kw18#4*6
t XDOIS 'L 101
X37df)C 1SH12GAOSE
Cb
O C4
ID
X
7 ��
NMI
F
9L09-SZ6/046 :XYJ 0699-SZ6/046 '131
11991 07 'N3dSV
LOV 31M '72AV W LL4 J.SV3 ON
sozLIHONV ,7s djjvN11O 537y vHO
03 'NUSY
N019Noom 1 NNneMONS
l HOOl9 'L 101
X37d11Q ANNDgAONS
vel
•
• Aflatv-
4109-SZ6/046 :XV! 069S-SZ6/OL6 MI
l l99! 00 'N3dSV
.� t Ot 31in5 " 3" N»uH :SV3 OZS
S.LD3.LIHD6ry .7jjIXN!]J E379YHD
00 'N3dSY
NOISWO8n5 ANNn8MON5
l H0018 'L 101 n
n 0
O �
N
O �
Z
m
X37d110 �iNN!?6dONS `o
-----------------�
N
JW
9L06-SZ6/OL6 :XY.1 069S-SZ6/OL6 -131 00 'H3dSl
t t981 00 'N3dSV NOISv wTs JWNl18w?6
►Oi 2UnS '-IAY ► "IAH 1SY3 OZS t )w-s 'L 101
n O1
o t
in
F7onO I
O aD
2
W
m t-
S.Lo3.LIHJNV JJdlNNI73 S3TddHj X37dnG ANNDEMONS 10
o a Cr 0 0 0 0 0 a cr ICY
V) V) W V) V) V) V) Lol V) V) V)
1 0 0 'Al OL"! O V) V9 O O V1
I — — — — — — — — I Cl to a0 00 r1 (71 r7 e0 N r-
I
I • • II c4l N Ln
1 i Z N N
Q
Ln
1 LO cc
N
I I < N
I W i W
0 � X N
tW w N V)
to n II Ln 11 a p I{
< n I i{ II i) p II p r
I < r') < M
V) N J w d w V) -J w a. 0
W< Q W><— W< Q W W< N p
1 I CL
W 0=0-.j0 - W c>=CtiJc��
J Z 0: < Z Z J Z < Z_ Z a: -j
w cc 0:>< W O .. i>< LaJ. O a. co
J O (7 O. J J N Z J O 0a. J J J 3
i Q a. < a_
I I o of o or 0 a _1
W
Li1 `
I � ,
---------------- ------------------
I 1 I 11
On pM ZZx Q
px �< I (.fix
1 p0
Qa_h I o
K3
53n13HS
n¢ \ ( I
aa Z x
W'n i i
T ;r1 W
(X I
i
N
W 1
� I
I
O O I
0 O
W OO Z;,l I �— 1
Q S Ox E
Ox I
U x ;n Z ;n I
i OO Z— i—
J
3 I I
8 1 I I
I ,
I , 1
1 r 1
v , I
1 � I
I I �
-
t
a_ m
- — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .— J
W W
u;a
Z¢ Y —
i � W:3a
chi •a G
9LOS-SZ6/OL6 XV! 06SS-SZ6/OL6 m
tim 00 'N3dSV
LOt 3JUIS "3AV NVMAA LSV3 OZS
i
S.L03.LIHOtIY .7,�dlNld;1.7 S379YHO
03 'NUSY
NOISWOBr?S ANNnEIMONS
t X0018 'L 101
n O1
o
C R
w �
Z
X37dDig ANNIMMONS o 0
N
Z
9LOS-SZ6/OL6 :XY! 06SS-SZ6/01.6 131
11991 OJ 'N3dSV
IDC 311nS '3AV NVM&-4 1SV3 OZS
S,LO,7.LIHDdV 3ddINNnO S37NVHO
r
00 WUSY
NOISWOWS J WISMON5
1 )400'19 ' L 101 ,n
o
N
Q i
O �
2
W
m �
X37dnG ANNnBAlONS `o
11
-il o
W "
CL
CL
940S-SZ6/oa xyl 06SS-SZ6/046 .131
lL99l OO 'N3dS1/
.�
tot 3LM '3nr NV? W 1SV3 OZS
S.L.�3.LIH0216' 3,�.IIXNII� S37Ji�H0
t --
00 'N3dSr
NQSiNGBns JJINra*ONS
L XxIa 'L lol _
o �
N
Q '
m �
O
XS7d1I0 AMY129AIONS
r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -�
t - 1
WO
all
J
NMI
9LOS-SZ6/OL6 XV! 06SS-SZ6/01.6 -Eu
tt94t 07 'M3dSV
tOC 3WIS "3nv HVnM LSv3 OZS
S,LO3.LIHOYY 7,dJlNNi7J S37NYHO
03 'H3dSV
14aSW08M ;NNrWAONS
t HOpIB 'L 101
X37dDQ AMM SdONS
n P
o �
C R
P �
O �
Z
W
m �
H
Z
Z
Z
�o
9LOS—S26/O46 :XY! 06SS—SZ6/046 -ML
tt9@t 00 'N3d5Y
., loc Sum '-aAv Nwuw 1.SY3 ON
S.L�3.LIH7YY 3.Y jl VM12D S37NYHD
03 'NUSY
NO swaarrs MHASMONS
t XOOIB 'L 101
x37dna ANNDgAONS
a
o
in
C, n
QO �
Z �
m t
O 0
N
Z
Z
NI
AUG 14 ' 95 10 : 44AM HSPal -40 ISING 0F'C
P.1
Exhibit E
MEKORANDUM
E
TO: Dave Michaelson, Planner
VRCK: Cindy Christensen, Housing Off ice
DATE: August: 14, 1995
RV: 3nowbunny Conditional t',T%e Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Veit
