HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950808
AGE N D A
..........
^"
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 8, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
==================================================================
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Goldsbury Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont
B.
616 W. Hopkins Conditional Use Review for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit, Mary Lackner
'-
C. Vickery Code Amendments, Mary Lackner (continued
from July 18)
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. King Louise Apartments GMQS Exemption for a Change
in Use, Leslie Lamont
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. AH/RO continued Discussion: Transfer of Development
Rights to Non-Contiguous Parcels, Leslie Lamont
VI. WORK SESSION
A. ADU Survey Review, Leslie Lamont
VII.
ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: August 8, 1995
Regular Meeting - August 22
500 W. Bleeker Landmark Designation, Conceptual Development &
Conditional Use Review - Work Session (AA)
Ordinance 30 Work Session (LL)
Snowbunny Conditional Use Review for ADU (DM)
Regular Meeting - September 5
Regular Meeting - September 19
Water Place Affordable Housing Work Session (ML)
Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA Plan (LL)
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
RE: Goldsbury Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing
DATE: August 8, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant seeks to legalize an existing 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
located within a single family residence. Staff recommends
approval of the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit with
conditions.
APPLICANT: Kit Goldsbury, represented by Nicole Finholm, Finholm
Architects
LOCATION: 700 Sneaky Lane
ZONING: R-30 PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To legalize an above grade accessory dwelling
unit that is approximately 516 square feet.
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 existing unit has been occupied for years by an on -
site caretaker of the property. Mr. Goldsbury proposes an
extensive remodel of his home and is required to legalize the
bandit unit before submitting plans for the remodel.
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: There are several accessory dwelling units in the
neighborhood. The residence is at the dead end of Sneaky Lane and
is extremely private with little impact to surrounding neighbors.
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: A private access to the ADU is provided on the side of
the structure. As part of the remodel the front door of the unit
will be upgraded. The entrance is protected by a covered front
porch.
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. However,
storm drainage is problematic in this area of town, therefore
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
occupancy. The unit is currently occupied by a resident caretaker.
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 for the legalization of 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
2
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 any building permits, a new site plan
indicating on -site parking shall be provided and a drainage plan
that confirms historic run-off shall be maintained on -site.
5. 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.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall consult the Aspen Parks Department to review the condition
of the trail easement that was provided at the time of the lot
split.
7. The 24 foot access and utility easement may not be used for new
surface utility needs.
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 700
Sneaky Lane with the conditions as outlined in the Planning Office
memo dated August 8, 1995."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Referral Comments
B. Plans
3
JUL 10 "95 10:14AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
-
Cindy Christensen,"
DATE:9
RE: Goldobury Conditional. Use Review for an ADU
Parcel IV No. is 0 0
XBOU313 The applicant is requesting to 516 square foot., one bedrool-1.
accessory dwelling unit, to ba located on the main floor of th
principal
BROGROMM According to Section 5-510 of the Land USQ RegUlations
for e City of Aspen, an acces�ory
less than ■ fact
r
■. _ allowablefloorarea o more #
700 square feet of allowable floor area, The unit shall be dee.d
restricted, Ineating the Housing Authority's guidelines for resident
occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not less
than six months in duration. owners of the principal residence
shall have T right to place + employee or employees of
his or - choosing accessory dwelling _ �:
k
Staff� # # i is > .. = " a * ■,< �.
conditions:
1. An accessory dwelling unit deed restriction be recorded before
building permit approvalF
2, The kitchen,must meet the
following criteria; contain
tl ntwo-burner
..
. 1 i� �'. f: i � is ... with
oven, sink, and ;+..
6-cubic foot refrigerator
; freezer,
t�
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department C i/,--
Date: July 14, 1995
Re: Goldsbury Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
(700 Sneaky Lane; Lot A, Ben Deane Lot Split)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. Previous Approvals - Note that the Declaration of Covenants for the Ben Deane Lot Split in
paragraph 2 on the first page precludes additional units without GMP allotment.
2. Public Trail Easement - Is the Parks Department aware of the trail easement documented in the
Declarations and shown on the plat (Engineering Dept. Dwg No. 828-262)? It appears that the
dimensional and location aspects of the easement are substandard. Since the intent of providing a
trail easement is clear, it is recommended that any further land use approvals granted by the City be
conditioned on upgrading the dimensional and location aspects of the trail easement. The Parks
Department should be consulted for further information, but it is suggested that the 20 feet adjacent
to and outside of the 100-year floodplain is preferable for trail development purposes. Note that the
City Lot 4, Aspen Meadows Subdivision, is adjacent to this parcel. If it is unlikely that the public
will obtain additional easements for a riverside trail on adjacent lots, the applicant could be
requested to offer a trail easement along the southerly lot line in order for the riverside trail to
connect to Sneaky Lane, which carries a public pedestrian easement. Note the time limitation on
the conveyance of a final trail easement which is in paragraph 6 in the Declarations, after which the
easement becomes void.
3. 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.
1
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department C i/,--
Date: July 14, 1995
Re: Goldsbury Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
(700 Sneaky Lane; Lot A, Ben Deane Lot Split)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. Previous Approvals - Note that the Declaration of Covenants for the Ben Deane Lot Split in
paragraph 2 on the first page precludes additional units without GMP allotment.
2. Public Trail Easement - Is the Parks Department aware of the trail easement documented in the
Declarations and shown on the plat (Engineering Dept. Dwg No. 828-262)? It appears that the
dimensional and location aspects of the easement are substandard. Since the intent of providing a
trail easement is clear, it is recommended that any further land use approvals granted by the City be
conditioned on upgrading the dimensional and location aspects of the trail easement. The Parks
Department should be consulted for further information, but it is suggested that the 20 feet adjacent
to and outside of the 100-year floodplain is preferable for trail development purposes. Note that the
City Lot 4, Aspen Meadows Subdivision, is adjacent to this parcel. If it is unlikely that the public
will obtain additional easements for a riverside trail on adjacent lots, the applicant could be
requested to offer a trail easement along the southerly lot line in order for the riverside trail to
connect to Sneaky Lane, which carries a public pedestrian easement. Note the time limitation on
the conveyance of a final trail easement which is in paragraph 6 in the Declarations, after which the
easement becomes void.
3. 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.
1
4. Parkin - The application does not discuss parking. There is no on -street parking in the area,
therefore the final development plan must indicate parking for all bedrooms including the ADU.
5. 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 24 foot access and utility easement which may
be only intended for underground easements. This will protect 20 foot emergency access width
requirements and snow storage space.
cc: Cris Caruso, George Robinson, Kit Goldsbury, Nicole Piercy Finholm
M95.162
2
.......... ... .
--7
T.
0
EAST WING - SOUTH EVATION L)
z
z
2Z
0
pa
z
M
z
In
0
EAST WING - NORTH I
VATIONS
1/4%1'--0'
DATE: 6.6.95
REVISION:
DRAWN BY.
SHEET UMBER:
4.3
El
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: 616 W. Hopkins Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling
Unit - Public Hearing
DATE: August 81 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking to construct an accessory
dwelling unit in conjunction with a new residence to be developed
at 616 W. Hopkins, to satisfy the housing mitigation requirements
of Ordinance 1.
The Planning Office recommends approval of the 616 W. Hopkins
Conditional Use for an accessory dwelling unit with conditions.
APPLICANT: Dr. Robert and Sheri Hirschfield, represented by David
Brown of Stryker/Brown Architects.
LOCATION: 616 W. Hopkins, Lots O & P. Block 25, City and Townsite
of Aspen. The site is 6,000 sq.ft.
ZONING: R-6.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use
approval to build a required accessory dwelling unit in conjunction
with the demolition and reconstruction of an existing three
bedroom, 2,234 sq.ft residence to a five bedroom, 3,546 sq.ft.
residence. The ADU is proposed to be a studio unit of
approximately 312 sq.ft.
The project received Design Review approval, pursuant to Ordinance
35, Series of 1994.
The ADU is proposed to be located on the southwest corner of the
residence on the 1st floor of a two story house. The unit has two
minimal sized windows from the unit facing south onto Hopkins
Street. The primary windows for the unit are oriented to the west
to the neighboring property.
Since this unit is located above grade, it is eligible for a floor
area bonus of one-half of the unit's size.
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" and Housing Authority Exhibit "C".
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: 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 front
of the residence, however the orientation of the unit is to the
west sideyard. The entrance to the ADU is covered by a porch like
roof. No on -site parking is proposed for the ADU, however the site
plan indicates that two parking spaces will be provided in the
garage and three additional spaces on the garage apron. Staff
believes these five spaces are adequate for the residence and the
ADU, as long as one of the spaces is specifically designated for
the ADU.
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
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
6
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
616 W. Hopkins 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 . f t .
net liveable as defined in the Housing Authority Guidelines.
The accessory dwelling unit cannot be less than 300 net
liveable sq.ft.
5. During building permit plan review, the Zoning Enforcement
3
Officer and Housing Office shall make the final 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 flows 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. The
final development plan shall indicate an easement for the
existing utility pedestals. The final development plan
will be recorded to document the easement.
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 (920-5120) 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 final site plan shall indicate an on -site parking
space for the ADU.
f. A sidewalk shall be constructed prior to the issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. A curb and
gutter agreement will also be required to be signed by
the applicant at this time. The City Engineer shall
review and approve the location and design of the
proposed sidewalk.
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
4
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
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
616 W. Hopkins accessory dwelling unit to be located within a new
residence, subject the conditions recommended in the Planning
Office memo dated August 8,�1995."
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information
"B" - Engineering referral memo
"C" - Housing referral memo
5
Exhibit A
S TRYKER/ B ROWN
AR C H I T E C T S, PC
616 W. HOPKINS, Aspen
lots O+P, block 25
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Conditional Use Permit Application
............................................................................................................................................................
TO: Ms. Kim Johnson, Aspen Pitkin Planning Department
FROM: David Brown
DATE: 4.25.95
............................................................................................................................................................
Please find plans and elevations (attachment 3) attached for the 616 W. Hopkins,
single family residence which includes a proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Also attached are Attachment 1 (1. application form), Attachments 2:
(1. Applicant's address and authorization of agency for representative;
2. Address and legal description, above;
3. Copy of Tax Notice (proof of ownership)
4. Vicinity map
5. Written description of the proposal and how it complies with the review
standard, i.e.: Attachment 4
The net usable area for the proposed unit is 312 + /- sf.- Final Construction
documents will conform with this approved amount. The unit is above grade and
156 sf of additional "bonus" FAR is being applied for.
Please left me know if you need additional information, the scheduled date for P+Z
review, and when the Posting Notice is ready for pickup.
300 SOUTH SPRING S'IREE� SUM 300, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303.925.2254 925.2258 (FAX)
MTAaV4EIrr i
...;zoo USE .cxc,�
N d + �eA00
Pro OCt Name � � �
Pz�oject Location ��(O W . f��tt� (, 25
�
v� �► r► C� C.ofc� .
(indicate street �, lot: &block numr, legal. • on
ubem
appxppriate)
3) Present Zoning CA .4) Lot Size & d o0 51=
s) Applicant's Marie, 2kciclress & Phone #
E • •
6) Representative • S Name, Address & Phone 'lot6L2—�ll�
( �c s,co Co �• 22S"
E
7) lof APPlicaticn (Please dhrk all that apply)
� =
' Cbnditaonal Use SPA Do Historic Dev.
i
Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenl.ine —Cbweptual RM _ Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final PUD
Nicemtain View Plane _____ Subdivision '
borOominiuiization- Amerdment
Lat Split wt Line .
Adjustment
Historic Demolition
Historic Designation
. G�Qs Allotment
Gas EmmPticn.
8) Devc rip4 cn of Existixg Uses - (umber and type of existing g Strt cCta. S
apprcximate Sq• ft. ; rxm be r of beets-ms; any pxevXOLIVPPZ'avals granted «ted to the
property) -
��Q
9) Description of DevelopmenE .Application
10) i Lav� you attached the followi x'IcV
L, Poesponse to Attachment 2, Minimum SubmiSSion Ocnt0ents
pesponsi. to Attachment 3, Specific &A=ISsion Qantent-S
�. Morse to Attachment 4, Review Stvoards for Your APQlicatian
x
W Lv
di.. �.
LU 1- G
H
.c. .1 0
.o
u w a
X 0-C.).- no
r
W,
J
:J
0
w
Z
.r
a;
J'
•
•C'
z
w
Q
0
D
3
14
0
LL.
J
Q
WZ
W
V
a
N
o,G
0
Z
2
R
LLJ
Q �•
n
April 24, :1995
M81 Kist Johnson
Planner
Aspea-Pitkin County Punning =rt ent
130 S. Galeng
e_ 616 W. Hopkins, Mpen, CO
Dear Leslie and Kira:
We, Robert aad Hirschfield, as the legal owners of the above referenced
Pro, hereby authorize Mssers. David Brown and Mayne Stryker of .
tryker/Bralmn ch teas, C to represent me in all matters pertaining to the
additlon/_enovuion approvals for an Accessory Dwelli ng Unit at our property
at 616 . Hopkins, Aspen.
TheStryker/Brown burin- w a.ddreas and phone number are as follows:
Stryker/ rown Arehit�ets, P
300 South spring Street, Suite 300
Aspen, CO 81611
303. 25.2254 925,2!:1.5 (fax)
If you have any questions, please contact mt at your earliest convenience.
Signed this day of ..�..., 199,E
t
891 Soy est t eet is i Florida 3315
Address
'hone attmber
To p
Maroon Lake
r�
SITE LOCATION'
To TWIn t
Indepenc
616 W. HOPKINS ADDITION/ RENOVATION
Aspen, Colorado
300 Souni SPRING STREET, SUITE 300, ASPEN, COLORADo 81611
303.925,2254 925.2258 (FAX)
C
[]
616 W . HOPIUNS
lots H+1, block 25,Asren
Attachment 4
Review Standards: Accessory Dwelling Unit
Conditional Use Permit Application
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
The Conditional Use, Accessory Dwelling Unit, is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and the R-6 zone district. This ADU will provide potential resident housing within walking distance to
mass transit (reduced auto impacts) and community services, enhancement of the Shadow Mountain
pedestrian system, and promote Environmentally Sustainable Development (energy efficient attached
dwelling close to services), lifestyle diversity, in a structure designed to be compatible with the
Historic resources of Aspen. The ADU will provide about 334 sf of net liveable space in an
efficiency configuration. The unit will comply with Housing Authority guidelines and the
requirements of Ordinance 1. The Owner will hopefully rent the unit to a local resident in exchange for
some light caretaking responsibilities. _. .
