HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19931005A G E N D A I
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 5, 1993, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
0 • -Y'1V"1;4zW
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Highlands Summary
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 834 W. Hallam Landmark Designation, Amy Amidon
B. Berger Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Kim Johnson
C. East Hopkins AH Rezoning, GMQS Exemption,
Subdivision, Condominiumization, Special Review and
Stream Margin Review, Kim Johnson
D. McCoy Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont
IV. WORKSESSION
A. Resident Occupied (R.O.), Leslie Lamont & Cindy
Houben
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Ice Rink Contest - Short List 3-5 Names,. or Strong
Recommendation for 1, Leslie Lamont
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: October 5, 1993
Regular Meeting - October 19
Chateau Eau C tream Margin --Review (KJ1 Site Visi t.
Worksession - 210 Midland AH Project (KJ/ML)
Training Video (LL)
Regular Meeting - November 2
Kraut AH Subdivision & Text Amendment (LL)
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 834 W. Hallam Street, Landmark Designation
(Public Hearing)
DATE: October 5, 1993
SUMMARY: Staff recommends P&Z approve -Landmark Designation of 834
W. Hallam Street, also known as Poppie's Bistro Cafe. The building
was constructed in approximately 1889. It is listed on Aspen's
"Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures."
APPLICANT: Michael Hull and Earl Jones, owners.
LOCATION: 834 W. Hallam Street, Lots K and L, Block 10, Hallam's
Addition, City of Aspen.
PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: HPC voted 5-0 to approve Landmark
Designation on September 22, 1993.
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Section 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 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 or the
United States.
Response: This standard is not met.
(:
if
Architectural Importance: The structure or sitelects an architectural style that is unique, distinct
or of traditional Aspen character.
Response: The building is of traditional Victorian
design. Most of the original detailing, including
scalloped shingles, scroll brackets and turned porch
posts and balusters are intact, as are much of the
original materials and windows. Additions have been made
to the east and north of the original structure.
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 is unknown, so therefore this
standard is not met.
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: There are no other landmarked or inventoriyed
structures immediately adjacent to this parcel, and the
neighborhood does not retain its historic character.
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
size, location and architectural similarity to other
structures or sites of historical or architectural
importance.
Response: Victorian residential architecture forms the
bulk of- Aspen's historic resources. These buildings
offer important information about Victorian building
techniques and domestic life during the mining era.
Recommended Motion: "I move to approve Landmark
Designation of 834 W. Hallam Street, Lots K and L, Block
10, Hallam's Addition, City of Aspen, finding that
standards B and F have been met."
Additional Comments:
Exhibits:
A. Current photograph of 834 W. Hallam
B. 834 W. Hallam as it appears on a bird's eye view of Aspen
from 1893.
Amol
s 711
IN
14
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Berger Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory Dwelling
Unit - Public Hearing
DATE: October 5, 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Berger
Conditional Use for a 397 s.f. basement level accessory dwelling
unit to be created within a new residence with conditions.
APPLICANT: Bruce C. Berger represented by Dick Fallin
LOCATION: 312 'Gillespie, easterly tract of the C.F. Murphy
Subdivision Exemption
ZONING: R-6
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use for
the construction of a basement level accessory dwelling unit within
a proposed residence in accordance with Ordinance 1 requirements.
The 7,200 s. f . site is currently occupied by a small dwelling which
will be demolished. This parcel, in common ownership with the lot
to the west is on the historic landmark inventory because of the
neighboring structure. Because the ADU is not 100% 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. The HPC must
review the demolition of the existing dwelling.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: (complete referral memos are attached as
Exhibit "B".
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. 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 permits for the site.
Engineering: The historic parking for this and the neighboring
property is located in the public right-of-way, which is not
approved. The new structure shall provide on -site parking for both
proposed free market bedrooms per code, as well as a parking space
for the ADU. THere is sufficient room on the property to
accommodate this requirement.
Zoning: The window well within the side yard setback along the
east side of the structure appears to exceed the UBC minimum egress
requirements for the proposed unit (as well as the proposed the
office space) . The applicant has three options: move the structure
to the west so that the setback encroachment ceases; raise the
structure so that the windows do not need to be excavated; or
reduce the size of the windows to meet the UBC minimums within the
setback area.
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
dwellings and other residential uses in the surrounding
neighborhood. Staff recommends one parking space for the ADU
because of a lack of parking on the adjoining parcel under the same
ownership.
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. However, Engineering and Planning staff recommend
that a parking space be required on the site for the ADU for the
following reasons: the current lack of legal parking spaces for
this lot and the neighboring lot under the same ownership; the site
is located on a 90 degree curve with limited overflow parking; the
overall level of re -development on the parcel and the size of the
�q
site which can easily accommodate the ADU parking space. A parking
plan proposal drawn by staff is attached as Exhibit "C".
Regarding the window well / setback encroachment issue brought up
by Zoning, staff recognizes that the only light entering this unit
is from these two windows on the east wall. As Zoning pointed out,
options available to the owner include:
1) moving this portion of the structure a few feet to the west
to retain the proposed windows and window well configuration,
or
2) raising the building to retain the windows and window well
configuration (although the exact amount allowable would have
to be determined through an exact calculation of building
heights, or
3) reducing the window and window well area to meet the
minimum UBC emergency egress requirements (which is the only
way that setback encroachments are allowed for window wells).
Planning does not recommend_ reduction of the window area as this
would seriously impact the already limited amount of the natural
light and ventilation for the ADU. Livability issues are more and
more a topic of discussion for ADUs. Staff would like the
Commission to seriously consider the first and second options
listed above in order to find that the "design and operating
characteristics" of the ADU are being met. A recommended condition
of approval states this requirement.
No other significant neighborhood 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.
RESPONSE: All public facilities are already in place for the
existing home and neighborhood.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
RESPONSE: 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.
3
IN
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Berger
Conditional Use for a 397 s.f. basement 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. A parking space for use by the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall
be dedicated on the building permit site plan in addition to
two spaces required for the two -bedroom free market dwelling.
4. The window and window well sizes for the Accessory Dwelling
Unit shall not be reduced. The applicant may choose to
eliminate the setback encroachment of the window wells by
either moving the structure to the west or by raising the
structure up to heights as allowed by the dimensional
requirements of the R-6 zone district.
5. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Committee shall
be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move approve a Conditional Use for a 397
s.f. basement level accessory dwelling unit within the proposed.
Berger residence at 312 W. Gillespie with the conditions
recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 10/5/93."
Exhibits:
"A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplan, and Elevations
"B" - Referral Memos
"C" - Parking Scenario Proposed by Planning Staff
4
post4t, band OCT,05 '93 15:36 SUTHERLAND FALLIN P.1
FauTransmfttal Memo 7672 Today ba"It -4�Tlrm
57
Frei
Tft
MEN T4F,�
Nit
F
ix . RI�I+ I Y? I/
Parking requirements for Berger ADU
I would like to add a comment concerning on -site parking requirements in light of the
information that the new structure will contain two bedrooms plus the .ADU. Since the
original house already does not provide on -site parking spaces for its bedrooms, we
recommend that the new structure be required to provide on -site parking spaces for all
the bedrooms including the ADU. That is, the applicant should be required to provide
three on -site parking spaces. There is sufficient room on the site to do this.