Parcel ID No. 2735-122-08-014
The size of the accessory unit falls within the guidelines of the
Code:
AcOessory dwelling units shall contain, not less than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable
floor area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor area. The unit shall
be deed restricted, meeting the housing audiotity's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall
be limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months In duration. Owners of the principal
residence shall have the right to alace:a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in
the accessory dwelling unit.
The applicant states that the proposed accessory dwelling unit is
to be 640 square feet of living area, and is to be located in the
garden level of a single family unit of a duplex home.
The plans show that the accessary dwelling unit will have a private
Entrance, but the plans a'"sso, show that the mechanical and storage
room is accessible only through this unit. The accessory dwelling
unit must be a totally private unit, therefore, there has tc be
another entrance ,Jnt;o the mechanical and storage area from the main
res'dence.
The kitchen must. also be built to the following specifications:
Kitchen - For Accessory Dwelling Units and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a two -burner
stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer.
Before the applicant can .receive building permit appr0Va1i the
applicant must provide to the Housing Offiwe plans which show
another entrance into the mechanical and storage area from the
principal residence and a. signed and recorded peed Restriction,
which can be obtained from, the housing office. The HOUSing office
must have the recorded book and page number prior to bu:�lding
permit approval.
\wvrdl=cf==1 \anowbuny. adu
TO: Dave Michaelson, Planning Office
Roth,En n-
FROM. Chuck Engineering Department
artment p C
DATE: August 14, 1995
RE: Snowbunny Conditional Use Review For an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)
(1225 Snowbunny Lane, Lot 7, Block 1 Snowbunny Subdivision)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. Additional unit of density may not be appropriate on Snowbunny Lane ADU.
2. If ADU approved, require on site parking space. The neighborhood ROW is narrow.
3. Driveway does not need section 19-101 which only permits one driveway. However a second
driveway could be approved as provided for in section 19-102.
4. Indicate five foot wide pedestrian usable space on final development plan.
5. Drainage - One of the considerations of a development application for conditional use is that
there are adequate public facilities to service the use. One public facility that is inadequate is the
City street storm drainage system. The new development plan must provide for no more than
historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site.
6. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public right-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows:
The application shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design consideration
of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, inclu
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5 0 .
t 4C14
19S
cc: Stan Clauson M145_
��yr
MEMORANDUM
TO. -
Dave Michaelson, Community Development
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DATE: August 8, 1995
RE:
Snowbunny Conditional
Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit
We have reviewed the application submitted by Snowbunny Equity Ventures, LLC and offer the
following comments. The subject property has a significant hedge of Lilac bushes surrounding the
front of the parcel which faces"Snowbunn Lane. V;Me typically Lilac bushes do not fall under
the City's " y
tree removal code, this hedge may
be in the public right-of-way. Since there is no
landscape plan with this application, it is difficult to determine what the Owners intent is for this
area as well as the other trees and vegetation on the operty. If the hoge is in the public right
hedger
majority of theemain as a part the landscape plan.
way we would request that the ma_of
Additionally, any trees proposed to be impacted by the rew development will require a tree permit
from the Parks Department. Any tree permit would be equired
code standards for removal, relocation and mitigation to meet the revised tree ordinance
obtained from the Parks Department. - A copy of the revised tree ordinance may be
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment
DATE: September 5, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking City approval to create a
Historic Landmark Lot Split provision in the Aspen Municipal Code.
This text amendment contemplates creating a Subdivision Exemption,
GMQS Exemption, changes the minimum lot area and width requirements
in the R-6 zone district, and creates review standards for the Lot
Split. The Historic Landmark Lot Split would only be permitted in
the R-6 zone district.
The Commission conceptually reviewed the applicant's request on
August 8th and recommended that staff come back with a more concise
method to permit a historic landmark lot split than was proposed
in the August 8th memorandum by staff.
Staff has revised its recommendation to mirror the amendment
proposed by the applicant. Staff is also recommending that all
HPC bonuses and variances permitted for a historic landmark be
permitted on the newly created lot which contains the historic
landmark. Staff does not recommend that any HPC bonuses or
variances be permitted on the new lot that does not contain the
historic structures.
APPLICANT: Jake Vickery.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The proposed Historic Lot Split text
amendment would be available on lots located in the R-6 zone
district, which are 9,000 sq.ft. to 12,000 sq.ft. in size, and
contain a historic landmark of which the whole parcel will be
landmarked. The lot split would enable one lot of 3,000 sq.ft. to
be created for the historic residence. The FAR of the total
development is restricted to the duplex FAR permitted on the
original lot. Except for the limitation of the allowable FAR, the
newly created lots shall be treated as lots of record. A code
amendment is also proposed for the minimum lot area and lot width
requirements of the R-6 zone to permit the creation of a 3,000
sq.ft., 30 foot wide parcel.
The applicant is also proposing to add a provision to Division 6
of the Aspen Municipal Code which deals with development involving
a historic landmark. This would give HPC review authority over the
design and layout of a historic landmark lot split development
proposal. This language also states, "Each lot shall have the
ability to receive the same variances and bonuses available to
similarly sized lot of record." Staff has recommended that this
language be eliminated from the code amendment.
The applicant is proposing that this lot split be reviewed and
approved at the administrative level by the Community Development
Director. The GMQS exemption is proposed not to be deducted from
the development pool. Staff has revised its original
recommendation to permit this procedural review.
In comparison the Lot Split provisions presently available in the
Code are reviewed and approved by City Council and the GMQS
exemption is deducted from the growth pool and are limited to one
new lot split per year.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff conceptually supports the applicant's
proposal as it provides an additional historic preservation
incentive without increasing density. There are several areas of
concern staff has with the method in which the proposed code
amendment is drafted. Staff recommends the following changes to
the proposed code amendment to insure consistency with the existing
provisions of the code addressing lot splits.
Staff's revised code changes are written in the staff
recommendation section of this memorandum.