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 ac=
tivities -in' the immediate* vicinity of. the 'parcel
proposed for development; and -
The Conditional Use, Accessory Dwelling Unit is consistent and compatible with the character of the
Shadow Mountain neighborhood of Aspen, the immediately adjacent buildings are contemporary single
and multi -family uses, and the neighborhood is an eclectic mix of styles and uses including lodges. The
ADU will only slightly increase the size of the Single Family House and entry will be provided it's own
street sidewalk access at street level. The new house will be MORE compatible with the traditional
character of. Aspen and the neighborhood character than the existing house.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteris-.
tics of the proposed conditicnal:Use minimizes adverse
effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedes-
trian and 'vehicular circulation, parking, trash,
service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on
surrounding properties; and
The ADU and principal residence of this structure will minimize visual, circulation, parking, trash and
service, and noise impacts on surrounding properties. Although an offstreet parking will not be
dedicated to the unit, it is likely that one of the off-street spaces will often be available for use by the
ADU resident. The location of the residence will allow pedestrian access to town, services, and Main
Street bus routes. Trash will be contained within the garage which will be accessed from the
"garage" door by a keypad operator.
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 pro tec tion,.. emergency medical services,
hospital and medical services; drainage systems, and
schools; and
There are existing utility services to a home on this site. The existing home is to be replaced with a
new slightly larger home (5 bedrooms, if 2 are built in the optional basement plus ADU vs. existing 3
bedrooms). There are adequate public and municipal services to service this expansion.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to
meet the incremental need for increased employees
generated by the conditional use; and
yes.
•F. The proposed conditional use complies with all addi-
tional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan and by 'all other applicable require-
ments•of this chapter.
The Conditional Use Accessory Dwelling Unit complies with all additional standards imposed by the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and other requirements of the Zoning code.
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department
Date: July 28, 1995
Re: 616 West Hopkins Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
(616 West Hopkins Avenue; Lots O & P, Block 25, Original Aspen Townsite)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site visit, the Engineering
Department has the following comments:
1. Access - The access is from the alley which is a good site design.
2. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - Section 19-98 of the City Code requires that sidewalk, curb and
gutter be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The site is located on West
Hopkins Avenue which is designated by the "Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan" as a primary
pedestrian route. Sidewalk will be required to be constructed prior to C.O., and a curb and gutter
agreement will be required since there is no other curb and gutter in place on this block. There is
no sidewalk in place on this block, however the Neighborhood Advisory Committee and staff both
recommend obtaining segments of sidewalk at all opportunities. The curb will ultimately be
located 17'-6" from the property line, therefore the preferred location for the sidewalk will be
between the irrigation ditch and the private property line.
3. 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.
4. Parking - Even though there is on -street parking in the area, the final development plan should
potentially be required to reflect one parking space for each bedroom including the ADU because
snow removal requirements place increasing pressure on on -street parking and because West
Hopkins Avenue is a designated bike and pedestrian route.
5. 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 alley public right-of-way.
6. Easement for Existing Pedestals - The final development plan should indicate an easement for
the existing utility pedestals. The plan will be recorded to document the easement.
7. Trash & Utility Area - The site improvement survey does not indicate the location of the
dumpster. The site visit revealed that the dumpster is in the alley. 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. As-builts - Staff has researched the potential burden of requiring as-builts on a computer disk in
a DFX format compatible with the City/County GIS system so that the system can receive building
footprint and other information updates as development occurs. One vendor in the private sector
reported that the cost would be about $75. The City/County Data Processing Department reports
that they might be able to do the work at a cost of $50 to the client. Therefor it appears to be
reasonable to begin to require as-builts on a disk in a DFX file for all land use applications. Staff is
working on a Code amendment to require this as a condition of all certificates of occupancy.
9. 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: Stan Clauson, Dr. Robert & Sheri Hirschfield, David Brown,
M95.175
2
Exhibit C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: June 5, 1995
RE: 616 West Hopkins Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Parcel ID No. 2735-124-48-008
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 applicant states that the accessory dwelling unit is to consist
of approximately 312 square feet of living area, and is be located
attached to the principal residence on the first floor.
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.
This unit falls within the Code and, therefore, 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\G16whop.adu
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment
DATE: August 8, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking City approval to create a
Historic Landmark Lot Split provision in the Aspen Municipal Code.
This text amendment contemplates creating a Subdivision Exemption,
GMQS Exemption, changes the minimum lot area and width requirements
in the R-6 zone district, and creates review standards for the Lot
Split. The Historc Landmark Lot Split would only be permitted in
the R-6 zone district.
The Commission conceptually reviewed the applicant's request in a
work session setting on June 20th. The P&Z was generally favorable
to the concept of creating an incentive for historic landmark lot
splits.
APPLICANT: Jake Vickery.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The proposed Historic Lot Split text
amendment would be available on lots located in the R-6 zone
district, which are 9,000 sq.ft. to 12,000 sq.ft. in size, and
contain a historic landmark of which the whole parcel will be
landmarked. The lot split would enable one lot of 3,000 sq.ft. to
be created for the historic residence. The FAR of the total
development is restricted to the duplex FAR permitted on the
original lot. Except for the limitation of the allowable FAR, the
newly created lots shall be treated as lots of record. A code
amendment is also proposed for the minimum lot area and lot width
requirements of the R-6 zone to permit the creation of a 3,000
sq.ft., 30 foot wide parcel.
The applicant is also proposing to add a provision to Division 6
of the Aspen Municipal Code which deals with development involving
a historic landmark. This would give HPC review authority over the
design and layout of a historic landmark lot split development
proposal. This language also states, "Each lot shall have the
ability to receive the same variances and bonuses available to
similarly sized lot of record."
The applicant is proposing that this lot split be reviewed and
approved at the administrative level by the Community Development
Director. The GMQS exemption is proposed NOT to be deducted from
the development pool.
In comparison the Lot Split provisions presently available in the
Code are reviewed and approved by City Council and the GMQS
exemption is deducted from the growth pool and are limited to one
new lot split per year.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff conceptually supports the applicant's
proposal as it provides an additional historic preservation
incentive without increasing density. There are several areas of
concern staff has with the method in which the proposed code
amendment is drafted. Staff recommends the following changes to
the proposed code amendment to insure consistency with the existing
provisions of the code addressing lot splits.
Staff agrees with the applicant to make this a GMQS exemption that
does not come out of the growth pool, but staff believes it needs
to be granted by the Growth Management Commission, not the
Community Development Director.
It was also discussed by Planning staff and generally agreed upon
that the historic landmark FAR bonus not be available for the
historic landmark lot split. The reasoning is that since it is a
GMQS exemption that is not limited to one a year and the historic
landmark lot split is creating a non -conforming lot, additional FAR
should not be granted to the parcel. Should an applicant wish to
obtain the FAR bonus, they would have to go through the lot split
procedure of Section 24-7-1003 (A) (2) and GMQS Exemption of Section
24-8-105(C) of the Aspen.Municipal Code.
Staff does not agree with the applicant's statement ""Each lot
shall have the ability to receive the same variances and bonuses
available to similarly sized lot of record." We recommend language
that would permit only setback variances to be granted to the
parcels, and not FAR or site coverage variances.
Staff's recommended code changes are written in the staff
recommendation section of this memorandum.
The applicant's request is subject to the review standards of
Section 24-7-1102 which follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The applicant's text amendment, with staff s recommended
changes, is not in conflict with any chapters of the code. The
areas where there may have been conflict (creating a non -conforming
lot of less than 6,000 sq.ft.), are proposed to be corrected.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The AACP does not specifically address this type of
amendment. The proposed amendment will permit the Historic
Preservation Committee design review authority over both lots
2
created by the lot split. This should represent better design in
a new residence that compliments the neighboring historic
structure.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The Historic Landmark Lot Split is proposed for only the
R-6 zone district, on parcels between 9, 000 and 12, 000 square feet.
There are 21 parcels in the R-6 zone district that are between
9,000 and 12,000 and on the historic inventory.
The applicant has proposed the code amendment to reflect a
development proposal he is contemplating for 123 W. Francis in the
R-6 zone district. The Aspen Municipal Code presently permits two
detached residential dwelling units in the R-6 zone district on a
lot of 9,000 sq.ft. or greater. Therefore, no additional density
is proposed by this text amendment only the form of ownership is
changing. .
During the Planning and Zoning Commission work session there was
some discussion that this code amendment should be expanded to
include other residential zone districts and to allow it on lots
of 6,000 sq.ft. in size in the R-6 zone district. The following
list identifies the special provisions available for historic
landmarks in the Office, R-15 and R/MF zone districts:
o Office zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R-15 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 15,000 sq.ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R/MF zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft., if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
o The R-6 zone district permits two detached residential
dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 sq.ft. if one of the
units is a historic landmark, with conditional use
approval.
Although staff believes that this historic preservation incentive
may provide protection for historic resources on some sensitive
parcels in the O, R-15 and R/MF zone districts, we feel
uncomfortable expanding the lot split ability to a conditional use.
cI
Should this code amendment be approved by the City, it may provide
a guide to look at these other zones and smaller R-6 parcels in the
future.
Since the proposed code amendment does not increase the allowed
density, staff believes it is consistent with this standard.
D. The. effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
Response: There should be no negative effect on traffic generation
or road safety, since the allowed density in the R-6 zone district
is not increasing as a result of this text amendment.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether
and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: Since there is no increase in the existing permitted
density on a parcel, there should be no increase in demands on
these public facilities. All development is still subject to the
mitigation required in the code (parks, housing, school district,
etc.).
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: Since this code amendment would only be available to
parcels in the R-6 zone district, impacts to the natural
environment should be minimal. The R-6 zone is located in a
relatively flat portion of the City limits and does not encroach
into floodplain, avalanche, rockfall, or steep slope areas.
The primary natural environment issue in the R-6 area is the
preservation of large trees and open irrigation ditches. Trees are
protected by other provisions in the Code, but will need to be
addressed in the site development plan reviewed by the Growth
Management Commission.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
Response: The creation of a 3,000 sq.ft lot in the R-6 zone
district is consistent and compatible with the historic nature of
the City. Preserving and enhancing historic resources is also
compatible with the community character of the City of Aspen.
4
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
Response: The applicant can proceed with the proposed project
without this code amendment because he has obtained a GMQS
exemption and condominiumization from the City. The applicant is
not interested in the condominiumization form of ownership and has
proposed this code amendment to provide an alternative for the
creation of fee simple lots.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment would be consistent with the
public interest and is drafted to be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter, if staff's recommendations are
incorporated into the text amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant's
request with several changes.
GMQS Exemption by the Growth Management Commission:
Addition of a new Section 24-8-105 (B) (2) (a) (1) (c) which states:
(c) Historic Landmark Lot Split. The development of one
detached residential dwelling on a lot within the
original mapped Aspen Townsite, formed by a lot split
granted subsequent to November 14, 1977 pursuant to
Section 7-1003(A)(2) shall be exempted from the growth
management and scoring procedures by the Growth
Management Commission if the following standards are met:
1. The original parcel shall be between 9,000 and
12,000 square feet in size and is located in the R-
6 zone district.
2. The parcel is a designated historic landmark. The
historic landmark is located on the lot which is
less than 6,000 sq.ft.
3. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed
the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original
parcel.
4. The proposed development meets all dimensional
requirements of the underlying zone district. The
only HPC variance permitted for the Historic
Landmark Lot Split are setback variances found to
-!
u
be required by the HPC.
S. The historic landmark FAR bonus is not permitted on
any lot created by the Historic Landmark Lot Split.
6. The development's water supply, sewage treatment,
solid waste disposal, drainage control,
transportation and fire protection impacts shall be
mitigated to the satisfaction of the Growth
Management Commission.
7. The compatibility of the project's site design with
surrounding projects and its appropriateness for the
site shall be demonstrated, including but not
limited to consideration of the quality and
character of existing and proposed landscaping and
open space, parking considerations, and the amount
of site coverage by buildings.
Section 5-201 Medium Density Residential (R-6) would have the
following language added:
1. Minimum lot size (square feet) : 61 000. For lots created
by Section 8-105 (B) (2) (a) (1) (c) Historic Landmark Lot
Split: 31000.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 60. For lots created by
Section 8-105 (B) (2) (a) (1) (c) Historic Landmark Lot Split:
30.
Add Section 7-607 to Division 7 Development in an H, Historic
Overlay District or involving a Historic Landmark to read:
A. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The development of all lots
created pursuant to Section 8-105 (B) (2) (a) (1) (c) shall
be reviewed by HPC.
0
July 21, 1995 JA K
Mary Lackner
Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. #3
POST OFFICE BOX 12360
Aspen, Colorado 81611 ASPEN,COLORADO81612
TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE
(970) 9 2 5 - 3 6 6 0
RE-: TEXT AMENDMENT FOR SMALL HISTORICAL LANDMARK LOTS
Dear Mary,
Please consider this our formal application for the attached text amendment. Attached
is a check for $2,040.00.
This text amendment is framed to address only the R6 zone (Section 5-201). - Further it
is framed only for Historically Landmarked parcels. This is done to simplify processing
and to relate directly to what is already permitted by the code.
This text amendment proposes a change to the GMQS Exemption by Planning Director
(Section 8-105) and the Subdivision Exemption by Planning Director (Section 7-1003).
This is requested because this text amendment does not result in the creation of any
new units of density and only effects the method of ownership of units which are
currently allowed by right, are currently exempt from GMQS, and can currently be
owned as Condominiums.
Although the Code currently permits the creation of these smaller single family
residences, it does not provide a mechanism for individual ownership of them except
through Condom iniization. Condom inimiaztion in this circumstance can be awkward
and involved at best and results in no particular benefit to the public realm. This code
amendment attempts to offer options to this situation allowing a simple lot split and
individual ownership of each of the smaller houses and the "lots" they are on.
