Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950207A G E N D A f ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 7, 1995, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room City Hall ------------------------------------------- I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 100 Park Avenue Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit & Vested Rights, Kim Johnson IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA Plan, Leslie Lamont (continued from 10/18/94) V. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: February 7, 1995 Overlay Review Committee - February 14 Regular Meeting - February 21 Code Amendments (KJ) Trueman Lot 1 Conditional Use Review (ML) ti Overlay Review Committee - February 28 Regular Meeting - March 7 HPC Code Amendments (AA) Regular Meeting - March 21 Parks Master Plan Adoption (KJ) a.nex RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 1995 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Steven Buettow, Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. Marta Chaikovska and Robert Blaich were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: In talking to other people regarding the vote on parking it has been suggested if we all felt the vote should not be held until after summer time we should draft a resolution to City Council requesting that the -,Tote be in the Fall. After discussion: Sara: I so move. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. Sara: I was walking along Neal Street on the wonderful new sidewalk and stopped to talk with Lonna Trenton and she said she has to pay for all the shoveling of this walk between King Street and all the way down to Queen Street. She is the only property owner there. It is a real hardship for her. She didn't want that walk to go in. And it is the main trail link. Seeing as how it is a main trail link I wondered if we could discuss that there could be extenuating circumstances that certain walks be cleared by the City. Mary Lackner, Planning: The City clears the Smuggler sidewalk because there is a lot of vacant land adjacent to it. The NAC talks about this every month or two. Tim: And there is one over where the bridge crosses by Elsa Mitchell's house. There is a strip of sidewalk there and it is just the way the water drains off Park Avenue it runs down this sidewalk. So if the City didn't do that it would be a solid sheet of ice. So the City has been clearing that sidewalk. And that is private property but it is one of the main trail links because it is right up to the bridge --Hopkins foot Bridge. Mary: We can talk about it again at NAC. Sara: I think it might be good to discuss it now because we are talking about some streets having a sidewalk bordering only one side of the street. So then it is a hardship for only those property owners but it benefits the entire street. Bruce: I would recommend that you advise the lady in question to go directly to Council if she feels there is a hardship. Bruce: I want to advise Commissioners that I have attended 2 preliminary planning meetings along with people at the hospital in connection with a medical clinic that they are considering. It is not just for the orthopods like happened with the bond issues some time ago. I was invited as Chairman of P&Z. Obviously at this point in time we would only be a referral agency. So I didn't think there would be a conflict of interest. The 2 main issues are growth management and whether that medical clinic would be perceived and accepted as an essential public facility and therefor exempt from growth management. And secondly the intersection of Maroon Creek, Castle Creek, Hwy 82 and how all that fits together with the Hines project, Moore project and whatever is happening at the school. The other thing they have briefly discussed is the possibility of annexation which would then involve the City if that does come up. But they are not sure they want to go that way. They are on City water anyway. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie brought Commission up to date regarding the Sy Coleman/KNFO satellite dish. There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 JANUARY 17, 1995 Sara: I move to approve minutes of November 22, 1994 and January 17, 1995. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. 100 PARK AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Kim Johnson, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. At this point staff is making the ruling that this doesn't meet any floor area bonus provision. I She also presented affidavits of publishing. (attached in record) I have devised some additional conditions of approval specific to this plan. She passed these to the Commission members. I would ask if you adopt this resolution I have included in the packet that you also move to have staff include these particular conditions of approval. Tim asked regarding the address. After discussion conclusion was come to that the address for this parcel is 101 Park Avenue. Jasmine: I am not sure I understand why we are including the vested rights approval in the motion. Kim: We have been telling applicants if they want to vest rights for development application that is approved at P&Z they have to apply another 1-step application fee to have vested rights ordinance at City Council. Our code says that vested rights have to be approved it has to be approved at a public hearing that is subject to a referendum of the people which means there is a 30 day period where somebody could object to the approval and then it would go before a public vote. So our City Attorney is saying is that rather than tell people they have to pay that additional $1,000 and then wait an additional 6 to 8 weeks to have an ordinance adopted vesting the rights is that we can incorporate at the meeting the actual resolution that vest the rights and then have that suffice as the public hearing. Joe Krabacher, Attorney for applicant: On the vested rights on the old common law rule is that once you had a development approval if you took some action you had reliance on that approval which a lot of people interpreted to be if you pulled a building permit, then you have vested your rights. There are some cases saying you spend $10 on that approval and you have taken some action to vest it so there was some confusion in the law as to when is it vested --when is it not vested. So the State thought "We will just have a uniform procedure. If there is a site specific development plan that is approved, you have 3 years of vested rights". I know the lawyers in town generally feel that this provision in the City ordinances that require you to then go through a public hearing is illegal because it is beyond the scope of what the State says you have to do. The State says you get an approval. It is a site specific plan. It vests. So I think that is why you find that there is no standards. And it has become sort of non- discretionary-- 3 Leslie: Joe is right. But no one has challenged the City on our code that lays out how we do vested rights. Krabacher: Because nobody has been denied. Bruce opened the public hearing. Karen ?: This is a very small alley. I am the end house. About a year and a half ago because of the pot holes I can hardly get out of here. It is a real problem when there is ice. I just wanted to point out that to take care of the drainage is very important. Architect: The berm will be landscaped so it will hold a lot more water. Right now there is no landscaping on the berm and that is probably why you are getting the ice trouble. Karen: I will watch very carefully that the legal line of the property off this alley will be recognized because it is in the wrong place now. Roth: We will work with them on that and get with you. And be sure that we get something that works. Bruce: There are 2 conditions on the additional list of conditions that relates specifically to this. One of them relates to storm runoff. It says "Any increase in storm runoff must be contained - on the property". And the other one --"The applicant shall consult with City Engineering for design considerations of development within public ROWS which would include the alleys". Perry Pollock: I own the house on the right there. And is that all to scale? Arch: As well as I could draw it from City drawings. Pollock: I have only about 7 or 8 feet from the corner of my house to the lot line so I just wondered if this was the position. Arch: That is positioned correctly. I was going off City plats where they have your house platted. That is what I drew it off of. There is a chance you house could be farther down. Pollock: You are saying there is going to be a sidewalk along there? Along Cooper? Roth: Yes. Pollock: Will that be at street level? Roth: Close to. V Pollock: That would probably help the visibility problem a lot. Because what they have done when they put the bike path in along there they widened the road but the bank was still up there instead of being like that --now the bank is like this. When you pull out with your car to get to where you can see around the bank, the front of your car is sitting out there. And bicycles come down there at 30 miles an hour and you can't