HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19951219
AGE N D A
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
<-
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
December 19, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
sister cities Meeting Room
ci ty Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. NEW BUSINESS
'"
A.
Hernandez Hallam Lake ESA Review & Appeal of
Ordinance 30 Review, Dave Michaelson
B. Zele Expresso Cart GMQS Exemption, Suzanne Wolff
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 610 W. Hallam Rescind Landmark Designation, Amy
Amidon (Table to 1/2/96)
B. Small Lodge Text Amendments, Amy Amidon & Stan
Clauson (continued from 11/21)
V. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM.
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: December 191 1995
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 2 - Regular Meeting
JANUARY 16 - Regular Meeting
616 W. Main St. Conditional Use for ADU & Landmark Designation (AA)
Water Place Conceptual SPA Review (DM)
FEBRURY 6 - Regular Meeting
Buckhorn Lodge Show Cause (DM)
MARCH 5 - Growth Management Commission
1995 Metro Residential GMQS Scoring
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and zoning Commission,
fi
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
Dave Michaelson, Interim Deputy Planning Director
DATE: December 19, 1995
RE: Small Lodge Code Amendments
The Commission and staff have discussed potential code changes at
several meetings during the last several weeks. Staff has begun
exploring the code ramifications of many of the issues supported
by the Commission. This is turning out to be a sizable task
because of the complexity of the code as well as the interplay of
various community goals. A compounding factor is that Planning is
short staffed at this time. We have decided to give you a progress
report and outline upcoming tasks. Staff would like to schedule
a continued discussion for the January 16th agenda.
Following is a summary of the Commissions' recommendations to date
and issues subsequently identified by Staff:
LOW INTEREST LOANS: Commission does not consider this option a
priority to be forwarded to Council as a solution.
KITCHENS: Commission voted to allow kitchens as a use by right.
Planning Staff suggest the following direction:
1) Create a new definition of "Lodge". Currently, the definition
of lodge reads:
"lodge means same as hotel."
The hotel definition reads:
Hotel means a building containing three (3) or more
individual rooms for the purpose of providing overnight
lodging facilities on a short-term basis to the general
public, for compensation, with or without meals, and
which has common facilities for reservation and cleaning
services, combined utilities and on -site management and
reception. A hotel unit shall not contain kitchen
facilities.
In order to differentiate tourist accommodations with and without
kitchens to support small lodges, staff believes that the following
definition of lodge should be considered:
Lodge means a building or site containing three (3) or more
individual rooms for the purpose of providing overnight
lodging facilities on a short-term or long-term basis te the
general 'c, for compensation, with or without meals, and
which has common facilities for reservation and cleaning
services, combined utilities and on -site management and
reception. A lodge may include kitchenettes within its rental
rooms.
This new lodge use then can be used solely in the LP zone. Other
zone districts which currently list lodge as a permitted use will
be amended to only allow hotel as a permitted use.
2) A central issue related to allowing kitchens in the lodge
rooms is found in the definition of dwelling unit:
Dwelling unit means a separately enterable, self-sufficient
room or combination of rooms which contain kitchen and bath
facilities and which are designed for or used as a residence
by a single family or guests, independent of other families
or guests. The abbreviation DU shall mean dwelling unit.
Staff is in the process of adding language which clarifies that the
addition of a kitchen to a lodge unit does not constitute a
development right for the purposes of density.
3 ) An additional area of concern is found in the definition of
"free market unit":
Free market unit means any dwelling unit which is not
restricted to the housing size, type, income and occupancy
guidelines or approval of the city council and its housing
designee or does not qualify as an accessory dwelling unit or
resident occupied unit.
In effect, a lodge unit converted to a housing unit by virtue of
adding a kitchen is a free market unit, enjoying all benefits of
free market status. The loss to the community is two -fold; no
short-term rental and no employee housing. Staff recommends adding
language stating that a lodge unit with kitchenette shall not be
considered a free-market unit.
LONG TERM RENTALS: Commission voted to allow by right, exempt from
change in use provisions. Staff is waiting on a final legal
opinion regarding short-term rental restrictions for
condominiumized units. See discussion above related to long term
rental as free market units.
ACCESSORY USES / PARTIAL CONVERSION: Commission voted to allow by
right up to 20% of the lodge to be converted to a use permitted in
the surrounding zone district. Converting more than 20% of the
lodge (presumably the percentage would be based on FAR), would be
reviewed as a conditional use; as would converting any amount of
the lodge to a use which is listed as conditional in the
surrounding zone district. Commission recommended mitigation would
be dealt with on a case by case basis.
In terms of mitigation, Staff recommends that the first 20% of the
converted space would be exempt from mitigation. Conversion of
more than 20% would mitigate on the total square footage converted,
less the 20% exemption. Staff has studied a few hypothetical
scenarios, including requiring mitigation for all of the converted
space once the 20% threshold is exceeded and have found that this
requirement may make conversion cost prohibitive for most of the
lodges at this time, therefore the reduction is suggested as an
compromise.