Such site specific development is already fully reviewed by the Planning Director, HPC,
P&Z, and the City Engineer and no increase or decrease in the "level of review" would
result from this amendment. Further, there is no additional impact to the Public Realm
from this proposed text amendment. Further, this text amendment supports and
enhances various elements of both the AACP and Historical Preservation.
Data base and mapping work through the City Mapping Department has shown that the
number of effected parcels is approximately 21. This would include parcels already
developed as duplexes or engorged single family residences. Please see attached
information for more detail on this research.
Res e tfully,
Jake Vickery
7-1004 APPLICATION
A. 6-202 General Information: Please see attached information and the Development
Application for 123 West Francis dated May 8, 1995 for additional detail.
B. Precise wording of the proposed amendment: Effected sections of the Code are
attached and precise wording is shown for each individual section.
C. No Amendment to the Zone Map is requested.
7- 1102 SPECIFIC REPLIES TO REVIEW STANDARDS
A. This proposal is consistent with the Code and does not conflict with any portions of
the Code.
B. This proposal is consistent with the AACP. It attempts to stimulate and encourage
the creation of smaller units of density, smaller modules of massing, and smaller free
market houses presumably more available for ownership by local families. In addition it
supports and enhances Historical Preservation. Please see notes. 61Yt P1'
C. There is no change of use or density with this text amendment. Development is
consistent with what is already permitted and existing in the R6 zone and the
neighborhood.
D. There are no increased effects on traffic generation or road safety associated with
this amendment.
E. There are no increased impacts on public facilities.
F. There are no increased impacts on the natural environment associated with this
amendment.
G. This text amendment is not only consistent and compatible with the community
character but strives to enhance it.
H. This code amendment is to encourage individual single family ownership and the
creation of smaller units of density and smaller individuated building masses to balance
the predominance of larger ones now being created.
I. This amendment supports the public interest and is in harmony with the Code.
STORIC LOT SPLIT
tOPOSED CODE CHANGES
%Jake Vickery Architects
7-21-95
Sec. 7-1003 Subdivision Exemptions (by planning director)
add new Section 7-1003(A)(5)
5. Historic Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark creating
no more than 2 lots, both lots conforming to the requirements of the underlying
zonina district and the applicant commits that any new lot for which development
is proposed will contain an accessory dwelling unit.
Sec. 8-105 GMQS Exemptions
add new Section 8-105 (a) (ii) (e) (4)
4. The construction of a single family residence on a lot created through an
Historical Lot Split pursuant to Section 7-1003(A)(5).
Sec. 5-201 Medium Density Residential (R-6)
revise Section 5-201 (D) (1)
1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 6,000. For lots created by Historical Lot Split
pursuant to 7-1003(A)(3): 3,000.
revise Section 5-201 (D) (3)
3. Minimum Lot Width (feet): 60. For lots created by Historical Lot Split pursuant to
Section 7-1003(A)(3): 30.
DIVISON 7. DEVELOPMENT IN AN H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT ON
INVOLVING A HISTORIC LANDMARK
add Section Sec 7-607
Sec. 7 - 607 Historic Lot Split
A. Review Standards Application for Historical Lot Split shall be reviewed
pursuant to Sec 7 - 6001. The aggregate allowable FAR for both lots shall not
exceed that otherwise allowed for the parent parcel and apportioned by a site
specific development -plan Each lot shall have the ability to receive the same
variances and bonuses available to similarly sized lots of record. Such lot split
and development on -all lots so created shall be reviewed by HPC.
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE: August 8, 1995
RE: King Louise Apartments - GMQS Exemption for a Change in
Use
SUMMARY: The applicant seeks a GMQS Exemption for a change in use
from residential to office/commercial space.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption.
APPLICANT: Ted and Susann Guy
LOCATION: 210 W. Main Street
ZONING: Office
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants request a change in use from
residential to office/commercial space. The business aspect of the
space will operate during normal working hours, monday-friday and
the residential characteristic of the unit will be maintained for
week -end and evening use. The applicants also propose to deed
restrict an approximately 284 square foot studio unit to category
1 as mitigation for the change in use.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: According to the application, the property
contains eight studio apartments in two structures. Apartment 1-
6 are in the building facing Main Street and were built in the
60's. Units 7 & 8 are located behind on the alley and were built
in the early 60's.
Susann proposes to move her hair salon to unit 7. The unit will
remain a residential unit as the salon will operate only during
business hours. The applicant originally proposed an
interpretation that the salon should be considered an accessory
use and not a change in use. However, staff believes that the
change of use more accurately reflects the primary use of unit 7.
In addition, the Community Development Director has interpreted
that the hair salon is an allowed use in the office zone district.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. Change in Use - Pursuant to Section 24-8-104 B(b) of the
-- Municipal Code, the Commission may grant a GMQS Exemption for a
change in use provided that it can be demonstrated that the change
in use will have minimal impact upon the city. A determination of
minimal impact shall require a demonstration that a minimal number
of additional employees will be generated by the change in use and
that employee housing will be provided for the additional employees
generated; that a minimal amount of additional parking space will
be demanded by the change in use and that parking will be provided;
that there will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhood from
the change in use; and that minimal demand will be placed on the
city's public facilities from the change in use.
RESPONSE: The addition of the hair salon, which will be operated
during regular business hours, will have minimal impact to the City
and to the surrounding business. The converted residential unit
is located off of the alley in a seperate building which is behind
the structure on Main Street. The Engineering Department has
determined that existing on -site and off -site parking is sufficient
for the proposed use.
The Housing Office reviewed the change in use. The additional
employees that are generated are less than 1 employee. The
applicants propose to deed restrict an adjacent unit to category
1. Although the square footage of the unit to be deed restricted
is less than the Housing Guidelines requires, the Housing Office
will accept the unit because the mitigation required is less than
1 employee and an existing unit is being restricted and added to
the Housing inventory.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the change in use
from residential to off ice/commercial in the 457 square foot
residential space at 210 West Main Street with the following
conditions:
1. This change in use only applies to one 457 square foot
residential dwelling unit (unit 7) at 210 W. Main Street.
2. In order to mitigate the increased employees for the change in
use, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall file a deed restriction with the Aspen Pitkin County Housing
Office for unit #8, restricting the unit to category 1 sales and
rental guidelines.
3. The applicant shall adhere to all representations made in the
application and at the public hearing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to grant a GMQS Exemption for the
change in use of one 457 square foot dwelling unit (unit 7) from
a primary residential use to a mixed commercial/residential use."
Exhibits
1. Referral Comments
2. Application
2
AUG 03 ' 95 03: 17PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
Po I
r
Leslie
.., Community DevelopMent
FROM: Cindy Christen5end Housing Office
Parcel ; o i
The applicant is requesting to deed restrict a 284 scluar-P,
foot studio unit to Category I rental housing so long as the offic_,��o
smaller
r! laai. Or The HousingOffice
being deed reotricted to Category 1 rental housinq. It is our
understanding that this is a studio unit tha
t contains a bathroom
and kitchen, which kitchen shall contain a minimum of a two -burner
stove with oven, otandard sink and a plaCe for a 6-cubic foot
refrigerator
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department 6y2-
Date: July 18, 1995
Re: King Louise Apartments GMQS Exemption for Change in Use
(210 West Main Street; Lots P & Q, Block 51, Original Aspen Townsite)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Dumpster - The dumpster is currently located on private property and not in the alley, but it is
not shown on the application plans.
2. 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.
3. Parkin - The application does not discuss parking although the drawings show parking spaces.
The site visit revealed that the indicated parking spaces are not being used for parking. Some of the
indicated spaces are property that is being used by The Willows of Aspen Flowers. Also, the
dumpster is located on what is shown as a parking space. The change in use would generate more
parking needs, however the on site and on -street parking should be able to handle the needs.
5. 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.
6. 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 (920-513 0).
cc: Cris Caruso, Ted & Susann Guy M95.168
Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin County Comm -unity Development
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 210 W. Main Street, Change of Use
Enclosed is our Application for Change of Use for Apt. 7 of the King
Louise Apartments from residential to office.
The property is Lots P & Q Block 51 of the original Aspen town site.
The property has eight studio apartments in two structures.
Apartments 1-6 in the structure facing Main Street were built' in the
late 60's. Apartments 7 & 8 were built in the early 60's and are
located near the alley. We propose to use Apt. 7 as a residence during
evenings and weekends and for cutting hair during business hours
Monday thru Friday. This will be for our personal use only.
We will deed restrict Unit 8 as category 1 rental housing, so long as
the office use continues in Unit 7. We wish to condition this deed
restriction so that once the office use stops in Unit 7, the deed
restriction in Unit 8 can be released. Unit 7 contains 457 SF, 93 SF
was added this year, 364 SF has existed since the 60's. Unit 8 contains
284 SF. The interior improvements and airlock addition have been
proposed under separate permits this year. This unit will be used as an
apartment regardless of the outcome of this application. Please
consider whether hair cutting within the office zone can be an
accessory use without the need for a Change of Use Application and
Deed Restriction on an adjacent unit..
The proposed change will have minimal impact on the city. Susann's
hair cutting business is more than 10 years old, and Susann and I have
lived in the community for more than 20 years, 22 years respectively.
Leslie Lamont June 1, 1995
Re: 210 W. Main Street, Change of Use
Page Two
We hope we can be placed on the July I 8th Planning Commission
agenda. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Theodore K. Guy
Enclosures
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
Dave Tolen, Director APCHA
DATE: August 8, 1995
RE: Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey
SUMMARY: George Krawz of f has drafted the ADU survey. He would
like to review the proposed survey with you. Please find the
attached an introduction from George to the Commission, a draft
cover letter to the home owner, and draft survey.
IP": UOW96 KFAMAM To, Lq#116 LaMard DW*: DIM 'nmo: Mium of a
To-, City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
George Xrawzotf
Through! LeSlie Lamont, Community DeVelopment naputy Dixector
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADUI Buzvey
Date; Auguat 2, 1995
----------------------------------- == ------ = --------------
Please review the attachecL draft of the Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) survey, This draft is XEry pmelLminary so all aspects
are OP8n to revision and Correction, CoMents-'Ein—the formy tQR5,
and content are requested. The Planning Connission is the first
body to xeview this work so Your Comments and resulting revisions
Will Move forward to the Housiag Authority Board and the Aspen
City Council.
The mailing will include the following three parts-,
Cover Letter.
The cover letter eXplaina why the survey is being oonducted
and i-ihat is expected o-f the ADU owner. the tone of this letter is
irnPoxtant since we don't watt to threaten or insult the ADD
ownexe while stressing the impoxtance of the suxvey and reminding
the owners of thoix obligations under the deed restrictionS.
2) Owner Su&yey,
By seexchinq the City Clerk's records O:E Conditional Use
appLavala, I've formed a datsbase of currently approved AM's. A
suhsequent search of the County Assessor's xecords provided the
curfant owners of the pzQperty. The cuLzent owner information and
'ADU description can be merged into the survey, with a request
that the ownez correct any errors® followed by a set of survey
questiona.
The Survey cluestLons should be brief and limited to
essential jAformation. I hOPe a sin916 Paget Prilited On both
Aid8s, will sufflae, A stamped retuzn envelope will be included.
3) Tenant suxygy.
At this .time we have no information regarding tenants in the
AW's. The Housing Authority indicates that no ADU tenants have
been 9uR1LfiGd Or leases filed as requized by the legislation. if
You agree that it's appropriate, I would include a tenant survey
as a third sheet is the mailing, relying on the ADU owner to pass
it ca to the tenants. Theme is a rink that the owners will not
want to pass it on,, that t)1ey111 fill it out themselves, or that
the tenants will not want to respond for fear of compromising
their living situation, but I think it's worth a try.
Thank you for reviewing this draft. I look forward to
iiicorporating your BuggeStions and creating an effective survey,
c'd ojo _9Nisn0H k0dSU 14d9E: TO ss, ao gnu
I
rTM; GOW98 KZMMOV To; :li® Umant DUO: U/2M rinia; %0*19 pow 9 of ID
(City of ASpen or Housing Authority Letterhead)
UMMMMSIMEMM
SUBJECT: BURN OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUIS).
Our records Indicate that your or a pxavious owner of your
property. received an approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADV). Please help us determine whether these ABUIs are golving
the problems they wQrte intended to. Take a moment to respond to
the enclosed survey andr if your ADU is rented, auk your tenants
to fill -out the enclosed tenant survey, (A Separate envelope is
pxovided for the tenant's survey. Tenant responses will not be
matched to specific addreases.)
This survey is the least intrtoive way we have of
determining whether the ADU legislation (City of Aspen Ordinancs
I Of-1990) is effective or whether anothar approach is necessary'.
Our goal is to discovew h*w to twat provide employee bxPusing p not
to policm you= AM
Please xamember, however, that AM's are deed restricted
with the city of Aspen and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority as the beneficiaries, We need to know that the ADU is
being used within the guidSlines eatablished by the deed
restriction. If this survey is unsuccessful, other Methoda may be
used, including site inspections and interviews with tenants.
Your response to this survey will save the expense and bother of
such approaches.
If you are UnCeXtain of your obligations to the City and
Housing Authority with xegard to your ADU, we will be happy to
help. The most iinpaxtant things to xemembsx are as follows!
I. If the ADU is rented, it must be rented in accordance with
the quidslines as adopted and as may he ameAdad from time t_k,
time by the Mousing Authority governing "re.9ident-occupindIr
dwelling units.
Only qualified residents as definsd in these guidelines may
reside in the ADU and xental terms must be for Dexiods of no
leas than 6 months. You have the right to select the
resident but the Housing Authority must qualify them.
3. An executed copy of all 1,0a0eB for the ADU Must be submitted
to the Housing A"thaxity within 10 0ays of the apptaval ot a
quaed resident,
If you need help understanding the guidelines ox are
uncertain about any aspect of your ADU, please contact th?
`d ojo DwisnOH H3dSU Wd9E:TO ss, 2o onu
From. QuarBe Krawmi To-. Ladja Lm"m Pago 4 of a
Aspen/Pitkin HOUSing Authority. We'll be happy to help. Any
coMmenta Ox SUggestions you have regarding this suzvey or ABUIs
in general are welcome.
