HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950711
AGE N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 11, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
ci ty Hall
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II.
MINUTES
III.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 616 W. Hopkins Conditional Use Review for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit, Mary Lackner (Table to
August 8)
B. Hirschfield conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont
C. Lang Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling unit, Leslie Lamont
D. E. Francis (Allen) Conditional Use Review for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit, Mary Lackner
E. Markalunas Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling unit, Leslie Lamont
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Howling Wolf Special Review, Leslie Lamont
V. ADJOURN
A G E N D A
------ --------- ------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 11, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning. Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 616 W. Hopkins Conditional Use Review for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit,, Mary Lackner (Table to
August 8)
B. Hirschfield Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont
C. Lang ang Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont
D. E. Francis (Allen) Conditional Use Review for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit, Mary Lackner
E. Markalunas Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Howling Wolf Special Review, Leslie Lamont
V.. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
RE: Hirschfield Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing
DATE: July 11, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a 420 square foot
accessory dwelling unit that is approximately 75% below grade. The
unit is proposed within a single family residence. Staff
recommends approval of the conditional 'use for an accessory
dwelling unit with conditions.
This proposal was reviewed by the Interim Overlay Committee.
Because of the size of the parcel, review required mandatory
compliance with the Committee's recommendations. The Committee
approved the proposal without changes.
APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hirschfield, represented by David
Panico
LOCATION: 601 W. Francis, Aspen
ZONING: R-6
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To provide an approximately 420 square foot
studio accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Ordinance 1
requirements.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please find the referral comments from the
Housing Office and Engineering Department, exhibit A.
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
proposed to be located;
RESPONSE: The proposed accessory dwelling unit is an attached,
partially below grade unit. The size is approximately 420 square
feet however the net liveable must be verified by the Housing
Office at the time of building permit application. The unit must
comply with the Housing Guidelines and the requirements of
Ordinance 1 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 of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development;
RESPONSE: A private access to the ADU is provided off of the alley
via the driveway on the south side of the home. The proposed
location of the ADU is within the primary residence.
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 roof above the access to the ADU will shed snow to
the east and west therefore protecting the ADU access from shedding
snow. The ADU site design proposes a window well on the east side
and an above grade window on the south side of the structure
providing natural light and air.
The kitchen must meet the specifications of the housing guidelines.
As part of this review, the Engineering Department has noted that
the pedestrian way is obstructed by low tree limbs. These limbs
should be trimmed to clear the pedestrian way which is an important
element to pedestrian circulation in the West End.
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 new services are required for the ADU. The applicant
proposes to add onto the existing structure. Because the addition
will increase the impervious surface of the property, historic run-
off must be maintained on -site. Storm drainage is fairly
problematic in the West End.
In addition, the applicant must identify trash/storage and utility
areas on site and the fence encroachment shall be either relocated
or licensed.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
RESPONSE: The dwelling unit must be deed restricted for resident
occupancy. If the unit is rented a qualified working resident of
Pitkin County shall reside in the unit. The applicants have stated
2
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 conditional use is an attempt to comply with
Ordinance 1 requirements and to provide a caretaker unit.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ADU with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall:
a. verify the net liveable square footage of the ADU;
b. upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office,
the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder' s Off ice 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;
c. kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure
compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs;
2. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
3. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit
on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35
sound attenuation requirements.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the
Planning Department shall inspect the unit to determine compliance
with the conditions of approval.
5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall:
a. provide a drainage plan to confirm that historic run-off
shall be maintained on -site;
b. the pedestrian way shall be cleared of all obstructions;
C. the fence shall be relocated or an encroachment license
applied for;
01
7. The applicant shall consult city engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks
department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for
any work or development, including landscaping, within public
rights -of -way from city streets department.
8. 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 for
601 West Francis with the conditions as outlined in the Planning
Office memo dated July 11, 1995."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Referral Comments
B. Plans
4
EXHIBIT A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: June 5, 1995
RE: Hirschfield Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Parcel ID No. 2735-124-26-005
According to the Land Use Application Form, the size of the
accessory unit falls within the guidelines of the Code:
Accessory 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 authority'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 place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in
the accessory dwelling unit.
The Land Use Application Form states that the accessory dwelling
unit is to consist of approximately 420 square feet of living area,
and is be located in the basement of the principal residence. A
copy of the actual floor plans, stating net liveable square
footage, will need to be provided to the Housing Office before
building permit approval.
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.
If this unit falls within the conditions stated above, staff
recommends approval. The applicant must provide to the Housing
Office a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, which can be
obtained from the Housing Office. The Housing Office must have the
recorded book and page number prior to building permit approval.
\word\referra1\601wfra.adu
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department (2'
Date: June 6, 1995
Re: Hirschfield Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
(601 West Francis Street; East 1/2 Lot H & all of Lot I, Block 22, Original Aspen Townsite)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Site 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.
2. Sidewalk Area - The public right-of-way between the property line and the curb is obstructed
by low tree limbs. It is recommended that a condition of approval be that the trees be pruned up to
a height of seven feet to allow for pedestrian use of the public right-of-way. In support of this, the
final development plan should indicate a five foot wide pedestrian usable space, a sidewalk "area."
3. Driveway - No driveway currently exists, and none is proposed. The applicant proposes to use
the alley for access with parking off the alley. This provides an excellent site design.
4. Encroachments - The improvement survey indicates a fence being located within the public
right-of-way. The fence must either be relocated to private property, or an encroachment license
must be applied for prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Parking - The indicated parking spaces do not meet dimensional requirements (8 1/2 feet wide
by 18 feet long). It appears that there is sufficient room to meet the dimensional requirements. If
the application becomes a de facto special review for reduction in parking space requirements (not
typically addressable in the variance procedure), the Engineering Department does not object to a
reduction in length of two parking spaces to 17 1/2 feet. The final development plan must clearly
indicate parking space dimensions.
6. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on
an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way.
7. Trash & Utility„ Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area, which
may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and
recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment
must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers.
8. Work in the Public Right -of -wad - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130).
cc: Cris Caruso, David Panico, Robert & Sheri Hirschfield
M95.122
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:, Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
RE: Lang Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing
DATE: July 11, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 336
square foot accessory dwelling unit that is above grade. The unit
is proposed within a single family residence. Staff recommends
approval of the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit with
conditions.
This proposal was reviewed by the Interim Overlay Committee.
Because of the size of the parcel, review required mandatory
compliance with the Committee's recommendations. The Committee
approved the proposal with minor changes to the front facade and
east elevation.
APPLICANT: Mr. Ingo Lang, represented by Jack Miller
LOCATION: 1103 Waters Avenue
ZONING: R-15
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To provide an approximately 336 square foot
studio accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Ordinance 1
requirements.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please find the referral comments from the
Housing Office and Engineering Department, exhibit A.
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
proposed to be located;
RESPONSE: The proposed accessory dwelling unit is an attached,
above grade unit. The size is approximately 336 square feet which
provides a floor area bonus of 168 square feet. The net liveable
must be verified by the Housing Office at the time of building
permit application. The unit must comply with the Housing
Guidelines and the requirements of Ordinance 1 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 of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development;
RESPONSE: A private access to the ADU is provided via a walkway
on the east side of the home beginning from the front yard. The
proposed location of the ADU is within the primary residence.
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: Although it appears from the plan that the roof above
the access to the ADU will shed snow to either side of the door,
it also appears that snow will shed onto the walkway for the ADU.
Because the ADU is proposed above grade the applicant is eligible
for a floor area bonus. Several residents of Waters Avenue have
expressed concern with the size of the home and have objected to
the additional floor area that is proposed for this home. In
addition, the neighbor to the east of the development has strongly
objected to the ADU parking place that is on their common property
line.
The kitchen must meet the specifications of the housing guidelines.
As part of this review, the Engineering Department has noted that
the proposed driveway does not comply with Section 19-101 regarding
the width and the Engineer also commented that the ADU parking
space does not function properly.
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 new services are required for the ADU. The applicant
proposes to add onto the existing structure. Because the larger
home will increase the impervious surface of the property, historic
run-off must be maintained on -site.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
RESPONSE: The dwelling unit must be deed restricted for resident
2
N
occupancy. If the unit is rented, a qualified working resident of
Pitkin County shall reside in the unit.
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 conditional use is an attempt to comply with
Ordinance 1 requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ADU with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall:
a. verify the net liveable square footage of the ADU;
b. upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office,
the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder's 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;
c. kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure
compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs; and
d. the roof plan shall be altered to protect the walkway to the
ADU.
2. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
3. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit
on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35
sound attenuation requirements.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the
Planning Department shall inspect the unit to determine compliance
with the conditions of approval.
5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall:
a. provide a drainage plan to confirm that historic run-off
shall be maintained on -site;
b. a new site plan shall be submitted indicating driveway and
parking revisions.
3
6. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed
on site.
7. The applicant shall consult city engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks
department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for
any work or development, including landscaping, within public
rights -of -way from city streets department.
8. 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.
ALTERNATIVE: The Commission may consider denial of the ADU finding
that the increased density and floor area bonus are incompatible
with the character of the neighborhood and the design and location
of the ADU increases adverse impacts to adjacent neighbors.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for
1103 Waters Avenue with the conditions as outlined in the Planning
Office memo dated July 11, 1995."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Referral Comments
B. Plans
0
N. J"UN 20 '95 09:02AM ASPEN HOUSING OFF: P.3
EXHIBIT A
Leslie Lamont/Harr Lackner, Community Development Dept
FROME Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
Unit I
Parcel t No. x 04
The Housing Office recommends approval for the requested aooessor
dwelling un.. ', with the recommended conditions ao stated below.,
A ��:R �, •,, —; a }.',"�. `w —_ �... ,_c. i',._i ,��� is � _ � �
to The applicant states that the proposed accessory dwelling unit is
consist s __ s _ +approximately
336 square area,+R be , . _ ' dwithin the singlefamily ,.
The kitchen must also be built to the following opecificationsi
Kitalhon - For Accessory Dwelling Units and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimiAm of a two -burner
stove with oven, standard sink, 6< a 4 •
ia fdot refrigerator plus freezer.
Before the applicant can receive building permit approval, the
applicant must provide to the Housing office the net li7eable
calculation of the accessory dwelling unit ao defined by the
Housing Office, and a signed an ' d 1�ecorded need Restriction, which
oan be obtained from the Housing Office. The Housing Office must
have * s=', page numberprior to building permit
approval.
'fiord\referra1\1ang.adu
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department &k-1-
Date: June 15, 1995
Re: Lang Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
(1 103Waters Avenue; Lot 3, Calderwood Subdivision)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Site 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.
This is satisfactorily discussed in the application.
2. Sidewalk Area - The final development plan should indicate a five foot wide pedestrian usable
space, a sidewalk "area."
3. Driveway - The site plan must be revised to reflect the requirements of Section 19-101 of the
City Code which provides for a 10 foot wide driveway for lots with less than 60 feet of frontage.
The indicated ADU parking space cannot function as shown. without an even wider driveway than
is shown. Maximum permitted grade is 12%.
4. Encroachments - The application packet lacked an improvement survey. The site visit did not
reveal any encroachments.
5. Parking - At the time of the site visit, there were four cars parked on the property and two on
the street in front of the property. The application provided parking spaces meeting code standards,
however there appeared to be more parking in actual use. The site plan does not meet City Code
for driveway widths. It would appear that more subgrade living space must be provided in order to
provide sufficient at -grade parking with a driveway that meets City Code.
1
Grasscrete - As with other recent land use applications, the Engineering Department
continues to recommend that grasscrete parking spaces be further defined by pavers, wood or
other treatment of usable automobile tire tracks. There are instances in the City of
grasscrete spaces being unused with property owners parking on City streets.
6. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on
an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way.
Existing Electric Power Easement - The Engineering Department has been working with the
applicant's representative and with Holy Cross Electric Association concerning the
abandonment and relocation of an easement on this lot. This will be completed prior to
issuance of a building permit.
7. Trash & Utility Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area, which
may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and
recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment
must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers.
8. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130).
cc: Cris Caruso, Ingo Lang, Jack Miller
M95.126
10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Allen/ E. Francis Conditional Use for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit - Public Hearing
DATE: July 11, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking to construct an accessory
dwelling unit for a new free market residence to satisfy the
housing mitigation requirements of Ordinance 1. The 350 sq.ft.
unit is proposed to be located on the second floor of a three story
contemporary house built into the hillside.
The Planning Office recommends approval of the Allen/E. Francis
Conditional Use for an accessory dwelling unit with conditions.
APPLICANT: Doug Allen, represented by Stan Mathis.
LOCATION: Between Gibson Avenue and E. Francis Street adjacent to
Oklahoma Flats. This parcel is 10,352 sq.ft. and is located on a
metes and bounds parcel in SE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 7, Township 10
South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.
ZONING: R-30.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use
approval to build a required accessory dwelling unit in conjunction
with a new 4,844 sq.ft. residence. The project was reviewed at an
advisory level by the Special Overlay Committee on June 27, 1995,
as the project is proposed at the maximum floor area permitted on
the parcel. The site is presently vacant.
The unit is proposed to be accessed via an exterior stairway and
also has internal access to the home. Due to significant slopes
on the lot, the Zoning Enforcement Officer will make the
determination whether the unit is considered above grade when
detailed construction drawings are submitted. Should this unit be
considered above grade, the applicant would be eligible fora FAR
bonus of one-half the floor area of the accessory dwelling unit.