TOTAL CONVERSION OF USE: Commission recommended that if the lodge
is converted to free market residential units (however many would
be permitted by right in the surrounding zoning), the lodge would
not have to compete through growth management for the units. The
units would however be deducted from the overall"bucket" of free
market units established through the GMQS program. The total
number of lodge units eliminated, less the number of free market
units created, would then be placed in a newly created "bucket" of
small lodge units, available for LP properties only. Commission
suggested that the Housing Authority should be informed that
conversion of lodge units to affordable housing may be appropriate
in the future.
For all other uses to which the lodge may be converted, the
Commission recommended that up to 20% of the lodge may be converted
without competing through growth management. Once that 20%
threshold is exceeded, the entire project must compete and full
mitigation is required. The Commission did not reach a final
resolution on this issue.
Note that only two lodges per year would be allowed to take
advantage of this provision.
TDR: Commission indicated that they would like to keep this as a
"fall back" option if Council could not support total conversion.
CONDOMINIUMIZATION: The City Attorney's office is currently working
on replacing language previously removed from the code which
requires certain provisions for lodge units to remain in short-
term rental pool if condominiumized (i.e. no lease for a period
longer than 6 months.)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planning
RE: Zele Espresso Cart GMQS Exemption
DATE: December 19, 1995
SUMMARY: Patrick Imeson, representing Before the Grind Corp., requests GMQS Exemption
to operate an espresso cart in the atrium of the Ute City Banque Building. The cart will be
located on the corner wall in the atrium where the entrances from Galena Street and Hyman
Avenue meet, and will operate from approximately 8:00 AM to 10:30 AM daily during the
winter (December to April).
APPLICANT: Zele, Before the Grind Corp.
LOCATION: 302-308 S. Galena St.; Ute City Banque Building
ZONING: CC - Commercial Core
BACKGROUND: City Council Ordinance 13, Series of 1993, amended the Land Use Code to
allow the Community Development Director to exempt from the Growth Management Quota
System (GMQS) an expansion of less than 250 net leasable square feet to an existing commercial
or office uses. Prior to the adoption of Ordinance 13, the Director could only exempt an
expansion of an existing commercial or office use in a building which does not increase its net
leasable square footage, and the Planning Commission could exempt an expansion of less than
500 net leasable square feet. When the revised Growth Management Quota System was adopted
by Council (Ordinance 54, Series of 1994), the amendments made in Ordinance 13 were
inadvertently omitted. Therefore, the Code has reverted to the language that was in place prior to
the adoption of Ordinance 13, and the Planning Commission must review and approve this
application. This discrepancy was discovered after the applicant had submitted this application
for an approval by the Director based on representations made by staff in the pre -application
conference. Staff requests direction from the Commission on reinstating the provision for the
Director to approve exemptions for commercial or office expansions of less than 250 net leasable
square feet, as was previously approved by Ordinance 13.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Pursuant to Section 24-8-104.A.1.d, an expansion of a commercial use of less than 250 net
leasable square feet may be exempted from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) by
the Community Development Director, provided that the expansion will have minimal impact
upon the city. A determination of minimal impact shall require demonstration that:
1. a minimal number of additional employees will be generated;
Response: The applicant proposes to use one part-time employee from Zele's existing staff
to operate the cart.
2. employee housing will be provided for the additional employees generated;
Response: The cart is 2 feet by 6 feet, however, staff has concluded that the area behind the
cart where an employee would stand to work should also be included as net leasable area. Net
leasable space requires mitigation based on the generation rates established for the zone district.
Therefore, staff has based the employee mitigation calculations on a total increase of 30 net
leasable square feet. This amount is consistent with the approval granted by City Council
Ordinance No. 72 (Series of 1994) for the espresso cart at the Ajax Tavern.
Employee Mitigation: (Housing Office memo attached)
30 s.f. at 3.5 employees/1000 s.f. = 0.105 gross employee generation
0.105 employee X 60% (minimum GMQS mitigation) = 0.063 employee to be mitigated
0.063 X $79,000 (Category 1 payment -in -lieu fee) _ $4,977 payment -in -lieu
$4977 _ 12 months X 4 months of operation = $1659 net payment -in -lieu
The applicant will be required to pay this amount for employee mitigation to the City Finance
Director prior to building permit issuance.
3. a minimal number of additional parking spaces will be demanded and that parking will be
provided;
Response: The cart will not create any additional demand for parking. The cart is intended
to attract and serve visitors to the existing businesses in the building.
4. there will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhood;
Response: The cart will be located in the atrium of the building, and will not have any visual
impact on the neighborhood. Signs may only be located on the cart, and may not be located
outside of the building.