Sinceyelye
• Tolen, Direator
Aspen/Pitkin County HOU.9ing Authority
7- 7
.............
V'd
"D-Ao qHisnOH kl3dSU Wd2.E:TO ss, En -9nu
Paxt 1: Current Owner information.
PleaSe reView this information for your Pccesyory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) to see if itvs correct. Strike -out any incorrect items and
provide the correct infoX=tion.
ADU addreSS! 730 W. S=gglem
Curraht owner Alciatewa, ftatoms A. md Nancy Y.
P.O. Box 11582
Aspim, CO 61612
Phone numbai7: (phase pzovide a phone #)
Part 2: _R!L �►tion of the ADU.
Size; 310 squame feet
Type of Unitt StUdio
Location of Unit: basement
If you would prefer that we direct future inquires to your
representative rather than ContaCting you dixectly, please provide
their address and phone number below.
Representative:
Mailing Address:
(Street addreaB or post Office box number)
(city) (zip code)
Phone number
Part 3:
1. Which statement best describes how your ADU is used?
(a) The Anti is xented fox periods of 6 months or longer to
qualified ampler yeea.
(b) The ADU is occupied by a caretaker for my home.
(c) The ADtJ _t5 used by short-term guests.
(d) The ADU is used as a study, home nffice, or other emtension
of the house.
(a) The ADU is used as a home by a member of my family without
rent.
(fl' Other? Please describe;
(survey continues oa the other side of this pagele
S'd ojo oNisnOH H3dSU WdZE:TO ss, 2o onu
2. It you do rent the ADU long ter, (6 months or raore) to quaaifled
tenants, pleas5 check all that applyi
(a) I was not aware of my obligation to qualify residents and
file a copy oZ the lease with tbo Housing Authority.
I expected my tenants to comaunicate with the Housing
Authority.
(c) I find the qualifying of residents and filing of the lease
an unaeoa4aary nuisance.
(d) If the dead restrictions are enforcedo I would rather not
x9nt out the ADU than bother wit;1I the restrictions.
3. Do the occupants of the ADU have access to the main house?
4. If you had it to do QVer, Would you:
(a) Build the A.DTJ the same way.
N Build a larger ADTJ. HO,6,T many square. feet?
(c) Build a smallet ABU. How many square feet®
(d) I would not build an ADTJ.
How do you feel about the ADUT.
(a) It's a benefit and adds to the value of my ho2ne.
{b) Ztle a benefit to the City of Aspbn since it.pzovidea
employee housing.
(C) It's just another z0on in my home that ha ens to have an
outaiAda entrance.
(d) Other?
6. Please provide any CoMenta that you would like the Aspen city
Council and the Aspen/Pitkin Kousing Authority to hear regarding
this survey, your ADU, or employee housihq in general (attach
additional
sheets if necessary),
'ado 9wisn0H k131SU WdZE:T0 ss, F-o onu
Rom: GBarge Kramff To. U06 Lamwd VWs: 00% Time: 141M
LDRAPI
Aapen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Acceaaory Dwelling Veit �ADU) Survey
Tenant Portion
surmnr of 1995
Thia porticm o:e the sazwy is be. L'Illed-out by the ouougunts ag the
ADU.
Dear Madam or Sir.
Please take a moment to respond to this SUrVQy. The apartment
you're living in was created because of laws passed by the City of
ABpeft and we need to know if those laws work.
All information will he kept confidential, Your re6ponses will be
t&bulated ds part of* a. .report on all ADU'o and will not be published
individually.
We need to hdv�-, a response from each approved ADU and we hope
that this survey is the beat way to aacoMliah that. if no respQnse I -
received, additional letters, phone calls, and/or s�te visits will b
necessary. This will cost more, tax 4:.c2lars and may be a nuisance for
you. Vlease take the time to ZUI-out the survey and return it
Promptly.
I. WhiCh statement beat duBcrib&s your 1partment-7
(a) Studio.
(b) one bedroom.
(c) Two bedroom.
(d) Other? Please describe:
Where is yoUr apartment located? (Check all that apply.)
(a) Baeement.
(b) First Floor or ground level.
(0) Second floor.
(d) Attached to the main house,
(e) Separated from the main house.
M Other? Please describe:
3. Who lives in your apartment?
(a) I live alone.
[b) -I shaze the apartment with -roommates.
(c) I share the apartment wi th my family,
(d) if you share tis apartment, how many adults and how many
children live there including yourBelf?
Adults childZen (under 18 yra. old)
(survey cantnuen on the other side of this page)
Z' J ajo qF)isn0H NSU WJI E - TO d, d 20 -gnu
ROM I George rJaMEMM To. As Lwnant Dab: %W2jV5 Time; 1418-44
BRAFT
L
4. Are you allowed to keelp pets? (Cbsck all that apply.�
(a) NO, pets are not allowed.
(b) Cato are allaWed.
(c) Doga are allowed.
(d) Other? Plaaae describe:
5. How much do you pay for rent?
(a) I do not pay any rent or have any caretaker obligations,
(b) If y6a do pay rant, how much in it per month?
(c) If you have caretaker obligations, how much time per month
do you spend on them?
6. what is your annual income?
7. How would you descxtbe your apartment? (Check all that apply.)
ta) Excellent. This is the type of apartment I want.
(b) Good# but I'd like to have more space.
(c) Good, but I'd like to pay less rent.
(d) Good, but Vd like to have more privacy.
(e) Fair, It®s a reaaonablQ campxQmisebet wesn what I can afford
and the apartment I'd like to have.
(f) Poor. I'd move out if I had an alternative.
(g) Othez? Please deacribez
Do you have use of parts og the main house? (Check all that
apply):
(a) I have access to the in house when the owners are not
her5-
(b) I have atolage apaas- Pi4t@ide of my apartment.
(a) I have use of the yard,
(d) Other? Please da4cxibat
.9. How many vehicles do you owh?
10. If you do own a vehicle, check all that apply;
(a) I have adequate pazkinq for my vehiale{s).
()a) I do not have adequate parking for my vehjc2e{n)
(a) I am able to park inside the main houte'B garage.
please provide any commarttz that the city council or Housing Authority
should hear regarding you. 1: ADU apartment (�ttaQh additional sheets if
necessaxy):
Thahk you fox taking the tine to conplate this survey.
81d ojo gwisnOH W3dSU WJBE:TO -qs, 2o gnu
1, 9 Ts x
WAS Am, wyltypH
L Ol 0
L 9
13-3381S, t;
:) I If I if a " Q? () S JL 3 d
?, "D 0- up, - -C, .�z
MAP OD
I rd 'C, 1, j r-Z
�,i h,aG� r
2. X 1
C�
KIM V11140
SOG IS OsIS "NZ
ISMUL NOWNY
77
V 0 D
L ri
CX 71) 6 7
;E C IC" 16 12
KOPF�r CAROL AW,! AIND
JX S"I, 6
S"t T" IE- -C 16, 12
7 35 — 12 2 — 06-0 0 1 2
CORIMp WIES A
7 9 G C A S li' L E 1f, R E L K 0 R : V
S P E 1`;; s, L :, ,' 16 11
CA�KILLr P,`A�jL L.
-G
�273.5-1 22-03-005
D JA�,E
D 14CCVENTRY
0 zs n', R 11; -
osm, c; al it
PA Q it! , FL '111
3 5 - 1: 2 2 - 3 5
,112 0 0 1 7 TH 3 T. ;BUTTE 9 60
D Et V �'il:," R C 2 0 2
35-122-31-1004
4 Tn,,- .
i 00 o /V, �3 d 5 -t.
A �xo I (o 'Mell
2
i 7 31-7, - 1 42 2 - 3 5-5 - 0 0 "'1
80 X 1 6 3
CO��;':`SHO,No JACK R. AND
700 CA�"'TLE CREE"'K
i4SPIEN k"'C'j
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 8, 1995
Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m.
Present at the meeting were: Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney,
Steve Buettow, Marta Chaikovska, and Robert Blaich. Excused was
Jasmine Tygre.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS
Garton stated, first of all, Leslie, the dish for KAJX is the wrong
color. I went to take a look and my suggestion is to paint it the
color of the cement block, as it is a better blend than what is
there already, it is a deeper red.
Garton also stated, I have a request. August 22nd we will be doing
a review of an ADU for the Sam Korn residence on Cemetery Lane, and
I have a request from several home owners that called me to have
that moved into September because they want to attend the public
hearing, and several of the neighbors, except for one, will be out
of town because it is their time for vacation. They would like it
when school resumes. Lamont asked, did they give us a date?
Garton stated, they just said anytime in September that would work.
Lamont stated, that would be the 5th or the 19th. I need to ask
John Worcester if that is possible, if the request is not made from
an applicant, but it is coming from the P&Z, and coming from the
public, can we do that, I don't know. Garton stated, and do we
need a motion to move it, as well? Lamont answered, we would still
have to open it, and move it, because it has been advertised for
the 22nd. Garton stated, so, on the 22nd I would do that. Lamont
stated, right, we would open it and continue the public hearing
date, for those people who have received notice, but are not here
tonight, for example. So, we would have to officially move it to
September 5th, but my question to John is, can the P&Z move
something to the 5th. I'll ask him and you will know by August
22nd whether you can move it or not, O.K.?
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Garton asked, are there any comments from the audience regarding
anything that is not on the agenda this evening? There were none.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
STAFF COMMENTS
Lamont stated, I would just like to first thank Bob Blaich for
hosting our going away dinner for Bruce at his house, it was very
nice. The Commission applauded Commissioner Blaich.
Also, my suggestion, before the three of you came in, that we
switch Old Business and the Work Session because Dave Tolen and
George Krawzoff will be talking to you about the ADU Survey, and
it is just me with you all with the AH/RO. I want to cut short our
AH/RO Discussion, so if we could switch those two? Garton asked,
do we need a formal motion to do it? It was agreed a formal motion
was not required and the switch was agreed upon by the Commission.
GOLDSBURY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Garton opened the public hearing.
Lamont represented staff and made presentation stating, this is a
Conditional Use Review and the applicants are requesting to
legalize an existing accessory dwelling unit that is on the
property. They propose to go through some renovation of the home,
and realize that they have a bandit unit and they are in the
process to legalize their accessory dwelling unit. There will be
some exterior changes to the accessory dwelling unit and there will
be a slight expansion of the accessory dwelling unit to the rear
of the unit. The unit is 107 by 48, so, the parcel is eligible for
a floor area bonus of up to 250 sq. ft . or half the size of the
ADU, whichever is less. The ADU itself, is approximately 516 sq.
ft., there is an exterior exit to the unit; currently, it is a
protected access to the ADU, but with the renovation of the home
they will need additional extended porch and roof overhangs. There
are actually two entrances to the ADU, one in the front and one in
the back of the accessory dwelling unit. The dwelling unit is
occupied and I don't know if it has been occupied by the same
person for several years, but the applicant's representative says
that the caretaker unit has been used for many years as just that.
Staff recommends approval of this accessory dwelling unit with
pretty much our standard conditions of approval, however, I would
like to point out one unusual condition of approval for our typical
ADUs . When this property went through the lot split process of Lot
A and Lot B, before it was the Ben Deane Subdivision; a trail
2
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
easement was given to the City at that time. Chuck Roth, at a site
visit, and in looking at the plats, has determined that easement
may be problematic, and so, I'm recommending that the applicant
work with our Parks Department so we can solidify that trail
easement, and since the City now owns all that Meadows land area
right next to this property, it might be a good time for the Parks
Department to diligently work with the applicant to get our trail.
So, that's why I included that condition of approval.
The Affidavit of Posting was not presented, but a photograph of
posting was presented to the clerk by the applicant's
representative, Nicole Finholm, Finholm Architects.
Garton asked, Nicole, do you have a presentation?
Finholm answered, I don't, other than I might wish to address the
Parks rule. We have had the same employee living in the unit for
several years, he's been there for at least 15 years. We hope he
will stay on with us after we remodel it.
Garton asked, do the Commissioners have any questions of the
applicant or staff? Do you need anything clarified?
Hunt stated, I do have a question about the overhang on the south
elevation and possible snowshedding there at that entrance to the
unit. Has there been any snowshedding problems?
Finholm responded stating, no, because the overhang extends 3 and
1/2 feet. Hunt asked, is the overhang the dotted line there
(referring to drawings) ?
Finholm answered, yes. Hunt stated, O.K., fine.
Garton stated, before I ask for questions from the public, I want
to remind them that what our purview here tonight is to review and
legalize an accessory dwelling unit, and to be sure that it meets
the requirements of the code, which has been answered in the
memorandum.
Garton stated, I have a couple of questions regarding the
compatibility of the code. One is, parking space requirement, it
isn't actually defined or mapped out here on the blueprint.
Finholm stated, we have parking spaces for all persons in house,
plus private parking spots for the ADU unit. Garton asked, where
is that on the blueprint? Finholm showed on a site plan where all
the parking was. Garton asked, so, you have five spaces for how
many bedrooms? Finholm replied, we have five bedrooms, and we
actually have eight spaces with the garage.
3
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Lamont stated, let me just add for clarification, remember, we
changed the code to one or two parking spaces per dwelling unit,
not for bedrooms.
Garton asked, also, in Chuck's memorandum, he mentions about the
public trail easement, which we want to address. He also says that
Sneaky Lane carries a public pedestrian easement. It is a private
road, and is that true, there's a pedestrian easement?
Finholm answered, it is my understanding that on Sneaky Lane there
is a utility access easement.
Lamont added further comment and stated, we discussed many
alternatives, and our understanding is that there is an access,
public utility access easement on Sneaky Lane, and it is not a
private pedestrian easement. But we can go through that.
Garton asked, and we don't have a map to show what you would like
to have widened? Lamont stated, no, that's why my condition of
approval recommends that they work with the Parks Department to
figure out what kind of easement we would like, what kind of trail
we would like because they have easements on the other side of the
creek also, and where it would hook up and how it would hook up.
Garton asked, is that agreeable to you, Nicole, and to the
applicant? Finholm answered, yes, it is.
Garton asked, any questions or comments from the audience about
this application for an accessory dwelling unit? There were none.