The applicant's request is subject to the review standards of
Section 24-7-1102 which follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The applicant's text amendment changes are not in
conflict with any chapters of the code, but the revised method to
approve the Historic Landmark Lot Split is not consistent with the
original Lot Split procedure of the Code. The areas where there
may have been conflict (creating a non -conforming lot of less than
6,000 sq.ft.), are proposed to be corrected.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The AACP does not specifically address this type of
amendment. The proposed amendment will permit the Historic
Preservation Committee design review authority over both lots
created by the lot split. This should represent better design in
a new residence that compliments the neighboring historic
structure.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The Historic Landmark Lot Split is proposed for only the
2
R-6 zone district, on parcels between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet.
There are 21 parcels in the R-6 zone district that are between
9,000 and 12,000 and on the historic inventory.
The applicant has proposed the code amendment to reflect a
development proposal he is contemplating for 123 W. Francis in the
R-6 zone district. The Aspen Municipal Code presently permits two
detached residential dwelling units in the R-6 zone district on a
lot of 9,000 sq.ft. or greater. Therefore, no additional density
is proposed by this text amendment only the form of ownership is
changing.
During the Planning and Zoning Commission work session there was
some discussion that this .code amendment should be expanded to
include other residential zone districts and to allow it on lots
of 6,000 sq.ft. in size in the R-6 zone district. The following
list identifies the special provisions available for historic
landmarks in the Office, R-15 and R/MF zone districts:
o Office zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R-15 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 15,000 sq.ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R/MF zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft., if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R-6 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
Although staff believes that this historic preservation incentive
may provide protection for historic resources on some sensitive
parcels in the O, R-15 and R/MF zone districts, we feel
uncomfortable expanding the lot split ability to a conditional use.
Should this code amendment be approved by the City, it may provide
a guide to look at these other zones and smaller R-6 parcels in the
future.
Since the proposed code amendment does not increase the allowed
,density, staff believes it is consistent with this standard.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
3
Response: There should be no negative effect on traffic generation
or road safety, since the allowed density in the R-6 zone district
is not increasing as a result of this text amendment.
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 public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: Since there is no increase in the existing permitted
density on a parcel, there should be no increase in demands on
these public facilities. All development is still subject to the
mitigation required in the code (parks, housing, school district,
etc.).
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: Since this code amendment would only be available to
parcels in the R-6 zone district, impacts to the natural
environment should be minimal. The R-6 zone is located in a
relatively flat portion of the City limits and does not encroach
into floodplain, avalanche, rockfall, or steep slope areas.
The primary natural environment issue in the R-6 area is the
preservation of large trees and open irrigation ditches. Trees are
protected by other provisions in the Code.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
Response: The creation of a 3,000 sq.ft lot in the R-6 zone
district is consistent and compatible with the historic nature of
the City. Preserving and enhancing historic resources is also
compatible with the community character of the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
Response: The applicant can proceed with the proposed project
without this code amendment because he has obtained a GMQS
exemption and condominiumization from the City. The applicant is
not interested in the condominiumization form of ownership and has
proposed this code amendment to provide an alternative for the
creation of fee simple lots.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment would be consistent with the
public interest and is drafted to be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant's
request as drafted below.
Section 7-1003 Subdivision Exemption (add a new section Section 7-
1003 (A) (5) .
5 . Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is
a designated historic landmark for the development of one
new single-family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot
Split shall meet the requirements of Section 7-
1003 (A) (2) , Section 8-105 (A) (2) (e) , Section 7-607 and
the following standards:
1. The original parcel shall be between 9,000 and
12,000 square feet in size and is located in the R-
6 zone district.
2. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed
the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original
parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted
on the Subdivision Exemption Plat.
3. The proposed development meets all dimensional
requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC
variances and bonuses are only permitted on the
parcel which contains the historic structure.
Section 8-105 GMQS Exemption (add new section 8-105(A)(2)(e))
Planning Director approval.
e. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The construction of a new
single family dwelling on a lot created through a
Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 7-
1003 (A) (5) .