''J
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer &;--
Date: September 10, 1993
Re: Berger Conditional Use Review for Accessory Dwelling Unit
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Parking - The site appears to be lacking in parking for the current level of
development. Please refer the application to the Zoning Department for comments on
parking. One perking space on site per bedroom is required by Code. It does not appear
appropriate to approve increased development on a site that is already deficient in on -
site parking spaces. There is space on the site that could be used for parking. In the
context of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the theory of "messy vitality," perhaps
the applicant should first apply for an encroachment license for the existing personalized
parking spaces that are located in the public right-of-way. Approving private parking
spaces in the public right-of-way has not generally been approved.
2. Sidewalk - The project site is located in the West End of Aspen where sidewalks are
not required but pedestrian usable sidewalk areas are required. Currently there is not a
pedestrian usable space in the public right-of-way off of the pavement. Perhaps this right-
of-way development plan should be reviewed by the Pedestrian Bikeway Plan committee
that reviews such right-of-way development proposals.
3. Encroachments. - See "parking" discussion above.
4. Site Drainage - Storm runoff does not appear to be a problem at this site, however
the applicant is advised to maintain roof and site drainage on site and not to convey the
drainage to the public right-of-way.
5. Development in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of
unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights-of-wav, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city
streets department (920-5130).
Approval of building permit plans does not constitute approval of design or work in the
public right-of-way.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson CC BILL DRUEDING
CC STEPHEN KANIPE
From: Bill Dru.eding
Postmark: Sep 29,93 8:26 AM
Subject: Reply to: Berger on Gillespie
Reply text:
From Bill Drueding:
THE ISSUE OF THE NATURAL GRADE WHICH IMPACTS HIEGHT; FAR AND WINDOW
WELLS HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED. THE BALL IS IS DICK FALLIN'S COURT TO
PROVIDE THE INFOORMATION NEEDED. WE NEED A PARKING PLAN. THE INFO I
HAVE IS CONFUSING. THE 8.5 FT BY 18 DOES NOT APPEAR TO
COMPLY..PARKING MUST BE ON THE PROPERTY, NOT ON ADJACENT OR CITY
PROPERTY.
Preceding message:
From Kim Johnson:
Has the issue of natural grade been worked out so that I can make any
comments in my P&Z memo about the ADU / conformance with setback, FAR
etc.? Also Bill, how about the lack of parking? I need to know
asap because I have the urge to table this item anyway because of
general lack of info... thanks.
it
-LEMORANDUN
f f
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office S i { I�
f
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: September 16, 1993
RE: BERGER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT
Parcel ID No. 2735-121-19-001
After reviewing the above -referenced application, the Housing
Office cannot approve the application as submitted. Per the plans
of the accessory dwelling unit, it is impossible to tell if there
is a separate entrance into the accessory dwelling unit. Pursuant
to pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 3-101, Definitions, of the Cit
of Aspen Municipal Code, accessory dwelling unit is defined as:
Accessory dwelling unit means a separate dwelling unit that is located within or attached to a
principal residence, having an entrance separate from the primary residence, or that is detached from
a principal residence situated on the same parcel, containing not less than three hundred (300) nor
more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor area An accessory dwelling unit shall
be deed restricted to resident occupancy and shall not be a separate unit for density or sale
purposes.
Section 5-510, of the City of Aspen Municipal Code:
Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable floor
area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable ftoor area The unit shall be
deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be
limited to rental periods of not less than sic (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence
shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the
accessory dwelling unit.
Per the application, the unit does fall within the guidelines of
this section. The Housing Office's requirement is for net liveable
square feet as defined by below:
Net Liveable Square Footaoe is calculated on interior living area and is measured interior wall to
Interior wall, Including all interior partitions including, but not limited to, habitable basements and
interior storage areas, closets and laundry area Exclusions include, but are not limited to,
uninhabitable basements, mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages (either attached or
detach, patios, decks and porches.
If aCqrivate entranc can be shown, all other criteria has been
met. Prior to building permit approval, a signed and recorded Deed
Restriction must be completed. This process could take from three
to four days. The Housing Office must have the recorded book and
page number prior to building permit approval. This form can be
obtained in the Housing Office.
M
E x 81 Wor. tA
l
.M OW Ls aweKcot .o': •
OrW?"71
DrUwxs1't: 4i
t i 6
C HA/ N L/NK /'CNCE
t: 57. 7 (ao,00 4-
r�Irl
_A LY TRACT
72DO. 2 .5Q. FT
t •� 9r a - a MLWFw, b•71• oo n,w DOOK p, r/"
I 3'
_ 7. `
AK/Ck PAW
a99
04
t - ; AsrENS
3 « • f
4010
V '
si e,
40. o -- / t l c. 99.9 99.2 !. Y, str
I• 'C 503 t7o A J / HA L r W-00 s2_w M
r'IELD• WEST l 1q.00 M5p
Rom• �9' 'S
r-6C.
• • /Alt KIN Cr
ti
ol
W
v.
+....... �.. .� }•�•��tit.Ki'y�Yr�:'�^�' �•{: gin' '. :��•- r.R .....�.. � ... .
it..r:a +•- . • .� s•K _ .'D1'INCas I�OR '.?H 15. LOT-
� �,� •. �{�' � .1 i. �!•.i�M•Ji � I�rl• � (1•yi�•1•f' Jib
C'ICS
' a • ~+ Uir►►N LINK rCNLi° OEFMl.r�
�. .��, • .xKvlct � 1o'rlb.
. sJig
� �.ar4,1_ j.. _�? -- -- ' 1t.1►2LY 'tY{�G7 Epa.Tb G� t„
.d -Q. !°'r 1 - � �a'lGL72_�Gt.P'tl�.�_• /'^'��!l}+��_1�^ i 1
Air. j
'��- � ; �i , r--- - �"t.E+ j 4f MUR�t-r'f JuOA�J v ,..,� •, %,�, ,�) E •
•SREMI.r►Gc , I 1 >I:,cGCI•T1q.1 (�I�GgCtD ,� ! +1 1
I W W 1
I ' I owat•r3 �i Exl%TIhiQ L�►i.N�! �.� 1•Yv.t, ro
1 i(� RL'I�V�IN
TION
AVVI
Ll
i t •fir 1 1 �' WJM`I
u � � sae}rove cu�rM•la �+ssl.,e 1 � i� � 1 �
AC N!f 1 O•iGrTtN, NWAL CS 1;1•UMM /lx+rTra� ` `• ,\\ \� • :� , : �)
�. pow o"eMMf
t �tHa Esrrtl
�
dRIGK I ., :; :: ! � '•' ': "' , M. OF W40F
�lu PO 1p , �'�ti�4:;i►.ik��, :;.:>:•:�•:,:•:;; evricl�t-LNcI 1 : � 1 ''.•�V<
x i } V _ .__ t9b REVI.�►.c� / ':�1� .� • ,.; .,.:;.;;::.; o � 1 p�
1!E'Yif�s EKING. 1 ;Ytity{?}i�}' '?ti;rr{: •: ••:�•v4} 1
::r4•}' \
CM
f,.IRMV00:4a FLi=C 1lSH.otE Ex1wT'a.}r. •
1 :,•: :•... �t
NLr►J NEW rW/L-'K DTtEt'y :,:;ii;c:;c;.ti;.;:;ji;i;':
y/ 'Tb
4 •. is ' �[•� L
TL''D L
. r
L -
I
r
+tRP'11 iT•. ;.;{.fir. :1 :1:ti : ;}:.�•:{ :,Y .