Garton stated, in that case, I entertain a motion.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to approve the conditional use of affordable
housing unit at 700 Sneaky Lane with Conditions 1-8, Planning
Office memorandum dated 8 August, 1995, finding that it meets all
the review criteria. This is also conditioned on the applicant
getting the address list for the Public Notice to the Planning
Office. Blaich seconded, voting commenced, vote was unanimous in
favor, motion carried.
4
I
7 �
) .1c
to 14,Q
s:� � � _III
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
616 W. HOPKINS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Garton opened the public hearing.
Mary Lackner of staff presented and stated, David Brown is here
representing the applicant. The Commission noted that plans of
the site were not included in the packets and Lackner apologized
for the oversight.
Lackner stated, staff really doesn't have any concerns with this
project, we do have some typical recommendations for conditions.
It is a demolition and reconstruction of an existing house, it has
received approval through Ordinance 35, Design Review Standards.
We recommend approval of this project. Lackner stated she had
another set of plans which she passed onto the Commission for
viewing.
Garton asked, does the applicant have a presentation?
Brown replied, a brief presentation. The existing house will be
substantially removed, the only thing that will be remaining will
be the fireplace, so, it is a very different house than the
existing house. As Mary noted, it has already been throught Design
Review Approval. One category in the site plan, on the first
floor, when it went through the Design Review, that plan shows an
encroachment into the side yard setback on the west side. That was
not approved at the Design Review and that will not be part of it,
so we would literally "squish" it into the setback to make the ADU
work and do some slight internal modifications to conform with the
Design Review. Another thing I noticed today in reviewing the plan
that I feel very bad about, there is not a dormer over the entry
to the ADU. I throw myself prostrate before this body and plead
for mercy. We will put a small dormer over the entry to the ADU
whether this body asks for it or not. Substantially, we agree to
all the conditions of approval and this ADU is above grade with
access off the street, has light and air ventilation, private deck,
so from my standpoint, I think it would be a nice, if not terribly
luxurious, unit. It is about 315 sq. ft., give or take.
Brown stated, a couple of the conditions, we'll start with the big
one. Staff is requesting on -site parking because this is along a
pedestrian bikeway. I completely understand and concur with the
request for off-street parking, however, in discussion with my
client's representatives and my client, the ownership feels that
this project that is designed meets the goals of the ADU ordinance.
The ADU ordinance does not require off -street parking and my client
does not wish to provide off-street parking designated for this
unit. The five off-street parking spaces shown, two in the garage,
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
three off the alley, and if this unit does become rented out, I
think in all likelihood there's a good chance that the off-street
parking space; my client wishes to make the representation, that
that is guaranteed.
Garton asked, how many bedrooms does it have? Brown answered, the
way it is shown, right now, it would be five bedrooms, two in the
basement, three upstairs, actually, it's two, plus a study, which
would be construed at the Planning staff level as a bedroom, so,
it would be five bedrooms, plus an ADU. So conceivably, as it is
currently drawn, it will be a six bedroom facility, including the
ADU, or five bedrooms, plus the ADU.
Garton asked, you say there's five parking spaces on site?
Brown stated, there's five parking spaces on site, two in the
garage and three behind; two behind the garage, and one to the side
of the garage.
Mooney asked, where is 616?
Brown answered and explained the location of the property to
Mooney.
Garton asked, what is the other condition, David, you have changed
something?
Brown stated, well, we will have to redo the first floor, because
it sticks 5 ft. or so into the side yard setbacks. We were hoping
to retain that portion of the existing house in the side yard
setback and the Design Review Committee, in its infinite wisdom,
didn't go for it. So, what can I say. It wasn't another
condition, it was in another review.
Buettow asked, so, in this first floor plan here, where you are
going to eliminate that encroachment there, so you are going to
redo this whole area (referring to the site plan)? Brown stated,
the whole area will be re -completed.
Mooney asked, where is the main entrance to the ADU? Brown
answered, it is on the west side. If you look at the site plan,
it is on the southwest corner, facing west. Brown showed on the
site plan. Mooney stated, O.K., I got you.
Hunt asked, do you have sufficient sound installation between the
units. Brown stated, not yet, but we will.
Lackner stated, I just want to make sure you understand staff's
position about requiring the parking space. We do think that is
important.
6
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 8, 1995
Brown stated, I completely understand and in another quorum, I
might concur, but on behalf of my client, I cannot.
Garton asked, are there any comments from the audience regarding
this application?
Martha Madsen, the neighbor from the west, stated her concerns; she
asked clarification on the height of the roof and voiced concern
regarding the parking. Brown explained to Madsen using the site
plans to assist in his explanations to her. There was much
discussion at random between Brown and Madsen, and Mooney, and
Garton asked to have the conversation directed more toward the
Commission. Madsen stated she had ten apartments with fifteen
people living in her building, and she had had a parking problem
and increased the parking in the alley. She stated there was quite
a collection of cars on West Hopkins, that was why parking was such
a concern to her. Madsen stated, we have a courtyard to the east
of this project, and grass doesn't do very well, and it is the only
space we have. Everytime a building goes up higher we get boxed
in.
Garton asked, Bob and Steve, did the Design Review Committee
address the stepping down to the adjoining building in the
neighborhood? Did staff look at that?
Lackner stated, no, that was before the new guidelines came out.
So, he came through Ordinance 35, and Ordinance 30 had a different
view of that.
Brown stated, (showing on the site plan), however, this is the
street elevation and in the middle of this are two substantial
spruce trees. So, the impact on the street, and this was in
discussion with the Design Review, would not be terribly changed
from the existing, because those trees would be maintained. This
does set down the facade and will continue to set down on the
facade. This eave is lower than the height of the Madsen
Apartments, although on that side there is a one-story shed,
carport, one parking space on the side of the building. The intent
is to create a one-story feeling across the street facade,
regardless, with a one-story porch, a single -story livingroom
element, so you keep the small character of the Victorian
flavorings of the community.
Garton asked, are there any other comments from the audience
regarding this application?
7
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Meta Packard Barton, a visitor to Aspen, stated, I have many
f riends in Aspen, and have been coming here over the years. I want
you to stop me, if I am out of order, but I'm not sure I understand
your process completely. My question was, I have been interested
in trying to purchase real estate in Aspen and consider myself as
a potentially good citizen, having been trained in medical
psychology and having a CPA designation. For the last three or
four years I have been looking for property, and there happens to
be one property in which I think the house is perfect, as it is,
for someone like me. I did place a bid on this house within the
year in which the current owner purchased the house, and I had
offered $100,000 more than he purchased the house for and I was
turned down. My question to this committee is, I walked through
the west end over the weekend and there seemed to be just a hugh
enventory of these large properties with additional units, and five
bedrooms, and so forth, all of which are million dollar plus
properties. My concern is, whether this group and the citizens of
Aspen, really want to limit future property owners, to people who
can't afford multi -million dollar places or they really want to
keep some of the buildings that you have to get a diversity to stay
within the budget for some other people who might be desirable
citizens of this community.
Garton stated, thank you for your comments, and that is a concern
of all of us. We have a couple things in place in Aspen, and one
is, an historic list of homes and properties that are preserved.
Secondly, we have an affordable housing program, which is trying
to meet the demands and keep the community of mixed character, and
we have already been accused of social engineering on that one.
The third is, a new ordinance, Ordinance 30, which is when a
property is turned over it must respect certain character
guidelines and other requirements, which is a new way of measuring
the bulk and mass of the building, and that is all we can do. We
can't look at what someone's income is, unfortunately, when one
purchases a home, or what their intent is with the property,
whether or not they meet the codes, but it is a concern of all of
us.
Brown stated, I would just like to add to it. One of the goals of
the ADU Program is to bring more dwelling units into the enventory
that would be within the reach of a broader group of people.
Barton asked, so, would that be considered as subdivision.
Garton stated, no, what we are doing tonight is a conditional
review for a piece of property because it exceeds its floor area
ratio, on the parcel, it has already gone through Design Review.
What we are doing tonight is approving a conditional use, which is
called an accessory dwelling unit, which must be part of the new
home. It is, hopefully, to house the working population.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Barton asked, but it cannot be sold separate?
Garton stated, and it is not sold. It is not condominiumized.
Barton stated, it does not provide additional lower costs.
Brown stated, it could. Lamont stated, a lower cost eventually.
Barton stated, but I'm talking about personally, for profit, here.
There was discussion at random regarding ADUs between Lackner,
Garton and Barton at this point.
Mooney stated (to Barton), you were willing to buy the existing
house and give the current owner a $100,000 dollar profit, but we
can't do anything about how much they want to get in return. They
are building a spec house, obviously for profit. We can't help
manage who gets into position.
Brown stated, if I could comment because I share a lot of the
concerns I'm hearing. On behalf of my client, one of the goals was
to get an approval so that they could market this property. This
is not a fact, that it will be torn down and replaced. Someone
could buy this house, with or without this approval. Maybe someone
wished to negotiate a relationship with the current owner, so that
is outside the purview of this body. But, this is not a bad deal,
and if we approve this or don't approve it, it still is not a bad
deal. Any buyer could choose to leave it the way it is and let
this approval go away. So, we're not trying to hide anything here,
it is strictly trying to show a potential buyer an improved
alternative to the existing. I happen to disagree with some
members of staff and some members of the Design Review, but I think
this is more in keeping with the character of old Aspen, than the
existing house, which I think was a cute house for 1973 or 1965,
but it is very contemporary and it doesn't have some of the
historic flavorings that this might have.
Garton stated, now, I'll get back to the conditional use review,
but I think that detour is alright, it is always good to remind us
why we are here and the work we still need to do.
Hunt stated, I'm strongly inclined to keep 7-e., which is the on -
site parking requirement for two reasons. Number one, it is a spec
house, and number two, there is a parking problem in that immediate
vicinity so, I think it is only right to require that at this
development. As far as the roof height, I don't see going into
that at this point, it is within regulations.
9
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Blaich stated, it is my understanding, if we were to approve a
motion, 7-e. is automatically in there. I just think there is a
question of wording because 7-e. says, the final site plan shall
indicate an on -site parking space for the ADU; previously, in the
memorandum, planning said, as long as one of the spaces is
specifically designated. Is that wording precise enough, an on -
site parking place? As I understand it, your client is saying,
they will take one of the other places. My understanding is that
staff wants us to word specifically, designate it so that that is
guaranteed that the ADU has a parking place. So, I would only
suggest that e. be strengthened.
Hunt stated, O.K., how about, the final site plan shall designate
an on -site parking space for the ADU? Lackner stated, we could
say, specifically designate a parking space.
Blaich stated, I don't care which one, if it is in the garage or
outside, but a place for the ADU, otherwise, they could say, there
is a space but somebody else took it, it's too bad. Those things
can be very loose later on. I would like to see it firmed up, I
do think there should be a specific recommendation.
Garton asked, to say, specifically designate, that would be alright
with you, Robert?
Blaich stated, yes, to be specifically designated, which is firmly
used earlier in the draft.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to approve conditional use for the
approximately 312 sq. ft. affordable housing accessory dwelling
unit at 616 W. Hopkins with Conditions 1-9 on Planning Office
memorandum dated 8 August 1995, except that 7-e. shall be changed
to read, the final site plan shall specifically designate an on -
site parking space for the ADU, and finding, otherwise, that it has
met all the review criteria. I will add Condition #10, that a
provision to prevent snowshedding for the accessory dwelling unit
shall be provided over the entrance. Blaich seconded. Voting
commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Mooney asked, does this mean if this passes, then, the applicant
is required to comply with all this or pay cash -in -lieu?
Lackner replied, no, he still has a chance to pay cash -in -lieu. The
other thing that David just whispered to me, he would like the
dormer to be a condition of approval.
10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
VICKERY CODE AMENDMENTS
(TABLED FROM JULY 18)
Garton opened the public hearing.
Lackner of staff presented, stating, this is a request for an
Historic Landmark Lot Split Text Amendment. The applicant is
looking to allow in the Land Use Code, in the R-6 zone district,
a splitting of historically designated parcels into two lots that
would be non -conforming under the current R-6 lot requirements.
This request is being requested not to be counted in the pool of
growth that we have recently changed to limit to only one a year;
it would be exempt from that pool. So, these things would be
allowed as long as the parcel complies with the lot area
requirements and the other provisions we have in the code, they are
not limited per year; it is an exemption we are encouraging for
historic lots to create this ownership separation. Essentially,
it is for lots between 9,000 and 12,000 sq. ft. in the R-6 zone
district. Initially, we had talked about expanding this into some
of the other zone districts, RMF, Office, and R-15, however, when
we looked at those zone districts more closely, the second unit on
those lots, is a conditional use. One thing we don't want to allow
is a creation of subdivisions for conditional use; what we want to
do is open this up to where it is currently permitted in the code
and that's why we have left it to the R-6 zone district.
Lackner continued stating, there are several aspects to this code
amendment. What it would take is, it would be reviewed by the
Growth Management Commission, as that is where lot splits will be
going now with the new revisions to growth management and there
would be a set of standards they would look at, if the property is
historically designated, how big the lots are, those kinds of
things. They also have some ability to look at the project's
compatibility to site design on surrounding properties, those types
of general review.
Lackner stated, one of the recommendations from staff on this
project, and as with some things, not everyone agrees, that we have
asked that the creation of these lot split parcels not be able to
obtain the FAR bonus available in the HPC Program. That is a 500
sq. ft. bonus. We have competing ideas on this, but that is the
one way we have drafted this, and the applicant is in substantial
disagreement with that requirement we have put into this draft.
We talked about this at the worksession, where everyone felt it was
O. K. that the Historic Lot Split can go down to a minimum 3, 000 sq.
ft. lot as that is a traditional townsite lot size, 30 by 100 feet,
so, it ended up that those provisions have been put into the R-6
district, that if you create a lot split, you can go down to a
minimum of 3,000 sq. ft. as long as your historic house isn't
11
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
located on a non -conforming size parcel.
Lackner continued stating, I can answer specific questions, I think
more will come up, but I think that is the general overview, and
we feel, as drafted, staff can recommend approval of this code
amendment. I think the FAR bonus issue is definitely something to
discuss. I know Jake has some "stuff" he wants to go through with
you.