The applicant has submitted floor plans and site drawings for the
proposed development. See attached blueprints and the application
information in Exhibit "A".
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments from the Engineering Department are
included as Exhibit "B", Housing Authority Exhibit "C", and Parks
Department Exhibit "D".
STAFF COMMENTS: The Commission has the authority to review and
approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to
the standards of Section 7-304:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes,
goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone
district in which it is proposed to be located; and
Response: The proposed dwelling unit has the potential to house
local employees, which is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Community Plan and the underlying zone district.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible
with the character of the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development and surrounding land
uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses
and activities in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development; and
Response: Several significant cottonwood trees are required to be
removed to accommodate the access drive to this site. The removal
of these trees will change the character of the site. Parks
Department has conducted a site inspection and has submitted
comments which are included in Exhibit "D".
The accessory dwelling unit is compatible with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood. The unit will not be visible as a
distinct unit from the exterior of the residence.
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; and
Response: The accessory dwelling unit will be completely contained
within the proposed residence. The unit is located in the rear of
the residence and has one window oriented to the northwest. The
applicant has indicated that the entrance to the ADU is covered,
however the plans are not detailed enough to determine this. Staff
has advised the applicant to provide more specific drawings at the
meeting to illustrate the entrance of the ADU. The applicant is
proposing an on -site parking space for the ADU in addition to four
spaces for the main residence.
As per past P&Z concerns, a recommended condition of approval
requires that the unit be identified on building permit plans as
a separate dwelling unit requiring compliance with U.B.C. Chapter
35 for sound attenuation.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services
2
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; and
Response: The City Engineer, Chuck Roth has identified several
conditions of approval that would be applicable for the ADU. These
conditions address site drainage, encroachments, utilities, and
work in the public right-of-way and are included in the proposed
conditions in the recommendation section of this memorandum.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing
to meet the incremental need for increased employees
generated by the conditional use; and
Response: The applicant must file the appropriate deed restriction
for resident occupancy of the unit, including a six month minimum
lease. Proof of recordation must be forwarded to the Planning
Office prior to issuance of any building permits.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all
additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area
Community Plan and by all other applicable
requirements of this chapter.
Response: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and all other applicable conditional use standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the
Allen/E. Francis ADU, subject to the following conditions:
1. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The
accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted to resident
occupancy with a minimum six month lease. Upon approval by
the Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed
restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits, a copy of the
recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit must
be forwarded to the Planning Office and Housing Authority.
3. The accessory dwelling unit shall be clearly identified as a
separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall
comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements.
4. During building permit plan review, the Zoning Enforcement
Officer and Housing Office shall make the final determination
that the unit meets the minimum size requirement of 300 sq. ft.
net liveable as defined in the Housing Authority Guidelines.
The accessory dwelling unit cannot be less than 300 sq.ft.
5. During building permit plan review, the Zoning Enforcement
Off icer and Housing Off ice shall make the f inal determination
that the unit is above or below grade. If the unit is found
to be located above grade, the applicant is eligible for one-
half of the floor area of the ADU as a FAR bonus.
6. The accessory dwelling unit shall have a kitchen which is a
minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and
a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer.
7. The applicant shall meet the following requirements of the
City Engineer:
a. The new development plan shall provide for no more than
historic drainage f lows to leave the site. Any increase
to historic storm run-off shall be maintained on site.
b. Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other
equipment must be installed on an easement provided by
the applicant and not in the public right-of-way.
C. The final development plans must indicate the trash
storage area which cannot be located in the public right-
of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as
trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas
that include utility meters or other utility equipment
must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked
by trash and recycle containers.
d. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088)
for design considerations of development in the public
rights -of -way, parks department (9 2 0-512 0 ) for vegetation
species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights -
of -way from city street department (920-5130).
e. The applicant has committed to provide one parking space
per bedroom. The final site plan shall indicate the
location of these spaces as there is no on -street parking
in the area.
8. The applicant shall meet with the Parks Department to review
the proposed vegetation alterations on site. This meeting
shall take place prior to the issuance of any permits for the
property. The applicant shall comply with the tree
replacement requirements of the Parks Department.
9. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
4
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 for the
Allen/E. Francis accessory dwelling unit to be located within a new
residence, subject the conditions recommended in the Planning
Office memo dated July 11, 1995."
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information
"B" - Engineering referral memo
"C" - Housing referral memo
"D" - Parks referral memo
5
Douglas P. Allen
Patricia K. Massender
Kim Johnson
Aspen Department of
Community Development
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
LAW OFFICES OF Exhibit A
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
225 North Mill Street, Suite 210
Aspen, Colorado 8161197Y (970) 925-8800
May 16, 1995
FAX (970) 925-9398
Re: Allen Residence --East Francis Avenue --Conditional Use for an Attached
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Dear Kim:
Enclosed is the Conditional Use Application for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be
located at the above -referenced address. I am seeking an approval from the City of Aspen for
the ADU described on the attached floor plans. This application fulfills the requirements of the
pre -application conference you conducted with Stan Mathis on May 4, 1995, a copy of which
is enclosed.
This submission includes:
1. Minimum Submission Requirements --Attachment 2;
2. Specific Submission Requirements --Attachment 3;
3. Review Standards --Attachment 4.
Thank you.
Cordially,
Douglas . Allen
DPA/pj h
Enclosures
LTR\071
Response to Attachment 2
Attached hereto is the information requested for the minimum submission contents
enumerated in Items 1 through 5.
Response to Attachment 3
Attached hereto are the Specific Submission Contents which are:
1. The survey showing the proposed development;
2. A topographic survey showing the proposed developments;
2. Floor plans with the ADU shown;
3. Proposed elevations (a model may be required for presentation at the P&Z
meeting).
Response to Attachment 4
The following standards are met:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
in meeting the community's desire to provide affordable employee housing.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity in that there are other ADUs in the neighborhood. In addition, this
is an area that has housed employees.
C. There are no adverse effects created by this conditional use as the unit is
located with the proposed structure. The ADU will be provided with an on site parking
space and there will be a trash service area for the entire proposed development.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use.
E. The conditional use proposed is an Attached Affordable Housing Unit.
F. The ADU has a separate covered entry, it is approximately 350 s.f., its access
is via a concrete stairway on grade, the unit is located above grade, and has an off street
parking space.
E od
Gie
e
� �Gtee
C' b
a
Q �
�b
10 � o Zc�
-; re
J
ja SS&�
M
IS pjcm o
U)
ar dl\Jd
a, P!/ ,oJaaN Cr RI v r 3e Ut_
G
tatri
cZ �o 'ro
- -- o c
�ti y Qt 5 c
�oc o
,n
�• � off'wc�c c
J�/'�� lea Bede ui
y /jr, r C
I d, J
pyp/a//Je �
1.4
\ •, r!
.. N
Castle Creek or poWer
t t-
VmeteJy Ln ��ipa
y N
t t !,: � tiSl,'t•r,S ti i:,�,'..�'� ;� of �•-.(• *p �„' r� f • >, tlr r.v} 'if ,rd�"rG I �
- �. '�. �� :1� (t � �� i �.! li A'��'�t t. . �t 'lit �ll' t,�t�. *1 �4,� Ott { , -�,(, 'i'•' 'tit. d7':.i ir'. '�fr jL N"It;•,;� 1.
• .tr ' ':J t t 1 � ti•rja 1 ti. t 1 ` ra 1 t` in '�Y(1 ;7
t `
r
C� E T r CLI 1
Qy N F— Q)CL co
y.
°
W 2 2
g tr
U)
.5i
u'
O�J (0 ID
N (0 (V�
ti
rrl
W x
r
r `eeV
8'ilve.ru . Quee.n
/ /%/�y' �� ro u► Gondola
(6
x a
c a
co ca �U�� qQ1
AC ��U iy tQ� 43
Ix tx rx
0000
t t t t t
lSpU�r CV � L%
e x
A ' A
Q g1:4Q N QUA Q
a)
ro o d f%) C cC��� cc��� (n cq 00 r
4 '44;400ri
cv '-C) to "D 'D
t ,
�•• '-f �y !.i \ cis v� � a rid � v� �-'� .� -� � ' N �
p. to M .� o C 'o. al _' v) U ;
ZO n�i o nl a M
-� N A •� cv N "" O� O � N
tj UC7C7C7C7x:�S:x:1:xx:7G
°otiropttayy
� / c
0,` y :wG
0', 30� • W C7 '
o1 o�y
' iQtx
ai Q -0 -A
F - •• tb Cq (i7 tYJ tY! lJ 4
41
ttfA�mN°r*r�Ml.n.
Jdri,Jl,llit: 4 ' JA-I_—. ._ "i' „'"r"1""' "fI ."""'R`► »Y.
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department Cam....
Date: June 26, 1995
Re: East Francis Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
(Metes & bounds parcel in Oklahoma Flats with no address at this time.)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Site 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.
2. Parkin - The application states that one parking space per bedroom will be provided, including
the ADU. This is necessary because there is no on -street parking in the area.
3. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on
an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way.
4. Trash & Utility Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area, which
may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and
recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment
must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers.
5. Work in the Public Right-of-wav - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130).
cc: Cris Caruso, Doug Allen
1
M95.138
_TUN 20 ' S5 09 e 02AM ASPEN HOUSING ►AFC P.2
e Exhibit C a
L nlie Lamont/Mary Lackner, Community t Development Dept
FROM: Cindy Christensen, iioUsing
office
DATE-* June 20, 1995
Allen Couditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling
unit
Parcel ID No. 2737-07�1-00-011
HousingThe accessory
Access"
The applicantstates proposed i _dwelling unit s
locatedto consist of approximately 350.square feet of living area, and is
to be attached
o the single
family residence.
kitchenThe a# be builttothefollowing specifications:
Kitchen - For Accessory Dwelling Unft5 and Caretaker Dwelling Unfts, a minimum of a two-bumer
stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic*%ot refrigerator plus freezer.
Before the applicant can receive building permit approval, th-T
applicant must provide to the Housing Office actual f100r Planm 0'
the acoeosai�y dwelling unift, the net liveable calcalation of th,
" 'a a ,... lit ... dwelling unit as defined 1i.... the Rousing
; # ,fiCer +
., g_` dandrecordedDeedRestriction, be obtained o
the Housing OffiCe. The Housing Office must have the recorded boo
and page number prior to buildihg permit approval.
\wend\referra1Na11en ef.adu
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
RE: Markalunas Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing
DATE: July 11, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct an above grade
accessory dwelling unit. Because the unit is above grade the
applicants are eligible for a floor area bonus of 250 square feet
or half the size of the unit whichever is less. The unit is
proposed within a single family residence. Staff recommends
approval of the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit with
conditions.
This proposal was not reviewed by the Interim Overlay Committee
because the proposed floor area of the project is below 85% FAR.
APPLICANT: Ramona and Jim Markalunas
LOCATION: 624 North Street, Aspen
ZONING: R-6
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To provide an above grade accessory dwelling
unit. Ordinance 1 does not apply as the applicants are working
residents of Pitkin County and the existing home is not being
demolished by greater than 50%.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please find the referral comments from the
Housing Office, exhibit A.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 24-7-304 the criteria
fora 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
proposed to be located;
RESPONSE: The Markalunas' have designed a significant remodel of
their home. As part of the renovation they propose an accessory
dwelling unit that is 100% above grade and is located on the first
and second floors of the primary residence. The unit is a
voluntary unit to house a current renter.
The applicants have not provided the size of the unit, however from
the plans it appears that the unit exceeds the minimum net liveable
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 of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development;
RESPONSE: A private access to the ADU is provided off of the front
porch. According to the plans, no secondary access into the main
residence is proposed.
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 entrance is protected by a covered front porch. The
unit is located on the first and second floors of the primary
residence.
The kitchen must meet the specifications of the housing guidelines.
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 new services are required for the ADU. Only one
parking space is provided on -site for the entire home. However,
staff has found this to no be incompliance with the Code as the ADU
represents the only new bedroom being added in the renovation.
However, because only one space exists on -site, the applicant shall
indicate one additional parking space on a site plan submitted for
P&Z review during the meeting.
Because the expanded home will increase the impervious surface of
the property, historic run-off must be maintained on -site as storm
drainage is fairly problematic in the West End.
In addition, the applicant must identify and additional
trash/storage and utility areas on site.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
RESPONSE: The dwelling unit must be deed restricted for resident
2
occupancy. The applicant states that the unit is intended for an
existing renter of the Markalunas home and is a working resident
of Pitkin County.
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 conditional use is an attempt to provide a caretaker
unit for a working resident of Pitkin County.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ADU with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall:
a. verify the net liveable square footage of the ADU and the floor
area for floor area bonus purposes;
b. upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office,
the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder's 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
c. kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure
compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs.
2. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
3. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit
on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35
sound attenuation requirements.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the
Planning Department shall inspect the unit to determine compliance
with the conditions of approval.
5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a new site plan
indicating additional parking shall be provided and a drainage plan
that confirms historic run-off shall be maintained on -site.
6. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed
on site.
7. The applicant shall consult city engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks
3
department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for
any work or development, including landscaping, within public
rights -of -way from city streets department.
8. 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 for
624 North Street with the conditions as outlined in the Planning
Office memo dated July 11, 1995."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Referral Comments
B. Plans
4
�UN 28 '95 09'01AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
P.1
r . Leslie Lamont/Mary Lackner, Community Development Dept.
PROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing office
RE Markalunao CenditiontLI Use Review for an AecessorY
Dwelling unit
Parcel ID No. 2737-121-12-005
The Housing office recommends approval for the reqaeoted accessoz-y
dwelling unit as long as the unit falls within the -following
Aoceasory dwelling units shall contain not lea then three hundred (300) square feet cvf allawable
floor area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowaWe floor area. The unit shall
be deed restrided, mWing the housing etAho#ty's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall
be limited to rental parliods of not letn than six (6) months in duration. owners of the principal
residence shall have the right to place a qualif*d srnployee or employees of his or her choosing in
the a=ssory dwelling unh.
The applicant does not state the size of the propcBed acces8ory
dwelling uiiit . This acc ' essory , . dwelling unit is proposed to be
located attached to the single-family residence on the main level
with an upstairs bedroom and bath, This is a good example of an
aco-essory dwelling unit.
The kitchen must also be built -to the following specificationo:
Kitchen - For Accessory Dwelling Units and QuYetaker Dwelling Units, a mWmurn of a tWD-burner
Etuve with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubio foot refrigerator plus freezer.
Before the applicant can Tecoiva building permit approval, the
applicant raust provide to the Housing office actual floor plans of
the accesoory dwelling unit, the net liveable calQulatioh of the
accessory dwelling unit as defined by the Housing Otfice, and a
signed and recorded Deed Restriction, which can be obtained from
the Housing Of f ice. The Housing of f ice must have the recorded book
and page number prior to building permit approval.
.auv
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
RE: Howling Wolf Special Review for Outdoor Patio and
Reduction in Trash Enclosure
DATE: July 11, 1995
SUMMARY: Paul Levine, owner of Howling Wolf Cafe, requests the use
of their small front yard for outdoor dining. In addition, the
applicant request to reduce the required size of the trash
enclosure.
Pursuant to Section 24-3-101, required open space may be used for
a commercial restaurant activity via a special review by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The required trash/service area may
also be reduced by special review.
APPLICANT: Paul Levine, Howling Wolf Restaurant
LOCATION: 316 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen
ZONING: CC - Commercial Core
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To use required open space for patio dining
and reduce the trash enclosure.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please review the Engineering Department's
referral comments, exhibit A.
HPC - The Historic Preservation Committee favorably reviewed the
request to install customer seating in the front.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Proposal - According to the application, approximately 15 chairs
and 4 tables are proposed for the front yard for dining customers.
The front yard will be secured with a small/removable steel fence.
Flowers and planter boxes will also be placed in the front yard.
Originally the applicant proposed to use flagstone or brick pavers
but is switching to wood deck structure which is more even and
stable.
In addition to a special review for dining in open space, the
applicant also proposes to reduce the trash enclosure area.
Although the Engineering Department and BFI support the proposal,
the applicant has not provided detailed plans to determine the
ultimate size of the trash area, indication of whether the dumpster
will be enclosed, or identification of the location of the
trash/service area. Staff recommends that the applicant submit a
more detailed trash enclosure plan for review at the Commission
meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the review for
restaurant activity in required open space for the Howling Wolf
Cafe finding that outdoor dining in this location will not inhibit
pedestrian movement and the use is compatible and consistent with
summer activities found in downtown Aspen.
Staff also recommends the reduction in the trash service area with
the following conditions:
1. A new site plan shall be submitted indicating the location and
size of the trash enclosure which shall also include recycling.
2. A concrete pad shall be poured to accommodate easy roll -off of
the dumpster.
3. The dumpster shall be enclosed.
4. The area shall be increased if the reduced size becomes
problematic or the operation of the building changes significantly
to require increased trash storage needs.
5. All representations made in the application or by the applicant
at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting shall be adhered to
during development.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the special reviews for the
Howling Wolf Cafe to allow dining in the front yard and a reduction
in the trash enclosure area with the conditions as outlined in
Planning Office memo dated July 11, 1995."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Referral Comments
B. Site Plan
C. BFI Letter
K
EXHIBIT A
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department (2 -J
Date: July 5, 1995
Re: Howling Wolf Special Review
(316 East Hopkins Avenue; Lot O, Block 80, Original Aspen Townsite)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Open Space - The Engineering Department has no comments to the contrary about the proposal
to use the space in front of the building for additional seating. Note that in the case of the Red
Onion, the outdoor seating is actually an encroachment into the Cooper Avenue public right-of-
way. It is my understanding that the Red Onion pays a fee to the City for their usage. The
proposed seating at the Howling Wolf is located entirely on private property.
2. Trash Area - The special review is for a reduction in trash area as well as a review of the site
specific plan. The Engineering Department does not object to the proposed reduction in the size of
the trash area, however we suggest a condition of approval that a larger area will be provided if
needed in the future. Also, as staff has discussed in at least one other instance, we recommend that
the concrete pad for storage and handling of the dumpster as discussed in BFI's letter be required as
a condition of approval.
3. Fence - Although the application discussed HPC approval of the seating proposal, it did not
discuss HPC approval of the proposed fence. If the HPC has review authority for a fence at this
location, their approval should be required prior to issuance of a permit.
4. Parking Area - The Engineering Department has previously discussed the surface of the
parking area with the applicant. The applicant has installed gravel which has stopped the problem
of mud being tracked into the alley, however the gravel is migrating into the alley. Installing road
base would have been a preferable solution to gravel. I met with the applicant, and we discussed
the possibility of paving the parking area. At this time, paving the parking area is a
recommendation and not suggested as a requirement. The applicant should however be required to
sweep the gravel out of the alley as necessary to keep the alley clean.
cc: Cris Caruso, Paul Levine M95.155
' J16 East Hopkins Avenue
Lot 0, 31k. 80, City of Aspen
Pitkin County, Colorcdo
Lot N
"Y" Scribed
in Concrete
Rebor &
Ye/%w Plastic Cap
Lot O
3,016 sq. ft.
oo� 0.069 Acs.+/-
6
0.��_
.� 1 Story Wood
40O Frcme House
Walk /•.
Rebor &
°""�k • X Yellow Plastic Cap
Fast y "Y" Scribed
in Concrete
eve
Legend and ftM&-
13 hmicafm found mvrume7f as dom-ibed
�CW*W paw
I met mmment mbor and ow " 1571Q
GM/W*A n bawd on lhund nWnumwits as MOWL
Eaeanw+ it MOM &V ftm Tft Glaommun vat
Cam Ma ACT--5M CJ kmad d 27-01 by
AVOW1 comfy 7ft A7,--
SZrwyar9r CyvtrYTcob�.•
4 Kwmeth R Mftm, bait/ a Lavrd SLrwyar dhe
State of G1a+omdo, d0 homby ZI dds�wrr>wnt su►wy
wm monde under my mean and Is &m csnrct to Me beet
of nw bvlAW and kaoa�ct / hrbWr'Pa►�W drat Um
,' nPro�rovrwis . on Um above d sraZed an Mw date,
.�wcw�1 elEiths r�•.sar�..4:_-•�. r_r rr_irlL- aull4l ��a �..,.:i�..-•L..• ..1
Lot P
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 10 20 40
i •
041,91A� S
0VII►aste
systems TM
BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES
Western Slope of Colorado
The Howling Wolf Cafe
Aspen, CO
Attn: Paul
Dear Paul,
Recycled paper }Y,
EXHIBIT C
June 0, 1995
This letter is to certify that BFI Waste Systems of Western Colorado has met with
the owners of The Howling Wolf Cafe regarding a proposed change to their
trash enclosure area.
After discussion and a site inspection, BFI has determined that the proposed
plans are adequate for our needs as well as the Cafes. The proposed
enclosure area is large enough to safely contain the dumpster and still allow
acceptable access for our drivers.
The only recommendation we have is that a concrete pad be laid down to
facilitate rolling the heavy can in adverse conditions. Although certainly not
mandatory, the addition of a pad that extends to the alley has obvious benefits,
especially in the winter.
We at BFI are always available to assist in matters such as these and
appreciate it when customers call us with questions. If you have any more
concerns, please contact me at 945-1300 or my pager at 928-4103.
Sincerely,
✓V V l
David Dennis
Account Representative
3766 HIGHWAY 82 (81601) • P.O. BOX 947 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 • (303) 945-1300 • FAX: (303) 945-1560
•( III((( � .• . � \_ � �I � l'f. y
�'� 7 ;mow- . ,�. � � � ,�; x.�• • ;"�!�'�: r ,► �" �1.1 '^+r
AN
f `4t
t lk
a � -
f !«
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUA
NT
} S5. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 6-205.E.
1�
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
subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on
the ���. day of � �?
199 (which is days
prior to the public hearing date of i� )
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject
property (as it could be seen from the nearest public
r
way) and that the said sign was posted and visible
continuously from the f day of 199 qqS
to the day of 199 (Must be
posted f or at least ten (10 ) full days bef ore the hearing
date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached
hereto.
Sl nature
(Attach photograph here) Siqned before me this day of
19
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAT,
M ommission expires : --�- �- 1 °7
• a
N<5tary Public
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: LANG CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 11, 1995
at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S . Galena, Aspen to consider an application submitted by Ingo
Lang, Aspen, CO, requesting approval of a Conditional Use Review for an approximately 336
square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit attached to a proposed new single family residence. The
property is located at 1103 Waters Ave.; Lot 3, Calderwood Subdivision. For further
information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130
S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5100.
s/Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
E
Planning and Zoning
130 south Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Commissioners:
BROWNE AND IVA GREENE
1109 East Waters Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Commission
i
July 6, 1995
We are the homeowners immediately to the west of the proposed
house at 1103 Waters Avenue. We built our home in 1993 and all the
neighbors agree that it is an asset to the neighborhood. The home is
aspproximately 2,700 sq.ft. and fits in well with the Calderwood
area.
The proposed home, on the other hand, would be lot line to lot line
and is at the maximum height. When reviewing this home we would
encourage you to consider the cul-de-sac area apart from the rest of
Waters Avenue. A site visit would confirm that the homes in the cul-
de-sac are smaller, less dense and surrounded by trees. The rest of
Waters Avenue is much denser and congested. We would never have
built our home on that end of Waters Avenue.
Again, please consider the cul-de-sac as a separate neighborhood.
If you do, you will decide that the proposed home is out of scale with
the neighborhood.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Browne and
cc. J. Krabacher, Esq.
\A'
cc cc_4 A t
Iva Greene
C
{
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin }
}
State of Colorado }
I,
ss.
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
SECTION 6-205.E.
14V'T�fl S
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 m ' ng of notice, a copy of which is attached hg.rfo,
by first-class p age prepaid U.S. Maims o all owners
of property within threes . ed ( 3 0 0 ) feet of the
subject property, as dicated on the tached list, on
the �� a of V O
y 199;� (which i days
'or to the public he r' g date of
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place o the subject
property (as it could be seen from the nearest public
way) and that the said sign was poste and visible
continuously from the �� day of , 199_1
to the day of 99 (Must be
posted for at least ten (10) ul days before the hearing
date). A photograph of t Leposted sig is attached
hereto.
Signature
(Attach photograph here) SicMed before me this 1150- day of
99 . by
WITNESS Y HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
y mmission x 'res:
Notar-i Public
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss .
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
I, Pamela J. Hope, upon oath depose and say that I mailed the
attached Public Notice to Adjacent Property Owners this 29th day of
June, 1995, and to Pitkin County on June 19, 1995.
0- �' su�
Pamela J. Hcoe
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this llth day of July, 1995.
by Pamela J. Hope.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
225 North Mill Street, Suite 210
Aspen, Colorado 81611
MI\058.07125
PUBLIC NOTICE
REz ALLEN (EAST BRANCIS) CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, July 11, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the
Aspen Planning & Zoning commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City
'Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen to consider an .application submitted by
Doug Allen, Aspen,, CO, requesting approval of a Conditional Use
Review. for an approximately 350 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit.*
attached to a proposed single family residence. The property is
located on East Francis Street; SE;SW; of Section 70, Township 10
South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. For further information,
contact Mary Lackner at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5106.
XlBruce xerr. Cb;i.rmatA
Planning and Zoning Commission
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at.4:40 p.m.
and requested roll call.
Present were: Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Robert Blaich,
Marta Chaikovska, and Steve Buettow. Excused was Jasmine Tygre.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS
Mooney stated, I watched this Jet Aspen presentation on television.
The "guy" that is bringing in Jet Aspen made this presentation on
Grassroots. I don't know if we should just help these "guys"
understand what the Aspen area community plan has really described
for this community, because the owner of this airlines is happily
and willfully, thinking that he is going to bring in a continuously
growing number of people. In his own words, millions and millions
of dollars worth of new development, so that new hotels are coming
in, so that existing hotels are becoming bigger, so that more
people can come to this valley and enjoy the amenitites that this
valley has brought.
Mooney stated, if he thinks he's going to merchandise this town to
that point, the town's identity isn't going to be why he's coming
here. I don't know if we should just help this "guy", right off
the bat, understand our zoning regulations and place that aren't
going to allow this.
Leslie Lamont of staff asked, who sponsored the forum?
Mooney responded, well, he did. It was at the Little Nell Hotel
with all the Aspen Sking Company people there, and he made a public
statement announcing the kick-off for his airline.
Blaich added, he's holding another one on Thursday; I got a notice
in the mail.