see until you are out in the actual area. So I think if the bank is cut down it will help visibility for pulling out of that alley. I am surprised someone hasn't been hit already because you cannot see a normal sedan when you pull out of there. Bruce: The masterplan for the house is approved at the special overlay district committee. Basically what we are considering now is the 430 foot accessory dwelling unit. But as I recall the overlay meeting there is an area that is 25 or 30 feet that is going to be landscaped between the building and Hwy 82. So I am sure the berm is going to be smoothed out a little bit. Arch: In the additional conditions for approval--#4. It says a new (walk) shall be approved by the City Engineering Dept. I would add because I am not sure if the ROW right next to Cooper Avenue is the City's jurisdiction for the ROW or the State Hwy 82's jurisdiction. I might add this would be subject to Colo Dept of Transportation guidelines. I am not sure they will allow a sidewalk next to a highway. Roth: I don't mind that change. Typically CDOT is only worried about curb to curb and not what happens curb to property line. But that is fine. There being no further public comments Bruce closed the public hearing. Krabacher: We are going to withdraw the request for a bonus on the ADU so that is not an issue. Sara: So we do want sidewalks on both sides? Roth: I have got complaints from people from Mountain Valley and Knoll and Eastwood areas about the lack of sidewalk on that side of the highway. Sara: What will that do to the bike path? Roth: I will look into that. .Sara: Would you also feel more comfortable if we added something about the signing the exact alley property lines? Roth: I am comfortable with working it out with the neighbors. 5 Krabacher : We have a. survey of the property which should be in your application package which has these corners shown. The alley is whatever it is. Our whole design is contained on our property. Roth: I have it on my list of "things to do" to do the Park Avenue sidewalk minnie masterplan. Because we have got "IOUs" from Winnerman and right next door. Tim: Can you tell us what the future owners intend to do with the ADU? Krabacher: Whatever the laws are governing ADUs. I am not sure. I think they are planning on having it actually used. MOTION Roger: I move to adopt resolution #95-1 which will cover the attached accessory dwelling unit at the BKR Partners LLC residence, Lot 17 and 18, Block 6, Riverside Addition to be ultimately signed by the Chairman as amended in these proceedings specifically integrating the conditions #1 through #7 on Planning Office memo dated February 7, 1995 and also integrating the additional conditions of approval handed out by the Planning Office on February 7, 1995 amending #4 - -CDOT may have some involvement in this regard. (attached in record) Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. INDEPENDENCE PLACE SPA DESIGNATION & CONCEPTUAL SPA PLAN Leslie: Made presentation as attached in record. After discussion: MOTION Roger: I move to continue the public hearing and table action on the Independence Place SPA and GMQS review to date certain of May 16, 1995. Steve seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was then adjourned. Time was 5:20 P.M. c JAN CE M. CARNEY, CItl DEPUTY /ERK l X Additional Conditions of Approval BKR Partners Conditional Use for an ADU 2/7/95 1) Any increase in storm run-off must be contained on the property. 2) The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for construction of right-of- way improvements. 3) 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. 4) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall construct sidewalks along Park Ave. and Cooper Street. The new walks shall be approved by the City Engineering Department and an excavation permit obtained from Public Works. The applicant shall also sign a curb and gutter agreement for future work. 5) A trash and recycling area must be included on the building permit drawings. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: BKR Partners LLC Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit and Vested Rights Public Hearing DATE: February 7, 1995 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the BKR Partners LLC Conditional Use for a 425 s.f. garden level studio accessory dwelling unit to be created within a new residence with conditions. Vested rights were also requested with this application. Because of the request, an approval resolution including vested rights is attached to this memo. APPLICANT: BKR Partners LLC, represented by Keith Howie, Poss Associates LOCATION: An un-addressed parcel of 5,682 s.f. (a non -conforming lot of record) at the northwest corner of Park Avenue and E. Cooper Avenue, (Lots 17 and 18, Block 6, Riverside Addition) ZONING: R-6 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use for the construction of a garden level studio accessory dwelling unit within a proposed 3,130 s.f. residence in accordance with Ordinance 1 requirements. The site is vacant. The ADU will be adjacent to the garage on the alley side of the parcel. The unit will have internal access to the home via a doorway to the mudroom. Because the ADU is not substantially above grade the applicant is not eligible for an FAR bonus for the property. The applicant has submitted floor plan, elevation, and site drawings for the proposed ADU. See Exhibit "A". PROCESS: The Planning Commission shall make a determination on the Conditional Use for the accessory dwelling unit. This new residence also received special review overlay approval on January 31, 1995. This review was required because the structure exceeds 85% of the FAR limit. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Housing: The proposed unit must meet the requirements of Section 24'5-510 of the Aspen Municipal Code. It shall be between 300 and 700 square feet of net livable area, deed restricted to resident occupancy, and have minimum lease periods of 6 months. Precise floorplans of the accessory dwelling unit must be approved by the Housing office prior to the issuance of a building permit. The deed restriction shall be approved by the Housing Office, recorded with the County Clerk, and proof of recordation forwarded to the Housing Office prior to issuance of any building permit. The kitchen must meet the requirements established in the 1994 Housing Guidelines, which includes a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, a standard sink, and a 6 cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. (Exhibit "B") 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. RESPONSE: This proposed unit will allow the property to house local employees in a residential area, which complies with the zoning and Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 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: The accessory dwelling is compatible with the principal dwelling and other single family and duplex residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood. 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 parking space is not required by code for a studio accessory unit. Parking is not considered critical because of the parcel's location on the Mountain Valley bus route. The unit will not be visible as a separate dwelling. There are not other anticipated impacts associated with this ADU. 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. 000 RESPONSE: All public facilities are already in place for the neighborhood. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. RESPONSE: The unit must comply with kitchen requirements of the Housing Guidelines. The applicant must file appropriate deed restrictions for resident occupancy, including 6 month minimum leases. Proof of recordation must be forwarded to the Planning Office and Housing 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 Comprehensive Plan and by all other.applicable requirements of this -chapter. RESPONSE: If approved with the conditions recommended by staff, this use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan for provision of sound, livable affordable housing units. There are two items to which staff desires to alert the applicant. First is the concern that the'den shown on the entry level cannot be used as a bedroom unless the Zoning Official and Building Official determine that all applicable parking and egress regulations are met. Secondly, the light wells for the below - grade media room appear to violate setback allowances and must also be reviewed by the Zoning Official and Building Official. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the BKR Partners Conditional Use for a 426 s.f. garden level accessory dwelling unit with the following conditions: 1. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. The accessory dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to resident occupancy with minimum 6 month leases. Upon approval by the Housing. Office,, 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. 3. The unit shall comply with the kitchen requirements contained in the Housing Guidelines. K3 4) 4. 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. 5. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer and Parks Department and shall obtain permits from the Streets Department for any work or development including landscaping within the public right-of-way. 6. Precise floorplans of the accessory dwelling unit must be approved by the Housing Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. 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 Resolution No. 95- for Conditional Use and vested rights approval for a 426 s.f. garden level accessory dwelling unit within the proposed BKR Partners residence at Lots 17 and 18, Block 6, Riverside addition with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 2/7/95." Resolution No. 95- Exhibit: "A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplan, and Elevations "B" - Housing Office Referral Comments 4 LX uJanuary 23, .1995 I T TI 4 %J for 171ob Bowden, 1 4 1 lereby -a 4 1 On this date J- i-ji-ane Gordon, 1. 13 li J:) U U-LU 11 Itt -L -L 'LillV 4 e at tached affida -Lt to a-ILIL property owners on the enclosed 4 1 4 1 4S-1- " 4 4 p 4 4-1- 4 - ma-L-L-Lng J--L L which was obt-a-Lned -f-rom t- he 1-t L o --)4L- current -L L A. -Lll '"ounty Assessors max Rol" as -,,tl-or,;ze' 'y Mr. V4-cent J. Higens,. I. I J- CL cX U 11 -L U Ij -Lll L U 11 1- 4 n County TJ Lie, Inc. President-, PJ 4L A. -L %- U L I -L LJL -L I-; Diane Gordon As S4 -Ls-ail- to Bob Bowden, Broker 4- 4 -L Aspen C'Lub ProperLes 7301 E. Durant 0 *1 r- I I Aspen, '%-"o 0 -L U -L -L BB / dg Save :parkavep 730 East Durant ® Aspen, Colorado 81611 USA 303/920-2000 ® 303/920-2020 (FAX) ® 800/633-0336 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR ncent J.'"Higens ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 _resident 303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX 300' OWNER'S LIST Christina.Davis Vice President Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list of property owner's within three hundred feet of LOTS 17 AND 18, BLOCK 6, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls, and updated to JANUARY 3, 1995. NAMES AND ADDRESSES TAX SCHEDULE NUMBER -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF RECEIVED JAN1 5 PUBLIC NOTICE W4LUAM ",N ?QS6 4k AUM E: 100 PARK AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 'CCCVSS0RY DWELLING UNIT NOTICE I8 HFP.EBY dIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tvegday, February 7, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Roam, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, -Aspen to consider an application submitted by BKR Partners LLC requesting approval of a Conditional Use Review for an approximately 426 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit attached to a proposed new single family re6idence. The property is located at 100 Park Avenue; Lets 17 & 18, Block 6, Riverside Addition. For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Co 920-5101. s U. Kerr. Ch .i an Planning and Zoning commission H O O di m O O H r- ( H O O N O O Ln O O N O O Ln O O L- O O I w O O I r� O O I N O 1 M O O I I al m I O O I N 1 M M O H NI,{ di i O I H I r-I I M I I I H O H 1 H 00 r-I I H 00 r-1 I H 00 H I r� O rl I H 00 H I r- i co H H 00 r♦ I ri 00 H I H 00 H I r-I 00 H I r I 00 r i I H DD r-i 1 I m N I M N I M N I m N I m N I M N I m N N N N N N N Ili H r-I Ln H CIS 00 00 w Ql N H H N H N r-i 00 N N rl r-1 r-1 O Ln r-I r-I N N �D O PY H O H O • O w w lfl H Ln w H lD H �+ O 00 Ln � H di W d+ rn di W di rn W (Y) H M H co rl 00 H 00 H 00 rn co 00 z HCl) H wCl) H W H H H E-4 rQ,' CHl� a W O O O 0 U O 0 O �+U H - cnU -a�U � � U U W z o • a 1 1-19 W�+ H p W a zo °� h xx� xx� UU Q w > 0 � s 0 U w x UU la a a' W WQ Q w - z 0 0 p UU U p UU U a x o a r� a w z m Ln a N x zco w x U rx a � o cn 0 Cr) � rn h a x 0)a H H N m ar�R', •' D W Q m� H Q � W a H z Wwrt4 U �a w WWH W W H U laa L7 W H a �9 N x 0 O O WNd+ w W a co � U x� ° 0 U w0cn 00wW H H ° ° � ° ° � w 0w W�H U) co �a+s�+U >.I>1 PQ z z z w z z IiW• f- Ln z w w wx� r34 w x� o , z HO ,)/0P4 P4 DQ+ WwZ Da H' W OW pq p Q • U j �OW 7 m Z a CA o co BBr, r e Ln C!) ►iU N CA IHCJI � Ui m Q+ U Cl) W� Q N CO Ln �wa� � Ln w � mQ a'a'r-ICA a'�iHCa Ail N U 134 U Lfl(.� U�CP49 U QI(�[; U NCA to ;:v (Y) O O O N O O r-1 O O w (4) O r-1 O O I H H rl I N O O I ('r) Lam• O I dl O O I N O O 1 i I p 00 O O I w rl i Ln (n I O O w (') w N I Ln (n I O O i r-i di I l0 (Y) I 1 I H r-I O0 00 I H 00 H I r♦ 00 H I rl 00 H I rl 00 H I H 00 r-I I rl 00 H ( rl 00 r� I rl 00 r-1 I 00 r•i I 1 1 (Y) (n r- (y N I () r N I (Y) I- N 1 (Y r- N (n r- N (n r- N m r-• N ri 1` N m c- N (r) r- N rl H N N N rl (Y) rl (`M N N r♦ rl O H O H rl N rl H H H rl L w w U w M lD w di w O w l0 w N H r-1 H O H rl H H 00 rl H H 00 00 OD 00 00 00 00 00 d, 00 00 co EH H U a z O H H H O N O H 0 CO 0 O O O O H O 0 �C U •U a U w U U U U •U U UU E-+ H � A o U � A • F, P4 (Y) H Z H x: x z a z z a H OU 0�z w U)z a U 0 tx 00 0 a N H H W E-+ 0 0 Z O H Z w U N z w Cn 00 co w a In 0cn t� N H W �c)N O Hcn�Hx w 0)W H a a Z r-1 x > a x H wz Nr 0> 0 Z o U PQz4 x N a w 0 w WaN H�' m H Q U E-+ a O E-+ W w a N W x 0 E-+a a a x •ham CO0rxw x �C w �C a cn o 0 ozWWWW ow w w OA � •(YiHH O U 0 E-+ Oz w 9PQ0 U W Xw w rm pq Wz cn PQ0 cn a z z z z a w A z W 124 z x 0 z a' x H z z H w 0 w E-+ •W In .w cn W zz •�3: a Inw x>rn0 •W .W a Inw E- •vl a rla �D Ina Oa H 0 m Oa >A Oa �00P� H rna UHco0 � Oa Oa r,a z 0�D 0 HCO O NCI) � •cn U�o0 A U)a rlvO x •O r,� rlcQ �>Ina COCO•F • NC+) W •O A �4 A NiQ,' w a4 wUrlaQ w a rl f� aw a z L7 H h H P4 h a a �C r► �, x a x � w � H M 0 O o Ln 0 0 0 o o O O M O � O O 0 O O O o M O 0 0 O 0 r- o °� O O 0 0 H d+ 0 0 0 d{ 0 0 H I` r- N N 0 H r- N 0 r- N 0 N H H I` M N r M N H r- M N rI M N r N 0 0 � M M N N l0 Ln N H H O H H r-i H H O Ln r-i r-I r-I H O H l� lD l0 l0 Ln O N w NO r-I r•-I r-I r-i H O O H r-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O O 0 0 0 0 a O O 0 0 •O E--4 E-+ U A U U U u H U O U U U U U q P� w 0 �' HH wU' �� H ' .H� WPQfY4 H U Ln UW pU QOW r14 CO W> Pgx0 E-+ 0 Z p� z H N w 9 W O P4 0 P4 u w xcnw � ►-a O cnao (4 x a q x q� H q Cl) P; M a o f� O HH H . aWcnH P� W C7 rn O Ln 0 U) Hu W t-A Ln r-IE W w w rn a rn au o a •�H c� cn ,• C H •�a u x z u j w x P� .�W a HN � zo 0 oo �+xo Q x HH o • 0 x O H Qz h a H U '`� h PQ PQ H 9 E-H O a1 0 W PQ Cl) H u) H x r24 x Ix O co z PQ FC 9 P± z P� z z �+ z Py Pa Q z H a z W xz P-'rz HO W QQ w x w a•w a •w w H 0� x •w x •w x w w ohr-I a w aaI zz�a Oa H 0a Ix 004 m O PQ r-Iq u 0x H00P4 W LnPa 0 0� H O H Na � 0 W • ct� O O 0 0 0 0 x v x x a 1-i H N pq 00 9 p, Ff N H (Y) H rI Q m M aaM� �PaO� � w� a a� ai Ln a �x P� a� cnu O U RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT THE BKR PARTNERS LLC RESIDENCE, LOTS 17 AND 18, BLOCK 61 RIVERSIDE ADDITION Resolution No. 95- WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5-510 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations accessory dwelling units may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as conditional uses in conformance with the requirements of said Section; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal rode, Vesting of Development Rights for a site specific development plan may be approved at a public hearing for a period of three years from the date of final development plan approval; and,,-._ WHEREAS, the Planning Office received an application from BKR Partners LLC for Conditional Use review and vested rights for a 426 s.f. garden level studio accessory dwelling unit at the proposed residence; and WHEREAS, the proposed unit is not 100% above grade, therefore the site is not eligible for an FAR bonus pursuant to the definition of Floor Area "Accessory Dwelling Unit", Section 37101 of the Aspen Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Housing Office and the Planning Office reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, during a public hearing at a regular meeting on February 7, 1995 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a vote the Conditional Use review and vested rights for the accessory dwelling unit with the conditions recommended by the Planning Office. WHEREAS, the subject property also received special review approval for Floor Area Ratio Overlay on January 31, 1995. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1: The BKR Partners LLC Conditional Use for a 426 s.f. garden level accessory dwelling unit is approved with the following conditions: 1. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. The accessory dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to resident occupancy with minimum 6 month leases. Upon approval by the Housing Office, 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 `r, be forwarded to the Planning Office. 3. The unit shall comply with the kitchen requirements contained in the Housing Guidelines. 4. 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. 5. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer and Parks Department and shall obtain permits from the Streets Department for any work or development including landscaping within the public right-of-way. 6. Precise floorplans of the accessory dwelling unit must be approved by the Housing Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. 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. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the BKR Partners LLC site specific development plan as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Resolution shall remain vested until February 6, 1998. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code.shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Resolution shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Resolution or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of �0 Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in_writing. Section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Resolution to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site- specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: LOTS 17 AND 18, BLOCK 6, RIVERSIDE ADDITION CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 7, 1995. Attest: r Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk 3 Planning and Zoning Commission: Bruce Kerr, Chair 'A �� = • . - VENUE � PLi- _ t DALE A 1 71 +N W OVA JJJ + f .!_:, _� MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont,.Deputy Director DATE: February 7, 1995 RE: Independence Place SPA and GMQS Review - Continued Public Hearing SUMMARY: The applicants and staff are requesting the Commission to, continue the public hearing for the review of this proposal:., Staff recommends that the public hearing be continued to May 16, 1995. The Commission first reviewed this proposal at a public hearing March 8, 1994. The Commission, at the request of Mayor Bennett, only briefly considered the proposal and continued the public hearing. The Mayor suggested the diversion from the structured review process in order for the applicants, review boards, staff, and the community to explore in-depth the issues surrounding this large and complex project. Since the public hearing was first continued at the March 1994, meeting, the applicants and Council have meet numerous times to explore the project and the issues. The Council last met with the applicants October of 1994. There are many issues that appear to have been resolved and others that are still outstanding. Staff and the applicants continue to work together to resolve the outstanding issues and are planning another worksession with Council. Although, technically, a public hearing that is continued to a date certain does not require a renotice of the hearing, the applicant has agreed to fully notice the next date when a full proposal is before the Commission. A G E N D A ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 21, 1995, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room City Hall ------- ____________________________________ I . , COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Trueman Lot 1 Conditional Use Review, Mary Lackner B. Code Amendments, Kim Johnson IV. ADJOURN i • & -l-'i TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: February 21, 1995 overlay Review Committee - February 28 'Regular Meeting - March 7 HPC Code Amendments (AA) Adoption of Parks, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan (KJ) Golub Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ) Farish Hallam Lake ESA Review (KJ) West End Traffic Study (KJ) Regular Meeting - March 21 Aspen Center for Physics/Meadows SPA Amendment, Final SPA, GMQS Exemption & Special Review (KJ) Regular Meeting - April 4 Joint Metro GMQS Tourist Accommodations - April 18 Joint Metro GMQS Residential - May 2 Regular Meeting - May 16 Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA Plan (LL) a.nex MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Trueman Aspen Company/ Pitkin County Bank Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing DATE: February 21, 1995 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Pitkin County Bank Conditional Use Review for a satellite branch office within the Neighborhood Commercial zone district. APPLICANT: Trueman Aspen Company and Pitkin County Bank, represented by Philip Bloemsma. LOCATION: Lot 1, Trueman Subdivision. The bank is proposed to be located where Photo Lab Express is currently located near Clark's Market. ZONING: NC - Neighborhood Commercial zone district. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use approval to place a Pitkin County Bank satellite branch office in - the NC zone district. This would be an operational office with teller functions and related customer services. This location would also have a walk-up night depository and an ATM. Please refer to application information, Exhibit "A". STAFF COMMENTS: Business and professional offices are conditional uses in the NC zone district. The City Zoning Enforcement Officer has provided the applicant an interpretation that this proposed satellite branch office is classified as a "Business and professional office" and is therefore subject to conditional use review. A copy of this letter is attached in Exhibit "B". The purpose of the NC zone district has been included in this memo to provide the Commission with some background. The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district is to allow small convenience retail establishments as part of a neighborhood, that are designed and planned to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, to reduce traffic generation, and mitigate traffic circulation and parking problems, and. to serve the daily or frequent trade or service needs of the neighborhood. 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: One of the goals of the AACP is to revise the permitted and conditional uses of the NC zone district so that only local serving uses are permitted. The purpose of the NC zone also emphasizes neighborhood services and the reduction of traffic. Staff believes the Pitkin County Bank conditional use meets this standard as a bank generally serves the local community and traffic trips may be combined to the post office, grocery store and bank all in one location. 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 bank will be compatible with the uses and character of the immediate vicinity as the existing businesses in this area are necessity and convenience oriented. 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 bank is proposed to accommodate an approximately 800 sq-ft. space. Pitkin County Bank has stated the following in the application materials: The satellite branch would be an operational office, and it would house two to four staff members who would handle a variety of duties, including new accounts, teller functions, certificates of deposit, and all related customer service. The branch would also include a walk up night depository and a walk up ATM. From this description of the proposed conditional use, staff does not believe there will be any adverse impact on surrounding properties by the proposed bank. 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; and K I/ Response:. All public utilities and services are in place at the 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 entire Trueman project was required to provide affordable housing when it was developed. Pitkin County Bank is seeking to occupy an existing space and will not be developing any new square footage. The Housing Office has reviewed this application and has determined that the proposed conditional use will not result in a need for additional employee housing. The Housing Office referral comments are included in Exhibit "C". 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 standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the Pitkin County Bank Conditional Use review for a satellite branch office to be located in the Trueman Subdivision, subject to the following condition: 1. 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 a satellite branch office of Pitkin County Bank at Lot 1 of the Trueman Subdivision." Exhibits: "A" - Application Information "B" - Interpretation by Zoning Enforcement Officer "C" - Housing Office referral comments 3 Exhibit A Trueman Aspen Company 300 Puppy Smith Aspen, CO 81611 January 18, 1995 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 8161 Re: Pitkin County Bank Conditional Use Dear Commission Members: Trueman Aspen Company is submitting an application package to the Planning and Zoning office in order to seek an approval of a conditional use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone district (sec. 5-212). The conditional use we are seeking is "Business and Office Professional". Trueman Aspen Company is requesting to use this permit for a banking facility. Following are the attachments and information needed to begin the permit process: 1. The street address of the proposed site, located at lot #11 is: North Mill Station 300 Puppy Smith Aspen, CO 81611 2. The applicant is Trueman Aspen Company 3. The authorized representative of the applicant is Philip Bloemsma, Agent and Property Manager. 4. Attached are the following: a. A disclosure of ownership by way of 931tax notice b. A floor plan of the building indicating the proposed space (#211A) and a vicinity map locating the property c. A description of the proposed use from Pitkin County Bank d. an explanation of how the use complies with the standards of the Planning and Zoning office. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. S PhjAip Bloemsma, Agent and Property Manager X Trueman Aspen Company P.O. Box 5081 Aspen, CO 81612 January 18, 1995 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Office 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Pitkin County Bank compliance with P&Z review standards Dear Commission Members: The conditional use proposed by Trueman Aspen Company is consistent with all standards and objectives of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. We are proposing a conditional use of "Business and Office Professional" for the use of a banking facility. The bank will be a convenience to the local community. It will enhance the objective of the zone district by serving the needs of the local that requires convenience and ease with daily errands. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity and enhances the mixture of existing uses. The impact will be minimal. The banking facility will be operated by 2 to 4 employees. The Trueman building has mitigated its employee housing quota with 17 on site employee housing units. The shopping center has 110 parking spaces which is more than adequate to handle the proposed use. There will be virtually no visual impacts and the bank will require no additional services in order to operate. With this in mind, Trueman Aspen Company feels that the proposed use is appropriate for the neighborhood zone district. Thank you for your consideration. Sin re , a P lip B emsma, Agent 1 ■ r- 0 }Z V� = i. 5_��T 'M ';7.•^ i' �, .N•i. : I •. Jai •'�;�:�Y ,•�yii •i'�;� .'' , i' M S••T� a Pi '•1 r . i � 'r•i - � • _ t .1 rn - o a• �`."' %:=t �> 1�{i i( 'n.�/ w! !">ny�'{•! {�,•,� ;-y v 1 .}�'{.. Y". v - ." ` {,� ♦ t� t t ' �F, r y�9 .� ��r+,� ,•T ; � W_i' �Y1 <yS '�, I N • Y� .=•t' '�- t, \t) -•jl� ,� �"'ry:'r` y.,y,�; r.F,= = h•� r t:: •%rat:. � f4 AA AL - '�+ � • r < ;• „.�__► 3„c`:Yc^F�,r,,��[;j.`;tY.rrr.�1,�... :' `r+in,N_� '' .., +r+�,J �7 3s � �� 4� / •. ��` ��. . �e.�t!'�'r ^4N:, Y:.; y •`R; �' :T , �' . y ,w _+{� ?�7:, •1 �� ''-� .._� I 1�ft`ir.//''' '� e , . . � :�GkF -.'� •� iy .-' . , r r.�m 1`•:t.� �C 1 �w ' �."' ,�+ t��K•• -' '1. �. = �' .fit a'••� t�;>�sir . ri<. .m •, � � ^ • rR �_ s► .s;^> }.;,, . � A A.. � �� �>,�•-,u� ice• 1: y,s f »t�� ✓t0.' 7` 7 f w RANG` s Jn „^�'� r't'�L;t�•� �,�s% •� �'�•lm .� `�. M"; $.GREET '#���s ,� � e o ' -ri ��� � .. V �. :� 'ter , • Y ' i�; 'tn t 'y+? J' • 3 c 2,6 !�► ' t `~ r :w. �� �1. .'ti'Ft: :./e •.... C ',Y$`.�'e� ✓} .,J 5 �; 1.�,,,�,'1 J' O y R: ,.�•-•.., r •,� - ,< >�,.` m 'A • j Rt R..K'i . ♦ ' —t : - ' t i j, K .,M= : C tr / eT p 'S..' •'. �.� ¢ of lY..ty[� rHUNTE . i'�-lyxs�♦ .s3 �4 .'mil' jy ..�.'„ . 4_ elf.. L' ��'•1�" �, m ,�v � � �• JL -• y r! -eV'-1��,t •4,�� i.M,�,� �"� '� ''` • GAL ,ST � s•� e� - 1� �.. T . ,.; w► k..� ,�,;� :, ram• o. �•, � J •t R. .w� r • ♦'R"•� R1 � •r ,.... r� r 1• • >a 3. r i--^- tel:. R `� :. f ~ �.�1 •...�, 9 � � :¢1ft. ,`-w:.�7i �yt�lY � i E'�r •�h�� � •9 '.'�' w M � s. ice:• ��'�� � ' \� ' ED M j N r y a - ; :,• :�, .MILLS 'r ' r ,r.I+e° =.; :�' :. TR9ET- „S "t �T• .'•'�+•� .; •�i,•. '- i v �` � ' <n �- r .r in; `".fir, >''? .�iY• • �F � % o_ .. - ' +;, i ' ! ! � .iL�! ice' � {� ��'•,ti, r ��'. ��'. .: O ,Z 4 �+��':- .r r�+� 3: � ` f. � •� � ; t ,•ter `•ii ,•r•"R.3r"�•.Tj i :♦ S -1:�e.�e^pi '�'; ., ».�•�. :`JC "�. ♦ �G ■ ■ �h - F o y low,, w s t "ti?�� #Y -+ +;" o.�• pg.+' - .pig■ y._ J •r'..if. "` ;^i Y =ram r: as F;. ?t3'�'t-'tom : - •:t K. ti~ • Z i -•..�„ �, T 3, 3Nrt� :;o • ® MONARCHSTREET- 7 ` x :..y'1 : � •;�' `,'r ��..•, a�'�'� 7�� 4 � •:: - � -•n po • .' . n � � � �.. � •`sue' - ,M �l' '� A�� .�' �� .-;.Zjil •`".j•''• w ,.ry �• i ' t<1 �ij y��'O' •01 N �.: �'"r• "� STREET •wm ASPEN >/`J. � Y,, i yam" � •``•}���-r .. 4 ;4 ". ;fro -. , K = Z � _ = � � .; �. � +'" �J � �r f� off CD A ,��p ' 'rr:•' .� �'; t'�`AE ..Y�•=� —� GARMISCH STREET. •■ N ..►� - '/`• .+ :a. , M-`r'j:<: a, o,,,,� '�3` •n ��• J �It fit' 1 t �." t : IA'a'• 't� 31. j; : iwr 'i.St1S • 1 t►€ _ - � •.� •• � ;"�. y� 47�e IL 133ti1S Lo / as- i► ¢' �•h�� f m+N :• :•. I,M 1 _ ice. '•' ::J'.`.~ .�.,?�y�`• aY7 Z `7 f3i.1< m�'• f -;>i��a; A ; i.�.V' 1. 'MyrL'' `+� ; , _r r ` _ i'+t � ��1. ' �`��S-r ��.f. 1 � � � ��.4• I,�� �'"•�.. is . ,�•-:.. • 11�, wr+k-•" '�r1 ���y��'�• .Z •�,t`._•T..• ' NOQ 3 1- ^lid` •r ,3:���r� o . :.c• -1 ,.y; -••. ► t j,;.�„' " _ •1,•, � - tit 'a 1 ..ii- '7>'r 1• S fit" r- -+•.. r'• x►• �•- 1 y d .,. �. i . . p rr: LF r:{:•m �' . N .fir ` � 0 0 �. '"'jam •y bo o ` _rn :•� :€ • N -� ■ . >• �•; fir. c o � Z is Nldit° �"' N 7 3 twi, ' � `,►.�A` 3 .r .. w 1y. • - rVI 40 3 mpr- w �� rn IS '41 rr 141 14 jt � •,'• s ^I ` + �;u � ,;+� ; � ?fir � , ,, 1 jN ,, �' .,'�. F• { t fir.\ ,i r �• , �r ,k .r,�� ,-J,Y�:;;'� �.�di5 N�.'[11��j" �.� k: i��. _ ' .. '. - �•� � rat '�jx �� �_c�♦• '� ,•= '',�. R ;.� i � j.• 7,; 1 ,•j��t��, ��... n •L'.�"�"+`��C• �, 4!•�, ,��t'' y, �f t ,; �. '' '; i�S �' � � y�2.,,�`, y •�.•'Y,,i .; '•'°�1,• � �' ` t•F :• • s ::iKJ1cZAs`s ''•' i �� i.• a • �''�!,':..�w�i 3 .�.'•crs �w �•' liii.'.a_r�� '•�„ '^. , ��. January 18, 1995 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Members Dear Members: This letter is to express Pitkin County Bank's desire to locate a satellite branch at the Truman Aspen complex at 300 Puppy Smith Street, Aspen, Colorado. The bank would lease approximately an 800 sq. ft. space located in the complex next to Aspen Wine & Spirit. The satellite branch would be an operational office, and it would house two to four staff members who would handle a variety of duties, including new accounts, teller functions, certificates of deposit and all related customer service. The branch would also include a walk up night depository and a walk up ATM. Please review the attached diagrams for dimensions and an approximate layout of the space. Thank you, Sheila Babbie Assistant Vice President 534 E. HYMAN AVE. • POST OFFICE BOX 3677 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 • PHONE 303/925-6700 W Y Q Y � g U Entrance Window 3 0 c Q a I January 4, 1995 ASPEN • PITKIN PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Philip . Bloemsma Trueman Aspen Company P.O. Box 5081 Aspen, CO • 81612 Dear Mr. Bloemsma: I am -responding to your letter to Stan Clauson dated December 28, 1994. I consider a banking facility to be a business office under the definition of "Office" as stated in Section 3 -101 of the Land 'Use Regulations of the Aspen Municipal Code. Business and professional offices are classified as a conditional use in the Neighborhood Commercial (N/.C) zone district "in which the Trueman Neighborhood Shopping Center is located (Section 5- 212 (C) (7) of the Aspen Land Use Code]. Therefore, a Conditional Use Review.is•required to allow a business office. P-lease contact Kim Johnson or Mary Lackner, City Planners, at 920-5090 to schedule a•pre-application conference. Conditional Use applications are approved by the Planning Commission and take approximately 5-6 weeks to process,. Please contact- me -if, you have any further questions at 9'20-5104 . • Sincerely,- , Bill Drueding Aspen Zoning -officer cc: Stan Clauson, City Community Development Director 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303.920.5090 FAx 303.920.5197 Pmwd on lav,w P'In Exhibit C MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office FROM: Dave Tolen, Housing Office DATE: 14 February, 1995 RE: Trueman Lot 1 Conditional Use Review Parcel ID No. 2737-073-51-001 The applicant is requesting a proposed conditional use for a banking facility. The banking facility is to be operated by two to four employees. The applicant states that a previous mitigation of 17 on -site employee housing units will cover this usage. City Council granted final SPA approval on April 11, 1977 for the construction of 15,000 square feet for a food store; 10,000 square feet for service -related commercial uses; 11,208 square feet for employee housing and 2,000 square feet for basement storage. Section 7-301 (E) of the Land Use Code requires that the applicant "commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use." The proposed conditional use should not result in any additional employee impact, compared to the permitted uses. The current use of the space is a retail/service (photo lab). The proposed use as a business/office professional (bank space with 2 to 4 staff) should not require additional employee housing. referral\trueman\mit TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: February 21, 1995 RE: Round II Staff Initiated Amendments to the Land Use Regulations (Public Hearing) SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this list of amendments to the land use regulations. These proposed changes include simple code clean-up as well as more substantive changes. Each Commissioner has a code book. It might be helpful for you to refer to the affected sections for more detailed context. PROCESS: Code amendments follow a two step review process. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the amendments at a public hearing., then forward its recommendations to the City Council for ordinance adoption (also a public hearing). STAFF COMMENTS: This review is the second in a series of amendment reviews proposed by staff to improve the function of the land use regulations. This memo is formatted to present and discuss each proposed amendment individually. The recommended changes are: 1) Vested rights - In order to have the City' s regulations concur with State regulations, the following changes are recommended: Create a.new definition of site specific development plan which is taken from the State statute 24-68-102: Site specific development plan means a plan which has been submitted to the Community Development Department by a landowner or his representative describing with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel of property. Such plan may be in the form of, but need not be limited to, a planned unit development (PUD), subdivision, specially planned area (SPA), conditional use, special review, environmentally sensitive area review, historic development review, or growth management exemption. Deletion of subsection (F) from Section 6-207 Vested Property Rights. The eighteen month period referenced in this section is meaningless in comparison with the state statutes. What the deletion does to development approvals is either require a developer to act upon his/her approvals in a timely manner to eliminate risk of code changes or seek vested rights for three 01 years through the public hearing process already established in the City's land use regulations. The following is the proposed language to be eliminated: F. Nen-vested develepment. Any develepment site develepment plan appreval whieh dees net establish a veSted preperty right ner ebta'in a beilding permit shall have its a -- 1 expi e eighteen (18) faenths subsequent te the wefa. Bi speelfie elevelepment plan appreval. 2) Stream Margin Over the past several years the P&Z has approved many stream margin applications which met the review criteria but otherwise seemed inappropriate based on the Commission's sensitivities to the environment. After all, stream margins are considered "environmentally sensitive areas" (ESAs) within the land use code. Our concerns have centered around requiring increased environmental assessment of sites, initiating mandatory setbacks from the top of the bank, and securing fisherman's access along our invaluable community river resources. The last time the City's ESA code was amended was in 1990 with the creation of the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area. This ESA overlay was intended to place reasonable limits on where buildings could be placed on properties along the bluff to protect the sanctity of the ACES nature preserve. What was occurring at that time was the construction of homes on the edge of the bluff and even partially onto the slope. Additionally, native trees and hillside vegetation was being stripped to enhance views of Hallam Lake. Not only were these practices potentially harmful to the nature preserve, they were beginning to negatively impact neighboring properties by blocking views as well as removing substantial vegetation which is valued as a buffer between properties. Essentially the same problems are occurring with the stream margin developments as were happening with the Hallam Lake area. We have seen several parcels along the Roaring Fork be developed in the last few years where large homes are built right on the edge of the river bank. This immediately changes the character of the riparian vegetation and "greenway'corridor" and may contribute to the potential of failure of the riverbank itself. Staff proposes a set of dimensional requirements (setbacks and heights) similar to the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA because of the river's similarity to the Bluff's the environmental needs. Staff also believes that the general benefits to all riverside owners and users will be similar to those created by the Bluff ESA. The revised stream margin criteria read: Section 7-504. No development shall be permitted within the floodway,, with the exception of bridges or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, which may be permitted by the City Engineer, provided plans and /I/ specifications are provided demonstrating the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and the Commission determines the proposed structure complies, to the extent practical, with all the standards set forth below. No development shall be permitted within one hundred feet (1001), measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends beyond one hundred feet (1001) from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all the standards set forth below. Reviews shall only be conducted after accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones has been accomplished by a qualified wildlife/vegetation consultant. 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed develop- ment which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map, or areas of historic public use or access are 4s dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. Dedications are necessitated by development's increased impacts to the City's recreation and trail facilities including public fishing access. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. 4. 'No vegetation is removed or damaged or slope grade changes ( cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope that preduee eres' V.�l�' `""�'tati .- of t tr ' A building �� 1 ill �r 1 1 4 Gd L. Z V l l �����[� �'�'I'� • envelope shall designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance 3 of Certificates of Occupancy. 5. Te the greatest extent preset cable, the proposed development reduees pellutien and interferenee does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on -site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope. 6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. 9. Miscellaneous Requirements: A. No development other than approved native vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope or within 15' of the top of slope. If any development is essential within this area, it may only be approved by special review pursuant to Section 7-404 D. of this Article 7. B. All development outside the 15' setback from the top of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a 45 degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Zoning Officer utilizing that definition set forth at Section 3-101 of this Chapter 24. C. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope to native riparian vegetation. 4 D. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope. E. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level. 3) 8040 Greenling revisions - Section 24-7-503 (C) lists eleven review criteria. Staff wishes to augment criterium number 11 as follows: 11) Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community. This would allow the Commission to take into consideration unique natural features or spaces adjacent to properties subject to 8040 review. This might include pathways not officially adopted on the trail master plan. 4) Eliminate the "technical or engineering considerations" limitation for insubstantial amendments to SPAs or PUDs - Sections 7-907 A. (PUD Insubstantial Amendments) and 7-804 E.1. (SPA Insubstantial Amendments) currently specify that any insubstantial amendments to PUDs or SPAs must be engineering or technical considerations. The list of criteria effectively limits the ability to request amendments. The current language causes applicants (and staff) to conjure up reasons why something qualifies as an engineering or technical consideration. 7-907 A. [PUD] Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final development plan may be authorized by the Planning Director. the app1 preeess. The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment: a) A change in the use or character of the development. b) An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land. c) Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the 5 demand for public facilities. d) A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. e) A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off- street parking and loading space. f) A reduction in required pavement widths or right-of-way for streets and easements. g) An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. h) An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the prepese development. i) Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting of a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. 