Jake Vickery, applicant, stated, first of all, I want to review the
purpose of this program; there's about six or seven purposes, I'll
just read them all out. First thing, to increase the flexibility
of dealing with historical resources; secondly, to increase the
incentives given to landmarks to encourage new landmarks; thirdly,
to offset the renovation costs of historical structures; fourthly,
to encourage more reasonable and authentic restoration efforts and
strategies; fifth, to provide designated deceiving sites for an
historical structure (we've since taken that one out, I think); we
also want to reduce the amount of demolition with historical
resources; and simplify the methods of ownership of historical
properties. That sort of summarizes the intent of what we are
doing. I might add, in a kind of editorial way, that the affect,
as I visualize it, is to create more smaller houses and fewer
larger houses; create smaller units of density which have less
impact than larger units of density. Smaller houses are really not
being created these days, and these smaller houses would better
serve the needs of the local, resident famililies and singles.
It is kind of a counter measure to the production of the large
homes. These smaller houses would balance the mix and fabric of
the town, be more in scale with the traditional historical
character, and be more available, potentially, for local families.
Vickery continued stating, the corner unit that I initially
planned, as I proposed it, was intended to be, actually, a very
simple one in which all that was happening was that one could now
through the code, end up with a condominium ownership, you could
do the same thing, but end up with a single-family lot ownership.
Everything else, in reality, or the intention was supposed to be
like what you can already do with the code. It was really simply
a change in the form of ownership. The code amendment as regarded
by staff has gotten, in my mind, a lot more involved and a lot more
complex, in terms of the issues. We had a meeting this afternoon
and I tried to understand what staf f ' s concerns were; they seem to
be looking out quite a ways in their perspective that I didn't
initially know about, and so, I think the two things that I want
to, I guess, focus on; as proposed by staff, this code amendment
is unworkable for my project. That's not to say it is not a good
idea, but the way they proposed it, by forcing or not allowing the
bonus in the use for the historical landmark properties, in my
mind, creates a disincentive rather than an incentive to landmarks,
12
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
and a major obstacle to the way I have intended this thing would
work.
Lackner stated, one clarification, since Jake just covered the
point about condominiumization, currently, he can do separate
ownership of the historic parcel and a new house through
condominiumization which is approved by the Planning Director. The
City Attorney has advised staff that that condominiumization
exemption or approval by the Planning Director needs subdivision
approval process. So, that condominiumization approval by the
Planning Director; we have been directed to change that to follow
the subdivision process and would go through those standards. So,
that is something that we have been advised as being closed. Jake
drafted this code amendment with the vision that the Planning
Director would sign off on the lot splits. The reason staff
revised it to go to the Growth Management Commission is we are
narrowing the existing lot split provisions in the code that is for
lots 12,000 sq. ft. or greater, and we feel the Growth Management
Commission was created to look at growth and lot splits and they
are the appropriate body to be reviewing this. So, that is just
to clarify, if you have questions about condominiumization. We
have been advised that that needs to be taken out and we feel you
will be seeing that before too long.
Vickery stated, just to focus the dialogue a little bit, let me
tell you where I'm at with this thing. First of all, turn to the
review standards that we have in the memorandum here. I think I
can say that there is pretty much agreement between myself and
staff on items B through H, and that is the main body of the
"stuff", but where we are falling apart, and need some more room
for work is on A and I; in both those cases, the memorandum refers
to the revisions that staff has made and I would prefer to stick
with the amendment as I proposed it. Those two standards, I think,
we need to look at in a little more detail. In terms of staff ' s
recommendation at the end of the memorandum, what I would like to
do is eliminate number 4, no, not number 4, but eliminate the
second part of number 4 where it says, the only HPC variance
permitted for the Historic Landmark Lot Split are setback variances
found to be required by the HPC. Also, eliminate number 5, which
says, the historic landmark FAR bonus is not permitted on any lot
created by the Historic Landmark Lot Split. I would like to see
the bonuses and the full historical program for these landmarks
maintained without compromising the situation. I don't understand
why these particular things have been added to this code amendment,
I think it is mixing two sets of jurisdiction, and it ends up being
a stange mixture of "stuff".
Garton stated, Roger, before we ask questions of the applicant and
staff, Amy, do you have any presentation as to why you did add some
things?
13
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Amidon answered, well, actually, I'm not amongst the staff who
participated in writing the memorandum, and I agree with Jake, that
I think the FAR bonus should be retained. Jake and I did a quick
study today and this seems to be an issue of some confusion between
City staff, P&Z, and HPC. In the last, a little over two years,
since I came here in May of 1993, there have been only two FAR
bonuses awarded to an HPC project, and I think sometimes people
have perceived that we are giving them out left and right, and that
isn't the case. And, the same goes for the setback variances, the
site coverage variances, and given the restriction that Jake is
proposing here, where only the duplex FAR is allowed for the
property. The FAR bonus can be very important; I don't think we
should weaken the program by eliminating it, I don't think it is
fair, and I don't think it has any connection. There doesn't seem
to really be any justification for it. That 500 sq. ft. doesn't
represent additional growth.
Lamont stated, I just want to clarify the R-6 Zone District. The
total floor area ratio for two detached residential dwelling units
on a lot of 9,000 sq. f t . or greater shall not exceed the floor
area lot of a duplex.
Garton stated, you are supporting staff, Leslie?
Lamont stated, I'm just pointing out that the code already limits
the floor area for two detached units on a parcel of 9,000 sq. f t .
or greater to a duplex. It already limits it.
Lackner stated, except, I think what Jake is clarifying, is that
when he is creating the two parcels, it is a 9,000 sq. ft. lot, you
are creating one 3,000 and one 6,000. The R-6 Zone District says
for a 3,000 sq. ft. lot, a single-family home can have x, and a
6,000 sq. ft. lot can have x. So, instead of adding those two
together and getting two single-family home sizes, which is a lot
bigger, instead of having it calculated independently from what
they can have on a single-family home on each, he is limiting it
to a duplex for the whole parcel, which is 200 less.
Lamont stated, no, if this code amendment is not adopted to allow
the lot split we all agree you could do two detached homes on this
parcel and condominiumize these. But the floor area is that of one
duplex. It ' s the lot split, that we all agree to do the lot split,
you should not maybe be able to get the floor area for a single-
family home. But you are not proposing even more than you can
already do.
Vickery stated, exactly, like I say, the whole purpose, the whole
structure of this thing was to do exactly what you could already
do by the code, except end up with single-family lots instead of
14
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 8, 1995
condominium ownership. I would like to circulate this around; it
is a worksheet for you "guys" that I made, and what it does, it
just summarizes the FAR, single-family duplex FAR per size of lot.
Then it shows you increments.
Lackner stated, the FAR thing, and Leslie might be able to help you
out a little bit on this. One of the reasons I think staff is
asking that it not be included is you are creating a non -conforming
parcel of an historic structure. Staff ' s believe is that by giving
him the exemption of not counting this new unit in the pool is a
big incentive. It is not limited to one a year, we are providing
ownership incentive, yes, there is the condominiumization
incentive, now if he can just divide this, but that is pending to
be taken out. So, we are providing an option that non -conforming
lots are created and that you can split an historic element on a
smaller parcel. But, to put a 500 sq. ft. bonus, which is your
maximum HPC bonus, on a non -conforming parcel may be too much.
Maybe we would want to say, somewhere in between, that maybe only
250 sq. ft. bonus would be appropriate because they are such small
lots. In the discussion we had this afternoon, Jake and Amy were
saying that usually the full bonuses are only on larger parcels,
maybe just half a bonus, or something to reflect the smaller lot
is a way we can look at it. I don't know, maybe it confuses you
more. But we are just trying to see a way to make it somehow work.
Vickery stated, just to clarify that one more step, is just that,
I personally feel that HPC is perfectly qualified to judge whether
or not a project deserves to get a bonus. That is their job,
that's what they are charged to do, that's their authority. I'm
trying to keep that authority with HPC. Like Amy said, in the past
two years, since May of 1993, there's only been two projects that
we know of that have gotten the bonuses. Both of those projects,
one of which is the one that I am doing, are 10,500 foot lots. The
purpose of showing you the FAR, as you see, as the lot size gets
larger towards the higher end of the scale, the FAR proportionately
is significantly lower. One fairly viable argument supports the
ability of these larger lots to accommodate up to 500 sq. ft. more.
And again, this is the jurisdiction of HPC and we are trying to
keep the integrity. This program wasn't intended to undermine the
HPC.
Lamont stated, just to add to what Mary was saying, this whole year
of "monster" home discussion, and FAR discussion, when we started
really looking at our allowable FARs the biggest problem that we
believed that we were having with FARs was the ratio on our small
lots.
Amidon stated, I agree with Leslie, this whole FAR discussion came
out of HPC. Jake's particular project, which is just one example
of this, results in 1,950 sq. ft. on a 5,200 sq. ft. lot, which is
15
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
not an exceeded amount of FAR, and you should also realize that in
his particular case that there are historic out -buildings that he
is required to keep which add up to 400 sq. ft., or something like
that. So, you have to realize that there are portions of buildings
that someone might not necessarily wish to keep or out -buildings
that are eating up FAR. That's part of the reason for the bonus
in the first place.
Hunt stated, well, I'll start with the basic philosophy that I do
have problems creating a non -conforming lot, just the basic problem
there, it doesn't mean I can't get over it. I don't like the idea
of creating a non -conforming lot, however, under the circumstance,
there's an historic structure, and it can be parceled in a 3,000
sq. ft. lot, that's fine, but now, what goes on the remainder of
the lot, which may not necessarily be historic at all once you've
separated it from the historic structure. Now, if there's an
outhouse or something like that, I guess that makes it historical
all of a sudden, but my concern is, that on this new 6,000 sq. ft.
developable lot, that really has minimal historic qualities to it,
you are basically going to put a new structure on it, and I have
severe problems of allowing that new structure, let's say,
variances that would be to an historic structure. I'm just not
interested in giving a new structure all those variances, I don't
see where it is appropriate at all. What happens to the lot next
to the new structure, if you vary the sideyard setback, you're
going to impact that one with a new structure and don't think
that's "cricket". I'm sorry, I don't want to rely on HPC to make
those decisions. I want to protect the next property owner, as
well, in this whole thing. So, I can go along with this lot split
idea, O.K., it makes some degree of sense, there's a good argument
for it, but I have grave problems about variances and bonuses
applied to the new structure; the lot that isn't necessarily
historic. If there is an historic outhouse on it, and it's in a
side yard setback, or something like that, fine, the variance can
apply there to the outhouse, but it shouldn't apply to the new
structure.
Amidon stated, that actually is not being proposed. We have had
the same feelings, I think, and there are no bonuses that are to
be alloted to the part of the property that does not have the
historic building, other than whatever might be allowed under
cottage infill, if they were to be doing an ADU or something like
that. We're not suggesting that, I agree with you, if it's a new
empty lot, they should build within the regulations.
Chaikovska stated, I think we have two conflicting things here,
we're looking at a code amendment that applies to everybody, and
yet, we're also constantly keeping in mind your project, which some
of us may like very much, or may not, there are personal
preferences, so, we are confusing two different things. To expand
16
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
on what Roger says, we have to look when we do a code amendment as
to what is fair, and what we think is appropriate for a code
amendment, period, without viewing your particular project. Then,
once we decide what is appropriate there, then, we can look at your
project, but to confuse the two makes it very difficult. Congress
doesn't allow us to create an amendment to fit one person's needs,
so I'd like to be able to separate the two in our minds, no matter
how much we may like your project.
Garton stated, I have a question, I need help from the staff; on
page 5, recommending approval, what you are suggesting is all in
bold, right?
Lackner stated, yes, those would be the additions to the code.
Garton asked, explain Item 2 to me.
Lackner stated, the parcel is a designated historic landmark. The
historic landmark is located on the lot which is less than 6,000
sq. ft. So, the new house, the new development, must be on a
conforming size in the R-6 Zone. The historic house is the only
one that can go on a non -conforming size parcel.
Garton stated, only the historical is on the non -conforming.
Vickery stated, that's a difference.
Garton asked, than what you propose?
Vickery stated, I don't propose that. Garton stated, so, you don't
agree with that.
Lackner stated, staff's looking at this as if we are going to be
creating a non -conforming size parcel. We want that attached to
the historic building to make it clear that that is our incentive.
Now, we are confusing things, for Jake's approval, he wants to
divide his lot evenly, creating two non -conforming sized parcels,
and he can currently do that under his condominiumization. In
terms of this code amendment, staff doesn't feel he should be going
that far.
Garton stated, I have to second Marta on this thing, too, I would
like to see this happen for Jake, but I agree, that I think if it
is a non -conforming lot it should be an historic parcel.
Vickery stated, may I address that on a general basis? I will try
to keep my project out of this as much as possible. The reason I
don't support that, and I don't support it generally, not just for
my project, but generally, for in order for this to work, for
example, if you had a 9,000 foot lot, and you had to make a 6,000
17
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 8, 1995
foot lot, that would only leave it 3,000 for the other site. Now,
there's lots of historic properties that are not going to fit on
the package like that because in order to do it, we'd have to have
a house that's no more than 20 feet wide, and then, both of your
side yards would only have to be 5 feet wide. I maintain that
that's not a optimum situation, that it might be better to be 45
and 45, in that case, or whatever works. But to be saddled with
a restriction of having to do a legal size 6, 000 foot lot, when the
FAR, by definition, is already going to be restricted and lowered
to an allowable lot of record, it seems to me, just to saddle the
project with less flexibility, and then a potentially less workable
and attractive situation.
Garton stated, my problem is that if you allow the new dwelling to
go on the non -conforming lot, then, it shouldn't get the bonus,
like you shouldn't be able to get it all, it is one or the other.
Vickery stated, may I go back a step and just address that briefly?