Mooney stated, he said the last time they went into a resort area
in New Jersey, they brought in $15 million in revenue to the
community above what they had estimated, and that existing
properties were expanding, the retail uses were expanding, the
commercial development was bountiful, and that everybody was
gloriously happy. Well, it's not like there's not another side of
the coin here. I don't know if this "guy" gets it. He's from
Virginia and he's going to re -locate here, and he says he has an
interest in the community, but I think he's thinking about the
wrong community.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 11, 1995
Lamont stated, what I'll do is, maybe I'll call Diane Moore at the
ACRA and talk to her, as it seems they are going to be sponsoring
his next forum. The ACRA was the group who helped pitch in some
money, helped try to find another airline, and things like that.
Maybe, he's just kind of talking like that and, maybe, he's been
led down the path.
Mooney answered, if he's really protecting his margins on this kind
of philosophy, he really doesn't know what underlying foundation
of community regulations we have to keep this the first class
resort he wants to be in, and not make it a second class resort.
I think it is our responsibility to help him understand, because
I just don't think that he should be projecting these kinds
of ideals, when fundamentally, it is impossible for him to
implement these.
Mooney continued, saying, I want to back up and take issue again
with the City, and I don't know how this can get up the ladder of
the chain of command. For one thing, the ACRA, when it is
completely to the benefit, in my opinion, of the Aspen Skiing
Company, it is a central reservation system for them; it is not a
Chamber of Commerce, I don't think it really represents all the
businesses in town, and for the City to pay taxpayer money into
supporting marketing the Ski Company, and marketing retail
development on the level that this "guy" thinks he's going to do,
it's not practical.
Lamont stated, my question is, I
or has he been told anything more,
it worked in New Jersey, it will
just wonder what he's being told,
or is he just projecting because
work here.
Mooney stated, he thinks that ideally, this is the problem and
there's a certain derivation of information that is going to be
linear to solve that problem. Well, that's out of place here.
People don't have to come here to make money, people kind of have
a different kind of philosophy here, and some things don't have to
add up, some things are artistic and spontaneous, and there's no
deductive answer to him making this the mega resort that he thinks
it needs to be. I just feel that he should understand some of the
basic principles that are in the Aspen area community plan, and if
he doesn't get that, then, he should, basically, be informed by,
staff, or somebody, through a memorandum, that this is a community
with a resort and the community has checks and balances on the
resort's growth and its expansion, because ultimately, this
commercial engine is going to kill the community, if it goes the
way New Jersey goes. That's why he doesn't want to live in
McClain, Virginia anymore, and that's why he doesn't work for
People's Express anymore. Do you know what I mean?
2
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 11, 1995
Lamont answered, I know exactly what you mean. I think if I call
Diane and talk to her, and in our staff meetings of City and
County, and Planning Department, if we talked about it.
Mooney added, instead of letting these "guys" initiate themselves
and initiate their personalities, and initiate their businesses,
there should be some way to help them understand what the
parenthesis are around growth.
Hunt stated, just to add on here, and I haven't followed this too
well, but what worries me is, he may be going in with expectations
beyond where he is expecting more out of this thing than the
community is capable of doing.
Mooney stated, that's exactly my point. I'm trying to make other
points along the way. Here is somebody "flying this really high
kite" that he's going to bring this airline in here and he's really
going to help us. We don't want his help. If I said that that
way, they would think I was some arrogant ski instructor, but
there's got to be some logical progression to the information to
get the idea out that we have these growth policies.
Buettow stated, we can put a letter in the paper, from P&Z, making
a statement to that affect.
Mooney stated, let me follow up on this, I'm very concerned about
the fact that there are paid consultants by the Ski Company, that
there are professional lobbyists that are lobbying for airport
expansion and growth, and there's no one from the community's side,
there's no one coming from the basic bureaucratic side to talk back
to Pat O'Donnell when he said, having a regional airport in Vail
isn't going to work for him as long as he is the Chief Operating
Officer of the Ski Company. He wants Aspen Airport expanded to
compete with Vail, and there should someone from the community's
side who can stand up to these lobbyists and paid professionals who
are feeding him with this research.
Garton stated, Leslie, perhaps talk to staff and counsel; if it's
best to come from Planning & Zoning to Pat O'Donnell or Diane Moore
or whoever, and get back to us so we can draft a letter. Some
expansion of airport services could do a lot to undermine the plan.
Hunt stated, I submitted a letter of whatever to City Council
concerning my position on the P&Z, and basically, I don't know
whether to resign or re -apply, but what I will do, I will stay on
until they replace me or ask me formally to step down, or re-
appoint me. That was the "j ist" of the letter. The clerk informed
t,
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 11, 1995
Commissioner. Hunt that his term was up in September, 1995.
Commissioner. Hunt stated, oh, I didn't realize that. The last date
I saw was July, 1995.
STAFF COMMENTS
Lamont of staff stated, I just want to remind you.of some meetings
we have coming up. Next week you have another P&Z meeting,
unfortunately, because we had to move this meeting to this Tuesday.
What we intend to do, and I don't think it is on your agenda, is,
to continue the discussion that we started with the County P&Z.
So, for your packet for next week, I will include a kind of
informational sheet for you of what the FARs are, density, and size
of the parcels and "stuff". So, that will be in your packet for
your meeting next week.
We have a special meeting scheduled August 1st, and that will be
our next joint meeting with the County P&Z to continue our
discussion on RO and AH.
Lamont stated, then you have a regular meetings August 8th and
August 22nd.
She stated, another thing I would like to let you know about, and
I believe it was just scheduled this week, and I believe it is
August 7th. The City Council, at their retreat, one of the things
they wanted to hear from our department was the next round of
implementation of the AACP. For example, one of the next items I
know, Cindy has had, is the revision of the Commercial Growth
Management Section of our code, and things like that. So, she is
working on that, and trying to go through the recommendations of
the AACP and come up with next year's list. So, I will get back
to you if it is, for sure, the 7th. If it is Monday, August 7th,
then it will be at 5:00 p.m. in this room (Council Chambers). It
will just be a Planning Department worksession with Council and I
would love for all of you to be there also because it would give
you a nice chance to also work with us, and Council also hear
Cindy's presentation on the AACP. Also, if she prepares a
memorandum for Council, I'll submit that memorandum to you "guys",
if you are unable to be there for that worksession.
Garton asked, the August 1st meeting, with the County P&Z for RO
and AH, is that at 4:00 p.m., then?
Lamont answered, I believe so.
4
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Garton stated, there was something I wanted to ask staff, too, not
only what we should be looking forward to in the next year, but a
review of what we have done this year. Lamont answered, O.K.
Garton asked, when do we get the new Land Use Regulations for our
code book?
Lamont answered,. Kathryn (Koch) sent everything out to have new
Code Books printed up, and I asked her last week, and she said it
could be two months before we get those. Unfortunately, it will
not include Ordinance 30, and it will not include on the recent
HPC, and the text amendments that Kim was doing right before she
left. We will have everything else, and then, we will add those
in. She couldn't wait to send it out before we got Ordinance 30
in.
Garton asked, because the second reading has not occurred yet?
Lamont answered, yes, it has, but she sent it out before it was all
done and she did not want to wait. My understanding is that she
has found someone locally to do it, and it will come in a format
that it is easy to pull a page out and put a page in. So, I asked
her last week and she said it is going to be about two months.
Mooney asked, how are we doing on our surveys of ADUs? Lamont
answered, we have hired George Krazoff to do the survey. As I told
you before, what he's proposing to do is far more extensive than
we ever wanted to do. I think he is going to come up with some
recommendations on how to, maybe, tighten up the program and things
like that. So, not only will we have a survey, but we are going
to have recommendations from what he finds from the survey. So,
I think we will be ready as soon as he's done.
Mooney stated, I would just like to reiterate some urgency, because
it is funny that we have so many of them on the menu today. I'm
about to go 180 degrees on this. I'm thinking now that ADUs are
not as affective as we think and I'm really inclined to vote
against them and go for the money so that we know exactly that we
are going to have deed restricted affordable housing, and if the
mitigation is going to be in place some day that we can count on,
perpetually.
Garton stated, I have to correct you, Tim, though, it's in
ordinance now, as a judicial body you cannot announce that you are
against something in front of a public hearing. You have to hear
a public hearing fairly and vote on this because it is a public
hearing. So, that kind of an announcement is not appropriate.
Lamont stated, we cannot stop applicants from coming forward.
Mooney stated, I'm not trying to do that, but what I'm saying is,
5
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
I don't think it is affective.
JULY 11, 1995
Lamont stated, that's why we are having the survey. I just have
to say, we hired another planner, but he doesn't start until July
31st.
Garton stated, I heard three weeks ago that that contract was being
prepared and it seems to be dealing with it pretty long time.
Lamont stated, I mentioned this to you at the last meeting and I
didn't stick around to the end of the meeting and I left, and we
didn't come to closure on this. Ordinance 30 set up the Design
Appeal Board and it's very similar to the Interim Overlay Board
that we had, in that, we are going to start out with three HPC
members and two P&Z members, with a P&Z alternate. As someone
leaves the Board that alternate would fill the position. The Board
comes together, basically, on an as -needed basis, there are no
public hearings. We're trying to nail down a day and a time, once
a month, just to give some structure to when people can anticipate,
they need to call, people can come before the Board, or the Board
may be brought together.
Lamont added, we have three HPC members, Sven Alstrom, Jake
Vickery, and Roger Moyer; they are going to continue being on the
Board. Bob Blaich has also expressed his desire to continue to sit
on the Board. Steve (Buettow) was our alternate, because Bruce
Kerr was our other P&Z member. I left the meeting before we really
came to closure on whether you all felt that Steve should now be
our formal P&Z representative on the Board, and then, let's pick
another alternate from this Board to be on the Design Appeal Board.
Lamont asked, Steve, do you still want to be on the Design Appeal
Board?
Buettow answered, yes. Lamont asked, as a full.member? Buettow
stated, yes, if that's the concensus.
Garton asked, what is the concensus of the Commission? (All
members were in agreement favorably.)
Lamont stated, now we need an alternate.
Chaikovska volunteered to be the alternate member on the Design
Appeal Board. The Commission was in favor.
Chaikovska asked when the Board would meet. Lamont stated, we're
shooting for Thursdays at 3:00 p.m. because some members didn't
want another night meeting. Chaikovska asked, when would a meeting
6
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
be coming up? Lamont answered, none yet, we haven't scheduled -it,
but we do have someone who is interested and needs to come before
the Board. He hasn't given us his application yet.
Buettow asked, so, what is the time on Thursday, at 3:00 p.m.?
Lamont answered, we ' re shooting f or Thursdays at 3 : 0 0 p . m . Is that
O.K?
Blaich stated, 4:00 p.m. would be better. It was the concensus of
the Commission that 4:00 p.m. would be a better time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Garton stated, now I ask for any -comments from the public that are
not associated with this agenda.
Jake Vickery stated, I talked to Mary (Lackner of staff) regarding
an ADU for my project over in the west end and I wanted to go
through some review and, perhaps, request an amendment to it. I
talked with Mary and she was going to get some more information
from the City Attorney about some provision in the code that allows
an applicant to return within 30 days to rebuild or something, and
I notice I'm not on the agenda, so I don't know what to do here.
Lamont answered, we can put you on July 18th.
Vickery asked, would I fall into that 30 day thing, or whatever it
is?
Lamont asked, when was your review? Vickery answered, my last
meeting was just a few weeks ago.
Lamont stated, our last meeting was June 20th, so, you would fall
within the 30 days. We could put you on July 18th. Vickery asked,
is that what you want to do? Lamont answered, yes.
MINUTES
On the minutes of June 20th, Buettow mentioned a correction and it
has been corrected by the clerk.
Blaich moved to. approve the minutes of June 20th, Chaikovska
seconded, vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion
carried.
7
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
616 W. HOPKINS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Garton opened the public hearing.
Hunt stated, I move to table action and continue the public hearing
for 616 W. Hopkins to 8 August 1995. Blaich seconded, vote
commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
HIRSCHFIELD CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Leslie Lamont represented staff and stated, the Hirschfields own
a home on 601 W. Francis and they are intending to do an addition
onto the home. The proposal has gone before the Interim Overlay
Committee. Lamont added, by the way, all these items that are on
our agenda today, have gone through the Interim Overlay Committee.
These are applications that have come in before Ordinance 30 was
adopted. So, the Hirschfield's are proposing an addition onto
their home, and as part of the addition, they are proposing an
accessory dwelling unit. It will be contained within the home and
you can kind of tell from the elevations, the front of the home,
the accessory dwelling unit, is below grade with the lightwell, but
as you move towards the rear of the home and on the side of the
home, the ADU appears to be above grade.
Lamont stated, the unit is proposed at 420 sq. ft. and my
Conditions of Approval are fairly standard. However, the net
liveable verification for an accessory dwelling unit will need to
be provided, and I also wanted to have better verification that the
snow will shed onto either side and not onto the walkway to the
accessory dwelling unit. Other than that, I recommend approval of
the ADU.
Lamont stated, one other point I would like to make, because the
ADU is approximately '75 o below grade, there is no floor area bonus
to be approved with this accessory dwelling unit.
Blaich asked, I'm not clear on this, but has this come before the
P&Z before? I know we reviewed this on the other committee; I
thought this came up and then was withdrawn.
8
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Lamont stated, you may have seen it on an agenda before; I believe
we had it scheduled, then we moved it. It was the Interim Overlay
Committee.
David Panico made a presentation on behalf of the Hirschfield's.
Panico stated, I'm sorry, I don't have the photograph. It was
posted, I read that requirement, it has been posted since June
30th, so it fulfills the 10 day notice, and notices have been sent
out to all people within a 300 foot radius, so, I believe we have
met all the conditions of Public Notice. I did not bring my camera
and photograph.
