HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19940621A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 21, 1994, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
----------- -------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Norton Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Mary Lackner
B. 132 W. Main St. Landmark Designation, Amy Amidon
C. Red House Conditional Use Review for a Duplex,
Leslie Lamont
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Krabacher GMQS Exemptions and Special Review, Kim
Johnson
B. Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review, Kim Johnson
C. Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review, Kim Johnson
D. Hirsch Stream Margin Review, Kim Johnson
V. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: June 21, 1994
Special Meeting - June 22, 4:00 PM, 2nd Floor, City Hall
Interim Overlay Work Session with HPC
Special Meeting - June 28, 4:00 PM, 2nd Floor, City Hall
Affordable Housing - Metro -wide Regulations (with County P&Z)
Regular Meeting - July 5
204 E. Durant GMQS Exemption (ML)
LaSata Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ)
Austin Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ) (continued from 6/7)
Creektree Subdivision/PUD Amendment (ML) (continued from 6/7)
KAJX/Red Brick Conditional Use Review for Satellite Dish (LL)
Mirabella Special Review (KJ)
Regular Meeting - July 19
Zoline Rezoning (LL)
Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA Plan (LL)
(continued)
a.nex
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
In re Public Hearing for
Red House Conditional Use
Review for a Duplex Conversion
by Smuggler Hunter Trust at
0002 Williams Way, Aspen
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF COLORADO)
)ss.
Pitkin County
Maxwell Aley, of legal age and being duly sworn, hereby states
as follows:
1. He is an attorney at law duly licensed by the State of
Colorado.
2. On the date of June 10, 1994 1 did deposit in the United
States Mails, first class postage prepaid, copies of the Public
Notice in the form attached hereto, addressed to all owners of real
property within 300 feet of the the property owned by the applicant
Smuggler Hunter Trust at 0002 Williams Way, Aspen CO 81611.
3. Further, I did on said date post a sign in a conspicuous
place on said property giving notice of the date and place of the
hearing described in the notice attached hereto.
4. The photographs) of the posted notice is attached hereto
as proof of posting
Dated this day of June, 1994.
Maxwell 'Aley-
Attorney for Aptplica ica
0002 Williams Way
Aspen CO 81611
(303)925-6500
1%1;JAsfftbed and sworn to before me this day of June 1994 by
ki o n
M'±Sssi n expires:
a t
Public
4 3 N
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: RED HOUSE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR A DUPLEX
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, June 21, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City
Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen to consider an application submitted by
Elizabeth Aley,, Trustee, Smuggler Hunter Trust, P.O. Box 5098,
Aspen, CO, requesting approval of a Conditional Use Review for a
duplex. The applicants propose to convert the east 1/3 of the
existing single family dwelling into a separate deed restricted
apartment. The property is located at 0002 Williams Way; Southeast
1 of Section 71 Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.
4
For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5101.
slBruce Kerr,. Chairman .
Planning and Zoning Commission
4v
III
J1
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
AND POSTING
RE: PUBLIC HEARING
NORTON CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AFFIRMS THAT THE
NOTICES BY MAIL OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED
CASE WERE PLACED IN THE MAIL NO LATER THAN
FRIDAY JUNE 10TH 1994. THE NOTICE BY POSTING
TOOK PLACE ON THIS SAME DATE.
SIGN D THISi4 DAY OF , 1994
STUART D. LUSK,
OWNER REPRESENTATIVE
CIO
R.
c_ I I w I
I }-w N I
ul a? wo
3! aF
` W
I �I
1 I
L
u
I iL
t�
Q
W o
cc
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
AND POSTING
RE: PUBLIC HEARING
NORTON CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AFFIRMS THAT THE
NOTICES BY MAIL OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED
CASE WERE PLACED IN THE MAIL NO LATER THAN
FRIDAY JUNE 10TH 1994. THE NOTICE BY POSTING
TOOK PLACE ON THIS SAME DATE.
SIGN D THIS DAY OF c t, , 1994
STUART D. LUSK,
OWNER REPRESENTATIVE
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
AND POSTING
RE: PUBLIC HEARING
NORTON CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AFFIRMS THAT THE
NOTICES BY MAIL OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED
CASE WERE PLACED IN THE MAIL NO LATER THAN
FRIDAY JUNE 10TH 1994. THE NOTICE BY POSTING
TOOK PLACE ON THIS SAME DATE.
SIGN THIS DAY OF 1994
STUART D. LUSK)
OWNER REPRESENTATIVE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Hirsch Stream Margin Review
DATE: June 21, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Hirsch
Stream Margin Review with conditions.
APPLICANT: Tom Hirsch, represented by Wayne Stryker
LOCATION: 635 Sneaky Lane (Lot 2, Sneaky Lane Subdivision)
ZONING: R-30
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Stream Margin Review approval for the
enlargement of a residence .
PROPOSAL: The applicant wishes to expand an existing 4 bedroom
2,487 s.f. residence to 5 bedrooms and approximately 4,800 s.f.
The lot size is roughly 25,000 s.f. The building site lies within
100' of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River, but lies
outside of the 100 year floodplain. The building footprint meets
required setbacks for the R-30 zone district. See Exhibit "A" for
site plan and floor plans.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please refer to Exhibit "B" for complete
referral memos.
Engineering: Cris Caruso forwarded the following:
1. All drainage from impervious surfaces must be maintained on -
site at historic rates and cannot enter either Sneaky Lane or the
stream. Construction documents must specify that any subsurface
drains be away from the stream.
2. The native understory vegetation along the river has been
cleared and replaced over time with turf grasses. This does not
meet the criteria of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan for maintenance
of native riparian vegetation. Any new landscape planting or
development in the rear yard must be reviewed by Planning and shall
consist of native species found in that river area.
3. A power cord was observed along the bank within in the stream.
It is not known what this serves, but it must be removed
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Parks: Rebecca Baker has the following comments:
1. The 8" spruce at the southwest part of the house next to the
two story addition is too close to construction to adequately
protect with a barricade at the dripline of the tree. If this tree
1\
dies or is removed due to construction, it must be replaced or
compensated for through the City's tree removal permit system. All
other trees over 611 in the construction area must be protected by
barricades at the driplines.