T'� (�iCt•fi{�• Y ••:�v ...�.r,.•ZNEW C-0
•. k; :.�4.: .titi •••:ti •''•:•:'i:}:•�' :}i: :
Ado RS42V
O 1-n•� rWf t�4?. �S'' .,i: •:ttiv.<}�� 4., }}Y.•}' '•,•,{p r,:}{:��: '
NEW IOPIC-1
• • • t/Y-•.R�� //i►l!� 1 y� ,•'•�•4•�.:1: ,:f•::' ''t*•1 :}f`••!'f•r•r•. �. '::':�:•: Lip IV WAM
•• W.�ir� • TTT' :{\`f(•\•: •Iri:;}•:ti}:'}: Yti •:{{:':':'}}}. •:ti':•:':h :'
oftWE RAM GN }. :.:•,::..:_:;:::•,::: D��r wfu.
FA IST161. TWO - TORS{ W=P 'fid D ( hY qEy T) ;;::::: ; _ , fir . ;; : ; w-' ,who,
�vL`Rlf•Y
1'lGsME HOt.J< `..... New 1•L►t,1C : } ;{.:t;�41i#i i LOr
1`"r i`� E1..+ 102.(i4 T � ' :+:{•:: ;:,�'';'�°,tii6' r:}•:•:
' I Ol• -1 Kees
tqm
51i1✓ L°LEv: A4.0; 1 t /�/IAtN.►r pCr7il,. :;x:r �' :.,:ls;.!.. "''
� 661t.1A1._S Ares F•1. � !CE � i:; : • :� �;: •;s:.; ::�:�::: ::
O
00
5=E 1 it . 00 -- - /
_ . M6K
woop WOO."
:. To MM/,IN
' (f�j3 eft J�jAlral i � �
. S AGD'YdGT l+cl6Te. al.
e
L;l -
IV
r T
L-T
� II
wit
97M
suolemal a] "P
Lq
t-- T
W. of IZI
I W.
f[77777
I Pj
�S
��
i
W
ra * il
ci
.00� M C-;tl. C.70 '"r I W
cm
00,01/
•
01.32 � 11161
'! 17s.'I��tt •
k mil �:'•''�s �°'�t':;'�`� , t . a „ =• r.�Nl�l,d :�t. rT. � .
.wit . _ - • • '- 4t, """"'�:� "_•
1w t- -
�. ��� s I Gi.MtJRry.K ��71v1�dJ� E
Olm
• fie�tt•• -, � � j' v�crwa.a.� • � ; ` � i
vvmc
y4 urow tio�r�t.e•ttioN of 4 i
Mol
i .�►1 �TK7N f z 1
low
• ►..' � �� — �«SZ$� Imo, � V
NdCI�P 6�1F.�cs k: ..
'.�' •LA°171.i �►'AL'T1oNGrf I•tJR1( ( . ••. rY•.•i.. '}i`•% : . ".;t:,%c,,., d •�' .� ,� ., '
.� � � .. , ��A.-(E �1GK � .. ; f w}<• .:%. •' evlGK f.{�� 1 ?� ice: TM•�l�
lit • FLAVC E jJfl�T'A 4i7t 1!�!► y' :... . ;•. i# :. ? .}?} •.
NC1•!1.1•f ::..
f•�Wi( s'isr� .i ., •}'i,•e�. :i. �}(, %i••::
I41iti�TION � � : ,� :;:r, ::ti: ^::a;:;w •• ;s::h� :; ,
Oi-T�� 1 G4 t • \ '.i; , .. : .: }v y •':tip � •1- i jw
NOW IDPC^
•' ltlr/►+�1E Mli�t•t:gs �-Ali1.4►6K •�q::,1�k1!�iti� t �.^�` �`Y LOr
t'•r .P'1•Ci�R El.. • IOZ4{ �'. :% rl •c` N . ::.. `: Gf •r cliff S
���.� `�_�,� �� 1 `�,-...� � �y�• a ••:. �4��`W
I � rirfti•T{t•� � � �'�+l�t�' fi+.v� "• . • 1, ;l • • .: v.'•'• : \� \\t •'�.•,•.••';• • �•Ip \V � �/A'�{�
►�VM�TT,�II F.j.i:V•+/-y ! :{;; �•}r • »� : ••�v�i:• a �S1krA{ ti,ti• 1}I t
E;•t�:iii � } w�%: :,i} •'„�`'•.%'�L.•G:%+per ..}• (4JL-.
! NEW AbrER ISTL?xJ •.. � ;r:. ��� • �-• • •: i d►. r�CTGIt
\ \ \'"•
` �• \ j
• etc. � wrt.rro•+c,
e ,ol
rl
• ./ .. T T
dw
► •
21
-MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: East Hopkins Affordable Housing Project - Rezoning to AH
(Affordable Housing), Subdivision and Condominiumization,
GMQS Exemption for Affordable and Free Market Housing,
Stream Margin Review, Special Reviews for Open Space and
Parking, and Vested Rights (public hearing)
DATE: October 5, 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of rezoning to
AH, Subdivision and the associated reviews with conditions.
APPLICANT: The Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office, represented by Dave
Tolen.
LOCATION: The 9,000 s.f. parcel is located at 1017 E. Hopkins
(Lots F,G,and H, East Aspen Addition, and Lot 5 Block 5 of the
Riverside Addition). The property currently contains a vacant
single family structure which will be demolished. Please refer to
the application booklet for the neighborhood map and existing
conditions map.
ZONING: The current zoning of the parcel (as well as the
surrounding neighborhood) is R/MF Residential Multi -Family. The
requested zoning is AH (Affordable Housing).
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The development will contain a four-plex
structure with two units accessing from E. Hopkins and two units
accessing from the alley between E. Hopkins and E. Hyman. Total
FAR on the site will be 8,550 s.f., or .95:1 Open space per the
code definition will be 36%, or 3,270 s.f.. The three -bedroom
units will be family oriented sales units, deed restricted to
Category 4. A two garage will b p ovided for each unit. The
dimensional statistics of the project are located on pages 5-6 of
the application booklet.
PROCESS: Because of the relative simplicity of the development
and the extensive neighborhood input on this project to date, the
process for review will be two steps:
Step 1 - P&Z Rezoning to AH, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption
for Affordable Housing as recommendations to
City Council; final decision on Stream Margin
review and Special Reviews for parking and open
space. (public hearing)
1
I
Step 2 -Council Final decision on Rezoning to AH, Subdivision
and Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption, and
Vested Rights. (public hearing)
The Public Project Review Group (PPRG) will also meet prior to P&Z
to formulate some architectural standards to help ensure an
attractive development compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received referral comments
from the following departments. Complete referral memos are
attached as Exhibit "A" with summaries as follows:
Engineering:
1) Prior the issuance of any building permits, the applicant must
submit to and receive approval by Engineering of a storm drainage
plan.