Panico stated, we have made an attempt to make this more liveable
by raising it out of the ground. It has a view to the east for
morning sun and glass on the south, so, it has south -facing sun.
A lot of that is on the more desirable side of the basement level,
so, we have tried to make it something other than a secondary room
that satisfies the letter of the law, but it is a deep, blank hole
to live in. I think the Hirschfield's tried to show a little bit
of care and understanding of what is trying to be accomplished by
this ordinance.
Garton asked, do you have any problems with any of the conditions?
Panico replied, none, at all.
Garton asked, and is it 420 liveable sq. ft.?
Panico answered, in fact, I measured that to the facing walls of
the interior steps, because I've been through this before, and your
standards are different. In the past, I've always measured the
center lines of walls, and then realized that you "guys" measured
to the interior face of the walls. As I understand, you used to
subtract partitions, but you don't do that any longer. So, it is
420 feet to the interior face of the perimeter wall.
Garton stated, from now on, with our public hearings, I am going
to follow a procedure that was recommended by the attorney awhile
ago. So, first, I'm going to ask for comments from the public,
since it is a public hearing. Then, the Commission can question
the applicant. So, are there any questions from the public at this
time, about this application? There were no questions from the
public.
Hunt stated, I see what appears to be an inconsistency between the
plan and the south elevation. I'm reading in the plan that there
is an exterior door to the outside, let's say, in front of the
garage door, and I'm not seeing that'on the south elevation. So,
I need clarification, is that door in the garage or outside the
9
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
garage?
JULY 11, 1995
Panico answered, that is within the overhand of the garage, but it
is not apparent on the south elevation because it is actually on
the side wall of that indentation for garage doors. You couldn't
see it from that elevation, because the garage door is indented
into an overhang.
Hunt stated, then, there's a line missing there.
Panico answered, oh, I see. Yes, you are right.
Hunt stated, O.K., so, that door does go to the exterior and the
driveway going into the garage.
Mooney asked, what is the main entrance, this front door?
Panico answered, that's the front door to the ADU.
Lamont asked, Dave, can you explain then, on your site plan, where
you show three parking spaces, where is the garage? There was
conversation between Panico and Lamont where he showed the garage
and the parking spaces. Lamont stated, which our Engineering
Department pointed out, the spaces do not meet code.
Panico asked, they do not? Lamont stated, no, the side hangs over.
Panico stated, no, the 17-1/2 is to the setback, and it shows that
the house is being moved away from the setback to allow for the
legal size space. Lamont stated, oh, O.K.
Blaich asked regarding the south elevation window and the parking.
Blaich asked, have you given any consideration, also, to the
entryway accessing directly into a driveway, which is going to be
an inclined driveway. I wonder about the safety of that; anybody
walking out that door is going to be hit by anybody backing in or
out of that driveway. It seems to me a rather dangerous thing to
do.
Panico replied, it is a concern, unfortunately though, the
alternative would be to raise the staircase up to the parking area
that would then put you into more of a parking area. I think the
reality of a car coming down the driveway, the reality of a car
backing up the driveway, I think it would be evident to whoever was
using that door.
Buettow stated, on the other hand, if you go out the door over
where those windows are, and you came out there and you have the
stairway up, it'.s much safer.
10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 11, 1995
Panico replied, I think in a way, that is preferable.
Buettow stated, I was thinking, safer.
Panico, replied, and safer. The absolute truth is, I had it
designed that way, and in with negotiations with the client, he
said I want to do it this way. So, we made that change. I think
I understand what you are saying and I tend to agree with you, and
I ' m going back to the client and say, they won' t allow it, you have
to do it my way.
Buettow stated, it appears you have an encroachment here on your
major entry.
Panico answered, initially, I have talked about that with Bill
Drueding, and what that is, it is taking into account the situation
with decks. You can encroach on the setback one-third of the
distance of that setback with deck only. Bill has said, I agree
with that. My question is, he hasn't seen the final set of
drawings and I even wonder if he understands whether that's a
proper interpretation because, technically, I don't think this is
a deck. Even though it seems like he is willing to give it to me,
I'm questioning whether it is right. So, initially, he has told
me it was alright, but sometimes when it comes down to plan check,
he doesn't remember that. So, I wouldn't be surprised if he says,
get that out of there.
Garton asked, so, that's going to be done prior to the final..
Panico replied, it will happen when I apply for permanent review.
Right now, the word from Bill Drueding is that this is legal.
Mooney stated, this bunkroom that is adjacent to the mudroom,
there's no bathroom that goes in that sleeping area?
Panico answered, it's fairly overflow; when the grandchildren come
into town, that kind of thing, then you go upstairs and there's a
powder room.
Mooney asked, can you tell me a little bit about what the
intentions of the owners, as far as the use of this goes?
Panico answered, they are second homeowners, they would prefer that
someone was in the house and taking care of it. They would look
at having a caretaker in there, but at the same time, and I was
going to get around to this and this is probably as good a time as
any to do it; they have asked me, and I have tried to have Leslie
clear it up.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Lamont stated, the answer is yes.
Panico continued saying, as it pertains to cash -in -lieu, and they
need to know that that is an option right up to the granting of the
permit. It is my understanding that it is an option. So, the
money into this might come into play and they might elect not to
use this or build this ADU, and instead, pay cash -in -lieu. So, I
don't know where this leaves us, but they would like this ' approval .
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to approve Conditional Use for an accessory
dwelling unit at 601 W . Francis with the conditions 1-8 on. Planning
Office memorandum dated 11 July, 1995, with the addition of
Condition 9: The main entrance to the accessory dwelling unit shall
be relocated to the window/window-well area of the south elevation
of the accessory dwelling unit to avoid conflict with the
automobiles using the driveway. Finding that the criteria pursuant
to Section 24-7-304 have been met. Chaikovska seconded. Voting
commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Hunt asked, are we going to intergrate in the conditions the change
to the entranceway?
Lamont stated, I have a recommended condition. Hunt asked, that
will be Condition 9? Lamont stated, yes.
Garton stated, Roger, also, in reviewing with the attorneys, they
told us, let's make a motion now, that. the standard pursuant to
Section 24-7-304 should be mentioned in every motion. We should
do this from now on.
LANG CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
Garton opened the public hearing.
Lamont presented Affidavit of Notice of Posting to the clerk for
the record. (Attached in the record.)
Lamont represented staff stating, this is an accessory dwelling
unit being proposed, the home is being torn down, and a new home
is being built on the site, therefore, the applicants are proposing
an accessory dwelling unit to comply with Ordinance 1.
12
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Lamont stated, this home also went through our Interim Overlay
Committee review; I was not the staff person who took it to the
Overlay, but my understanding is that a few recommendations were
made by the committee. This parcel is less than 1,000 sq. ft.,
therefore, they have to comply with the changes. I think I
mentioned in the beginning of my memorandum that there are some
minor facade changes; changes to the front facade and changes to
the west.
Lamont added, the accessory dwelling unit is proposed at 336 sq.
ft . , it is above grade, therefore, the unit is eligible for a floor
area bonus of approximately 168 sq. ft. I believe I pointed out
in my memorandum that although there is a separate walkway along
the east side of the home to the main entrance of the accessory
dwelling unit, it is not clear that the door to the accessory
dwelling unit, from the plans, appears to be protected from fallen
snow, but the walkway itself does not appear to be protected from
shedding snow. We have also pointed out in the memorandum, the
Engineering Department and myself, that the proposed parking space
for the accessory dwelling unit appears to be inadequate and in
conflict with the front yard and the front yard of the next door
neighbor. The Engineering Department also pointed out that the
width of the driveway needs to come into compliance with our
standards.
Chuck Roth of Engineering stated, the width is too great right now,
as proposed.
Lamont stated, I have also heard from several neighbors at this end
of Waters Avenue who are concerned about the bulk and the mass of
the home, and the ability of the proposal toward additional floor
area, because the accessory dwelling unit is above grade.
Lisa Blake represented the applicant and passed to the Commission
copies of the site plan. She had no official presentation.
Hunt asked, is the walkway subject to any shedding of snow off the
roof?
Blake responded, well, we do have cover right over the ADU unit at
the entryway? Due to the location of the lot, along the cul-de-
sac, there's nowhere else to put it. It's going to have to be
cleared. It is above grade and I would like to live there myself.
Is that an issue, that it wasn't covered, the walkway?
Garton responded, yes.
Lamont stated, I guess the first question is, if you look at the
elevation I included in your packet, the east elevation, the door
13
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
to the ADU does have a little shed roof over it, but in between the
two windows, it appears the snow will be shedding off the gables
there and down onto the walkway. It is unclear in this elevation
of plans whether the walkway is, in fact, covered by an extension
of the roof.
Blake answered, it is not covered I don't even see, feasibly, how
we can do that. It was discussed at random and the Commission
showed Blake on the site plan what they were siting.
Hunt stated, Leslie, I'm seeing some distance between the roof line
and the walkway. Is it your point that that is not sufficient
space for the snow to shed onto? Hunt stated further, it is
probably about 3 feet from the roof line and the walkway. It is
close. Are they restricted from putting the walkway closer to the
property line, moving it further from the house?
Blake stated,.I don't think that's restricted, at all.
Hunt said, it would give a little more relief there for shedding.
Blake stated, that's fine.
Hunt mentioned, flagstones. Have you ever run a snow -blower over
flagstones?
Blake responded, no, not personally.
Lamont added, I think one of the things we try to ensure is, that
if the unit is to be occupied, someone can use it. Hunt stated,
exactly.
Blake stated, we would be happy to move the flagstones out, there's
just no other way to get back there.
Garton stated, if our condition is that the roof plan shall be
altered, perhaps we can alter that condition to say that heat
tapes, or whatever might work, to prevent any shedding of snow.
I think heat tapes might work.
Blake stated, that would be fine.
Hunt stated, I would suggest, also, moving the walkway closer to
the property line to give as much snow -plowing area as possible.
Now, as far as snow removal of that walk, what are we looking at
on the east side of this property, is there another structure with
a 5 ft. setback? Obviously, all of the snow removal will have to
be retained on site and that means, essentially, that it will pile
up towards the house, if the walkway goes fairly close to the
14
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
property lines.
JULY 11, 1995
Garton asked, what was your response the Engineering concerns
regarding the driveway?
Blake stated, I would have to leave that up to the architect to
make it narrower. Due to the way we have to come in, I don't know
how much we can logistically narrow this driveway and still be able
to pull the cars in and around. That's my only concern.
Blaich asked, Lisa, you made these changes based on the Overlay
recommendations? We went through this whole process and the number
of recommendations is reflected in this. You solve one problem and
it seems to create another one, because we asked them to pull that
garage back in.
Blake stated, there aren't many cul-de-sacs, obviously, in Aspen,
so, in order to be able to pull in around the cul-de-sac and
actually pull in and get into this driveway safely, I don't think
we can make it much narrower, to be honest with you. It is an
atypical lot.
Lamont stated, we can work on that before the building permit is
issued. If it's a problem, then it's a conflict with the Overlay
Committee, the turning radius off of the cul-de-sac.
Blake said, I think that's why the architect had designed it that
way, and measured, specifically.
Buettow asked regarding some of the measurement. (The clerk
apologizes, but the tape was not clear at this point.) Blake
replied, I think it is somewhere around 13. It's narrower than
what is there right now. Buettow stated, it's just a few feet.
Blake stated, so, it' s 3 feet wider, and that' s just because we are
on the cul-de-sac.
Garton stated, I will take comments from the public at this time.
Lamont stated, I have a letter from Brian and Eva Greene and I
would like to read it for the record. Lamont did so and presented
the letter to the clerk for the record. (It is attached in record.)
The letter voiced concerns on the proposed project, to include the
driveway and stated the home was out of scale with the
neighborhood.
Leslie Holst stated, I didn't think I could make it here, so, I
wrote a letter. I like my letter, so, I will read the letter to
you. My permanent residence is 1118 Waters Avenue, and I will try
to keep this short.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Holst said, Waters Avenue is unique, in that, it is in it's short
distance, probably the only true neighborhood left in Aspen. We
have several small lodges being used as employee housing, which
gives us a delightful, family and ethnic mix. We have about 20
homes, most owned, and lived in, by full-time residents. We have
children, dogs, cats, a fox or two, and an occasional bear. We
have what Fritz Benedict envisioned years ago when he developed the
Calderwood Subdivision, a real neighborhood. The good news is that
the Lang residence appears to have many aspects of neighborhood
compatiability. I like their indigenous materials, it looks like
they have been sensitive to the neighborhood and we really
appreciate that. The bad news is, the scale immensing in this
neighborhood is starting to get out of scale with the existing
neighborhood homes. One "monster home" is already built at the
entrance to Waters and one or two more of these could further alter
the neighborhood character. I like the concept of the ADU, and if
it is going to be deed and rent restricted, I probably could live
with the extra FAR for the good of the community. If the
additional FAR is granted, it also signals the developers that our
area is an easy place for extra money to be made, and we all come
under pressures not conducive to a good night's sleep. I have
attached some pictures (passed around for the Commission to view)
showing that most of our neighborhood is being redone in the small
scale intended for humans to live in. Hopefully, the Lange
residence will be the last demolition in our area for years to
come. With luck, only attrition will bring about the inevitable
change. Please do not grant the additional FAR. I am sure the
Lang's will have enough space to live comfortably and we are all
looking forward to our new neighbors.