2. A silt fence (hay bales or similar method) shall be placed 5
feet from the river's edge to minimize sediment and debris from
entering the river should heavy rains occur during construction.
3. A 6.51 pedestrian easement along the high water mark of Castle
Creek is recorded at the County Clerk. This is important in terms
of the Castle Creek Greenway as a priority in the 11990 Pedestrian
and Bikeway Plan as well as the State Trails Master Plan. Due to
current adopted trail standards, it is requested that this 6.51
easement be widened to a 12 1 easement.
This riverbank easement and the other pedestrian easements along
the side and front of the parcel must be shown on the building
permit site plan.
STAFF COMMENTS: Section 7-504 outlines the criteria for Stream
Margin Review as follows:
Criteria 1: It can be demonstrated that any proposed development
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.
Response: The proposed expansion and site improvements are located
above the 100 year flood plain so the base flood elevation will not
be affected.
Criteria 2: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/open Space/Trails Plan map is
dedicated for public use.
Response: As mentioned in the Park's referral, the 6.51 pedestrian
easement along Castle Creek is requested to be widened to 121 in
order to conform to current trail standards. All pedestrian
easements must be shown on the building permit site plan.
Criteria 3: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan
are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable.
j
Response: The Plan makes no specific recommendations for this
site. As mentioned above, the native vegetation has already been
removed to a great extent. Any revegetation or landscaping must
be with native riparian species.
Criteria 4: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made
that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
Response: No regrading of the flat site is needed. The only
removal which may be necessary is the spruce on the south side of
the addition. Precautions must be taken during construction to
prevent sedimentation (e.g. hay bales).
Criteria 5: To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed
development reduces pollution and interference with the natural
changes of the river, stream or other tributary.
Response: No negative effects are anticipated by this project due
to the flat nature of the site and existing manipulation of the
vegetation. The natural changes of the river channel will not be
adversely affected.
Criteria 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.
Response: Not Applicable
Criteria 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.
Response: Not applicable - no impacts on the flood plain will
occur with this proposal.
Criteria 8: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year
floodplain.
Response: Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of
the Hirsch Stream Margin Review with the following conditions:
1. All drainage from impervious surfaces must be maintained on -
site at historic rates and cannot enter either Sneaky Lane or
the stream. Construction documents must specify that any
subsurface drains be away from the stream.
2. Any new landscape planting or development in the rear yard
must be reviewed by Planning and shall consist of native
species found in that river area.
3. The power cord observed in the river must be removed
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. The 811 spruce at the southwest part of the house next to the
two story addition is too close to construction to adequately
protect with a barricade at the dripline of the tree. If this
tree dies or is removed due to construction, it must be
replaced or compensated for through the City's tree removal
permit system. All other trees over 611 in the construction
area must be protected by barricades at the driplines.
5. A silt fence (hay bales or similar method) shall be placed 5
feet from the river's edge to minimize sediment and debris
from entering the river should heavy rains occur during
construction.
6. The riverbank easement and the other pedestrian easements
along the side and front of the parcel must be shown on the
building permit site plan.
Exhibits:
"All - Application information
"B" - Referral Comments
M,
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: June 21, 1994
Re: Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review
Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Winnerman
8040 Greenline review with conditions. This review is being held
in conjunction with the Nathanson 8040 review as both parcels are
neighboring lots which share a private access driveway.
Applicant: Larry Winnerman, represented by Jack Palomino
Location / Zoning: This 1.0 acre parcel (Lot 2) is located in the
Ute Park Subdivision on the south side of the east end of Ute Ave.
across from the Aspen Club. The zoning is AH Affordable Housing.
Request: The applicant wishes to construct a four -bedroom single
family residence of approximately 5,621 s.f.
Process: The Planning Commission makes final determinations on
8040 Greenline reviews.
Background: This parcel is one of three free market lots created
in the Ute Park AH Subdivision approved in 1992. Each of the free
market lots must receive individual 8040 Greenline approval. The
Winnerman review has been submitted in conjunction with one of the
other free market lots in the subdivision, the Nathanson 8040
review.. The deed restricted townhomes in the development have been
completed and are occupied at this time.
The Ute Park Subdivision is impacted by two avalanche chutes. The
original subdivision review noted red zones (greater hazard) and
blue zones (lesser hazard) on the created parcels. The Winnerman
parcel includes a platted building envelope which identifies a
portion of the envelope in the blue zone. Within the application,
avalanche consultant Art Mears submitted comments on appropriate
building and site design to mitigate avalanche hazards. A revised
site plan was submitted on May 27 showing the structure to be
located outside of the blue zone area.
Referral Comments: Referral comments were requested from Parks,
Engineering and Water Departments. Referral memos are attached as
Exhibit "A". The summaries of comments received are as follows:
Engiineerinq: Chuck Roth forwarded the following comments:
1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented by
1
detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods.
2) All activity should be prevented outside the limit of
construction to protect the native vegetation - fencing should be
installed at the building envelope as a minimum measure.
3) Regrading outside of the building envelope cannot take place
without a variance. Driveway grading appears to be excessive,
beyond the scope of the retaining wall. The retaining wall is
shown as rock wall in some drawings, and concrete wall in others.
4) The grading plan within the envelope is not explicit unless
"tie -back wall" construction is employed.
5) The avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision
approval have not been erected.
6) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding
fire access and building sprinklers (required as a condition of
subdivision approval).
Parks (Rebecca Baker): 1) No detailed landscape plan has been
submitted.
2) Tree removal permits are required for any tree 611diameter or
greater which will be removed or relocated. Application for tree
removal permits must occur no less than two weeks prior to
submittal for the building/excavation permits.
3) Protection of existing vegetation outside of the building
envelope is critical. A barricade must be erected and inspected
by Parks or Planning prior to any grading or storage on the site.
4) The 21 inch fir at the southeast corner of the proposed house
should remain, with protective barricading during construction.
Staff comments:
8040 Greenline Pursuant to Section 7-503 of the Land Use Code,
the following review criteria pertain to any development above, or
within 1501,below, the 80401 elevation line:
I. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located
is suitable for development considering its slope, ground
stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the
possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers.
If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils,
the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or,
where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a
location acceptable to the City.