2) The Final Plat and site plan for building permit must include
trash storage locations, a 41x4I utility pedestal easement adjacent
to the alley, final design of any features located in the public
right-of-way (eg. sidewalk, curb/gutter, driveways), and final
design of alley access.
3) Prior to the issuance of any building permits or the sign -off
by Engineering on the Final Plat (whichever comes first), a new
alley access agreement signed by all parties and beneficiaries of
the original access agreement must be executed. The new agreement
shall be indicated on'the condominium plat.
4) Street drainage must be accommodated where the project
reconfigures the pavement and adds curb and gutter.
5) The proposed parking plan satisfies Engineering.
Fire Marshall: Snow removal problems and vehicle congestion in that
neighborhood have been a concern in the past for emergency
response.
Parks:
1) A final landscape plan needs to be submitted to Parks no less
than three weeks prior to submission of final plat mylars in order
to allow adequate review time by Parks staff.
2) Prior to issuance of any building permits, tree removal permits
are required for all trees over six inches caliper, measured 4.5'
above grade.
Sanitation District:
1) Adequate collection and treatment capacity serve this proposed
development.
2
2) A new 6" service line may be required to replace the existing
4" pipe.
3) A shared service agreement must be executed and all applicable
connection charges must be paid prior to actual connection onto the
system.
Environmental Health: No apparent concerns.
Streets: It appears that -street conditions and snow removal
concerns have been addressed with this application. The condo
association will be responsible for clearing plowed snow in front
of the project - it cannot be pushed back into the street.
-----------------------------
STAFF COMMENTS:
Rezoning from R-15 (PUD) to AH (Affordable Housing) (PUD):
The criteria for rezoning contained in Section 7-1101 of the land
use regulations is attached as Exhibit "B".
In summary, this proposal fully complies with the housing goals set
forth in the Aspen Area Community Plan as well as the purposes and
goals of the AH Affordable Housing Zone district. Based on
application of the review criteria, staff recommends rezoning the
East Hopkins parcel to AH (Affordable Housing) concurrent with
approval of Final Subdivision, GMQS Exemption, and the associated
reviews.
SUBDIVISION: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, a development application for subdivision review shall comply
with the following general requirements. The technical aspects of
the subdivision review are attached as Exhibit "D". In summary,
staff finds that the proposed subdivision meets the requirements
of the code as they specifically apply to multi -family dwellings.
General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
response: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the
development and housing goals adopted within the Aspen Area
Community Plan adopted in early 1993.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
response: The townhome configuration is consistent with the
surrounding RM-F zoning and predominance of multi -family structures
along E. Hopkins. An earlier site design including three duplex
3
3
structures was ruled unfavorable by neighbors who preferred one
consolidated structure.
C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
response: There are still a few developable parcels in the direct
vicinity, including,the large 5 lot tract directly west of the
subject property. The proposal will not affect these future
developments.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
response: The proposal is following through with all required land
use and technical approvals. All conditions of approval must be
addressed before recordation of development documents of prior to
issuance of building permits, whichever is applicable.
GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AN AH (AFFORDABLE HOUSING)
ZONE DISTRICT:
Pursuant to Section 8-104 C.1(c) the Council shall exempt deed
restricted housing that is provided in accordance with the housing
guidelines. The Commission shall review and make a recommendation
to Council regarding the housing package. 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: The Housing Office and Planning staff have been involved
in three neighborhood meetings and three Housing Board meetings to
arrive at the three bedroom configuration and Category-4 deed
restriction for the units. They will be family -oriented sales
units, which relieved fears from the neighborhood that the units
will be over -crowded "crash pads".
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OPEN SPACE AND PARKING IN AN AH (AFFORDABLE
HOUSING) ZONE DISTRICT: Whenever the dimensional requirements of
a proposed development are subject to Special Review, the
development application shall only be approved if the following
conditions are met.
Sections 7-404.A.1 and 2: (oven space)
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open
4
space, landscaping and setbacks of .the proposed development
are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances
the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with
the purposes of the underlying Zone'District.
response: Overall open space on the site is listed as 36%, most
of.which is side yard areas. The site plan shows a substantial
side yard on the east and limited side yard on the west. The
difficulty for garage access caused by the steep slope on E.
Hopkins does not allow for more luxurious front yard open space.
Small corner yards are available to the alley facing units.
Proposed heights and setbacks meet or exceed those required by the
AH zone district without Special Review approval. Density of the
proposal is well under that allowed by zoning Please refer to
pages 5-6 of the application for development data.
A final landscaping plan is required for Parks Department's sign
off prior to approval of -a final plat. Several large evergreens
will be lost during redevelopment, but the row of trees on the
eastern portion of the site will be saved as well as two smaller
trees on the southwest corner. Because of limited flat open area
on the site, Planning recommends that much of the remaining areas
be left open for individual gardening spaces or lawns as determined
by the future owners.
The E. Hopkins elevations of the townhome buildings are well
articulated to provide visual interest and lessen the bulk of the
structures. The alley units present a more monolithic facade at
this time. Side elevations are well punctuated with windows and
porch overhangs. Final materials sections, colors and other
details will be made with assistance from the PPRG.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will
not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate
those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of
shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the
neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane.
response: There are no viewplane impacts with this proposal. The
street condition and parking problem on E. Hopkins will be improved
by the widening and curb/gutter installation. The Streets
Department Director commented that the condo association must be
responsible for removing snow plowed from the street. Property
owners are already required by law to keep sidewalks cleared of
snow during the winter. The townhomes comply with the parking
requirement for the AH zone (not to exceed 2 spaces per unit).
Given the proximity to the downtown employment center and family
orientation of the units, this parking situation suits Engineering
and Planning.
7-404.B.2: (parking)
2. In all other zone districts where the off street parking
requirements are subject to establishment or reduction by
5
S
special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
parking needs of the residents, guests and employees of the
project have been met, taking into account potential uses of
the parcel, its proximity to mass transit routes and the
downtown area, and any special services, such as vans,
provided for residents, guests and employees.
response: As mentioned above, two garage parking spaces per unit
is adequate given the location of the development and the family
orientation of the units.
Stream Margin Review: This project lies within 100 feet of the
high water line of the Roaring Fork River. Another structure (a
single family residence) is located between this site and the
river. However, the stream margin exemption category does not
waive review for developments such as E. Hopkins AH which fall into
this unique situation. Therefore, staff reports the following
responses to the stream margin 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: As shown on the colored flood plain map in the
application,*this development is located completely outside of the
identified f loodplain.
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 this property is not directly within the river
greenway corridor, it cannot supply a trail for that purpose.
However, this project does commit to constructing a sidewalk in
front of its property within the E. Hopkins right-of-way which
leads to the pedestrian bridge approximately 100' to the east.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable.
response: Specific to vegetation, this project is retaining
several medium sized trees along its east side and two at the
southwest corner.
4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that
produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
response: This criteria does not apply.
S. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development
6
MAI
reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes
of the river, stream or other tributary.
response: As no work is being done adjacent to the river this
criteria does not apply. Street drainage runs west towards an
inlet near Cleveland St.
G. 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: This criteria does not apply.
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: This criteria does not apply.
S. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits
relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain.
response: This criteria does not apply.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of
rezoning the subject parcel from RM-F (Residential Multi -Family)
to AH (Affordable Housing) . The Planning Office also recommends
approval of the East Hopkins Affordable Housing project's
Subdivision / Condominiumization, Special Reviews for Open Space
and Parking in the AH zone, and GMQS Exemption for the four
affordable townhomes as presented in the application text and
drawings. The following conditions shall apply:
1. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design
considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits
are required from the Streets Department for any work,
including landscaping, within the right-of-way.
2. Prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat, the Master
Deed Restriction for the deed restricted townhomes and lot
shall be recorded with the County Clerk. Prior to sale of any
deed restricted property, the buyer shall execute a Memorandum
of Acceptance of the deed restriction.
3. A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any
excavation or building permits.
4. Prior the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
must submit to and receive approval by Engineering of a storm
drainage plan.
FA
5. The Final Plat and site plan for building permit must include
trash storage locations, a 4'x4' utility pedestal easement
adjacent to the alley, final design of any features located
in the public right-of-way (eg. sidewalk, curb/gutter,
driveways), and final design of alley access.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits or the sign -
off by Engineering on the Final Plat (whichever comes first),
a new alley access agreement signed by all parties and
beneficiaries of the original access agreement must be
executed. The new agreement shall be indicated on the
condominium plat.
7. Street drainage must be accommodated where the project
reconfigures the pavement and adds curb and gutter.
8. The Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision 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 a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days
following approval by the City Council may render the Plat
invalid.
9. All material representations made by the applicant within the
application, at hearings before the Planning and Zoning
Commission or the City Council shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by
other conditions.
Exhibits:
Application Booklet
"A" - Complete Referral Memos
"B" - Rezoning Review Criteria
"C" - Subdivision Review Criteria
PLANNING i ONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT , APPROVED
19 BY SOLUTION •
MESSAGE DISPLAY
Kim Johnson
From: Chuck Roth
Postmark: Sep 29,93 10:00 AM
Subject: East Hopkins Affordable Housing
Message:
I would like to modify the discussion about access using the alley or
the easement to require that this access be resolved prior to signing
the plat or prior to obtaining a building permit, whichever occurs
first.
Thank you.
A
r
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer ele,
Date: September 20, 1993
Re: East Hopkins Affordable Housing Development Rezoning, GMQS Exemption,
Subdivision, Stream Margin Review, Condom iniumization and Special Review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
Rezoning
1. As represented in the application, the rezoning would not result in adverse impacts on
traffic generation, road safety, utilities and drainage. This neighborhood is already zoned
for similarly high density uses. According to the Planning Office, the change in zoning
would not increase the allowable number of bedrooms and therefore not increase the
allowable number of vehicle trips that the proposed development of the property can be
anticipated to produce.
Subdivision & Condominiumization
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following:
a. A storm runoff mitigation plan to the Engineering Department that meets the
requirement of Section 24-7-1004-C-4(f) of the Municipal Code;
b. A development plan that shows the following:
(1) The trash storage locations (They may not be located in the public.
rights-of-way.);
(2) A 4'x4' utility pedestal easement adjacent to the alley for any new
pedestals that may be required to serve the project;
(3) The final design of the sidewalk, curb and gutter, and any other features,
such as driveways, intended to he located in the public right-of-way; and
(4) The final design of the access via the alley.
c. An new agreement signed by all parties and beneficiaries of the original
access easement. The new agreement must extinguish or modify the existing
access agreement in conjunction with permitting and providing access to the
Housing Authority site via the alley right-of-way. Note that the alley is currently
being "opened" to 1014 East Hyman Avenue. The alley will not be opened to
the subject site until the existing easement agreement has been extinguished or
modified to the satisfaction of all parties. This is to protect property owners
adjacent to the existing access easement from having the general public drive
down the alley then out to the street through the access easement.
2. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - The City would typically require installation of concrete
sidewalk prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the buildings. In similar
situations, the City might not require construction of curb and gutter prior to C.O., in lieu
of which an agreement to construct curb and gutter, and associated asphalt work, would
he required. The applicant has offered to construct curb and gutter at the time of
construction, prior to C.O. Doing so will require widening of Hopkins Avenue in order
to provide the standard curb -to -curb pavement widths (40'). This will widen Hopkins
considerably from its current paved width. It will improve the neighborhood by providing
a 90' long section of street that is properly designed and constructed with proper vehicle
travel lane widths and parking. However, the applicant would also need to mitigate street
drainage.
3. Condominium Plat - Prior the sale of any unit, a condominium plat meeting the
requirements of Section 24-7-1004 of the Municipal Code shall he recorded. A few
specific details are as follows:
a. The access easement and modifying easement must he indicated on the final
Plat.
b. Indicate a 4'x4' utility pedestal adjacent to the alley right-of-way.
4. 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.
Stream Margin Review
1. The application statements concerning Stream Margin Review appear to be complete.
The discussion in paragraph 3 appears to be sketchy. Any landscaping in the public right-
of-way must be proposed in the final development plan and subject to final review at that
time by the City. The final landscaping plan may relate to the existing access easement
which needs to be extinguished or modified, which may be accomplished with landscaping.
Special Review for Reduction in Parking
1. Given the closeness of the site to the commercial core, the availability of public
transportation, and the employee housing use which may result in fewer cars per bedroom
due to the previous reasons as well as the possible use by families with children who don't
own automobiles, the Engineering Department recommends that the reduction in parking
be approved.
Other
1. The applicant shall agree to join any improvement districts formed for the purpose of
constructing improvements in the public right-of-way
2. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -
of -way, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way, perks
department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall ohtain permits
for any work or development, including landscaping, within puhlic
rights -of -way from city streets department (920-51 0).
cc: Boh Gish, Puhlic Works Director
mi MESSAGE DISPLAY
`O KIM JOHNSON
From: Wayne Vandemark
Postmark: Aug 26,93 10:45 AM
Status: Urgent
Subject: EAST HOPKINS AFFORDABLE
---------------------------------------------------------- ------ ------
Message:
KIM, THE AREA NEEDS SOOM ATTENTION REGARDING FIRE DEPT ACCESS. THE
STREET BOTTLE NECKS IN THE AREA AND CARS ARE PARKED ON BOTH SIDES. WE
HAVE BEEN OVER IN THE AREA IN THE WINTER AND ALSO IN SUMMER. THE
PROBLEM REMAINS THE SAME ALTHOUGH A LITTLE TOUGHER IN WINTER. SNOW
REMOVAL WAS NOT ADEQUATE BECAUSE OF THE VEHICLES. WE MIGHT WANT TO
SEND OUR WORLD FAMOU ENGINEER OVER TO SEE WHAT COULD BE DONE.
r ' -
_ t - the +ra en t kime
0ficient vastewater, ant and zoo l+ac
to rve► pia devel opmen.t - _
_
_ :'
.�
The applicant's n�4ginazs d cal cu1�l�
tht-peak wastewater flows to determine if the e 3 ' CIS elder,
line serving the present l of -vi 11 -be adequate to serve = is .Pro ject-'P
or. if a new 6" service line will jwed be,;im tallad -to;fir amain
dine in-8opkina street. e 4Zistiag -fir" CIP toulz _ !