Section 5-201 Medium Density Residential (R-6) would have the
following language added:
1. Minimum lot size (square feet) : 61 000. For lots created
by Section 8-105 (B) (2) (a) (1) (c) Historic Landmark Lot
Split: 31000.
5
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by
Section 8-105(B) (2) (a) (1) (c) Historic Landmark Lot Split:
30.
Add Section 7-607 to Division 7 Development in an H, Historic
Overlay District or involving a Historic Landmark to read:
A. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The development of all lots
created pursuant to Section 7-1003(A)(5) shall be
reviewed by HPC at a public hearing.
2
Sheet1
LOT SPLIT COMPARISON
8/22/95
ONE -A -YEAR GROWTH LOT SPLIT
R6 ZONE
Lot Area (sq. ft)
Allow. Dwell Units*
Allowable FAR
Sing Fam
Duplex
BEFORE
12,000
2
3,840
4,260
6,000
1
3,240
3,600
AFTER
6,000x2
2
6,480
7,200
4, 500x2
2
6,150
N/A
NET CHNC
Q
.
2,64Q
Zz4Q
HISTORIC, FAR RESTRICTED NO -GROWTH
LOT SPLIT
BEFORE
9,000
2
3,660
4,080
4,500
1
3,075
N/A
AFTER
4,500Rx2
2
2,040
4,080
IVET C-[NG
Q
............................:...
..
Q
Q
* unless historical landmark
Page 1
PUBLIC NOTICE
T.
P%LACL
PURPOSF-
OF"M
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin }
}
State of Colorado }
I,
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
SECTION 6-205.E.
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements
pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in
the following manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto,
by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners
of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
s44 ject property, as indicated on the attached list, on fo 0� 0_�
the day of 19(which is6 days
prior to the public hearing date of ).
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject
property (as it could be seen from the nearest public
way) and that the said sign was posted and visible
continuously from the day of 199_,
to the day of /�04 r 19 (Must be
posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing
date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached
hereto.
'Signature
(Attach photograph here)
S ' ned before me this day of
1990, --by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFIC.I L4.,.„ ,
Attachment 5
Public Hearing Notice Requirements
There are- three forms of notice required by the Aspen Land Use
Regulations, these being notice.by publication in the newspaper,
notice by posting -of the property and notice by mail to
surrounding landowners.. You can determine whether your
application requires notice, and the type of notice it.requires,
from Table 1, which is attached -to this summary.
Following is a summary of the notice requirements, including
identifying who is responsible for completing the notice.
1. Publication
Publication of notice in a paper of general
City of Aspen is to be done at least 15
hearing. The legal notice will be written by
Administrative Assistant and we will place
paper within the appropriate deadline.
2.,/ Posting
circulation in the
days prior to the
the .Planning Office
the notice in the
Posting of.a sign - in a conspicuous place - on the property is to .be
done 10*days prior. to the- hearing. It is the applicant's
responsibility to obtain -a copy of the sign from the. Planning
Office, to fill it in correctly .and to bring proof .(preferably a
photograph) to the hearing that and
place.
3 Mailing
Mailing of notice- is to - be - made to all - owners - of property within
300 feet of the -subject development parcel by the applicant. It
is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the notice
from the Planning --Office, to mail it according to the following
standards, and to bring proof to the hearing ( in the form of a
signed affidavit) that the mailing took place.
Standards for notice shall be as follows:
a. Any federal agency, state, county or municipal
government service district or quasi governmental agency
that owns property within 300 feet of the subject property -
must be mailed notice 15 days prior to the hearing.
b. All other landowners within 300 feet of the subject
property must be mailed notice 10 days prior to the hearing,
- - _ in which case it .
unless nose is gvenb_y-__hand _del_ivery_,
must be sent 5 days prior to the hearing.
c. Subdivision applications only also require notice by
registered mail to. all surface owners, mineral owners and
lessees of mineral owners of the.subject property.
The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the
current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more
than sixty days prior to the date of public hearing.