Response: The application states that all development is located
off of 30% slopes. The avalanche hazard has been addressed by the
applicant by moving the structure to the "unconditional" portion
of the building envelope. However, avalanches might still flow
through the trees in the unconditional areas, and the building's
structure and window/door openings on the south side must be
designed with this in mind (see Art Mear's letter dated January 11,
1994).
2
I
II. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil
erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
Response: The development must comply with drainage requirements
which call for an engineered drainage plan stamped by an engineer
and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building
permits. Hay bales, detention areas or similar methods must be
used downslope of any soil disturbance to stop loose or waterborne
soils. Any regraded or disturbed areas must be revegetated and
mulched immediately.
III. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the air quality in the City.
Response: This development will not affect air quality in
significant levels. No wood burning fireplaces are allowed.
IV. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or
trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which
the proposed development is to be located.
Response: As mentioned in the Engineering referral, the regrading
above the entry road seems excessive. Planning staff has met with
Hans Brucker, the subdivision's design engineer, to explore methods
of reducing the significant backslope cut for the private driveway.
Hans understands staff's concerns about visual impacts and
revegetation concerns. He will work on minimizing the slope cuts.
This may entail raising the retaining wall somewhat. The original
representation in the subdivision review stated that the retaining
wall would be 4'-6' tall. Staff continues to recommend that
landscaping be planted in front of the wall to reduce the visual
impact of the wall. This should be done upon completion of the
wall when revegetation takes place.
Last summer, a trail was cut through this parcel by the Nordic
Council which created much damage to the hillside and vegetation
and strayed away from the alignment as platted. Although not the
responsibility of this applicant, staff recommends that the
Commission direct staff to notify the Nordic Council that the trail
cut is a violation of the 8040 regulations. The Nordic Council
should be required to submit an application for 8040 review for the
trail, and correction of the errors should be made as soon as
possible.
V. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features. 1
Response: A grading plan was not submitted in time to fully
address this criteria. Several mature evergreens and even more
3
�1
middle aged aspens are being lost because of their central location
on the site. Staff questions why the 21 inch fir at the southeast
corner is shown to be removed - it is approximately 10 feet uphill
from the structure. Due to the loss of other sizable trees on
site, this tree should remain as a condition of approval..
The patio on the southwest corner of the house requires the removal
of four 411 aspen trees. This patio also faces uphill in an area
subject to avalanche flow through the trees (see Art Mears' letter
dated January 11, 1994). Because of these reasons and the
excavation concerns expressed below, staff recommends that this
patio be deleted from the plans, and protective barricades be
erected to help save two of the trees.
VI. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the
need for roads, limit cutting and grading-, maintain open
space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Response: Staff has already discussed the private driveway design
concerns. The residence as proposed makes excessive cuts into the
hillside to accommodate the exposed northwestern wall and the semi-
circular patio at the rear of the house. Without a landscaping
plan which includes the boulder retaining wall for the private
entry road, it is difficult to know how much of the structure will
be screened from below. However, staff ' recognizes that due to the
location of the building envelope/ structure on the Nathanson
parcel, specific landscaping of the front of the Winnerman house
is not as critical as the other three. sides,. Prior to issuance of
any building permit, Planning and Parks staff must review a
landscaping plan which. adds -screening vegetation along the front
and sides of the structure as well as the retaining' wall for the
private entry driveway.
VII. Building height and bulk.will be minimized and the structure
will be designed to blend into the open character of the
mountain.
Response: The maximum FAR for Lot 2 is 5,770 s.f. The proposed
FAR is 5,621 s.f. The home stretches completely across the
"unconditional" portion of the building envelope, approximately 70
feet. The slope adjacent to the entry road requires a lot of
excavation for access to.the garage. This "exposes" much more of
the building facade, although the heights (from the front view)
appear not to exceed the 25' limit of,the AH zone district. Staff
is concerned however, that the north (west) elevation shows a
massive amount of exposed facade and building height. Without a
grading plan and height measurements, it cannot.be determined that
this facade is in compliance with height limits. It is recommended
that the north elevation is not excavated to the extent shown (the
whole lower level is exposed). Window wells can permit light and
egress without as much visual impact. Exposed walls count toward
FAR. Zoning staff will make final calculations of FAR.
0
As with the Nathanson residence, staff recommends a condition of
approval requiring medium or darker earthtones for any exterior
materials or paint.
VIII. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are
available to service the proposed development.
Response: "Will serve" letters had been provided by the water and
sanitation utilities during subdivision review.
IX. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
Response: The Ute Park Subdivision participated in the Ute Avenue
Improvement District for road upgrades.
X. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed
development so as to ensure adequate access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment.
Response: The private entry road must be constructed in accordance
with the City's driveway requirements. At the time of subdivision
review, the Fire Marshal requested that the driveway be snowmelted,
but this did not become a condition of approval for the
subdivision. The structure on this lot must be sprinklered per the
Ute Park Subdivision approval. The Fire Marshal must review the
building permit prior to its issuance.
XI. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
Response: An easement to accommodate a hiking and nordic trail
was obtained through subdivision approval in 1992.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
8040 Greenline review with the following conditions:
1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented
by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permits.
2) The lowest level of the structure on the north (west) side
shall not be excavated or exposed except for minimal egress
windows which may be required for bedrooms per the Building
Code.
3 ) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the downhill
5
side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of
the building envelope.
4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a
sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building
envelope lines on the east, south and west to protect the
existing grades and vegetation.
5) The patio on the southwest corner shall be eliminated from
the plans.
6) Only native vegetation species as typically found on this site
shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the
east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or
disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted
immediately.
7) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must
be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits.
8) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and
approved prior to the issuance of any building permits.
9) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal
permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree
611diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated.
Application for tree removal permits must occur no less than
two weeks prior to submittal for the building/excavation
permits.
10) Colors shall be medium or darker earth tones to make the
building less visible on the hillside.
11) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040
review. The open area to the west of the residence shall
remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests
as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and
Pitkin County Land Management Department.
12) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding
fire access and building sprinklers (required for Lot 2 as a
condition of subdivision approval).
13) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry
driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the
wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to
the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape
treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion
of the wall when revegetation takes place.