5. minimal demand will be placed on the city's public facilities.
Response: The cart will not impact public facilities.
2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for a GMQS Exemption for
an espresso cart to be located in the atrium of the Ute City Banque Building, subject to the
following conditions:
1. All representations made in this application shall be adhered to as conditions of approval.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay an affordable housing
mitigation fee of $1659 to the City Finance Department. Proof of payment shall be provided
to the Community Development Department.
3. If the espresso cart is in use for more than 3 hours per day, or for a period of more than 4
months (December to April), the applicant must pay additional employee mitigation in effect
at the time of review.
4. The espresso cart shall be reviewed and inspected by the Environmental Health Department
prior to operation.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the GMQS Exemption to allow 30 square
feet of new net leasable area for an espresso cart in the Ute City Banque Building, subject to the
four conditions listed in the Planning Office memo dated December 19, 1995."
EXHIBITS:
A. Application information
B . Referral comments
3
ZELE
BEFORE THE GRIND CORP
121 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN CO. 81611
303-920-6944
Nov. 9, 1995
Ms. Leslie Lamont
City of Aspen
Aspen Co.
Dear Leslie;
Regarding our conversations regarding the opening of and
espresso cart in the atrium of the Ute City Banque Building,
we have decided to go ahead and pursue this endeavor.
The size of the cart is 2'x 61. It would be located on the
on the corner wall where the two entrances meet. The cart is
fully self contained and only needs power to operate. Water
and waste disposal are included in the cart.
The operation will entail one part time employee from Zele's
existing staff with the initial hours of operation being from
9:00 am to 12:00 pm daily.
We have spoken with all tenant of the building and everyone
is very much in favor of this idea.
We would like to open this for the upcoming season so time is
of the essence.
Please advise as to how to proceed.
6B5 regards;
Patrick W.M. Imeson
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1. Project Name:
r
2. Project Location:
(Indicate street address, lot and block number, legal description
where appropriate)
3. Present : Zonin --
g 4. Lot Size:
5. Applicant's Name, Address & Phone No.:
6. Representative's Name, Address & Phone No.:
7. Type of Application (Please check all that apply):
Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic
Development
Special Review Final SPA
Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD
Minor Historic Dev.'
Stream Margin Final PUD
Historic Demolition
Mtn. View Plane Subdivision
Historic Designation
Condominiumization Text/Map Amendment
GMQS Allotment
Lot Split/Lot Line % GMQS Exemption by
Adjustment Planning Dir. GMQS Exemption
8. Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing
structures; approximate square feet; number of bedrooms; any
previous approvals granted to the property):
9P
10.
Description of Development Application:
A
`r
Have you attached the following? �.
Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
Robert J. Snyder Realty Services, Inc.
305 South Galena Suite A
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-925-2450
970-544-0996 (fax)
November 13, 1995
City of Aspen
Office of Community Development
Hand Delivered
To Whom It May Concern;
Please let this letter confirm that the owners of- the Ute City Building, Arcades
Associates Ltd. is in full support of the application being submitted by Pat
lmeson of Zele' coffee for the installation of an expresso -coffee cart to be
located as noted in Pat's application. Please give me a call should you have
any questions concerning this application.
Sincerely yo s,
n e anaging Agent
Arcades Associates Ltd.
Lv
J
i�
DEC 13 195 03 : 4epm OSPEM HOUSING OFG
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Suzanne Wolff, Planning office
FROM:
Cindy Housing
Office
DATE: December}
05
Espresso
= Exemptio
Paroel D No. r 'i i
ISSUM-A The applicant is requesting approval for an espresso ti i.be opened four
months out of the year, from i0am.!E 12 noon.
LON: The applican't has to mitigate ,
the folloWnd
number
FTE's for Commercial Core Zone District divided by 1,000 square ftet X
30 new net leasable square feet X 6o% of the employees required to
mitigate X $70,000 Category 1 payment -in -lieu fee divided by 12 months
in y
aw aapplicant the plans o<being ,
en
1,000 , sq ft. X 60% . 063 employees
mitigated.
The Housing Office would recommend that the FTEs be mi0gated at the Category I
level, which means 083 X $791000 = $4,977. Because this cart is to ., open
months out of the year, the Housing Office would agree to dividing the amount due by
12 and taking that times 4 months the applicant plans on
being open,
; This relates to a
payment -in -lieu
yment-in-lieu fee due of $1,659 before approval of the cart can be given.
The 8ousing
Office
Mitigationoperation and/or the months open per year, that the employee
re-
evaluated.
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Suzanne Wolff
From: Nancy MacKenzie
Postmark: Dec 11,95 8:58 AM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Reply to: Zele Espresso Cart
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply text:
From Nancy MacKenzie:
They have to do a plan review with our dept FIRST.Fill out
our form,pay a fee, and provide us spec sheets on
the cart, menus of what will be served,plus other details we need to
know. A spearate food service license might be required. We then
physically inspect the cart before they can operate.