First of all, the entire parcel, or the two parts of parcels, are
perpetually under the jurisdiction of HPC. So, the whole thing,
forever, gets reviewed by HPC. It's not like just an historical
part is reviewed by HPC, and the other thing just gets cut loose,
it is a perpetual review. I believe, that you want to maintain
the flexibility to be able to move things around, internal to the
properties, and what might work, you may or may not want to put the
bonus to the old house; or move it over to the new house. The
whole purpose of this is to take the development pressure off of
the historical resource, push it over there, let it happen off to
the side, so that you don't have the imposition of these large
masses from the rear, kind of backing over these little, old
houses. The purpose of this is to allow the little, old house to
be restored and maintained in its own integrity, without the
development pressure put on it, and put all that other pressure,
or whatever you want to call it, or development onto this new
thing, that' s got its own entity, and is also reviewed by HPC. Let
me point out just briefly, the proposal here is that HPC needs to
have the flexibility in the variances and the coverage in order to
make this dual house thing happen, because of the coverage
requirements and setback requirments of large lots.
The proposed code amendment says, the new lots shall conform to the
underlying zone as if they were laws of record, which means that
the coverage and the setbacks of these historical lot split lots
then ought to meet the underlying setbacks and coverages as if they
were lots of record. Is that clear? By doing that you eliminate
the need for a vast majority of these variances.
(At this point the tape has to be changed and some of the
conversation between Hunt and Vickery was not taped.)
18
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Vickery continued stating, let me give you an example. A
hypothetical 10,500 foot lot; the side yard minimum side yard
setbacks are 15 feet, not 5, not 10, but 15 feet, and the total of
the two side yard setbacks is 36-1/2 feet, so, what this would do
is allow the two houses to go on there and maybe have a 5 or 10
foot side yard setback that would require a variance from HPC, does
currently require a variance from HPC, but under this new code
amendment, would not, because when you make the small lots, all of
a sudden you are down 5 and 10 foot side yard variances, with a
total of 15, inside this really big, the rather large setback
requirement of the full size lot.
Lackner stated, staff is seeing this as it is drafted that now the
newly created lots, whether it's 3,000 or 4,500, meets those site
coverage and setback requirements of that size parcel, and
hopefully eliminating the need for any site coverage and setback
variances. And then, that's what the neighbor would know when they
call the Planning Office, how close is this "guy" going to build
to me, you would look out and see your setbacks, so it would be the
same consistency as the rest of the townsite.
Vickery stated, we are actually in agreement on that part.
Hunt stated, I agree with that, but the "kicker" is the allowable
variances that HPC could eject there.
Vickery stated, in order to get a variance, any variance, or even
any bonus from HPC, you have to go along with an argument that's
made on the basis of what you are proposing is more compatible to
the historical resource than what would otherwise be allowable.
It has to meet that test, that's the test used to decide if the
variance should be awarded. If somebody has a better idea how to
do something, and they need an extra foot or something to make it
work, HPC has the ability, under that circumstance, to approve that
variance. That's the way the code is set up, that's the kind of
authority HPC currently has.
Hunt stated, for an historic resource, that's fine.
Garton stated, I understand what Jake and Amy are saying, these are
Siamese Twins forever, I mean, they really support each other and
for us to suddenly think of them of a whole new building on another
lot, we're allowing that to happen in order to make the historical
structure work better and design a wall around that, before we
divide out the other lot. You know these things are going to come
into play, and it would probably be better for the character of the
neighborhood. It puts a lot on HPC, but that's what HPC does now,
anyway.
19
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Chaikovska stated, HPC has review control over the whole parcel,
correct? Your concern is that some of the FAR, all of the FAR,
could go on the new parcel, but not on the old historic house?
Garton stated, no, the bonus. Chaikovska stated, the bonus. You
can always do the middle of the road, do a portion if you want it
to go that way. Hunt stated, that there is so much square footage
for the parcel? Chaikovska stated, yes, and the 500 is allocated
between the two, that's another option.
Chaikovska stated, I just want a little more clarification on this
#2, again. The parcel is designated historic landmark. The
historic landmark is located on the lot which is less than 6,000
sq. ft. So, you're saying that the historic landmark will always
be on the smaller parcel? Amidon answered, yes. Chaikovska
stated, why do you care? Why would it have to be on the smaller
parcel, why couldn't you have the situation where it could be on
the larger parcel, what's the magic there?
Lackner stated, just to follow that if it is an historic building,
this is the incentive for a lot split, that we want to keep our new
development more in conforming size parcels, which is 6,000 sq. ft.
The aggregate, whatever it is, between 3,000 and 12,000, should be
the historic parcel. That's where you could still get your HPC
setback site coverage variances to fit your house onto that
aggregate, or left over floor area. We still do have some concern
about creating a non -conforming lot, as Roger said. That, at
first, when Jake came to us with this code amendment, how do we get
past that issue, it's a really tough one, and that's where we were
saying, that putting the historic element, or the incentive portion
of the property onto the non -conforming parcel, we're maintaining
the integrity of 6,000 sq. ft. lots we need developed. I think
Jake has some valid concerns that the historic piece might not
always fit. If it happens to be only a 9,000 sq. ft. parcel, that
house may be too wide for that 3,000; I don't know, maybe look at
other lot conf iguations . But that's where staff got over that non-
conforming size lot issue.
Amidon added, part of the other idea was too, was assuming we're
dealing with a small, historic structure we wanted them to end up
on small parcels because of the much less FAR.
Garton stated, Jake, I see that the big issue is #5.
Vickery stated, yes, I think the big issue is #5. I think where
#4 gets a lot of relief is because of the underlying zoning deal.
Garton asked, and you can live with that?
20
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Vickery stated, yes, I think that's basically right. Can I say one
thing about the FAR? For example, let's take a hypothetical 9,000
sq. ft. lot. If you were to build the duplex FAR, you can see that
on your sheets there, for a 9,000 sq. ft. lot, it is 40-80. If you
were just to evenly divide it into two equal lots, and you evenly
divide the FAR, you would get two houses of 2,040 sq. ft. If you
built to 4,500 feet, which is the size of each of those lots, you
can see, the allowable single family FAR is 2,820. It means that
the FAR in this new kind of lot deal is going to be approximately
780 sq. f t . less than what would be allowed on a lot of record.
So, although we are creating non -conforming lots, we are also
creating FAR restricted lots, so that these non -conforming FAR
restricted lots are going to yield a structure for ball park
purposes, is it going to something like about 25 o smaller than what
would be allowed on a lot of record.
Vickery added, I ' m comparing it to a 4,500 sq. f t . lot. I ' m simply
comparing it to a lot of record, basing it on a hypothesis of
developing a 9,000 foot lot just from an academic view.
Garton asked, does the Commission need more information on this?
Mooney stated, this is killing me. I don't think I can vote for
this; it's not because I want to vote for Jake's alteration of
this, it is because I have a problem with non -conforming creations
and I don't think this simplifies the code. I think we have plenty
of leeway and plenty of incentive for an architect to draw the
project that is compatible with the HPC's desires and insight and
with the City Code. This to me is just taking off on a tap that
I don't know when it's going to apply, where it's going to apply,
and who it is going to apply to. People need these things, they
can get their architect to do what they need on these lots with
what we have existing, in my opinion. For us to invent another way
for some imaginary project to be better than it could be, it's
driving me crazy. So, I would make a motion to deny it, even this
code amendment, because I don't think the code amendment is
necessary here, and I'm not making the motion to deny this because
I think that one or two of the conditions need to be treated, I
think the whole thing is just not really all there.
Lamont stated, don't forget, you are the Growth Management
Commission with the County P&Z.
Chaikovska stated, we need to go back to the beginning; I like the
idea that we were trying to simplify the process for somebody who
wanted to lot split versus condominiumizing because if it was
condominiumized, would you have control over the whole project
anyway?
21
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 8, 1995
Amidon stated, well, yes, because we do all our landmark
designations by legal description.
Chaikovska stated, so, whether we allow a lot split or a
condominiumization, it doesn't matter in terms of what type of
agency had control over the whole parcel?
Amidon stated, no.
Chaikovska stated, under a lot split we would say, under this, HPC
has control over the whole parcel, correct? Under
condominiumization, we still have control over the parcel. No
change, all it does is make it easier for somebody to sell their
project.
Mooney stated, it doesn't restrict or limit the way they can sell
it, it just basically means that there are two people that decide
what happens with the land underneath both structures. So, they
basically have to agree.
Chaikovska stated, if you come under the lot split you don't really
exempt them out of that pool for three years, is that correct?
Lackner stated, the way this code is drafted, yes.
Chaikovska stated, so, that's the benefit of it.
Garton stated, if they stay to the old process that our City
Attorney's now advise us, they'd have to track the subdivision
process.
Chaikovska stated, so, if you're condominiumized you would get your
500 sq. ft. FAR bonus from HPC, correct? The whole bussel. The
thing that becomes different is now when you are saying, you've
been put on the new or the old, am I correct, if you lot split?
Vickery stated, it's all done as part of a site specific
development plan that's looked at as a whole. The site specific
development plan is what apportions the FAR to individuals.
Lackner stated, the way the code amendment was drafted, the
applicant was asking that he could get an FAR bonus for both new
and created parcels. Staff's believe is you have the following
parcel with an historic designation, you are allowed one FAR
exemption. I think that's been fairly clear throughout the
project.
Vickery stated, that's agreeable, the intention really isn't to get
more FAR bonus or anything. The FAR bonus that is potentially
available to the full site, right now, would still be available to
22
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
that site.
Blaich stated, I' m trying to separate the two issues, too. I would
like to come back to this specific project. Jake, your objection
to the condominiumization of the property, is related to what,
because you can do everything under that? What is your objection?
Vickery stated, my objection to condominiumization is number one,
what happens is, the land is owned between the two people, and I
felt like it would be better to have it; I just want to own this
land myself. Secondly, in order to do the condominium, you have
to have condominium documents, you have to have a condominium plat,
you have to have a Tax I.D. number, and you have to do all this
"stuff". It's really superficial "stuff". The people that are out
there doing it, and it works out fine, but, you know, they just
legally "rig" it up so that it is ineffective. I prefer to have
the idea that this is my house, this is my lot.
Blaich stated, well, I speak as somebody who lives under those
circumstances, as I brought up before. With my property, it has
had little or no problems as long as both parties agree, or that's
where you get into trouble, because, at least under my agreement,
the original owners agreed, and I have to live with this, that
there will be no major alterations of design on houses, they would
approve such things, and that they have first priority of refusal
on purchase or sell of that house. Those are the only real
restrictions, and the second one doesn't mean anything because the
person can say, I'm going to sell that property and I want 10
million dollars for it, and if they don't want it, turn around and
sell it for 3 million. So, I can just say from experience, it
doesn't bother me that it is condominiumized. It might bother
somebody who wants to buy my property or the other property later.
It could be an affect, maybe, but I don't know. I wouldn't make
too much of it, that's all I'm saying.
There was discussion at random between Blaich and Vickery
regarding the possibility of condomininiumization. Blaich stated,
what we are trying to do here is, we have the issue of trying to
do something to help you get your project through, and then,
complicating our lives, because this thing might have a negative
affect the next time it comes before us, and everybody has the
right to say, I'm sorry, you did it before, we now have the right
too. I'm a little disturbed about this, because there is
differences of opinion between staff, I'd like to see staff in
agreement with this, not say, well, we really haven't come
together. I think it would be a lot easier for us to deal with it
if staff would say we have worked it out and we can agree with
this.
23
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Hunt stated, I'm very close to Tim on this, and may second a
motion, so it doesn't die, but I haven't yet. About this FAR
bonus, O.K. you get a tangible benefit with the lot split and as
far as I'm concerned, the bonus is on the historic original parcel
and that bonus should be split up between the parcels because we
no longer have common ownership between the parcels. For example,
let's set up the hypothetical situation that HPC approves
application of all the bonus on the new structure, and what
happens, if later down the line someone wants to do something with
the historic structure and add a little to it, and the new
structure has eaten the bonus all the way up. That's not
particularly correct, so, what is condominiumized, if there were
any bonus left over on the new structure, with a
condominiumization, the historic structure could possibly apply for
that bonus. Well, when you stick the lot split in there, you don't
any longer have that transfer between the fee, so to speak. So,
consequently, I only feel it is fair to apply the bonus on the
basis of the ratio of the size of the lots to the properties. I'm
very close to Tim, I can't move for it the way it is, I'm really
close to Tim. I don't know if anyone else is, or not, but that
potential defect in the bonus in the way the variances are applied
to the new structure has me really worried.
Garton stated, for me, I too am disturbed, like Bob, by the
difference in staff on this, but I do see this as a real effort to
try to keep some small, historical resources, and keep them small.
If they are on a parcel that warrants this, it is one of our best
chances, I see, at keeping a small, historic house. I have a lot
of problem with the bonus thing, as well, and I think Marta's
suggestion enlarges on this too, to somehow have a ratio. But
then, on the other hand, I have a lot of faith in HPC, and I think
I would like to leave it up to them, I think HPC was really created
to look at these things. If there is an historic element with it,
I think HPC can review it a lot better than any code can actually
do. I am willing to go with Jake's original proposal.
MOTION
Mooney stated, I move that we deny this application for a code
amendment under the existing conditions. Hunt seconded. Roll call
vote was requested by Garton. Voting commenced, vote was: Hunt,
aye for the motion; Garton, no for the motion; Mooney, aye; Blaich,
no; Chaikovska, aye; Buettow, no. Vote was a split vote, motion
did not carry.
Discussion of Motion
Mooney stated, I am making the motion because of non -conforming
size of the lot and because basically I think that we can stretch
it to b., because that is kind of an overall umbrella; I think i.
24
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
has a broad enough umbrella; I think h. , basically dealing with the
setbacks has changed the surrounding neighborhood and impacts the
houses that are immediately adjacent.
Hunt stated, I could see in this application that the bonuses and
variances would be in conflict with the compatibility of the
surrounding zone district land use, for one thing.
Garton asked, is there another motion from the Commission?
MnrP T (YAT
Blaich stated, I would like to make a motion that we table it and
that staff go back and work it out in more detail after the
discussion we have had today. Hunt seconded. Roll call vote was
requested by Garton. Voting commenced; Hunt, aye; Garton, aye;
Mooney, aye; Blaich, aye; Chaikovska, aye; Buettow, aye. Vote was
unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Lackner stated, I would like a lot clearer direction, I think, from
the discussion we had today, we were kind of all over the place.