Bill Engelman stated, I oppose the ADU application request for 1103
Waters because of what the proposed ADU does to the site. The
addition of the ADU adds an additional parking space in the east
setback and places the parked car right on the property line. The
approved ADU would allow an additional 168 sq. ft. above grade to
the maximum allowed FAR. I believe the proposed house, without the
ADU, is out of proportion to the lot size, and with the additional
square footage, adds more density than I would want to see in the
neighborhood.
Georgeann Waggaman stated, I am a resident of 1112 Waters Avenue,
and I'm also very concerned and I want to talk to you a little bit
about the unique quality of our cul-de-sac. One thing that doesn't
show in these drawings is that it swings around and turns back on
itself. There is a real jumble, a tight jumble, in this particular
area where this house wants to go. I think the impact on the
neighbors, on across the way, I can speak better for them as this
part of the impact would not affect me; on both sides though, it
IM
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
is going to rob light, it's going to rob green space, it is going
to rob views beyond the point that I think is appropriate in this
particular situation, because of the way the road turns back.
Because it is a very tight cul-de-sac, we have a real problem in
parking, and the more people we get into here, the more problem
there is going to be with parking. The street becomes a jumble of
cars, as it is, at times.
I would also like to point out, as we were talking about snow
removal, for some reason, this particular little cul-de-sac is the
coldest place in town. So, there will be a severe snow problem on
that. It says east side of the building, but I think the way the
other building is shaded, there's not going to be much snow that
gets back there.
I guess, I, in my other position in the City, feel rather quilty
that we did not direct the review committee to have more freedom
in lowering FAR when it was necessary. This is a very small-scale
neighborhood, that's true; and personally, and again, I'm speaking
very personally, I think that the FAR, at maximum, should never
have been allowed. I know they have gone ahead and have a right
to believe in what they have been told, but I ask you all to please
try and consider this neighborhood as gently as you can because it
is one of the last precious spaces and everyone knows the FAR is
going to just destroy it. On top of that, the more construction
that goes on in this tight little space, the more onerous it is for
the rest of us that have to live there.
Garton stated, at this time, I will allow comments from the
applicant in response to the comments from the public.
Blake stated, number one, I think we have done a real good job in
trying to create a home that really does fit in that neighborhood,
and we were using all natural materials, plus, the house is set in.
It is actually lower grade and it is set back. I think it is going
to be a benefit to the whole neighborhood. If you would look at
what is there right now, and what we are proposing, I can't
understand how anyone would complain.
Blake added, regarding the parking issue, right now, as it is,
there is probably about 15 children that live in there, and there
are cars all over the place. Now, we have pulled in the garage on
the interior of the house, with the deck outside; you aren't even
going to see the garage. It is so well handled, and that was a
couple of the issues we had to work on going through the initial
review process.
17
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Blake said, as f ar as the ADU unit, they probably will have someone
living there. In the last house I sold we had an ADU unit. The
people .that got to live there helped around the house and then,
they lived for free. So, these are people that will live and work
in town which would not normally be able to do so, in a very nice
living environment. I would like to live there myself, it is above
grade and it is beautiful. I really don't understand the
objections to this particular project because we really did
investigate the neighborhood and we wanted to keep in tune with it.
It is all wood, it is nothing that would stick out; we want to
build that house and we want it to look like it has been there.
Chaikovska stated, when this was reviewed, did the Overlay
Committee review the ADU design, as well?
Blaich responded, that was not on the agenda to deal with the ADU,
we were reviewing the site and we made a number of recommendations
which they have taken into consideration, so that is a positive
thing. You would have to look at the previous plan. It is a large
house, and it was a question. If I recall, and Steve, you were in
that meeting, the discussion was the character of the neighborhood
and some of the existing houses. I went over to look at the house
myself and there are some houses that I don't think are appropriate
in that neighborhood. So, a different issue is coming up in this
meeting than we had in our session, wouldn't you agree, Steve?
Buettow stated, yes. We primarily dealt with the neighborhood
context, the scale and the mass, and with the way, particularly,
the front of the site works, and how a pedestrian would visually
address this house.
Lamont stated, it was pretty clear from Council that the Interim
Overlay
could not say to somebody, your house is too big, you have to cut
it down 1,000 sq. ft. or 500 sq. ft. That was a pretty clear
direction.
Garton stated, I'm going to vote against this conditional use
because I do not feel it meets criteria via Section 24-7-304. In
Condition B, I find that. the conditional use is not consistent and
compatiable with the character of the immediate vicinity. So, I
would rather see this applicant pay cash -in -lieu.
Buettow asked, are there other rental units in that cul-de-sac
there?
Blake responded, yes, in fact, there's a multi -tenant unit right
across the cul-de-sac.
18
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Garton stated, my problem is not that there's a unit being rented,
but that it gives such a bonus to the size of the house. It is
inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Garton closed the public portion of the meeting.
Hunt asked, is the applicant going to live with an ADU without any
above grade benefits of that ADU? In other words, no ADU bonus.
Blake stated, I understand what you are saying. My question is,
how is cutting the house down now we are only in blueprint stage,
they told us we were pretty much approved, how is cutting out 172
feet of the rear.end of the house going to change anything?
Garton stated, I have problems with the constraint of the cul-de-
sac, as well. Obviously, we have to do things with the driveway,
you need parking on site because the parking is such a problem in
a cul-de-sac. Also, it is not consistent with the character of the
neighborhood because it infringes on another neighbor. We have an
option of cash -in -lieu, this is a conditional use. I didn't want
to say it is just the size of the house, there are other
constraints of the site that aren't agreeable to me for a
conditional use. I think you are trying to do the impossible with
a constrained site. That is why we have cash -in -lieu.
Blaich stated, if we vote against this and the ADU is not allowed,
that 172 feet you are talking about, what would that take away from
the house. You would have to reduce space in the rear of the
house, you say?
Blake replied, I guess we'll just have to take it right off the
back.
Blaich stated, what you will have above the ADU, is a master
bedroom and a master bath. You will have to re -design.
Blake stated, I don't understand what would be the benefit of that.
Blaich stated, one thing is, in this question about the access to
the driveway, if you push the house back that much, you would have
less of a problem, you may solve the problem there. I think the
scale of the house is the architecture itself and the materials
being used. It is not going to affect the visual aspect of it,
particulary from the adjacent properties, but it will be a smaller
house if you don't have the ADU.
Mooney stated, can you describe the intention of how this ADU is
going to be used.by the owners?
19
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Blake stated, I can't speak for the owners, but I would assume they
are going to have someone take care of the house and live there,
and help take care of the house instead of rent it. Just like the
last house I sold, that what they did, they have someone that is
helping out, doing some maintenance and snow removal and lawn care
and they have a place to live in town. Plus, obviously, they have
a full-time job.
Mooney asked, are the Lang's residents of Aspen?
Blake stated, no, they are not.
Mooney asked, do they intend to occupy this as a second home
themselves?
Blake stated, they may, but I can't speak for him on whether he's
going to live there. I'm just helping out with the project here.
Blaich stated, so it is being built to live in. Is that clear?
Garton, that is not a criteria for this.
Blake stated, regarding the parking, I think we have handled the
parking so much better than any other home on the cul-de-sac. We
have actually pulled the garage underneath, and so many of those
places around the cul-de-sac don't even have a garage, so there are
cars scattered all over the place. We can fit two cars in the
garage and two underneath that huge porch, you won't even be able
to tell we're there, we have it so nicely. The parking issue I
don't understand. I think this property would be a complete asset
to the neighborhood. It is a very expensively built house; it is
not an inexpensive house.
Hunt stated, well, before I attempt the motion, I guess I want to
know the "drift" of the Commission.
Garton stated, that's fine. We can poll the Commission, which is
probably much more beneficial.
Chaikovska stated, I don't know, this is a tough one. I think I
would probably be in favor.
Hunt stated, I would vote in favor of it if the ADU occurs without
the FAR bonus.
Buettow stated, I don't see the 183 feet on the back here really
affecting the project too much, but it would eliminate one of these
parking spaces. (The clerk apologies at this point, the tape ran
out and had to be changed. Commissioner Buettow' s further comments
quo
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
were not recorded. Commissioner Buettow did vote in favor of this
project.)
Mooney stated, I don't think an extra unit of density in this cul-
de-sac neighborhood is appropriate, at all. Not knowing what the
intentions of the owners for its future use are, I definitely think
that this is a very appropriate cash -in -lieu situation and I am not
in favor of an ADU at this time and at this place.
Blaich stated, as I said, we reviewed this in the Overlay Committee
and some of these issues didn't come up in that meeting. They have
listened, and they have done some things to the overall plan;
pulling the garages back in, having this deck overhang, and a
number of other things. I find myself in a very difficult
position, because we sat through that whole process and now we are
doing it again. That is one of the things we are trying to get rid
of, this duplication of reviews.
Blaich continued saying, I think the problem with the house is
more design and esthetics, it is the scale and materials used, more
than it is just that amount of square footage. I went out, walked
around and studied it; it is a mixed neighborhood and I think you
pointed out, some of the houses have been there for a long time and
are re -modeled and smaller in scale and quite appropriate. This
is the kind of thing we are getting involved in everytime somebody
wants to build a large house. I find myself in a very difficult
position because of the position we took in the other committee;
giving them guidelines and they have attempted to meet them.
11HA MAIN
Hunt stated, I move to approve a conditional use for an accessory
dwelling unit at 1103 Waters Avenue with the conditions 1-8 on
Planning Office memorandum dated 11 July, 1995; with the addition
of Condition 9, provided that the accessory dwelling unit is
included with no FAR benefit to the structure; with addition of
Condition 10, provided the developer will address the snow -
shedding problem on the east elevation in combination with possibly
moving entry walkway to the ADU towards the property line to allow
as much shedding space as possible between the building and the
walkway. With those conditions, I find the criteria have been met
pursuant to Section 24-7-304.
Hunt continued, Condition 5-b. is amended to say, the applicant
shall review the driveway and parking revisions with the
Engineering Department to give them adequate and appropriate
driveway lists for the cul-de-sac.
Chaikovska seconded the motion. Roll call vote commenced; Hunt,
21
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
aye; Garton, no; Mooney, no; Blaich, yes; Chaikovska, yes; Buettow,
yes. Four approved, two opposed. Motion carried.
Garton stated to Blake, so, you understand we have approved it
without the bonus to the house.
Discussion of Motion
Lamont stated, I would like to add one amendment based on the
driveway. I would like to amend Condition 5-b. Lamont stated,
the applicant shall review the driveway and parking revisions with
the Engineering Department to give them adequate and appropriate
driveway lists for the cul-de-sac.
Hunt stated, I accept that amendment in my motion.
E. FRANCIS (ALLEN) CONDITIONAL.USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Leslie Lamont represented for staff. She stated, this is between
Gibson Avenue and E . Francis Street adjacent to Oklahoma Flats, and
Doug Allen is the applicant.
Lamont handed the clerk the Affidavit of Mailing and Notice of
Posting. (Attached in record.)
Garton opened the public hearing.
Lamont stated, Stan (Mathis) is going to have to help me out on
this because Mary (Lackner) did the memorandum. This is a project
that also went before the Interim Overlay Committee, however, the
property is greater than 9,000 sq. ft., so, the applicant did not
have to comply with the recommendations. The applicant is
requesting a conditional use approval to, build an accessory
dwelling unit. The property is vacant, so, an accessory dwelling
unit cash -in -lieu is required.
Lamont stated, the proposed unit is 350 sq. ft. located on the
second floor of a three story building, so, therefore again, the
applicant is eligible for a floor area bonus. My understanding is,
in talking with Mary, that it was not determined whether the
applicant is using the floor bonus or not. Mary recommends
approval of the conditional use for the accessory dwelling unit.
Mathis answered that the applicant is not using the floor bonus.
22
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Garton stated, I would like to point out to staff, at this time,
my packet did not include Exhibit D, which is the letter from the
Parks Department.
Hunt stated, nor did mine.
Stan Mathis, representing Mr. Doug Allen, apparently, none of us
received any Attachment D. Doug had to call the Parks Department
this morning for an explanation of what needs to happen. There are
a number of trees, and he has to have a Tree Removal Permit. The
permit is in the works now.
Mr. Doug Allen stated that removing the trees was not a problem.
Garton stated, from the comment in Mary's memorandum I was just
under the impression that, maybe, they recommended the removal of
.other trees.
Mathis replied, it is two different issues. In the application for
conditional use, and then, it is part of getting a building permit.
A Tree Removal Permit needs to be taken out and several issues with
the Engineering Department, it is all part of the building permit
application.
Garton stated, before we go to the applicant, do you have any
questions of staff?
Lamont stated, in reading the conditions of approval that Mary has,
I believe she has covered any concerns the Parks Department has had
within her conditions of approval, and that is Condition #8.
Buettow stated, on the mid -floor plan here, this stairway here
appears to be a major encroachment.
Mathis answered, as long as we are on -grade, a little more than 30
inches above grade, you can count the sidewalk, or for that matter,
you could have a patio or a deck into any setback.
Lamont stated, but, as you know, when you start dealing with a
slope that starts to bend down, then, the centers have to be
constructed in a manner so that, as they fall down the slope, they
are not greater than 30 inches above grade.
Mathis stated, correct.
Buettow asked, this is going to do that?
Mathis replied, yes.
23
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
The Commission, Mathis and Lamont discussed at random the plans and
viewed the various maps. They discussed location and the grade.
Garton asked, Stan, do you have any comments about the conditions,
or anything you want to add?