Preceding message:
From Suzanne Wolff:
Mary thought you were the Zele person... They are proposing to put a
cart in atrium of the Ute City Banque building. The cart is 2' x 6f
and includes water and waste disposal. What concerns and/or
conditions would you have? Thanks
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner
DATE: December 19,1995
RE: Hernandez Hallam Lake ESA Review and Ordinance 30 Interpretation
SUMMARY: The Hernandez property is located 200 W. Gillespie, within the Hallam Lake
Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area Overlay. The applicant's are requesting ESA approval for
the proposed building envelopes, and are requesting an interpretation of Ordinance 30
requirements addressing principle mass and garage orientation. This interpretation is due to the
unique circumstance of the site in regards to street orientation. The Planning Office recommends
approval of ESA review with conditions.
APPLICANT: Noel and Cecil Hernandez, represented by Martin Mata, Lipkin -Warner
Design Partnership.
LOCATION/ZONING: Located at 200 W. Gillespie, Lots 35, 36 and 37, Block 90, Hallam's
Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. The entire property is zoned R-6, with an ESA
Overlay. A block plan showing the proposed building envelopes and the relationship with Lake
Avenue and Gillespie Avenue is shown on Sheet ALL of the attached bluelines.
REQUEST: The applicants are requesting ESA approval for building envelopes for a main and
guest house, as well as an Ordinance 30 interpretation. Additional approvals necessary for the
project will include ADUs for each units, which will be presented to the Planning and Zoning at
a future date.
Staff has included the ESA application as Exhibit A, and a set of landscape plans on blueline as
Exhibit B. Storey poles have been placed on the property in the locations as shown on Sheet
Al.1 (Exhibit B).
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The project has been referred to both the Parks Department and
ACES (Tom Cardamone). At the time of writing, no response has been received.
Staff Comments
1. Hallam Lake Bluff E.S.A. Review. The intent of the Hallam Lake overlay area is to
provide a minimal level of protection from development impacts on the A.C.E.S. nature preserve
below the hillside. Various human impacts to the nature preserve that concern A.C.E.S. include
visual, noise, environmental and light intrusion as well as damage to the slope and vegetation
which may increase runoff and erosion.
The review standards contained in Section 7-506 (Hallam Lake Bluff Review) are as follows:
(1) No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take
place below the top of slope.
Response: As shown on the Sheet Al.l (Exhibit B), no development is proposed below
the top of the slope.
(2) All development within the fifteen -foot setback from the top of slope shall be at
grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the fifteen -foot setback must be
approved by Special Review pursuant to section 7404D. of this Article 7.
Response: As shown on Sheet L1.0 (Exhibit B), the only encroachment in the 15'
setback are at -grade patios. Staff would recommend an explicit condition to ensure that the
proposed patios are constructed at -grade. For reference, the labeled dotted line shown on Sheets
L1.0 and A1.1 represent the 15' required setback.
(3) All development outside of the fifteen -foot setback from top of slope shall not
exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground
level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the zoning officer
utilizing the definition set forth at Section 3-101 of this Chapter 24.
Response: A cross-section of the main house (upper and lower portions) and the guest
house and their relationship to a 45 degree angle from the top of slope is shown on pages 16, 17
and 18 of Exhibit A. Based on these representations, the location and height of both structures
are consistent with this standard.
(4) A landscape plan shall be submitted will all development applications. Such plan
shall include native vegetative screening of no less than fifty (50) percent of the
development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be
maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material
should it die.
Response: A photograph of the site's existing vegetation from the Hallam Lake
marshes is shown on page 12 of Exhibit A. The property lines are approximately defined by the
left and right edges of the photograph. The lower reaches of the property as it descends down the
bluff are heavily vegetated with existing cottonwoods. As indicated by the applicant,
approximately 80% of this specific viewplane is screened by existing vegetation. A landscape
plan, which is consistent with the representation of the photograph, is shown on Sheet L1.0 of
the bluelines (Exhibit B). Staff conducted fieldwork on December 14, 1995, and concurs with
the applicant's finding that the visual impacts of the project are minimal.
(5) All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the
nature preserve or located down the slope.
2
Response: As indicated on page 9 of Exhibit A, the applicants commit to limit exterior
lighting that may be visible from the preserve. No lighting will be located down the slope.
(6) No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage
patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the
slope.
Response: No disturbances are proposed below the top of slope, with the exception of
restorative vegetation. Staff would suggest that a drainage plan confirming the applicant's
representations be a condition of approval.
(7) Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall
be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and
pertinent elevations above sea level.