There was a lot of discussion about non -conforming, some people
can't get passed that; bonuses, we really haven't come to a
direction of where we should be going with those. Some of the
comments were, everything's in the code now, why worry about it.
Garton stated, wasn't the Commission interested in exploring the
ratio portion of the bonus?
Hunt stated, my biggest concerns were the bonuses and the
variances, and how do we deal with those. You know how I feel on
those. For example, if that could be addressed, I could probably
switch my vote.
Vickery stated, what would you like to do, would you like it to be
a proportionate type split?
Hunt stated, well, in the case of bonuses, the original bonus for
the total property, parceled out between the new pieces of property
proportionately.
Vickery asked, would you have a problem with all of the bonus going
in the historical resource?
Hunt stated, yes, because it is now on a non -conforming lot, and
I'm looking at the bonus as belonging to the original parcel, so
that bonus should be split up between the two new parcels. That's
where I'm coming from there. The variances, I have no problems
25
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
with variances on an historic structure. I have all sorts of
problems with potential variances on the new structure from the
underlying zone district where the new parcel would be.
Amidon stated, I'm not trying to complicate the picture, but I'm
just wondering, one brief discussion we had today was, what if you
could have the whole bonus on the historic lot as long as it didn' t
exceed a certain FAR, which is less than the maximum allowed, or
something like that? I mean, I just hate to be so restrictive in
laying out where the bonus can go when a case may come up that
makes perfect sense. But that is something staff can talk about,
maybe we can give a couple of options.
Hunt stated, but, maybe, you can come up with something.
Chaikovska stated, you wouldn't exactly, as Amy said, you wouldn't
want the whole thing on the historic structure, but then, if you
give it away to portions of the other structure, then, you don't
have any.
Mooney stated, I liked the discussion about whether or not we can
have separate ownership, but there are so many other things tapped
on here, as far as variances and bonuses, and I think that we have
covered a lot of that. We have given designers, architects, and
planners plenty of leeway and plenty of avenues to create very
unique historically, free market, combination compatiable units.
If you really want this ability to create a single ownership
instead of condominiumization of the land parcels, let's get at
that, and let's not try to tack on all this extra "stuff" that
really doesn't pertain to the ethics that we work on.
Vickery stated, if you go back to the code amendment that I
proposed, initially, I was simply trying to do exactly what you can
do by the code now, except for one change, which is to go to
single-family lots instead of condominium ownerships. That's all
I want to do. These other issues kind of came up.
Mooney stated, they make it so complicated, Jake, it really doesn't
make it easier for us to administrate what the intent is of what
we have in front of us, and to make a code amendment to allow us
to administrate it, to me, it's I don't know, it's goofy.
Vickery stated, what I proposed, this sheet here, the only change
I would make is in the very last line of that page. Garton stated,
give us the page, Jake. Vickery stated, the attachment. At the
very bottom down there, it says, the aggregate allowable FAR for
both lots shall not exceed that otherwise allowed for the parent
parcel and apportioned by a site specific development plan. Each
lot shall have the ability to receive the same variances and
bonuses available to similarly sized lot of record. Vickery
26
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 8, 1995
stated, that needs to be changed to read something else, regarding
the bonus, the bonus allowed would be currently available to the
parent parcel shall be available to the two lots, but not that each
shall be available.
Garton stated, I think I'll call the motion, and then, perhaps,
there has been some direction given, and we'll see this one more
time, maybe within an hour.
Hunt stated, I'll go with that.
KING LOUISE APARTMENTS
GMQS EXEMPTION FOR A CHANGE IN USE
Leslie Lamont of staff presented stating, the proposal is to
convert an existing studio apartment in the office zone district
to a commercial/office use. Change in use in the code allows us
to go from residential category to commercial retail office
category to lodge. Change in use does not look at changes within
the commercial category, that's kind of side -lined, this has
nothing to do with that, but people get confused, and they think
because someone is going to make a restaurant into an office, they
need to do a change in use. But, this is an existing studio
apartment that is being converted to a commercial retail use,
commercial/office retail use. Retail is not allowed in the office
zone district. As part of their mitigation requirements, they are
proposing to deed restrict another existing studio unit on site to
category one. Now, the unit they are proposing to deed restrict
does not meet our current guidelines with the size of the units,
however, when we did the calculation of what and when mitigation
was required, Cindy Christensen and I figured that the requirement
was something like .07 employees. So, we felt that since this was
an existing unit, and we had the opportunity to put an existing
free market unit on our housing enventory, and that the mitigation
itself was less than one person, one employee, that we felt that
it was appropriate and acceptable to accept this unit into our
housing enventory. It is being proposed to be deed restricted to
category one, which is our lowest rental in sales restrictions.
Lamont stated, the applicant, in his application, appealed to
staff's interpretation of the code, thinking that since the
business will only operate Monday through Friday during business
hours, and that they will maintain the unit as a unit, they will
not be eliminating the kitchen or the bathroom, and it could be a
unit during the weekend or the evenings for their own personal use.
They, at first, did not think that this was change in use, however,
we wanted to keep this very clean, and because business goes in
27
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 8, 1995
there and if they needed an eventual change of just full line
business, and it was not used as a residential unit, then we have
achieved our employee migigation requirements.
Garton asked, does the applicant have anything to add?
Ted Guy, the applicant, stated, we agree with the conditions and
restrictions outlined in the memorandum. The deed restriction that
has been presented to us by the Housing Authority does allow us,
if we terminate the commercial use of this Unit #7, to apply to the
Housing Authority to remove the deed restriction on Unit #8, since
it is no longer required. So, we have no problems with staff's
recommendations.
Mooney stated, can't you buy it back from the person?
Guy replied, it is only a rental.
Lamont stated, my understanding is that deed restrictions
ultimately have to be lifted, but they have to be lifted by
Council.
Garton stated, so, we wouldn't see it, then?
Lamont stated, typically, the way we catch people going from
residential to commercial is through their business licenses or if
they are not pulling a building permit to eliminate a kitchen or
do significant renovation in the building; it's through a business
license which goes through our zoning office that we catch somebody
and say you have to come through our change in use process.
Garton asked, does it go through Stan or something?
Lamont answered, no, Bill calls the person on the license and says,
you need to go through a change in use, or with your business you
are not allowed in that zone district, or things like that. That's
why all our business licenses go through Bill Drueding and that is
where we would typically catch a change in use.
Hunt stated, sort of a quick question here, are there any other
units that are deed restricted in this complex?
Guy answered, no.
Hunt stated, my only problem, not a major problem, but I guess it
has to do with the business aspect; how do you figure out that the
hair salon is all the way back around this question mark (referring
to drawings)? It shows the existing walk, but that existing walk
is shaded by a lot of foliage in that little corner.
28
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Guy answered, we are going to be improving the side yard on the
west. We have several handicapped clients who follow this
location, so they will come in either from the alley and be able
to come in from the street. We will, basically, plant lilac hedges
and turn that into a very nice yard. Now, if we had to put a sign
or something out there, we would have to go through whatever sign
code requirements you have and address them.
Hunt stated, I assume you, have one or two parking spaces in the
alley for this unit and are the parking spaces numbered for the
actual apartments?
Guy stated, well, we suggested that what we would do is to double
parking on the side. A condition for the addition was that one of
those spaces be deleted, and I think that Chuck Roth felt that
there was enough on street parking in the area to cover the
occasional use. There are eight legitimate studio apartments at
this time, but there are only seven parking spaces.
Hunt stated, in other words, the seven across the back? Guy
stated, so, we are improving the parking situation and will park
our employee car in the parking right next to the door to #8.
Hunt stated, but that is a double park space, and I don't recall
you have access.
Guy replied, yes, it is a double park space and we will park there
and our customers will be allowed to park on the alley. The person
who is the deed restricted occupant in Unit #8 does not own a car.
Hunt asked, would you plan on, in affect, re -designating these
spaces, assuming that, let's say, #7 and #8 are on the end here,
and however you want to work them, so that your customer would be
able to use the one closest to the alley?
Guy answered, right now, the lease on the those back units we do
not provide parking on site for.
Garton stated, would you like to make that a condition, Roger, just
because it is better planning?
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to grant a GMQS Exemption for the change in use
of one 457 sq. ft. dwelling unit, number 7, from a primary
residential use to a mixed commercial/residential use with
Conditions 1-3 in Planning Office memorandum dated 8 August 1995,
with an addition of a condition to reorganize or renumber the
parking spaces in the alley to allow the minute commercial
apartment parking in what is now spaces 1 and 8. Blaich seconded.
Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
29
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Discussion of Motion
AUGUST 8, 1995
Mooney stated, I'm wondering, is the person who lives in the unit
that is going to be deed restricted, does he already qualify? Guy
answered, yes. Mooney stated, and do you think that we should say,
that with that qualification, that he won't own a car? Because we
are now eliminating his parking space and making it a kind of
temporary in -and -out parking space.
Guy answered, no, he does not have a parking space at this time,
so, we're not changing anything in regard to his situation because
of the lease.
Hunt stated, I understand. But you do have some spaces across the
back section? Guy answered, but the way people park, they only
have five on some days.
Commissioners Blaich and Buettow had to leave the meeting at this
point.
WORKSESSION
The worksession on the ADU Survey Review was taped and is stored
in the City Clerk's Office for any information needed.
AH/RO CONTINUED DISCUSSION:
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO
NON-CONTIGUOUS PARCELS
Old Business, AH/RO Continued Discussion: Transfer of Development
Rights to Non-Congiguous Parcels was tabled to the August 22, 1995
meeting.
Additional Discussion
Lamont stated, what we need to do is look at commercial growth in
a different way, and I'm wondering if we need to bring our work
program to you and we can discuss with you your priorities for us.
Mooney stated, well, the whole thing is, I don't know how to get
at it. We have big companies coming in and dominating the resort
appetite of a small community, and who are not mitigating. This
community has to in some way be in partnership with these big
businesses that are national and international corporations, and
I think one of the things that we don't have is the ability to pay
30
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
full-time lobbists, like the Aspen Skiing Company, to expand the
airport. We don't have the ability to hire full-time
transportation experts that can balance out these "guys" from Vail
that are trying to turn our community into a mini -Vail, just to
expand the resort. To me, we start hedging on the idea that if the
resort gets so big that it makes us a second class community, then,
the resort starts to fail, and my idea about the attack they are
taking, is to expand the airport, to put more people on the street,
and once they get more people on the street, they are going to have
an appetite for more rooms, and more restaurants, and more shops.
Once they build more rooms, restaurants and shops, they are going
to want to expand the airport, create more people and put more
people on the street. If we don't start mitigating that kind of
outside growth, not just in what people do while building on their
lot, just control the appetite of these national and international
corporations for using our community for their resort development.
I think we lose everything, and all the work we have done
residentially, to put these people in these whatever kind of boxes,
on these lots and these spaces.
Garton asked, you don't think the Community Plan is that kind of
guide and has that kind of teeth?
Mooney stated, I don't think the Community Plan addresses the
commercial growth in any level of a percentage that is effective;
I definitely think that without Snowmass being involved in the
Community Plan, Sara, we're going to be shattered by the immediate
growth of these commercial entities. And the Ski Company, it is
outrageous, 2,700 employees. To my mind, I don't think they have
mitigated for one of those employees. I know they have some
employee housing that they bought, but they are bringing in outside
employees as fast as they can build their business and they are
building their business by bringing in outside employees, and all
of a sudden the community is becoming shadowed by them trying to
compete with other resorts. I don't know, I've got to get at it,
so that's my "speal".
Lamont stated, but do you think we could have a better discussion
in the context of our work program where we're really, so far, for
Council, we have a lot of commercial work that we want to do. It's
not reducing our quota, if you look at what our available quotas
have been and what we have gotten in commercial growth management,
it's been nothing. We want to get at it.
Mooney stated, just because we have allocated growth for commercial
development in the core, we have made that available, but we
haven't made it useable. What we've done is, sgeeze it on one end
and shoot out the other end. So, what we are doing is allowing
international companies to come in here and dominate us with their
kind of growth, because we are not allowing other local businesses
31
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
to take advantage of growing in the commercial core. That's not
really a priority for me, to say that there's too much available
FAR for commercial growth. To me, it is the philosophical intent
of allowing the community to be used for huge corporations to
profit when they are not mitigating the impacts on the community.
Garton stated, there's no way that they could provide the infra-
structure and pay for it.
Mooney stated, maybe, that's it. I've always been curious to find
out how we can shut the water off. We're at the head of all the
water, the tap fees, and the growth, and everything, and maybe,
unless there's mitigation for commercial growth of these companies,
you know, you just start pulling something in or taking control of
a company. When I started the Ski Company there were 45 ski
instructors on Aspen Mountain and there were about 90 at
Buttermilk, and maybe, 90 at Snowmass. Now there is 900. 900
instructors. There's 2,700 Ski Company employees. Now, we don't
have the ability to say if you expand the FAR of your building, you
have to pay. But, here, they have the whole outdoors and they're
putting people off because they want people coming through; it's
out of balance. It is commercial growth that has me very
concerned.
Garton asked, in our next packet for the 22nd, be sure to put the
31st, that worksession, on our future meetings. With P&Z, where
we are to meet with them. We are supposed to meet with the City
Council to discuss the Aspen Area Community Plan, and I have August
31st, a Thursday, at 5:00 p.m.
Lamont stated, I will double check and I will make sure it is on
your agendas so you all will know; the time, everything, because
they are starting to meet at 4:30 p.m. for the worksessions.
Mooney stated, I would like to take it into as strong a discussion
session as possible. I don't mean to climb the ladder with this
kind of information, I like to start at the top and start throwing
people energy at it. You know, this sensationalism that the Ski
Company and other community aspects are using to create a
sentimental idea that we're not big enough, is "stuff " like the ski
season was 50 off in attendance. Well, that's not talking about
the profit the Ski Company made; they have the highest lift ticket
price, they're running some of the most expensive hotels, blab,
blab, blah, and they are still generating a tremendous return with
the people we have coming here. To say that they need more people
in order to make their companies viable is some kind of sensational
kind of headline. That gets everybody worried that we're not
strong enough.
32
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1995
Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
33