14) The 21 inch fir tree at the southeast corner of the house must
remain. A barricade shall be placed no less than seven feet
6
R
from the trunk along the side facing the construction. Two
aspens at the southwest corner (where the patio was originally
shown) shall also be protected by barricades no less than 5
feet from their trunks, as shown by the Planning Office's
proposal.
15) All representations made by the applicant within the
application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
be considered conditions of approval for this project.
Recommended Motions: "I move to approve the Winnerman 8040
Greenline Review with the 15 conditions listed in the
June 21, 1994 Planning Office memo."
"I also move to direct staff to notify the Nordic Council that the
trail cut on Lot 2 is a violation of the 8040 regulations. The
Nordic Council must submit an application for 8040 review for the
trail within 30 days of notice."
Attachments:
"A" Application Information
"B" Complete Referral Agency Memos
7
m
I�
�
s�G v y s
50
�,9
L
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Krabacher Office Building - Growth Management Exemptions
for Affordable Housing and Increased FAR of an Historic
Landmark
DATE: Jun 21, 1994
SUMMARY: Staff recommends denial of the Krabacher Office Building
expansion because it is not in compliance with review criteria
specific to site plan and transportation issues. Also, staff
determined that there was an error in calculating the proposed
additional net leasable area which makes the application deficient
in employee mitigation and parking.
APPLICANT: B. Joseph and Susan S. Krabacher, represented by Dave
Penico
LOCATION: 706 W. Main St. (Lot Q and 20' of Lot R. Block 18, City
and Townsite of Aspen) The parcel is 5,000 s.f.
ZONING: O (Office)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicants seek to add approximately
1,400 s.f. of net leasable commercial area on the first and second
levels, as well as one free market dwelling and one deed restricted
dwelling in the basement. The proposed increase in FAR is 2,476
s. f . (please refer to staff comments for discussion of an apparent
error in calculations of net leasable area).
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Encfineerinq_
1. The sidewalk should be widened to 5 feet.
2. A site drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer
must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance
of any grading or building permits.
3. If the fences in the rear encroach into the public alley, they
must be reinstalled onto private property during
redevelopment.
4. 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,.
5. Utilities - Any new utility pedestals must be installed on
utility easements on private property, not in the public right
of way.
1
0'�
6. 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.
Housing Office: Cindy Christensen verbally amended her written
comments on 6/15/94. According to Cindy, the amendments dated
3/22/94 are correct concerning employee generation rates and
housing mitigation provided. The proposed Category 2 deed
restriction is acceptable. (However, as noted above, the
application apparently wrongly calculated the existing net leasable
area, so Housing's comments are not accurate).
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: A shared service line
agreement is required. Total connection charges can be estimated
once the plan details are available and a tap permit is completed.
Historic Preservation: Conceptual HPC was granted on April 27,
1994. The HPC granted a 500 s.f. FAR bonus (even though the
applicant only requested 452 s.f. bonus) to the property because
they thought is. was more desirable than the potential of a P&Z
Special Review increase of FAR up . to 1,250 s.f. The HPC also
waived four parking spaces for the new development. (Planning
believes that . this number was in error on the low side due to
differing calculations of proposed net leasable -- see discussion
further in this memo.)
Zoning: Although this case,was not officially referred to Zoning,
Bill Drueding informed staff that the 5 on -site parking spaces
required during the 1989 conditional use approval have not been
developed. Therefore,* these must be added.prior to the issuance
of any I building permits for this current proposal.
STAFF COMMENTS: The, Krabacher's property received historic
landmark designation in 1989, then conditional use approval and
change in use (from residential to commercial) for an antique
store. According to these past records, the antique store was
approximately 1,300 s.f. and the Krabacher's residence was
approximately 400 s.f.
In 1992, the applicants requested, and saw to adoption of, a code
amendment to allow mixed use structures in the 0 Office zone. it
is under this code language that the Krabacher's submitted an
application for an enlarged free market dwelling unit, the new
affordable dwelling unit and additional net leasable office area
of 1,420 s.f. However, staff believes that the proposed additional
net leasable figure is in error (it should be 1,820 s.f.) because
the figure for existing net leasable area presented in the
application (1,726 s.f.) appeared to count space within the
structure that was previously indicated as the 400 s.f. residential
area. If the 400 s.f. in question had been converted to commercial
5,
E#
area between 1992 and the present, .it was done so without approval
from the City.
Therefore, based on staff's belief that 1,820 s.f. of new net
leasable is being added to the site rather than 1,420 s.f., the
following summarizes the increased community impacts:
employee mitigation: 3.28 rather than the 2.52 proposed
parking: 5.46 spaces rather than 4.26 (4 spaces waived by HPC )
GMOS Exemption by Commission for an Historic Landmark: Pursuant to
Section 24-8-104 B.1(c) the Commission may exempt development from
GMQS competition "the enlargement of an historic landmark to be
used as a commercial or office development which increases the
building's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square
footage or the enlargement of an historic landmark which develops
more than one (1) residential dwelling or three (3) hotel, motel,
lodge, bed and breakfast, boarding house, rooming house or
dormitory units or the enlargement of an historical landmark for
mixed use as a commercial, office or lodge development and which
adds a residential dwelling unit, which increases the building's
or parcel's existing FAR and its net leasable square footage."
Even though the HPC may grant design approval and even FAR bonuses,
the P&Z is entrusted with the ability to exempt a project which
adds new square footage and/or free market dwelling units from the
rigorous growth management competition. A project may be exempted
if it complies with the following review criteria.
Mitigation for community impacts must be addressed as follows:
1. Housing: For the enlargement at the maximum FAR permitted,
the applicant shall provide affordable housing at 100 % of the level
which meets threshold according to the growth management
requirements. For each 1% reduction of floor area below the
maximum allowed, the housing requirement is lessened by 1%. The
applicant shall place a restriction on the property to the
satisfaction of the City Attorney, requiring that if, in the
future, additional floor area is requested, the owner shall provide
affordable housing mitigation at the then current standards.
Affordable housing provided shall be at the Category 3 level.
Response: The applicant is proposing to provide 100% of the
affordable housing to meet the thresholds established for growth
management office space net leasable area. Based on the revised
net leasable figure calculated by staff of 1,820 s.f., this total
figure is employees housed, per the following formula:
1,820 sf (new net leasable) divided by 1,000 sf increments =
1.82 multiplied by 3 (employees per thousand sf) = i
5.46 gross employee generation, mult. by 60% (min. threshold)
for a net employee mitigation of 3.276 persons
The proposed three bedroom unit will house 3 persons, per the
Housing Guidelines for occupancy. Therefore, the applicant has not
addressed the mitigation method for the .28 fractional full-time
equivalent employee.