Response: A landscape plan consistent with this requirement is shown on Sheet L1.0,
and 2' contours are shown on Sheet A1.0.
2. Design Review Appeals Committee Interpretation. Lot A ("Main House") of the
applicant's project went through staff -level review for compliance with Ordinance 30, and Leslie
Lamont's November 17, 1995 response is attached as Exhibit C. As indicated, staff struggled
with the orientation requirements due to the unique situation on the site in respect to street
orientation. Section 7-301 B (Applicability) gives the Planning and Zoning Commission the
right to grant variances to the standards of Ordinance 30 if the project is required to obtain
additional land use approvals. The standards for granting a variance to the strict interpretation
of the requirements of Ordinance 30 pursuant to Section 4-501 (Purpose) are as follows:
"Any appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards should simply and succinctly
identify why, if granted, the exception would (1) yield greater compliance with the goals of the
Aspen Area Community Plan and (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given
standard or provision responds to, or (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to
unusual site specific constraints. "
The applicant is not specifically requesting variances, but rather is asking the Planning and
Zoning Commission to offer interpretations regarding two (2) specific standards:
1) Section 3-101 C - Garages, Carports and Storage Areas. This section requires that "all
portions of a garage, carport, or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the
front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet."
2) Section 7-304 (1) - Orientation. This section requires that the "orientation of the
principal mass of all buildings must be parallel to the streets they face. On corner lots, both
street -facing facades of the principal mass must be parallel to the road. On curvilinear streets,
the principal mass of all buildings must be tangent to the midpoint of the arc."
As shown on the attached site plan (Sheet A.1.0, Exhibit B), the project is set back from the
intersection of Gillespie and Lake Avenue, with the front entrance oriented toward Lake. Based
on this configuration, the garage is in fact, set back from the front facade by at least ten (10) feet.
The issue that staff and the applicant are requesting the Commission to clarify is in regards to
the orientation requirement as it relates to Gillespie Avenue. As shown on Sheet A1.0, the
proposed garage door location is visible from Gillespie Avenue, although the applicant has
proposed screening to lessen this impact (see landscape plan on Sheet L1.0).
The germane issue, and the primary reason for the request is interpretative in nature. Ordinance
30 is most effective when addressing a traditional grid street pattern. The Hernandez house is
oriented to a single street, when in fact the "street facing facade" is defined by a viewplane from
both Lake and Gillespie. Staff is requesting that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a
determination regarding the proposed building orientation of the Main House on Lot A. Staff -
level review regarding the volumetric and urban design components of Ordinance 30 for both
Lot A and B will occur during a regularly scheduled meeting on December 18th, 1995. Any
further variance requests that may be necessary will be heard by the Commission during the
hearing for the ADUs proposed for both the main and guest house.
Recommendation:
ESA Review: The Planning Office recommends approval of the ESA Review, with the
following conditions:
1. All representations made in the application or by the applicant at the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting shall be adhered to during development.
2. Any trees proposed for relocation must receive tree removal/relocation permits from the
Parks Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permits, tree protection barricades must be erected at
the drip lines of any trees located with the area of possible construction disturbance.
The barricades shall be constructed to prevent soil compaction, material storage, and
spillage of deleterious substances under the trees. They shall remain in place throughout
exterior construction and grading.
4. Compliance with Ordinance 1 is required, and evidence of compliance must be presented
at time of building permit.
5. A drainage plan for both Lots A and B, prepared by a registered engineer, must be
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits.
6. A landscape plan and rear view landscape sketches shall be submitted and approved by
ACES prior to the issuance of any building permits. Only natural vegetation may be
installed in the rear yard.
7. All sources of exterior light shall not be visible from ACES, and the structure shall not
be uplighted or washed with exterior lighting.
The patio proposed for the east and north side of the structure proposed for Lot A within
the 15' setback must be constructed at -grade.
4
Ordinance 30 Interpretation: Due to significant screening proposed for the proposed garage
location (see L1.0), and the ambiguity of applying Ordinance 30 requirements in circumstances
outside of the traditional grid street pattern, staff supports the applicant's request for a favorable
interpretation.
Recommended Motion: "I move to approve an ESA Special Review for the Hernandez
property, Lots A and B, with the conditions recommended by staff. In addition, the
Commission supports the granting of a favorable interpretation regarding the orientation
of the structure as shown on the submitted plans."