7-804 E.1. [SPA] An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final development plan may be authorized by the Planning Director. An insubstantial }r- The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment: (the exact same criteria which apply to PUD amendments are utilized for SPA amendments) 5) Deferral of Housing Impact Fee - Section 24-5-702 establishes the calculation for cash -in -lieu payment of the affordable housing impact fee which was created by Ordinance 1. When Ordinance 1 was adopted, the Housing Off ice utilized a three tiered system of "low", "moderate" and "middle" income categories. In 1992 the system was changed to a four category system, Categories 1 through 4, with Category 1 being the lowest income level. Since the change, the Housing Office and the Planning staff have been calculating the payment based on the average of the payment amounts for Category 2 and Category 3. The proposed text will codify this calculation based on the current category system: Also, staff has determined that recent amendment language to the GMQS exemption section regarding remodels to create a duplex needs to be added to this section. Sec. 5-702. Calculation of affordable housing impact fee. 0 The amount of the affordable housing impact fee is based on the public cost to provide affordable housing as a result of the activity for which the fee is required. The formula shall utilize the cash -in -lieu payment established from time to time by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for moderate income employees and the square footage of new floor area constructed as a result of the demolition of a single family or duplex dwelling unit or the construction of a new single family or duplex dwelling unit on a previously vacant lot (the floor area of a demolished dwelling shall be subtracted from the floor area of the replacement dwelling unit), or the remodel or expansion of an existing single family residence into a duplex dwelling. The formula assumes that for every three thousand (3,000) square feet of new single family or duplex floor area that the public will be required to provide housing for one moderate income employee. The formula to be applied shall be as follows: cash -in -lieu fee for mode -a the average of Category 2 and Category 3 income employees in effect at the time the affordable housing impact fee is due, divided by three thousand (3,000), and times the new square footage. There is no real discretion that the housing impact fee is waived if the owner duly qualifies as a working resident and requests such a waiver. Staff recommends that the word "may" is replaced with "shall" as follows: Sec. 5-703. Deferral of affordable housing impact fee. If the owner of a single family or duplex unit for which an affordable housing impact fee is due is a qualified working resident, as that term is defined herein, the obligation to pay the impact fee mey shall be deferred, at the owner's request, until such time as the dwelling unit is sold to a buyer who is not a qualified working resident. Furthermore, the amount of the impact fee which is deferred shall be adjusted at the time of resale in proportion to the change in value of the subject dwelling unit from the value at the time the obligation for the impact fee was incurred to the value on the date of closing. The value at the time that the impact fee is due shall be determined by the chief building official on the basis of a current appraisal, a reliable opinion of value, assessed valuation, or such other method as deemed appropriate. The value on resale shall be the value of the total consideration paid by the buyer. In no case shall the fee be adjusted downward to an amount less than twenty-five (25) percent, or upward to an amount greater than fifty (50) percent, of the impact fee which was deferred. The obligation for the impact fee and the value of the dwelling unit at the time of the obligation is incurred shall be set forth in a written document, signed by the owner or owners of the subject 7 1 dwelling unit, and recorded in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to the issuance of & any building permits for the unit. 6) Landscape Longevity requirement - In response to concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, staff is proposing a new Section 5-511 (Supplemental Regulations) for maintenance and replacement of approved landscaping materials within 45 days of notification. Currently only section 7-904 "PUD Agreement" requires implementation and maintenance of landscaping. Because landscape plans or representations are included in most other types of reviews, staff believes a city-wide landscape maintenance requirement is beneficial. 5-511 - Landscape Maintenance A. Landscaping shown on any approved site development plan shall be maintained in a healthy manner. In the event that plant material dies, the owner of the property shall replace the plant material with equal size and variety within 45 days of notification by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. if seasonal or cultural constraints do not allow planting of the approved plant material within 45 days the owner may in writing seek permission from the Community Development Director to: 1) Provide financial assurances equal to 120% of the amount of the replacement landscaping and installation costs as approved by the Parks Department, and in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. The completion of the landscape replacement shall be accomplished no late than June 15 of the next planting season, otherwise the financial assurances shall be forfeited to the city. 2) Submit for approval a revised landscape plan which meets the design objectives and plant material sizes and quantities of the original approved plan. An explanation of the revised plan shall accompany the submission. Failure to comply with the replanting requirement will constitute a violation of this section and may result in complaint(s) being filed in Municipal Court. 7) Lot Split - Section 7-1003. (A) (2) (b) needs to be amended to delete the requirement to provide an accessory dwelling unit on each parcel created by the split. Instead, staff wishes to replace this with the requirement to comply with Section 8-104 (A) (1) (c) which sets forth 4 options for affordable housing mitigation as established by Ordinance 1 of 1990. These options are the provision of an ADU, payment of cash -in -lieu, or deed restriction 8 of the new residence(s). Staff believes that the flexibility of options created in 1990 by Ordinance 1 help fund the housing program and reduces the potential of marginal ADUs that must be created simply because of the lot split requirement. This change should read: b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. and the applieant eeralts that Any lot for which development is proposed will eenta ., an aeeessery dwelling unit.. mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 8- 104 (A) (1) (c) • Section 7-1003. (A) (2) (d) needs to be amended to clarify that the plat must meet the technical requirements for plats as contained in the subdivision regulations: d. "A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this division, and conforms to the requirements of this chapter, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this article and growth management allocation pursuant to Article*8. Staff also recommends the addition of a new criteria "e" to Section 7-1003 (A)(2) which requires the lot split plat to be recorded within 180 days of approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the city council will be required by for a showing of good cause. In order eliminate confusion about allowable buildout and building types resulting from a lot split action, staff recommends a new subsection (f) which will read: f. In the case where an existing single family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Maximum potential buildout for the, two parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three units, which may be composed of a duplex and single family home. 8) Plat requirements for Lot Line Adjustments - In order to provide consistency with all platting requirements for various subdivision and subdivision exemption actions, the following changes are 9 proposed. Requiring prompt recordation of plats upon approval reduces the potential for error as well as staff time necessary to process the plats. Section 7-1003 A.l.d. for Lot Line Adjustment requirements shall read: d. "The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division, and conforms to the requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing non -conforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot. The plat shall be submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure to record the plat within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the Planning Director will be required before its acceptance and recording; and 9) Insubstantial plat amendments - Section 7-1006 A. should allow the Community Development Director to approve insubstantial plat amendments where the amendment may occur between adjacent subdivision plats rather than only within one subdivision. For example on the rare occasion this might occur, an applicant would not have to go the Council to change an easement or other insubstantial element which runs between adjacent subdivisions. Additionally, the 180 day recording deadline is a recommended change via a new subsection D. The proposed language reads: 7-1006. Amendment to subdivision development order. A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved plat or between adjacent subdivision plats may be authorized by the planning direeter Community Development Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process, or any other minor change to a plat which the planning ai__ctcr Community Development Director finds has no effect on the conditions and representations limiting the approved plat. (B and C remain unchanged) D. Recordation. Amended plats shall be submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure to record an amended plat within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the city council or Community Development Director will be required before its acceptance and recording. 