Mathis answered, only, I just want to make sure we understand that
we are providing one parking space per bedroom; including the ADU,
we have four bedrooms. So, all four cars are parked under the
house, in the garage. Then, there are some comments made by
Engineering, and like I said, pretty typical, and we agree.
Buettow asked, so, the only window in this ADU is this one here on
the side, next to this retaining wall? Mathis answered, yes.
Garton asked for comments from the public regarding the
application.
Al Beyer, my girlfriend's name is Ruthie Brown, and she owns the
lot next door. This development is a loser. There is no bonus for
floor area, isn't that delightful? It is about a 10,000 sq. ft.
lot, zoned R30. That means that all the other lots in the
neighborhood are 30,000 sq. ft., in order to get the same amount
of allowable floor area. So, now we are going to stuff that much
floor area onto a 10,000 sq. ft. lot.
Beyer added, Ruthie's lot is large enough to be a duplex lot, but
it is not allowed. The majority of Doug's lot is on a very steep
slope and it is covered by a large grove of old cottonwood trees.
If there is an ADU there, it needs more parking, and more clearing
of the native area. It is very difficult to put a lot of area onto
this small of a lot. I think Doug is very good at finding small
lots, this is not a great place to have something like that. As
a member of the community, I think it is a really, loser project.
This is a development project, the bottom line is money. It is not
about heart and soul, and a place to live for somebody, it is not
about creating housing for somebody, it's about making life easier
for developers so he doesn't have to put more cash out of his
pockets. So, the bottom line is profit, there's no room for this,
and if the lot is too small, then, it's too dense. This is a
really bad idea.
Tom Todd stated, I am an attorney for Dick Volk, who owns the
property right next door to this property to the south. Before I
say anything, I want to acknowledge, or have the Commission
acknowledge, that the Volks are in the process of building about
7,000 sq. ft. house, and they have an ADU on their property. They
were hoping that Doug could get access on Gibson rather than on
24
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Francis. We are questioning whether or not this is consistent with
neighborhood character.
Eugene Seymour stated, I live next to Dick Volk and across from
Ruthie Brown and I'm concerned because my grandchildren will be
living there and it is an extraordinarily narrow street which we
are trying to make into a curbed lane bonded by trees so that you
can keep speed down. We are trying to keep the ADU from being
built just to keep the traffic down.
Al Beyer stated, I would like to just add one thing. When I was
originally designing the house for Ruthie, I was told by the
Engineering Department of the City that this was an unbuildable
lot.
Garton stated, on Mary 's memorandum, page 2, she asks that the
applicant provide more specific drawings at the meeting to
illustrate the entrance to the ADU.
Mathis stated, that was done through the site section, plus the
partial west elevation.
The Commission, Lamont and Mathis again discussed at random the
plans and went over various maps discussing the 4844. In
conclusion, Lamont stated, you are approving a conditional use for
an accessory dwelling unit,. you are not approving 4844. Garton
asked Lamont, you don't feel uncomfortable in going ahead with
this? Lamont answered, no.
Buettow stated, I'm really concerned about the amount of light
that's going to get into this unit here. In over 350 sq. ft. of
interior space, that's 35 sq. f t . of interior light that's required
by the code. I calculate about 33 sq. ft. here, at a maximum. How
do you propose to enlarge the light that is going to get into that
unit?
Mathis replied, if we can't meet the requirements for proper
ventilation, it could well be that I have to move that retaining
wall back a little bit. We will have to enlarge the window, we
will have to provide the proper light and ventilation.
Garton again re -opened the public hearing.
Al Beyer stated, I just noted on your packet, on the survey, that
E. Francis runs through this easment, 15 feet wide. Is that still
because Francis still continues through there?
Doug Allen responded, no.
25
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Beyer stated, so, the City gave that portion up?
Allen responded, by the lawsuit, yes.
Beyer asked, then, why are the lines still on there?
Allen stated, because that is where it used to be.
Beyer stated, I would like to have that verified. Garton asked,
can staff do that, Leslie?
Hunt asked, does the issue of Francis Street create tabling the
item?
Lamont stated, for example, if Francis Street was not vacated and
it still goes through the property, then the proposed plans, which
includes the accessory dwelling unit, have to be amended. If it is
a substantial amendment to an accessory dwelling unit that the
Commission chores to approve, then that conditional use review will
come back to you. Like if the location of the ADU changes, size
change, things like that.
There was discussion at random between Hunt and Mathis and Mathis
showed on the maps various locations. Obtaining the history on
the property and the accesses to the property were discussed. Hunt
stated, I wouldn't, inherently, want to make a motion on this.
Garton stated, and Doug, you have something to add to the history
of Francis Street?
Doug Allen stated, I just have a couple of comments on some things
that were said by the public. This is not the smallest lot in the
area, by any means. There are other lots smaller than 30,000 sq.
ft. There are presently four large houses being built in the
neighborhood. This house that I am proposing is within the FAR,
we're not asking for an FAR bonus, and it is one of the smaller
houses that is being built in the neighborhood. All of the
vehicles that are required for this property are in the parking
garage. So, there's no visual impact from these vehicles.
Garton asked, the other four homes you mentioned, did you say, they
are all incorporating the ADUs?
Allen replied, there's an ADU right next to Eugene (Seymour)? Do
you have an ADU, Eugene? It was responded affirmatively. Eugene
has an ADU. There are two other units there, Gary Moore's house
has an ADU, and I believe, David Muckenhirn's house has an ADU.
It was asked from the public, do you know the size of those lots?
Allen answered,Moore's lot is about the size if mine, Muckenhirn's
M
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
looks a little bit bigger, I think that Eugene's lot is bigger than
10,000, and I think that Volk's lot is substantially bigger than
10,000. The three lots immediately contiguous to mine are bigger
than 10;000 ft. I don't know how big they are, but they are all
bigger than 10,000 ft. The house that is immediately next door to
my lot, I have no idea how big that lot is.
Garton stated, Roger has said that he does not feel comfortable
making a motion because of the question about Francis Street.
Hunt stated, well, yes, and access, generally. I'm not terribly
pleased with the unit, however, for the convenience of the
Commission, if I have the "fist" of the Commission, I will come up
with a motion if no one else wants to do it.
Garton stated, Leslie has stated that staff s position is, that we
could vote on the ADU, because Francis Street has to be settled by
staff anyway.
Lamont stated, one way or the other, if Francis Street is an issue,
you'll either see this again, or it wont be an issue, and you
won't see it, at all.
Hunt stated, I move to approve the Conditional Use for an accessory
dwelling unit at the Allen/E. Francis parcel to be located within
the new residence, subject to conditions 1-9 on Planning Office
memorandum dated 11 July 1995. Finding that the criteria 24-7-
304 have been met. Chaikovska seconded. Voting commenced, vote
was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Garton stated, Steve's comments about light don't need to be a
condition because that has to be met at the building permit
application.
27
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
MARKALUNAS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Garton opened the public hearing.
Lamont represented staff and stated, this project did not go before
the Interim Overlay Committee because the proposal is below 850
FAR.
Tom Markalunas represented Jim and Ramona Markalunas and stated,
under Ordinance .35, because of porches, we're actually below 85%,
previously we were at 850. In essence, our FAR is calculated at
2,522 sq. ft. with the 250 sq. ft. bonus, so, 2,772 sq. ft. So,
we take 250 off for the ADU, and that would put us below 85 0, which
is at .62.
Lamont stated, the Markalunas' are proposing a significant
remodeling of their home, and they are proposing to provide an
accessory dwelling unit as part of that remodeling. As I said, it
did not go to the Interim Overlay Committee because they were not
proposing to increase the floor area above 850. The accessory
dwelling unit, as you can see from the plans, is proposed 1000
above grade, in fact, it is a two-story accessory dwelling unit.
The primary entrance is off of the front porch and it also shows
in the plans, that there's not a separate entryway into the ADU
into the main residence. The applicant is eligible for a 250 sq.
ft. floor area bonus because the ADU is 100% above grade, and the
conditions of approval are standard conditions of approval with
regard to accessory dwelling units.
Lamont added, as one condition that is showing up more and more in
the west end applications because storm drainage is so difficult
in the streets, we are requiring applicants to make sure that their
historic run-off is being maintained on -site, as part of their
remodeling. So, staff recommends approval of this accessory,
dwelling unit, with one other point I would like to make, that they
have indicated that they currently have people who rent in their
home and that this accessory dwelling unit is intended to
accommodate a current rental situation that they have right now.
Mooney stated, we should have done this one first, so the other
applicants could all see and hear this, instead of having you sit
through all this "monster home", mass density "stuff" that we have.
Garton asked, what is the size of the ADU, again?
28
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Markalunas responded, the size of the ADU was originally in the set
of plans that actually made it smaller than we wanted it to be,
because of the FAR constraints. So, right now, where the ADU is,
there is a family -room that is 348 sq. ft., and basically, what
we want to do is, is go straight up off of those walls so there
will be 348 sq. ft. additionally above that, so, that will put 696
sq. ft. for the ADU less.
Garton asked, do you have any trouble with the conditions?
Markalunas stated, as Leslie said, those are standard conditions
in regards to an additional parking space. I sketched out a site
plan, which I can pass around to the Commission, where we thought
we could put an additional parking space. I also want to pass
around a drawing, I don't know if that was in the packet, showing
the street front as a pedestrian view. (Markalunas pointed out the
proposed parking site and where the ADU was on the drawings.)
Markalunas stated, additionally, the owners of the house don't
necessarily use their cars a great deal, my father rides his bike
most of the time, so, parking a car in the back really isn't a big
deal.
Lamont. added, it is not a requirement, per se, that for a studio
or a one -bedroom accessory dwelling unit a parking space has to be
required, however, when there are sites that are fairly
constrained, and this site, currently, only has one parking space,
that's why I made it a condition that I think we should try and
find another parking space.
Markalunas stated, there was a condition in here, I believe, about
the trash enclosure. I just showed where we could put a trash
enclosure on the west side of the house, sort of like a low, little
fenced -in something or other, to make it easy to carry your trash
out to the street on pick-up day.
Hunt asked, is your trash pick-up on the street instead of the
alley?
Jim Markalunas stated, we use in the summertime in the alley, but
in the winter time the trash company wants us to have it picked up
in the street because they have a hard time getting through the
alley.
Garton asked, are there any comments from the public regarding this
application? I too, to the Markalunas family, I concur with the
Commission and Housing, this is the most ideal unit I think that
has ever come in front of us for an ADU. (The Commission applauded
the Markalunas'.)
29
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Mn rP T r)WT
JULY 11, 1995
Blaich stated, I move to approve the Conditional Use for 624 North
Street with the conditions as outlined in Planning Office
memorandum dated July 11, 1995. Finding the conditions pursuant
to Section 24-7-304 have been met. Hunt seconded, vote commenced,
vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
HOWLING WOLF SPECIAL REVIEW
FOR OUTDOOR PATIO AND REDUCTION IN TRASH ENCLOSURE
Lamont represented for staff and stated, the Howling Wolf Cafe is
proposing two service diners out in the front yard onto a seating
area, and I think I stated in my application, in considering a
maximum of fifteen chairs and approximately four tables. Because
the structure of the parcel is also on an historic enventory, prior
review by HPC was required for fencing, tables, any plants or
elements, or things like that. They originally proposed flagstone,
but found that it was too unstable, so now they are proposing a
wooden deck, which will, again, come out above grade.
Lamont continued saying, they are also planning a deck in the back
of the property, and then, they submitted their building plans, and
we realized that they did not meet our requirement for trash
service area on an alley in the commercial core. So, at the same
time, they were also proposing a reduction in their trash service
area. Both of these items are a special review by the Planning &
Zoning Commission.
She said, as a lot of people have pointed out, Kim has left, Mary' s
on vacation, we've been real "maxed" out upstairs, so when the
Howling Wolf application came in, I noticed that we did not have
very specific plans for the trash reduction area, and at the last
minute, indicated to them that we need to see some plans,
especially for this review. That's why I indicated in my
memorandum that they needed to turn in plans, and they have done
so, and have some plans for our review. In the meantime, though,
they have been working with Chuck Roth (Engineering) about the
trash service area and the use of the alley, and they also, as I
included in the memorandum, have a letter from BFI addressing
their ability to serve this proposal. The BFI condition is that
a concrete pad be poured so the dumpster can be pulled in and out.
In addition, I have recommended that they have a swinging gate or
some kind of enclosure for the trash area, so it is protected and
it is also not visible for people using the alley. So, at this
point, what I would like to do is turn it over to Steven (Levitt),
so he can show you the plans.
MCI
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 11, 1995
Buettow stated, I have a question first. You are talking about
proposed use of flagstaff and proposed brick and the proposed
tables, aren't they already there?
Lamont answered, yes, but they are not serving, supposedly.
Buettow stated, so, I question the use of that word, proposed.
Steve Levitt introduced himself as one of the owners of the "Wolf"
and stated, basically, there are two elements, the original plan
was a rear deck and in addition, we have a front area which we are
trying to make more functional for us, and also, more pleasant for
Hopkins Street. We also found that, as far as getting our original
plan, and as seasons come quickly, we've got a couple of tables on
the deck area right now. We would just like to complete it and
finish it right now and get it done, in dealing with some of the
wood which would be more level and put up the fencing area, which
we are required to do. It is just two issues in the front; the
main issue that has come up with the drawings that I have
presented, are dealing with the actual dumpster. We are trying to
down -size something as far as P&Z, and not make it bigger. We are
dealing with a very, very small site and we've been in business
since just two days before New Years, and we are still struggling
and trying to play catch-up and deal with the size of the operation
that we do have. The expansion that we proposed, basically, will
help us, in addition, to gaining space for service on the deck
which is bordering on the north of the property and the back of the
Miners Building. I guess as far as lanes go, it is a pretty clean
lane and we're trying to improve that by offering the deck unit,
outdoor service, and so on.