2. Parking: The applicant was required to provide 5 parking
spaces at the rear of the parcel in 1989, but according to Zoning
Enforcement Office Bill Drueding, the spaces have not been
provided. Per section 24-8-104. C. 1. c. 2. , "any parking spaces which
cannot be accommodated on site and which would therefore be
required to be provided via cash -in -lieu shall be waived." At
their April 27, 1992 Conceptual review (public hearing), the HPC
waived four parking spaces under the assumption that the net
leasable increase was 1,420 s.f. The actual parking requirement
for 1,820 s.f. in the Office zone district is 5.46 spaces (3 spaces
per 1,,000 s.f.) So the HPC waiver was not adequate for the
proposed increase of commercial area.
Regardless of the outcome of this issue, staff requires the
applicant to comply with the 1989 condition of approval that the
5 parking spaces be immediately provided or be red -tagged by the
Zoning Enforcement Officer.
3. Utilities: 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
commission.
Response: The Sanitation district replied that they have capacity
for the project. The location of the site is such that all other
utilities are currently serving the surrounding commercial and
residential uses. However, due to the amount of the proposed net
leasable area (3,146 s.f.), two dwelling units, and the limited
parking of 5 existing spaces, staff has a difficult time
reconciling the transportation impacts of the proposal.
Four bedrooms are proposed in the two dwelling units. Residential
parking is calculated at 1 space per bedroom (unless reduced by
Special Review). It is conceivable that 4 of the 5 on -site spaces
will be used by the residents, leaving 1 space for over 3,000 s.f.
of commercial activity. Nowhere in the application does the
applicant address transportation mitigation in any other form other
than to say that the site is located on the Main Street RFTA
routes. The nearest RFTA stop is not indicated in the application.
Staff believes that this criteria has not been met due to the
extent of the proposed development and the lack of attention to
detailed transportation mitigation.
4. Design: 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 proposed landscaping and open space, the
M
0
amount of site coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for
the users and residents of the site, and the efficiency and
effectiveness of service delivery area.
Response: As mentioned above, the HPC granted conceptual approval
for this project's architecture. Included in their approval was
a FAR bonus of 500 s.f (the applicant requested 452 s.f. bonus).
They voted favorably to this request as a reaction to the
applicant's presentation that the P&Z could potentially grant up
to a 1,250 s.f. expansion via the Special Review process (1:1 or
5,000 s.f. total). Because the site is so small and constrained
for parking, access, and green space, Planning staff would never
have recommended such a FAR increase. Planning is dismayed that
a building with such limited parking and limited yard areas for
landscaping was granted any increased FAR.
The application packet was also lacking in sufficient detail to
examine landscaping (no plan at all), dimensions for parking,
setbacks, and structures, trash storage and access, delivery
access, and accurate site coverage (staff calculates coverage at
60% even without the porch addition which isn't shown on the site
plan.) There appears to be no amenities for commercial users or
residents of this parcel.
As designed, the building is so long that
parking spaces. There is no provision for
back of the building or an entry area for
area. Planning is also concerned that the,
eastern wall are in the setback and exceed
intrusion into the setback as established by
Officer and Building Official.
it juts out over the
a walkway across the
the rear door/service
window wells along the
the maximum allowable
the Zoning Enforcement
Because of the deficiencies in the design and/or application
package specific to this review criteria, Planning recommends
denial of, this project.
GMOS Exemption for Affordable Housing: Per Section 24-8-104
C.l.c., the Commission shall review and make a recommendation to
Council regarding the proposed affordable housing. According to
the Code, the review of any request for exemption of housing
pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the
City's need for such housing, considering the proposed
development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number
of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling
units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in
each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of
the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to
which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted.
Response: As mentioned above, the application does not fully
address the housing mitigation impacts of the proposed increase of
net leasable area of 1,820 s.f. The referral memo from Housing
5 �q
dated June 1. 1994 indicates ' in the last paragraph that a
fractional share of employee be mitigated in cash at the Category
2 level, consistent with the deed restriction of the new unit.
This represents a payment of $14,280.00 (.28 employee x $51,000).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Krabacher Office
Building GMQS Exemption for the commercial expansion, one bedroom
free market unit, and the three bedroom Category 2 deed restricted
unit for the following reasons:
1) The project does not satisfactorily comply with Sections 24-
8-104.B.1.c.3 and 4. specific to transportation impacts and
site design/compatibility.
2) The application appears to be inaccurate regarding the amount
of commercial square footage requested and the amount of
commercial square footage historically present in the
structure. This affects calculations for parking requirements
and affordable housing mitigation.
EXHIBITS
A - Proposed Site Plan and Application Information
B - Referral Memos
6
01
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
RE: Red House Conditional Use Review for a Duplex in the
R/MFA Zone District
DATE: June 21, 1994
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to convert an existing single
family home to a duplex structure. Staff recommends approval of
the conversion and the conditional use for a duplex in the R/MFA
zone district.
APPLICANT: Maxwell and Elizabeth Aley
LOCATION: 0002 Williams Way, Aspen
ZONING: R/MFA
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To convert an existing single family home
into a duplex structure and deed restrict the new residential unit.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments from the
Engineering Department and the Building Department.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Aley's, as part of a settlement with Pitkin County, have
acquired the single-family home on Williams Way that was once owned
by the County. Mr. Aley is seeking to convert a portion of the
2,017 square foot home into a deed restricted, category 4, dwelling
unit. Pursuant to Section 24-5-2061.1, a duplex in the R/MFA zone
district is a conditional use. The duplex must provide either a
fully deed restricted category 4 unit or an accessory dwelling unit
must be provided for each free market unit. If a deed restricted
unit is provided it must comprise a minimum of 1/3 of the total
floor area of the duplex.
The deed restricted, converted portion of the single family Aley
residence is 798 square feet. The laundry room, which is in-
between the two units, will be shared by both units. With half of
the laundry room, the new deed restricted unit is 39.5% of the
total floor area of the duplex.