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Application Packet
Exhibit B - Bluelines
Exhibit C - November 17th, 1995 letter from Leslie Lamont
4
Exhibit
200 West Gillespie
Aspen, Colorado
12/13/95
Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review
Table Of Contents:
Application Form
Applicant's Authorization Letter
Legal Description And Street Address
Disclosure of Ownership
Vicinity Map
Written Description Of Proposal
Compliance With Standards
A. Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review
B. Design Review Pursuant To Ordinance #30; 1995 Series
Photographs From ACES
Photographs From Gillespie And Lake Streets
Site Sections
List Of Drawings: (submitted under separate package)
Neighborhood Site Plan
Site Plan
Landscaping Plan
Main House Floor Plans
Main House Exterior Elevations
Guest House Floor Plans
Guest House Exterior Elevations
2
bit
Application Form:
1
I2Q+M tic err F
1) Praject rra:a-- Yif�N t�2F�S Q C N c c
let & hloc.�c r..br, legal desc=i -i rn ,wt�_
arcr�riatz} -1-2- L o 7-5
3) P---�-nt Zcrdrig 4) 2c� Size zz la
s) AL A 1ant'S ram, A ess & T F. C.5�c <<- Atj Dt�-
c-i cn.s�_« 0 As c l
Cc nditH cral Use _ sPA R-st=�Lev.
Special ReviewFinal S x Final His`..aric I-r.
8040 Greenli ne PM Miner Fs.s;'� Dev_
St=e= FSangin Final PM His ^r'c- L�litis
view Plane Subdivisi= His`..crr c Desd c=ti
`ItnCt/If2p AmerstW--It G'SS Allctnerit
I.ct splitf I` ne > Design Revie G� ��c
2dj t Appeal Bcar� �LLAY\ LAV-e ESA-
8) D2sr -;T icam, of E:ds-:r (r=bE= and ti?ge of ad-stir-9
acrrr�.-imat sq. ft : rA=be_- of ; anY PrOrLCX� a_ vats gnawed to the
* \/
V kc a N -" P
9) I� ��-ticn of L -P- ccDP--zt ppcli.c_--tiCn
10) H~vP at,"n tbe following?
-x3se t� At t 2, I�. 1'�i^n ��i n,i ; Cn _*tts
V� �e tZ) At-�-T_:t 3, Speci fi c- S ah ni �i cn ` . -Ics
,� t�°<� t N (PA-CrAC, -
.3
Applicant's Authorization Letter
Noelle and Cecil Hernandez
P.O. Box 1045
Aspen, Colorado 81612
12/11/95
Aspen/ Pitkin Planning Department
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Hernandez Residence
Lake and Gillespie
Aspen, Colorado
To whom it may concern,
By means of this letter we authorize Lipkin Warner Design Partnership to act on our
behalf in obtaining the necessary development approvals for our proposed residence at
Lake and Gillespie Streets.
4
E�WN
HER ANDEZ RESIDENCE
Legal Description:
T�4AT PST O r T" H E SOUTH-IE,�T O.NE- QUAFT'K OF T+-Ic 1-0r�i ( S4�t)T
ONE-QAKTEK of SECTO� 12 Towr� I r 10 -OJT-- / K=,NGE t)5
W E5T Of -HE G TH P ?✓1- C I NCLDNG THE,�I N LOT-'-:) 05 TO 3 7�
D� K `0 �-� A L LAO 5 A DO I TI ON TO THE C I TY �, N D 70f, i N �I I O�
A5PEN, �n'F")T Or LOTS 3 v t), 5 L.�:CK 2, r,Sf EN CC M ffriNr
5U51DIY1510-/ AND r^KT Or LA;KE AND GI LAVENUE5
ADU�E.NT), /1\5 FOLi OY/5
6E61NNING AT THE �, i"H1rV E5T C&r�NEiF, OF 6LOCX OC OF ALL A1'5
ADDITION/ WHENCE THE EA5i ONE-(�TcF', CONE OF SAIO
SECTION
12 ( 1954
E��� CAI`) t5EAR 5 5OUT
H ° 2 �' 3!�" EAST,
911. 1 F ff- E 1 ( E�OKD CAL L I N 6�K 25(Q
AT rr,G 1•51 15
C� �01 ' 17" EAST �O4 .35 FEE
i)
THENCE
NOFTH
b1°5 i 1CO" WE-5T
I'�. 50
SEE T
TH E� E
NOKT I--1
o f J3 OO' w E 5 T,
12L. o I
r E i /.
THff-NC E
OJT H
t j ' 52' 00" &� t)T,
1.41. cPL3
f F E 1-
T-H E E
NOK-CH
5.91 F E E-T;
THE C
I�tOK�1 f-i
t3%JO % OO" EAJT /
_
b, 3� fi E T/.
THENCE-
1�RK-I H
&1 ° 55'00 EA.5TI
6(C). 07
F� ET/'
THENCE
EA-tT 31.
GI FEET,.
THENCE
fCu T H
8 ° 52' 00" E�.5
92 . (o3
;1 �C0
FEF-T"
FF-
THENCE
X,JTH
075' 00'1 EAST
.
T H E1`CE
T E E
0�T ,
cL� ► ;
8 i - 52' CO'' WEST
2� ° O% GYM ►' E�,�T ;
-4a . 30
i I � O
FEET '
FEET;.