Levitt stated, the property is so small, and what we are facing
right now, we rent the building forward, and the back area is still
the landlord's and it has six spaces right now for parking. We
personally went to those spots and the other four for different
tenants. So, we are trying to work within those small boundaries
and it is quite a mousetrap in trying to figure this out and
dealing with all the requirements of the Historic Society, Planning
& Zoning, Engineering, and dealing with fire requirements, two
stairwells versus one, and we squeezed in as best as we could to
try and make it functional. The one issue that did come up, as far
as the proposed deck in the back, was the space where the dumpster
is. We had a meeting this afternoon with Dennis of BFI, and he is,
basically, in agreement, that would be functional for him, by using
a two yard dumpster and increasing our pick-up.
Hunt asked, a question about the dumpster, do you have to pull that
out in order for you to put trash in there?
31
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 11, 1995
Levitt responded, probably, we would, yes. We are not a restaurant
producing a huge heap of garbage by comparison. We are very
conscious of recycling and we don't have a deep -fryer, which is
also an issue as far as just odor and more problem. I don't know
if it would matter to you, but for the type of business that we do,
we probably yield very little garbage by comparison to most
restaurants in Aspen. As far as accessing that, we do use both
plastic recycling, separation of steel/glass and so on, and we do
have receptacle unit building.
Hunt stated, I'm trying to visualize the configurations, the
stairway, and so on. I' m seeing if there was a way of getting that
all together without to... if you reverse the stairway with the
dumpster..
Levitt responded, actually, this is a modification, we, in fact,
did reverse the stairwell to meet this requirement just so it would
be further out of the way and have the garbage as f ar in the corner
and easier access for BFI. That's why we actually flipped them.
Hunt stated, I'm looking at the utility, in order for you to use
that dumpster, you've got to pull in out in the alley, and that
seems to be an operational nightmare for you. If the stairway
opening to the deck above was not a problem, then, wouldn't it be
better for you to reverse the stairway and the dumpster so that
you would have space on the side to access the dumpster, to use it?
Levitt answered, we are dealing with, actually, a bunch of
different constraints, one of which is being on the property line
required a firewall to be out of brick, so you can't access that
way, and if you take it out to the center, there is actually
parking there, so we still couldn't do that.
Hunt asked, then, how do you access the recycling?
Paul Levine, one of the owners, stated, I was at the meeting today
with Dave and BFI and the architect, and we determined that the
way it was with these dumpsters; they have two flaps. We figured
that one-half of the dumpster would be accessible to us without
having to pull the thing out. It would be the second yard of it
that we would have to pull out to open the flap. So, it won't be
quite the nightmare you stated.
Hunt stated, so, the dumpster would normally be out half -masted,
so to speak, in that area next to the stairwell?
Levine stated, there is a suggestion of building a fence so our
customers going up the stairs wouldn't have to see the dumpster.
32
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Hunt asked, can you show me where that fence would be on this
drawing here? Levine showed Hunt on the drawing where the location
was proposed and access to the dumpster was discussed. Hunt
stated, so, you are able to at least access the alley half of the
dumpster from the alley side next to the stairs. O.K.
Mooney asked, what is the seating of the Howling Wolf without the
outside? Levitt answered, presently interior seating is about 34.
Mooney asked, how many people do you expect to accommodate when you
have all these improvements?
Levitt answered, including the exterior patio? For seating,
combined, totals about 75 in the summer season, it's not winter
service.
Mooney asked, so, do we have to have mitigation for this, isn't
this commercial expansion?
Lamont stated, technically, it's not FAR. It's not net leasable
square footage. We regard mitigation on new net leasable square
footage. My other point would be, for seasonal seating, we would
never require mitigation. There used to be an extension onto this
building on the back, in the alley, that was determined to be net
leasable and FAR on the property. When the landlord had that torn
down in order to lease out parking back there; if I remember
correctly, there was a big fight at that point and time, but that
net leasable and that FAR was reserved to be used on a parcel. So,
as these "guys" have been working with the HPC and Bill Drueding,
we have been keeping track of what used to be on the property, and
when HPC approved the demolition of that shed, and they approved
the parking in back, in their resolution they acknowledged there
had been X square footage.in that leasable floor area that was on
the property that could be used. The building permit came in for
the deck after HPC's review and that's when Bill (Drueding) and
Chuck (Roth) discovered that it did not meet our trash
requirements. So, that is one reason why they are here, and then,
they decided to come forward with the front yard seating now, they
really just wanted to do the deck, but I said, why don't you come
.and do this all at once and we'll do a special review. So, Bill
and Amy have been keeping track of that net leasable FAR on this
property. (The clerk apologizes, but at this point the recording
tape ran to the end and had to be changed. Some comments by Leslie
were not recorded.).
Garton asked, Leslie, but if we add a step to service this, doesn't
mitigation kick in?
33
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Lamont stated, if this had been a conditional use, for example,
like Silver City Grill was a conditional use in the zone district,
and because it was going from something that was not a restaurant,
to a restaurant, and we nailed down how many staff people, employee
mitigation, I have had reason to go back into our Silver City files
and talked about the waitpeople. When somebody proposes something
like this with any conditional use, it will be an amendment to
their conditional use, but in our commercial core, where you can
have a beauty salon and you could have a restaurant as a variety,
there's no baseline employee figures originally for this building.
Mooney stated, so, this is the small front -yard for outdoor dining?
So, what are the hours that we can expect that to be used?
Levitt answered, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Approximately 8:00
a.m. to 11:00-11:30 at night, serving dinner.
Mooney asked, does this have to be, just like on the mall, do you
have to put a fence around that because you are serving licquor
there?
Lamont stated, a removable fence is proposed, but unlike the mall,
where the seating on the mall is in the public right-of-way, so
those people actually have a lease with the City, and because it
is public open space. We have a specific lease that defines a
beginning time of the year and an end time of the year that they
can do that. This is private property. Zele is another example
where their tables and chairs are on their private property, not
in the public right-of-way.
Buettow asked regarding the type of fencing.
Levitt answered, we actually had a proposal ready in the memorandum
mentioning a steel fence, and we just recently got a bid in excess
of $3,OOO for about 20 linear feet, and we are taking a look right
now at possibly switching from steel to wood. I don't know if
it would be in our best interest or in the best interest of the
City, the fact that it is removable. It would definitely be in
context of what exists in smaller Victorian, and we're not going
to make something that is not in character with the building or
property.
Garton stated, it would have to be approved by HPC.
Lamonts stated, I believe HPC requires it to be removable, because
like the trellis at The Cantina, that is removable, so it doesn't
ultimately detract if the use of the building changes, and things
like that, it doesn't destroy the character.
34
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
Buettow stated, I was thinking about that in terms of the context
of whether the surface of stone, or brick, or a built-up wood deck;
so, I was thinking if it was a removable fence that you can take
off, I would like it to be just a stone, flat surface, which is
like all rest; smoothed right onto the sidewalk.
Levitt stated, that is also an option, but we're multi-laned right
now, and it has been beyond the realm of reality, and just to
contemplate personally for a moment, this is one of our additional
visits to City Hall. It goes back to last fall, and prior to, we
were warned and told to prepare for war. Unfortunately, through
being very naive and not being in business before, not having to
deal with City Halls before, we came in with a very naive attitude,
and an attitude with we have to get the job done, rather than come
in here and fight . Now we have been in business awhile, and we see
thegoings on of what has happened in dealing with the City Hall,
especially one of Aspen. It is about dollars, you know, and we
haven't complained, we've tried to be as cooperative with all
different departments, even though every department tries to
squeeze us and creates more of a headache and a problem. We've
tried very patiently to resolve our problems. Ideally, what it
comes down to is dollars, and sitting in this meeting here, and
dealing with the pillaging of Aspen and the growth of Aspen; we've
tried to do something completely against the flow of the tide, and
we're getting squeezed financially. Yes, perhaps, it will be wood,
perhaps it will be concrete, we're just, basically, trying to make
it look pretty, functional, to the point where we can try to
generate some revenue and stay in business.
Buettow stated, but, essentially, you already have flagstone.down
there, you already have brick, so, you are just proposing to put
a fence around that?
Levitt responded, no, that won't be. We're looking at possibly
doing a foie flagstone, which will be a concrete surface with cut
lines to make it look as though it is flagstone, and probably
in a stained concrete, sandstone color. Because, basically, what
we are looking at, even if we do mortar between the flagstone that
we have right now, it is still uneven and flagstones come in all
different thicknesses, and it is very difficult, so we are just
trying to get something that's linear and level, whether it be
concrete or wood. That's our main goal, that it is functional and
it will last, and it doesn't cost us $5,000 for a little, tiny
patio in front.
Levine added, also, it chips. Also, if we were to use wood, it
would be consistent with the porch area as it exists now. There
is the recessed porch area in front of the bay window, and that has
a wood decking that comes to the wall which is where we started the
M
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1995
flagstone to the side. It is, actually, somewhat unsafe, because
the porch ends and then it drops down about 2 or 3 inches, and if
someone was sitting up there on a chair and the back of their chair
f alls of f those 2 or 3 inches , they could f all back and crack their
head open.
Buettow stated, that's why I would like to see that whole area just
be flat and flush. There was discussion at this point at random
between Levine, Levitt, Buettow and Blaich regarding the walkway.
Buettow stated, that's a high traveled area, right there, lots of
people walk by there and at nightimes they walk on your property,
actually, on the stones that are there right now. Blaich stated,
if they put a fence there that won't happen.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to approve the special reviews, that is, both
special reviews by the Howling Wolf Cafe to allow dining in the
front yard and a reduction in the trash enclosure area with.
Conditions 1-5 on Planning Office memorandum dated 11 July, 1995,
with modification of Condition 1; the site plan, as submitted at
the Planning &.Zoning meeting, shall be submitted indicating the
location and size of the trash enclosure which shall also include
recycling. Blaich seconded, voting commenced, unanimous in favor,
motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Lamont stated, I just want to add, and basically, my first
condition was a new site plan shall be submitted. The site plan,
as submitted at the P&Z meeting. Just to ref lect that we had a new
site plan and that's what you are approving.
Hunt stated, I accept the modification of Condition 1 to my motion.
Garton stated, I have one comment, HPC, don't they have to approve
the materials, so even though we may approve this, it is still
subject to HPC looking at it one more time?
Levitt answered, actually, no. They have already approved what we
want to do.
Garton stated, so, you must stay with what HPC approved.
Lamont stated, for example, the HPC approved flagstone and a steel
fence, and now, they cannot use a steel fence. They will have to
amend that, now whether that means going back to HPC or working
with Amy as a minor amendment, it would still have to be looked at.
36
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 11, 1995
Levine stated, I spoke with Amy about changing from flagstone to
the wood planking, and she said that would be O.K.
Levitt stated, also we would address, to me, as well, it seems if
we, want to put this 2 inch differentiation, I think you are
correct, it would be a hazard if we don't have a fence. So, we
will see what her opinion is on that; a year round fence versus
summer season only.
Garton stated, if you don't go to steel fence, you would go forged
onto wood.
Levine stated, the original application that we submitted,
suggested that we would put a temporary fence until such time that
we could install a permanent fence that would make sense. That's
kind of where we are at.
Lamont added, what I was thinking about, and I talked to Bob
(Blaich) about this, and I wanted to do it on a meeting where you
didn't have a lot of "stuff". I was thinking that after our
meeting, we could have kind of a picnic dinner. I talked to Stan
about you have a training budget. What I thought I would do would
be to call him (Bruce Kerr) and tell him that we don't have a
quorum and he has to show up.
Blaich stated, I offer my house and deck for it, if we can find a
date that we can do it.
Chaikovska asked, how many people would we have?
Lamont stated, I was thinking of calling Kim and asking Kim to come
back; there's 8 and then the 3 staff, and Sharon. I also thought,
maybe, of calling Jan (Carney).
Lamont stated, next Tuesday is going to be kind of a long meeting,
especially if Jake wants to come back, which I don't think he can,
that soon. It is a public hearing. You have your worksession
August 1st.
Buettow stated, why don't we just have a meeting scheduled on one
of our blank periods and dedicate it to Bruce, and have a party?
Lamont stated, there's nothing on August 22nd. Blaich stated, I
won't be here.
Blaich stated, I had Tuesday, the 18th, which is O.K., and then,
the 20th, Thursday was O.K., and then, August 3rd. After that, I'm
going to be out of commission for a bit.
37
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: GOLDSBURY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, August 8, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4 : 3 0 pm before the
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City
Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen to consider an application submitted by
Kit Goldsbury, Aspen, CO, requesting approval of a Conditional Use
Review for an approximately 516 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit
within an existing single family residence. The property is
located at 700 Sneaky Lane; Lots A & B, Ben Deane Lot Split. For
further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin
Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO
920-5101.
sfBruce Kerr, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
„AY
y r"
�.y 4
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 11, 1995
Lamont stated, then, we have Tuesday, the 1st. That's a special
meeting that we have with the County and we could be done by 6:00
p.m. If we start at 4:00 p.m. we could be done by 6:00 p.m. very
easily. I will order some "stuff". So, August ist, after we check
with Jan Blaich. So, we will work on this.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
38