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 Community Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located; and
\1
RESPONSE: The proposed unit is within the existing structure. The
provision of a fully deed restricted affordable dwelling unit is
consistent with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
The Housing Board has reviewed Mr. Aley's proposal and supports the
provision of a category 4 residence on this site.
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 surrounding neighborhood is entirely residential.
The home is surrounded by multi -family development except for a
single family home above the property. All changes to the
structure are interior. No exterior modification of the building
is being proposed; a second kitchen is the only significant change
to the structure.
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 second dwelling unit is completely above grade and
accessed off of the front of the.house. Four parking spaces are
provided on the site for the two dwelling units which have a total
of three bedrooms.
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
RESPONSE: Currently a single family residence occupies the site.
No new services are required for the second residence.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
RESPONSE: The second dwelling unit will be deed restricted to
category 4 price and occupancy guidelines.
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.
2
1�
E
RESPONSE: The conditional use meets the requirements of the Aspen
Area Community Plan and other requirements of this chapter.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the
applicant shall, upon approval of the deed restriction by the
Housing Authority, record the deed restriction with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder's Of f ice with proof of recordation to the
Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the
dwelling unit meets the housing guidelines for category 4 units,
and shall be rented for periods of six months or longer.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The new dwelling unit shall comply with U.B..C. Chapter 35 sound
attenuation requirements and shall be clearly identified as a
separate dwelling unit on building plans.
5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the
Planning Department shall inspect the unit to determine compliance
with the conditions of approval.
6. If the duplex is ever condomini.umized a note on the plat and
in the condominium documents shall state that the laundry room
shall be shared between both units or an additional 69.5 square
feet shall be added to the category 4 dwelling unit.
7. Prior to commencing work within the public right-of-way, the
applicant shall consult the City Engineering Department for design
considerations, City Parks Department for vegetation alterations
including tree removal on private property, and shall obtain
permits from the City Streets Department for any work or,
development within public rights -of -way.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I
single family residence
provision of a category
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Referral Comments
B. Site Plan
move to approve the conversion of the
at 0002 Williams Way to a duplex and the
4 affordable dwelling units."
Memorandum
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Cris Caruso, City Engineer
Date: June 16, 1994
RE: Red House Conditional Use Review for a Duplex
Upon review of the above referenced application and site inspection, the Engineering
Department does not have any substantial concerns or comments. The applicant proposes to
make interior renovations without changing the exterior of the building or disturbing the public
right-of-way.
Any changes to utilities must be coordinated with the appropriate agencies.
In the event that exterior work is planned, prior to commencing work within the public right-of-
way, the applicant shall consult the City Engineering Department (920-8040) for design
considerations, City Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation alterations including tree
removal on private property, and shall obtain permits from the City Streets Department (920-
5130) for any work or development within public rights -of -way.
94005not.ref
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 132 W. Main Street, Landmark Designation
DATE: June 21, 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In 1976, the George H. Moser house (Lots K and L, Block
58), built in 1888, was designated a local landmark. Four years
later the adjacent house, the Jason Freeman house of 1889 (not a
designated landmark), was moved to the west and connected to the
Moser house in order to expand the restaurant space. This was, in
fact the second time the Freeman house was moved, as its original
location was in the 400's block of West Main Street.
At this time, the applicants would like to landmark designate the
Freeman house, Lots M and the west four feet of N, in order to take
advantage of some of the benefits of Landmarking, namely expansion
of net leasable space below grade without employee mitigation.
Landmark designation for Lots M-O (including the vacant parcel on
which the new office building is being constructed) was requested
in 1990 and denied, because although HPC found the Freeman house
has historic significance, they would not support landmark
designation of an empty parcel. The request before P&Z would mean
that both of the Victorian structures which comprise the Asia
restaurant would be landmarked, but the adjacent commercial
structure currently under construction would not be designated.
HPC recommended approval of this landmark designation 6-0 on April
27, 1994.
APPLICANT: Steve and Lily Ko, represented by Brian Busch and
Dennis Green.
LOCATION: 132 W. Main Street, Lot M and the west four feet of Lot
N. Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen.
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three -step
process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public
hearings), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation
Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at
second reading.
LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land
Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation,
requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one
1
0
of the following standards:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a
principal or secondary, structure or site commonly
identified or associated with a person or an 'event Of
historical significance to the cultural, social or
political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of the
United States.
Response: This standard is not met.
B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site
reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct
or of traditional Aspen character.
Response.- The Freeman house has undergone a number of
alterations, including an addition on the east side of
the building and construction of a wraparound porch. The
building still retains typical Victorian features such
as a 'front gable, fishscale shingles, original windows
and other details.*
C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site
embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a
significant or unique architectural type or specimen.
Response: This standard is not met.
D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a
significant work of an architect whose individual work
has influenced the character of Aspen.
Response: The architect or builder is unknown.
E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a
significant component, of an historically significant
neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or
site is important 'for the maintenance of that
neighborhood character.
Response: A number of the buildings which surround the
Asia restaurant are modern and disrupt the original scale
of Main Street somewhat. It is especially important
therefore that the remaining historic structures
tures in this
area be preserved. Because the property owner is
required to maintain these buildings according to HPC
review, it is important that they be given any benefits
available to historic landmarks.
F. Community Character: The structure or site is
critical to the preservation of the character of the
Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of
2
size, location
structures or
importance.
and architectural similarity to other
sites of historical or architectural
Response: The Freeman house, though moved and altered
is important to preservation of the scale and historic
residential character of Main Street and Aspen in
general.
Recommendation: HPC recommends P&Z approve Landmark
Designation of Lot M and the west four feet of Lot N.
Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that
standards B, E and F are met.
Additional Comments:
3
70
cc
o.
. op
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Norton Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory Dwelling
Unit - Public Hearing
DATE: June 21, 1994
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Norton
Conditional Use for an approximately 640 sq.ft. attached accessory
dwelling unit with conditions.
APPLICANT: John and Robin Norton, represented by Stuart Lusk.
LOCATION: 817 W. North Street, Block 8, Lots E & F.