T-;E �;CE
f OL1�
3 006' 00" f-AST,
"�7. �
FEET.
TI-; E I -C
�C J7H
to °-� � 00" W e CT/
��G'. 2 2
F E c
7i-i E1 E
SOUTH
E' 3 I ' GO " �V' c� T ,
I-1, t) 72
FG c.
THENCE
NZKTH
40.00 FEE7 TO THE FAINT
OF
EXCE i Tr--rA,T I`C K,"i0N THEJKEID>^, IF LYING Vi' TH
C,E RTI N 7F-' CTS OF L -1,N D COI`N`r'EYE D �Y E L I ZA��E..T-�� H. PEE 'C..K F TC)
C:Eir ! EZ FOR F-FWIK0NME.N7/A\L 5T UDI Ems, � COLOrrADO
1�'CN' EiT COK J�,-TON, �,Lfr THc STrtiTu-icry DEED �ECOfZ0ED
IN �K 2 AT r'�CE 4 1, -.�,D
5
913
an
HERNA DEZ RESIDENCE
Disclosure Of Ownership:
LAY & OF
�-i�14,fiER'Z' S. ICLEIN
P�.Gt=E�I�LiL CC��ZA,T'iGrt
241 1 i MILL ymEE—t
PEP!3ERT S, KLEIN
SUITE 2W
a4FEN. CO1-GRADQ 615T1
'fLLLU=E CFRC -
YIL.t.AnD J. Z AEi`
070) a-5-A M
P.CL scut-,s
J.AC.`'.L1f?_ME K L -t�
TE! ECCFE.4 (M) 325-3977
31M :tiE-SiCOLORACO A
W-RON RC.S't HKG+
SUtiE Zs
73L Jr�1G =CFZACC B2 5
1�-- ain 15� fi WY York
074172&5151
�no4r,tv!rC3Jimm
December 12, 1995
T...LFGCSP�R 7 jT�mo
Azpen/Pitkin Corrununity
Development Office
130 South. Galena Street
As pim r Colorado 81511
Re; Ceci 1 and Di2clas>.2re Of C-gnership
To It Mtay Concern
Th - 1? ders.�.;�TI#mod., LGrney license tc practice In the
State o Colorado a..ud hereby certifies as follows{
TiU8 tc- Lots A & B, Moores Lot Split according to the Plat
thereof recorded February 10, 1995 in Plat Book 35 at .gage 99r is
vested in Cecil m, Hernandez and Noelle C. Hernandez, Mr. and Mrs.
Hernandez acq-uired title pursuant to a Warranty Deed recorded on
Jun-e 23, 1995, in BoUk 784, Page 292 of the records of Pit -kin
County.
Title is subject to a patent resertia.ticra, recorded irn Boob. 55
at Page 2, a -waterline easement recorded in Poole .537 at Page 965
( said easement being titre fsot in width); and all easements and
rights -of -way and, ether matters disclosed on the Plat of the
property referred to above.'
Mr. and Xrs. Hernandez have the right, as owx2ers of the
property, to apply for the development approvals contemplated by
th s application.
Please feel frame to call mo if you have airy further questions .
Very truly yours,
HERBERT S . KI E7N PROF'ESSIONAL
CORPORATION
z!
`Herbert S. Klein
I
Vicinity Map
� C�
� C C
a�
m
Written Description Of Proposal
The applicants, Noelle and Cecil Hernandez, request approval for development of their property
within the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA).
There is no proposed development on the slope. Within the setback all
proposed alterations are at grade. Please refer to the landscape drawing and
site sections.
Concurrently, the City of Aspen planning staff has requested that they submit their development
plans to the City Of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for general design review and
compliance with the intents of Ordinance #30, 1995 series.
The property consists of two lots; Lot `A' and Lot `B'. The applicant's
Development plans are to build a main residence with a detached guest house.
Lot `A' is larger and will contain the Main Residence. Lot `B' is the smaller of
the two and will contain the Guest House.
Forthcoming will be a request for a lot line adjustment of the property line common to both lots as
well as an application for Conditional Use Review of an Accessory Dwelling Unit in each house.
Compliance With Standards
A. Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review
1. Development below the top of slope.
There is no development proposed below the top of slope
2. Development within the setback.
As required, any development within the setback will be at grade.
3. Development outside the setback.
All the development outside of the setback is within the code requirements. Please
refer to the site sections.
4. Landscape Plan and vegetative screening.
Please refer to the accompanying drawings and the photographs on the following
pages.
The landscape concept generally addresses the proposed structures. Where there
is development within the setback it consists of portions of grade -level patios and
flower beds.
The present vegetative screening approaches 80% of the property. This is well in
excess of the 50% required.