- 4nds'eii to determine the condition of the pipe as
A shared service agreement -will have to be -executed on
standard -District form, which is Availzbl* W-4 Y�at
y Mill St., 4md all '-appl icAl a total connection zharges must ,be .PT
to the .District before will all:M our" _ Sys _
_ -
• � iris'*.- ^� ;- 4-34PBinc el-
-
ION
Jr
r_ omas Bracew i
-Coll*eti•on sy st tip -
t erect at
y
y
r
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From. Chris Chiola, Environmental Health Department 91�'6
Date: September 15, 1993
Re: East Hopkins Affordable Housing Development Rezoning,
GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Stream Margin Review,
Condominiumization and Special Review
Parcel ID #2737-181-11-002
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above -mentioned land use submittal under authority of the Pitkin
County Code, Title II, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-7 and 5-200:
The application indicates that the project lies within the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District and that the District has enough
capacity to handle increased flows from this project. This meets
the requirements of this Department.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-6 and 5-205:
The Aspen Water Department will be able to provide adequate water
to the project.
WATER OUALITY IMPACTS: Sections 2-22 and 5-107.2:
There are no concerns of this Department in this area.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-17 and 5-106:
This project must meet the requirements of City Ordinances
regulating the installation of gas log fireplaces. Permits must
be obtained from this office and approved.
MEMO
To: RIM JOHNSON
From: JACK REID
Date: September 13, 1993
Subject: East Hopkins, Affordable Housing review
The areas of my concern are the street itself and snow storage.
It appears, from the plan, that those concerns have been addressed
satisfactorily.
The street will be wider, allowing better movement for cars in the
area, including room to turn around; a major problem in the past.
When E. Hopkins is plowed, it is plowed'to the sides. We only
remove snow in the commercial core area. We occasionally remove
snow from the residential areas, but only when there is such a
build-up that safety or traffic flow become an issue. It is
important that the management of this development know this, that
they may make plans to keep their entrance clean. Snow plowed from
the street may not be put back on the street and must be stored on
one's own property. If that build-up becomes too much, they are
responsible for hauling it away.
\`1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
RE:' McCoy Conditional Use Review
DATE: October 5, 1993
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a single family home
with an attached accessory dwelling unit. Staff recommends denial
of the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit.
APPLICANT: McCoy Creative Construction
LOCATION: 332 West Smuggler, Aspen
ZONING: R-6
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To provide an attached studio accessory
dwelling unit pursuant to Ordinance 1 requirements.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments from the
Engineering Department and the Housing Office.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Conditional Use Review — Pursuant to Section 7-304 the criteria
for a conditional use review are as follows:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located; and
RESPONSE: The proposed accessory dwelling unit is a below grade
unit. The size of the unit was not included in the application but
staff estimates the unit is 468 square feet of net liveable. This
should be verified by the Housing Authority. The unit must comply
with the Housing Guidelines and the requirements of Ordinance 1 and
shall be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for residents
of Pitkin County.
Although the provision of an accessory dwelling unit is consistent
with the city's policy to encourage voluntary development of
affordable housing in all neighborhoods, staff believes that this
unit is not consistent with the goals of the ADU program.
According to the submitted plans the access to the mechanical room
for the entire dwelling -is through the ADU. Also the stairwell
accessing the dwelling unit is not protected from snow shedding -off
the roof. Finally, the only natural light and air is provided by
the front door to the ADU (which is 3'-3" wide) and a side window
(which is 4'-8.5" wide and 4' tall).
During the pre -application conference staff recommended that the
architect move the mechanical room out of the dwelling unit and to
protect the stairwell from snow shedding. In the past, the
Commission has expressed a concern about accessing ADU's via
mechanical rooms or storage rooms and the need to protect below
grade units from shedding snow. The applicant chose not to correct
these items.
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 accessory dwelling unit is attached to the proposed single-
family residence. Many accessory dwelling units have been proposed
and approved for this neighborhood.
However, adjacent residents question whether the single-family home
may have been designed in a less impactive manner if the ADU was
not accommodated in the plans. Please see attached letter.
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 attached accessory dwelling unit is accessed off of
the alley. The primary residence includes four bedrooms and
although four parking spaces appear to be provided on the property
the garage spaces do not meet the 18' requirement of the Code.
The neighbors contend that access off of the alley to the second
unit, without parking for the ADU, will have a negative impact on
their residence directly across the alley.
As stated above, the design of the unit to include the mechanical
room, potential snow shedding, and lack of natural light and air
are operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use that
may have adverse effects on the occupant of that unit. ADU's are
intended to be occupied, hopefully on a year round basis. Staff
believes that the goal of ADU review is to ensure that quality
dwelling units are provided.
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: A single family residence occupied the site. No new
services are required for the primary residence and an 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 proposal includes a studio accessory dwelling unit
for employees of Pitkin County. An increase in employees is not
expected by the provision of an accessory dwelling unit.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The conditional use meets the requirements of the Aspen
Area Community Plan and other requirements of this chapter by
attempting to integrate a community housing need into the
redevelopment of the property. However, staff does not believe
that this attempt is the type of affordable housing that should be
encouraged. Ordinance 1 provides two alternatives for mitigating
employee housing requirements: provide an ADU or make a cash -in -
lieu payment. Staff and the Commission continue to review ADUs in
order to make sure that the unit is a quality dwelling unit and to
notify surrounding residents of the potential density increase in
their neighborhood. Staff recommends that the applicant comply
with Ordinance 1 with a cash -in -lieu payment to the housing fund
which shall be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits,
which is estimated to be $16,735.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the conditional use
for the attached accessory dwelling unit for the following reasons:
1. The operating characteristics of the proposed accessory
dwelling unit have not been well designed to minimize adverse
impacts on the occupant of this unit, and, occupancy is the
intended purpose of the ADU program.
2. The provision of the ADU does not meet the goals of the AACP
to provide quality affordable housing. A cash -in -lieu payment
would more effectively meet the community's goals for affordable
housing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the accessory dwelling unit
proposed for 332 West Smuggler finding that it does not comply with
standards A and C."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Referral Comments
B. Site Plan
C. Citizen Letters
3
3
MEMORANDUM
SEP 11993
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office -�
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: September 16, 1993
RE: McCOY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT
Parcel ID No. 2735-124-15-001
The Housing Office cannot at this time approve this application as
submitted. Per the plans submitted for the accessory dwelling
unit, the mechanical room for the entire residence is located in
this unit. One of the requirements for accessory dwelling units is
to have a private area from the principal residence. Should this
mechanical room be moved to another location outside of the
accessory dwelling unit, the unit must following the conditions
pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 5-510, of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code:
Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable floor
area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor area The unit shall be
deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be
limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence
shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing In the
accessory dwelling unit.
The floor area requirement is for net liveable square feet as
defined by the Housing Office below:
Net Uveabie Square Footage is calculated on interior living area and is measured interior wall to
Interior wall, including all Interior partitions including, but not limited to, habitable basements and
interior storage areas, closets and laundry area Exclusions include, but are not limited to,
uninhabitable basements, mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages (either attached or
detached), patios, decks and porches.
Should this unit be approved, prior to building permit approval, a
signed and recorded Deed Restriction must be completed. This
process could take from three to four days. The Housing Office
must have the recorded book and page number prior to building
permit approval. This deed restriction can be obtained from the
Housing Office.