ZONING: R-6 Medium -Density Residential.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use
approval to build an accessory dwelling unit within an existing
residence. This unit is being provided voluntarily. The one
bedroom accessory dwelling unit will be approximately 640 net
livable sq.ft. and will be located partially below grade. Due to
the unit being located partially below grade, this unit does not
qualify for a floor area bonus. Please refer to application
information, Exhibit "A".
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments from the Engineering Department are
included as Exhibit "B" , and Zoning Exhibit "C" , which are attached
to this memorandum.
STAFF COMMENTS: The Commission has the authority to review and
approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to
the standards of Section 24-7-304:
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, which consists of medium
density single family residences. The unit will not be visible as
a distinct unit from the exterior of the residence or garage.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visua* 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. A total of five parking spaces are
provided on -site, two of these spaces are within the garage. One
space is designated for ADU parking, however the code does not
require parking to be provided with an accessory dwelling unit. The
proposed ADU will have an exterior stairway which will access the
entrance.
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. The applicant has proposed a roof design
that will shed snow away from the ADUIs entrance. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
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
Response: All public utilities are adequate and in place
throughout the neighborhood and for the proposed residence and ADU.
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 is voluntarily providing the ADU. it is
not required for mitigation. The applicant must file the
appropriate deed restrictions for resident occupancy, 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.
2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the
Norton Conditional Use for a 640 net livable sq.ft. one bedroom
accessory dwelling unit 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 unit 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.
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
Of f icer shall make the f inal determination that the unit meets
the minimum size requirement of 300 sq.ft. net liveable as
defined in the Housing Authority Guidelines. The accessory
dwelling unit cannot be less than 300 sq.ft.
5. The kitchen within the accessory dwelling unit shall meet or
exceed the Housing Authority Guidelines for the definition of
a "kitchen."
6. The applicant shall comply with the following recommendations
made by the Engineering Department in the referral memorandum
dated June 9, 1994:
a. Storm runoff shall be designed to be retained on the
property.
b. The final development plan must indicate a trash storage
area. Any trash areas the include utility meters or
equipment must provide that these remain unblocked by
trash containers.
C. The development plan calls for existing aspen trees to
remain, however, it is not clear if these trees are
properly located on the plan, nor does a sidewalk appear,
to fir around or through the trees as shown on the plan.
The Engineering Department highly recommends preserving
these trees and revising the design, if necessary, to
allow for ADU access around them.
d. Prior to commending work within the public right-of-way,
the applicant shall consult the City Engineering
3
Department (920-8040) for design considerations, City
Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation alterations
including tree removal on private property, and shall
obtain permits from the City Streets Department for any
work or development within the public rights -of -way.
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 the Conditional Use for a
640 net livable sq.ft. attached accessory dwelling unit for 817 W.
North Street with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office
memo dated June 21, 1994.11
Exhibits:
"All - Application Information with plans and elevations
"B" - Engineering referral memo
"C" - Zoning referral memo
H
A-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: June 21, 1994
Re: N a t h a n s o n 8 0 4 0 G r e e n l i n e R e v i e w
Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Nathanson
8040 Greenline review with conditions.
Applicant: Gary and Linda Nathanson, represented by Jack Palomino
Location / Zoning: Lot 3, Ute Park Subdivision. This is a .744
acre parcel located on the south side of the east end of Ute Ave.
across from the Aspen Club. The zoning is AH Affordable Housing.
Request: The applicant seeks 8040 approval to construct a single
family residence. 4 to
Process: The Planning Commission shall make a final determination
on 8040 Greenline review.
Background: This parcel is one of three free market lots created
in the Ute Park AH Subdivision approved in 1992. Each of the free
market lots must receive individual 8040 Greenline approval. The
Nathanson review has been submitted in conjunction with one of the
other free market lots in the subdivision, the Winnerman 8040
review. The deed restricted townhomes in the development have been
completed and are occupied at this time.
The Ute Park Subdivision is impacted by two avalanche chutes. The
original subdivision review noted red zones (greater hazard) and
blue zones (lesser hazard) on the created parcels. The Nathanson
parcel includes a platted building envelope which identifies a
portion of the envelope in the blue zone. Within the application,
avalanche consultant Art Mears submitted comments on appropriate
building and site design to mitigate avalanche hazards of the blue
zone. A revised site plan was submitted on May 27 showing the
structure to be located outside of the blue zone area.
Referral Comments: Referral comments were requested from Parks,
Engineering and Water Departments. Referral memos are attached as
Exhibit "A". The summaries are as follows:
Engineering (Chuck Roth): 1) Run-off from the site during
construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or
similar methods.
1
2) All activity should be prevented outside the limit of
construction to protect the native vegetation - fencing should be
installed at the building envelope as a minimum measure.
3) Regrading outside of the building envelope cannot take place
without a variance. Driveway grading appears to be excessive,
beyond the scope of the retaining wall. The retaining wall is
shown as rock wall in some drawings, and concrete wall in others.
4) The grading plan within the envelope is not explicit unless
"tie -back wall" construction is employed.
5) The avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision
approval have not been erected.
6) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding
fire access and building sprinklers (required as a condition of
subdivision approval).
Parks (Rebecca Baker): 1) No detailed landscape plan has been
submitted.
2) Tree removal permits are required for any tree 611diameter or
greater which will be removed or relocated. Submit for tree
permits at least two weeks prior to submitting for building permit.
3) Protection of existing vegetation outside of the building
envelope is critical. A barricade must be erected and inspected
by Parks or Planning prior to any grading or storage on the site.
4) The deck at the northwest corner of the house should be reduced
to save the aspens located there.
Staff Comments:
8040 Greenline Pursuant to Section 24-7-503 of the Municipal Code,
the, following review criteria pertain to any development above, or
within 1501 below, the 80401 elevation line:
I. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located
is suitable for development considering its slope, ground
stability characteristics., including mine subsidence and the
possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers.
If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils,
the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or,
where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a
location acceptable to the City.
Response: The application states that the building envelope is
located off of 30% slopes. The bulk of the structure is located
in the "unconditional" portions of the building envelopes, out of
the identified avalanche zones. Because the site plan shows the
structure out of the blue zone, it does not have to follow the
recommendations of hazard consultant Art Mears. Staff believes
that the avalanche zones must be shown on any graphic depictions
of the property, ie. building permit site plan, landscape plan,
etc.