10 10) Condominium filing deadline - In Section 7-1005 E. within the Subdivision Agreement section, staff wishes to delete the exception for condominium maps to be recorded within 180 days. Staff believes all recording deadlines should be consistent with the code's 180 day subdivision plat recording deadline: e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the commission and city council will be required by for a showing of good cause. The en- 11) Administrative approval for small satellite dish antennas- Staff has considered and discussed with the P&Z an administrative approval process for satellite dishes of 2.5 feet or less in diameter. Approval by the Community Development Director would substantially reduce the process time for small dish approvals. Staff still believes that dishes larger than 2.5 feet in diameter should follow the current conditional use public hearing process. The new regulation can be readily accommodated by creating a new section within Division 5 Supplement Regulations: 5-512. Satellite Dish Antennas. Satellite dish antennas larger than 2.5 feet in diameter shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as conditional uses pursuant to Division 3. Conditional Uses. Satellite dish antennas 2.5 feet or less in diameter may be reviewed and approved without a public hearing by the Community Development Director in conformance with the criteria within Sections 7-304 (B) and (C). The Community Development Director may apply reasonable conditions to the approval deemed necessary to insure conformance with said review criteria. If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed satellite dish antennas does not comply with the review criteria and denies the application, or the applicant does not agree to the conditions of approval determined by the Community Development Director, the applicant may apply for conditional use review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Procedures established in Article 6 Common Development Review it 1� Procedures shall apply to all satellite dish antennas. For your reference, the review criteria to be used by the Community Development Director in Section 7-304 (B) and (C) read: 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 complementary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 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. As a result of separating the applicable reviews for satellite dishes based on size, the individual zone districts' lists of conditional uses must be amended. of the 24 zone districts in the city, only three do not currently allow satellite dishes as conditional uses. These zones are R-15-B Moderate Density Residential, OS Open Space, and WP Wildlife Preservation. This will not change with this amendment. For example, the R-6 Medium Density zone will be amended as follows: 5-201.C. Conditional Uses. 7. Satellite dish antennae over 2.5 feet in diameter Additionally, because of the new amended language described above, the definition of "satellite dish antenna or satellite radio frequency signal reception and/or transmission device" needs to be amended as follows: satellite dish antenna or satellite radio frequency signal reception and/or transmission device means a dish -shaped or parabolic -shaped reception or transmission device, wh-se ante..... mere than twe (2) feet: in height andjer Ifelish" eempenent is mere than twe (2) feet in diameter, which is used for the reception and/or transmission'of satellite signals, including but not limited to television signals, AM radio signals, FM radio signals, telemetry signals, data communication signals, or any other reception or transmission signals using free air space as a medium, whether for commercial or private use, provided: (the rest of the section remains the same] 12) Sight distance -_ protection at corners - Last fall, staff brought forth a proposal to insert into the definition of "fence" a sight -distance requirement for visual obstructions on corner lots. This regulation had previously been included elsewhere in the 12 Municipal Code but was deleted a few years ago by the Building Department. The P&Z voiced considerable opposition to the language which included trees and shrubs the prohibition. Upon consideration of the concerns of the Commission, staff has decided to eliminate the reference to landscaping in the proposed definition of "fence": Fence means a structure which serves as a barrier intended,to prevent escape or intrusion, to mark a boundary, to shield or screen view, or to serve any similar purpose. Fences shall be permitted in every zone district provided that no fence shall exceed six (6) feet above natural grade. Fences visible from the public right-of-way shall be constructed of wood, stone, wrought iron or masonry. On corner lots, no fence,. retaining wall, or similar object shall be erected or maintained which obstructs the traffic vision, nor on corner lots shall any fence, retaining wall, or similar obstruction be erected or maintained which exceeds a height of forty-two (42) inches, measured from street grade, within 30 feet from the lot corner. Plans showing proposed construction, material, location and height shall be presented to the building inspector before a building permit for a fence is issued. 13) Housing Replacement requirements:: The Commission directed staff to include an amendment which gives priority to displaced tenants of projects being demolished and replaced under Ordinance 1. Also, this section is being updated to reflect the four category deed restriction system. The following change to subsection IV. is proposed: 18-3.3 Housing Replacement Requirements. (a) minimum replacement requirement .(unchanged) (b) location of replacement housing (unchanged) (c) timing and quality of replacement unit (unchanged) IV. Rental and Resale Restrictions Replacement units shall be subject to deed restriction in a form and substance acceptable to the City Council. Such deed restricted units may only be rented or sold to tenants or buyers who meet the City's qualifications in effect at the time of sale or rental, and at sale prices or rental rates which are also in compliance with the City's current regulations. The ewner is entAled to se ee t..,,,aits—er First priority for rental or sale occupancy of replacement units shall go to the tenants who rent the units at the time of demolition of said units. Prior to the approval of any building permits for demolition or reconstruction of units F] required by this section, the applicant shall provide a list of all units and their occupants, and a statement signed by each occupant which apprises said persons of their priority to rent or buy replacement units so long as they qualify under the Housing Guidelines and deed restrictions. The mix of affordable housing units, as between 'ew, ,,..ea...... te, and middle income Categories 1 through 4, or resident occupied, may be determined by the owner, provided that no less than 20% of the bedrooms qualify as lew ineeme Category 1 and no more than 20% of the units are available as resident occupied units. 14) Domestic Animals Zoning and Planning staff wish to delete Section 24-506 because it implies that domestic animals are not allowed in any other zone districts. The Municipal Code already addresses the maintenance of domestic animals in Article 1, Chapter 5, such that they cannot be a nuisance. The recommended deletion is as follows: ---------------j -- w.i.. — `-1 iv' , `— iJAal , { &&/ `L% i✓L, , LVW residential use, shall and net eenstAute health, a eefmereial , shall net vielate any sanitary er ether • • publ. state, 15) Definition of "building envelope" There are several instances where the land use regulations or specific approvals refer to development within a building envelope. However, there is no definition in the regulations to provide consistency . in use of this term. Last fall staff presented the following definition to the Commission. It was not well received because it "didn't say what we meant it to say." In an effort to simplify the definition, staff now proposes the following: building envelope: that area on a lot which encompasses all development including but not limited to excavation, f ill, grading, storage, demolition, structures, porches, patios and terraces, pools, access ways and parking. Planting of landscape materials on natural grade and approved walkways and driveways may occur outside of a building envelope. For Purposes of site specific development plans, building envelopes may be established to restrict development to protect slopes, important vegetation, water courses, privacy or other considerations. Building envelopes shall be described on recorded plats, development plans, ordinances, resolutions, and building permit site plans. 14 1