\word\referral\mccoy.adu
5. Utilities - If new utility pedestals are required for the project, they must be located on
the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way.
6. Site Drainage - If the ADU would increase storm runoff into public rights -of -way, the
increases would need to be mitigated on site. I-t is not a City requirement for this
development to mitigate its storm runoff on site, however roof drains may not daylight into
streets or alleys.
7. Development in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of
unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city
streets department (920-5130).
Approval of building permit plans does not constitute approval of design or work in the
public right-of-way.
cc: Boh Gish, Public Works Director
ax
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer e-41e—
Date: September 29, 1993
Re: McCoy Conditional Use Review for Accessory Dwelling Unit
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Parking - The parking spaces in the garage plans are not dimensioned. Using a scale,
it appears that there is not the 18' length required by Code. The spaces alongside the
alley are not clearly indicated although it appears that there is sufficient room for them.
The building permit site plan must indicate the locations and dimensions of all parking
spaces. The minimum code requirement is 8 1/2' x 18' x 7' high for head -in spaces. The
space(s) may not encroach (extend) into the alley.
2. Sidewalk - The project site is located in the West End of Aspen where sidewalks are
not required but pedestrian usable sidewalk areas are required. The right-of-way space
between the property line and the street currently is about half usable by pedestrians, and
no development is indicated on the development plans which would preclude pedestrian
use within that space. The existing spruce trees must be pruned up to a height of seven
feet in order to provide a five foot wide pedestrian space in the public right-of-way
between the curb and the property line. The final development plan must show the
pedestrian space on both Third and Smuggler Streets.
3. Encroachments The application contents do not include a site improvement survey.
There is a concrete wall which may or may not extend into the alley public right-of-way.
If the wall extends into the right-of-way, it must be removed at the time of development,
or the applicant may apply for an encroachment license from the City at the Engineering
Department.
4. Trash - The plan does not indicate a trash storage area. The building permit
application plans must indicate a trash storage area on the applicant's property and not
in the alley Tight -of -way.
A Potion OPPOSING the McCoy Appiicafion for a Basement Accessory
Dwelling Unit at 322 W. SmugOer
We, the undersigned, oppose the aWffcadbn of URan and 3oseph WCoy for an accessory diftiling unit
In the basement of a proposed new dwelling at 322 W. Smuggler-, on a 6200 sq. ft. lot.
We oppose it under Clause C. of Review Standards: Development of CondudOM Use, for the following
ems-
1. The proposed house is on a snag lot of 6200 sq. fit. The destgn uses
e le of agal mct of F erk
3260 sq. ft_ above ground, as well as the maximurn height iknt The addition
unit In the basement; with ac+ote only from the aft. would fiurdwr crowd the properly. The
proposed Items, With these dimensions, slgnificandy impacts OW visual penPecUVC of the
2. The calretalw infit doesn't legally require addi kraal on -site paring --this w 1l additionally crowd
the neighbor hood, with on -street parking being fused.
3. The McCoy's now own three (3) cars, plus one (i) sue limousine, one (1) truck and two (2)
motorcydes. The addition of a caretaker unit, with more aut+cx *A4es, will only contribute to the
traffic congestion and noise poRution in our area, as well as raise a dust storm from the alley
during the sunnner. With Aspen suffering from pwticulate polintkm, tins is an unnecessary
source_
4. The adddon of a car-eaker unit, with Its enrance only a nWntal dstanae (across the alley) from
the Block's bedroom window, at 311 W. North, is also a major source of noise pollution.
Name
Address Marne Address
Wko IuAx- fit~
2-fa. L
TOTAL P.04
A Petition OPPOSING the McCoy Application for a Basement Accessory
Dwelling Unit at 322 W. Smuggler
We, the undersigned, oppose the application of Lillian and Joseph McCoy for an accessory dwelling unit
In the basement of a proposed new dwelling at 322 W. Smuggler; on a 6200 sq. ft. lot.
We oppose it under clause C, of Review Standards: Development of Conditional Use, for the following
reasons.
1. The proposed house is on a small lot of 6200 sq. ft. The design uses up the legal limit of FAR,
3260 sq. ft. above ground, as well as the maximum height limit. The addition of a caretaker unit
In the basement, with access only from the alley, would further crowd the property. The
proposed home, with these dimensions, significantly impacts the visual perspective of the
neighborhood.
2. The caretaker unit doesn't legally require additional on -site parking ---this will additionally crowd
the neighborhood, with on -street parking being used.
3. The McCoy's now own three (3) cars, plus one ( 1 ) stretch limousine, one (1) truck and two (2 )
motorcycles. The addition of a caretaker unit, with more automobiles, will only contribute to the
traffic congestion and noise pollution In our area, as well as raise a dust storm from the alley
during the summer. With Aspen suffering from particulate pollution, this is an unnecessary
source.
4. The addition of a caretaker unit, with its entrance only a minimal distance (across the alley) from
the Block's bedroom window, at 311 W. North, is also a major source of noise pollution.
Address Name Address
3� i w • N&7t@�,
ko yl�f -
LyC qc v� S� �+P►t ems.
................
A Petition OPPOSING the McCoy Application for a Basement Accessory
Dwelling Unit at 322 W. Smuggler
We, the undersigned, oppose the application of Lillian and Joseph McCoy for an accessory dwelling unit
In the basement of a proposed new dwelling at 322 W. Smuggler; on a 6200 sq. ft. lot.
We oppose it under clause C, of Review Standards: Development of Conditional Use, for the following
reasons.
1. The proposed house is on a small lot of 6200 sq. ft. The design uses up the legal limit of FAR,
3260 sq. ft. above ground, as well as the maximum height limit. The addition of a caretaker unit
In the basement, with access only from the alley, would further crowd the property. The
proposed home, with these dimensions, significantly impacts the visual perspective of the
neighborhood.
2. The caretaker unit doesn't legally require additional on -site parking ---this will additionally crowd
the neighborhood, with on -street parking being used.
3. The McCoy's now own three (3) cars, plus one (1) stretch limousine, one (1) truck and two (2 )
motorcycles. The addition of a caretaker unit, with more automobiles, will only contribute to the
traffic congestion and noise pollution in our area, as well as raise a dust storm from the alley
during the summer. With Aspen suffering from particulate pollution, this is an unnecessary
source.
4. The addition of a caretaker unit, with its entrance only a minimal distance (across the alley) from
the Block's bedroom window, at 311 W. North, is also a major source of noise pollution.
Name dress Name
st
-ter
Address
J
repository of Aspen's residential past. For us, "home" and "real estate" do
not have the same meaning. Scale is a part of the West End's character and
it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain in light of pressures
'from escalating land costs and huge profit potential. 1 believe it is
contingent upon your commission to stand for those values that preserve
the integrity of this very special neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Di mitri G. Perros
(/ ... A • P4,v�
Diane D. Perros
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE MCCOY ADU
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
for the attached accessory dwelling unit with the following
conditions prior to the issuance of any building permits:
1. The applicant shall submit the appropriate deed restriction
to the Housing Authority for review, upon approval of the deed
restriction, the deed shall be recorded with the Pitkin County
Clerk, Recorders Office and Planning Department. The deed
restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing
guidelines for such units., meets the definition of Resident
Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six
months or longer.