2
Le,4
II. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil
erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
Response: The development must comply with drainage requirements
which call for an engineered drainage plan stamped by an engineer
and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building
permits. Hay bales, detention areas or similar methods must be
used downslope of any soil disturbance (at the building envelope
line) to stop loose or waterborne soils. Any regraded or disturbed
areas must be revegetated and mulched immediately.
III. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse
affect on the air quality in the City.
Response: This development will not affect air quality in
significant levels. No wood burning fireplaces are allowed.
IV. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or
trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which
the proposed development is to be located.
Response: This lot does not provide a trail alignment, but a
pedestrian easement exists along its eastern border. Per the
drawings, the private access road calls for fairly extensive cuts
into the hill and retaining walls. As mentioned in the Engineering
referral, the regrading above the road seems excessive. Planning
staff has met with Hans Brucker, the subdivision's design engineer,
to explore methods of reducing the significant backslope cut for
the private driveway. Hans understands staff's concerns about
visual impacts and revegetation concerns. He will work on
minimizing the slope cuts. This may entail raising the retaining
wall somewhat. The original representation in the subdivision
review stated that the retaining wall would be 4'-6' tall. Staff
continues to recommend that landscaping be planted in front of the
wall to reduce the visual impact of the wall. This should be done
upon completion of the wall when revegetation takes place.
V. Any grading will. minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
Response: As mentioned above, staff is concerned about the
backslope above the private drive and its impact to the native
vegetation.
Concerning the regrading plan, th
several designs which have set the
The extent of downhill intrusion i
deck. Parks staff reflects upon the
removed because of the proposed deck
house. Because these trees are some
3
s
e structure has gone through
building into the hillside.
limited to the edge of the
mature aspens which are to be
at the northwest corner of the
of the more substantial ones
on the site, staff has conditioned the approval with the
requirement that the deck must be reduced to keep footers and other
related construction from the trees.
All excavation must be done from the "inside out" from the upper
part of the site. Prior to any construction activity, a sturdy,
visible barricade must be erected along the building envelope lines
(east, south and west) and no closer than 5 feet to the aspens at
the northwest corner of the house. Planning must inspected the
barricades prior to commencement of grading or material storage on
the property. Revegetation on the east, south and west sides of
the structure must only use native plant species such as found
elsewhere on this site. Non-native species may only be used on the
northern entry side of the home.
VI. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the
need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open
space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Response: This single structure is within the platted envelope.
The building is located out of the "blue" avalanche zone. The
approximate 601 width of the building will be very visible from
Ute Ave., therefore staff is adamant about maintaining the young
aspens between the building envelope and the pavement edge. It
should be pointed out that the structure was redesigned after
discussions with staff to fit within the narrower "unconditional"
portion of the building envelope.
There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040 review.
The open field to the west of the residence shall remain
undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests as specified
by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and Pitkin County Land
Management Department.
VII. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure
will be designed to blend into the open character of the
mountain.
Response: The floor area ratio of the four bedroom house is
approximately 5,088 square feet. The proposed building has an
approximately 60 foot wide facade. The height maximizes the
allowable 251 limit of the AH zone district (with the ridge 5'
higher as allowed by the land use regulations height definition).
The applicant proposes to use "modest colors and material". Staff
recommends that the stucco specified in the elevation drawings and
any other paint colors be medium or darker earth tones to make the
building less visible on the hillside.
Viii. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are
available to service the proposed development.
Response: "Will serve" letters were provided by the water and
M
IN
sanitary sewer utilities during the subdivision reviews in 1992.
IX. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
Response: The Ute Park Subdivision participated in the Ute Avenue
Improvement District.
X. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed
development so as to ensure adequate access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment.
Response: The private driveway must be constructed in accordance
with the City's driveway requirements. At the time of subdivision
review, the Fire Marshal requested that the driveway be snowmelted,
but this did not become a condition of approval for the
subdivision.
XI. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
Response: There were no trails dedicated on this parcel during
the subdivision approval. A 10' pedestrian easement allows access
from the upper two lots in this subdivision down to Ute Ave.
---------------------------------
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
Nathanson 8040 Greenline review with the following conditions:
1) Run-off from the site during construction must be prevented
by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permits.
2) Terracing of the ground shall (including any retaining walls)
not extend beyond the line of the deck.
3) Excavation shall occur from the "inside out" from the uphill
side of the property. No equipment is permitted outside of
the building envelope.
4) Prior to any grading or storage activity on the site, a
sturdy, visible barricade shall be erected along the building
envelope lines, and no closer than 5 feet to the aspens at the
northwest corner of the house, to protect the existing grades
and vegetation.
5) The deck outside of the master bedroom shall b ced in
depth to approxi*aspiens_a::�������
mpact and to
retain the re of the house.
5
lit
6) only native vegetation species as typically found on this site
shall be used for revegetation of disturbed soil along the
east, south and west side of the residence. Any regraded or
disturbed areas must be revegetated and mulched or matted
immediately.
7) Avalanche warning signs as required by the subdivision must
be erected prior to the issuance of any building permits.
8) A detailed landscape plan must be submitted to Planning and
approved prior to the issuance of any building permits.
9) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal
permits from the Parks Department are required for any tree
611diameter or greater which will be removed or relocated.
Submit for tree removal permits at least two weeks prior to
submitting for building permit.
0 1-0
10) Colors shall be earth tones to make the
building less visible on the hillside.
11) There shall be no future grading on the site without 8040
review. The open field to the west of the residence shall
remain undisturbed except for necessary control of weed pests
as specified by the 1990 Colorado Weed Management Act and
Pitkin County Land Management Department.
12) The Fire Marshall shall sign off on building permits regarding
,fire access.
13) Landscaping shall be planted in front of the private entry
driveway's retaining wall to reduce the visual impact of the
wall. The landscaping plan which must be reviewed prior to
the issuance of any building permit shall show this landscape
treatment. The landscape shall be installed upon completion
of the wall when revegetation takes place.
14) All representations made by the applicant within the
application or before the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
be considered conditions of approval for this project.
Recommended Motion: "I move to approve the Nathanson 8 04 0 Greenline
Review with the 14 conditions listed in the June 21, 1994 Planning
Office memo."
Attachments:
"All Application Information
"B" Complete Referral Agency Memos
6
N