5. Exterior Lighting.
The applicant commits to limit exterior lighting that may be visible from the preserve
to low fixtures which are directed away from the preserve. No lighting is to be
located below the top of slope.
6. Fill material, drainage patterns.
The applicant commits that no disturbances other than restorative vegetation will be
permitted below the top of slope. Drainage that may be required for the proposed
development will not adversely affect the existing drainage of the slope.
7. Site Sections.
Please refer to the accompanying set of drawings.
B. Design Review Pursuant To Ordinance #30; 1995 Series
Many parts of the new ordinance can not directly apply to this site because of its
inherent qualities. The most significant of these is that the property is a non-aligned
lot with virtually no street frontage.
Using the existing Aspen Land Use Code for guidance as well as working with City Of
Aspen Planning Department staff members since July of 1995 we have attempted to
fairly address the intent of the new ordinance as well as comply with the existing land
use code. As designed, the proposed development adequately addresses the City's
general desire for residences that are appropriate in neighborhood scale and
pedestrian relationship.
However, because of the unique non-traditional characteristics of this site, the
planning staff has recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission review this
project for conformance with the intent of the new ordinance and existing land use
code.
^� � � � ` � � , •\ ' � 4i � tea. �\� \ 1 � •` ` �
vvv \ \
it � / � c � � �. J \ \ t •. \�
0)l 4,3
`1\\\llrr �..-. • ' I •Aar
^_ - _• 'vim :✓��'`—• J��� `� ) /-� v� ` �.
0Vz
tiX
i_� I b��l `� \\� - f •\ :V \ �\ l C
MCI
b 11
N/...Clil .-�, \� %^\ J .r. ii.tCT `- ..�. '_' . ' .,...1 ��1. \,'1 ��/` / ors ) .++r•
1. View from the Environmental Learning C-dhter MAP OF A-C.E.S. NTS
I View from the Teaching Platfor= ECn mIAke.E:S.A -_-.-
3.-View front fiaarshes to Moores IlFkdence•-site ___-•-'_-----.___ -�- (o
aZ
�zl f dt'�& `*' 's YY "{.`.1`�'•� a'E'p §` �3'^ g -$ � '*M�3""��`r{�
View from the Environmenta.1 Learning Center
ZD
I
Al
2. View from the Teaching Platform
\115W FKOM
VIC-1w
rf
r1�
viaw L AKe- � c-,tL L- ��
\t1�W r�oM Ll�Kr-1
u l F-I W r l LA�E-:::
ob
CAL
November 17, 1995
Martin Mata
Lipkin Warner Design Partnership
400 West Main Street, Suite 100
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Hernandez Residence Residential Design Guidelines
Dear Martin,
Staff reviewed your submittal for the Hernandez residence last Monday, November 13,
1995. It was understood that the review was for the main residence on Lot A.
Staff was pleased with the overall orientation of the home which appears to draw from
the existing pattern of building footprints on both Lake and Gillespie Avenues. However,
staff did find that there were several items of the proposal that did not comply with the
Residential Design Guidelines.
The following findings were made by staff during the review:
1. Although the location of Lot A is uniquely situated compared to the
traditional grid pattern of the west end, the orientation of the garage doors should be
considered as if the home is on a corner lot. Based upon the plans submitted, the garage
is the most forward part of the house when viewed from Lake Avenue. The garage doors
appear to be virtually on an axis with Lake Avenue. Considering vacated Gillespie
Avenue as the front street the garage is indeed setback from the front of the house by ten
feet, however when one also considers Lake Avenue, the garage should likewise be
recessed from the facade of the home by ten feet. Therefore staff finds that you do not
comply with the guidelines as they pertain to the orientation of the garage.
2. It is unclear from your plans whether the front porch is 50 square feet.
3. All elevations of the residence must be submitted to determine compliance
with the Guidelines. It appears from the submitted plans, that the south elevation and the
Hallam Lake elevation have exterior expressions that are between nine and twelve feet
above the level of the finished floor. Therefore, the floor area of the interior rooms that
are exposed by the exterior expressions shall be counted 2:1. As we discussed, I will seek
an interpretation as to whether the recessed second floor would be considered in the 2:1
formula or not. Please note, this is not a Guideline that may be waived.
4. We will need a better site plan that indicates driveways, ground planes and
a clear indication of the front door.
In summary, a redesign of the home to comply with the Guidelines is recommended.
However, if you wish to pursue a variance from the Guidelines, we suggest you combine
that review with the site specific Hallam Lake ESA bluff review at the Planning &
Zoning Commission. The Ordinance provides for one review by one board when
multiple land use reviews are required.
I would also suggest that any further review be combined with a more specific
development plan that includes the proposed lot line adjustment and a confirmation by
this department of the allowable floor area of the parcels.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or Stan Clauson.
Sincerely,
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
cc: file