2. The mechanical room shall be removed from the ADU.
3. The roof shall be revised to prevent snow from shedding into
the stairwell.
4. number of light wells shall be added to the ADU.
5. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan to the Planning
Department depicting the following the revised floor plan, roof
plan, and elevations indicating the new light wells.
6. The applicant shall work with the Parks Department to mitigate
the removal of the tree greater than 6" in caliper.
7. Parking spaces for the primary residence shall meet Code.
8. The adu shall conform with UBC sound attenuation requirements.
9. A pedestrian walking space shall be provide along Third and
Smuggler Streets.
10. A site plan shall be submitted to determine whether a concrete
wall encroaches into the alley. An encroachment licence may be
necessary or removal of the wall. .
311 W. North Street, Aspen, CO, 81611-1350
September 22, 1993
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Attention: Ms. Leslie Lamont
City Hall, 130 S. Galena St
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Zoning Commissioners:
(303) 925-7743
This letter is to oppose the application submitted by the McCoy's for the accessory
dwelling unit located in the basement of a new residence proposed at 322 W. Smuggler
St., Aspen, CO 81611.
The Review Standards: Development of a Conditional Use, Section C, emphasizes that
minimal adverse effects on the surrounding properties should be present. The current
design, submitted with the application for Conditional Use, has the following impacts on
our residence:
• The entry door to the proposed basement unit is just across the alley from our
bedroom, with a minimum setback. The noise generated would be most
disturbing, and unnecessary.
• The owners of the property, the McCoy's, who have personally told us that they
will live in the new residence, currently own 1 stretch limousine, 3 cars, 1 truck
and 2 motorcycles. The addition of a caretaker unit, which does not require an
additional parking space, but will, in practice, bring additional automobiles to the
alley, will have an enormous noise impact on our home. In particular, Mr.
McCoy has proposed to us that he wants to black top the alley, in order to make
his vehicular access easier. He even stated that the reason he's leaving his present
home on 3rd Street is to have an alley to park his cars and work on them. We find
that this use, plus having a caretaker unit (since it's in the basement, with
inadequate lighting and access, we hesitate to call the proposed unit a caretaker
apartment) results in too high a density of traffic and noise in our neighborhood.
A study of the present, existing uses of the alley would reveal that no present
owners use it for more than garbage disposal, and that present vehicular use is that
of the garbage truck. The opening up of the alley for vehicular use would
encourage use of it in the summer as a normal city street, which it clearly is not.
Further, in the winter, access to the alley is very difficult, due to snow pileup,
plowing, etc. Since the entrance to the proposed caretaker unit is from the alley,
this would further add to the parking congestion on the streets. The on -site
facilities would NOT be used during that period. If the caretaker unit were moved
above ground, separate from the main house, with an entrance from the street,
and not the alley, with a parking space on the site for this unit, in addition to
the normal parking requirements for the main house, which would effectively
reduce the size of the house, and hence the visual, as well as the noise impacts
on the neighborhood, we would support the application. However, what we
perceive is an attempt to build a house to the legal property lines, maximum
height limits and maximum FAR, and, get away with:
a) one less parking space than normally required,
b) avoid paying about $20,000 that would be required for 'in -lieu of
for employee housing,
c) a larger dwelling than otherwise would be legally required.
He gains all of this by simply building a basement that he never has to rent.
This results in a much larger house than legally would have been allowed on a
small lot (6200 sq. ft.), as well as a far -cheaper one. We would like to note a
quotation by Samuel Butler:
When the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness that he hath committed and
doeth that which is neither quite lawful nor quite right, he will generally be found to have
gained in amiability what he has lost in holiness.
--Samuel Butler
We hope Mr. McCoy is now rather amiable.
In summary, we strongly oppose the Conditional Use, as a subterfuge and a blight on the
neighborhood. The McCoy's are speculators, who will wreck the West End, if left alone.
As evidence, we submit the enclosed real estate ad from the Aspen Times, which
describes the present home, and the proposed construction. Clearly, they are in it for
financial gain, and not residency.
We plead with the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to reject the request for
Conditional Use, and close with yet another quotation, this one from Gandhi:
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to
please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
--Mahatma Gandhi
Sincerely,
je lock
aifc�., `3/
Martin M. Block
L,
♦
a s
♦
•' .+vim w5 �:'r4.- , {' 4
_ _ f
a
'!i61� - `C-4./�►'y6`�`+k,t�. +ems: ; �, - - �- .`.''`— _
.--• .. -e rt h-t '., 1. _
-
y—
.► - r•_♦ ^ a .may- ..}� it -
Tie - - -� • _ aINC- t •k
A
280 Lake Menue, Aspen, CO. 01611 (303)925-2915
September 27, 1993
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Attention- Ms. Leslie Lamont
City Mall, 130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Co. 81611
Dear Zoning Commissioners:
This letter is written to oppose the approval for the accessory
dwelling unit as submitted in the application for a new residence at 322
W, Smuggler St., Aspen, Co.
We built a home at 280 Lake Avenue in 1991 are are well -aware of
the regulations governing accessory dwellings, parking spaces, payments
in lieu of employee housing, etc. While the specific requirements may have
changed since then, surely the spirit of the law which inspired them has
not. Standards hinge on "minimal adverse effects" on the neighborhood and,
in this case, they clearly are not being met.
My understanding is that the approval of the application will result
in a basement caretaker unit with access from the alley and which does
not require an additional parking space. This fact, coupled with the large
vehicular fleet owned by the McCoys, will surely have more then "minimal
adverse effects." It will clog the alley and exacerbate the parking
problems that already exist in the West End.
I also draw your attention to the ads which have appeared in the
Aspen Times advertising the future house for sale! If this is to be viewed
as a speculative venture, rather than a residency, then that is even more
reason to deny the aoication since profit alone has been the deciding
factor in the applicant's design considerations. A builder who is building a
structure with the intent of selling it will certainly try to go for
maximum square footage without considering such profitless intangibles
as "the good of the neighborhood." Since the law does not require that the
unit be used for employes housing, this application represents the most
obvious way to maximize square footage without paying the in lieu of fee,
The West End has a certain character which is of great value to
those of us who have chosen to live there. It is the most important
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department)CE�.
DATE: September 24, 1993
RE: East Hopkins Affordable Housing Development Rezoning, GMQS
Exemption, Stream Margin Review, Condominiumization, and
Special Review
We have reviewed the submitted application and would request that
a landscape plan be submitted with an adequate amount of time to
review (minimum of 3 weeks) prior to final plat signatures. The
application states (page 4) several large spruce trees will
require relocating or replacing. These trees, including size,
should be noted on the landscape plan to determine the best
mitigation measures to be taken. All trees over six inches in
diameter, at four and one half feet above grade require a tree
removal permit.
1
Q
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT t , ,APPROVED ,
19 BY RESOLUTION
EAST HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL
Rezoning from RM-F to Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District:
Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
following review criteria and responses must be considered.
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: This rezoning is not in conflict with the provisions of
the Land Use regulations.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: This parcel was purchased by the Housing Authority for
development of affordable housing. The Aspen Area Community Plan
indicates that this parcel is a desirable location for affordable
housing development. It also is in agreement with the purpose
statement of the AH zone as it is within walking distance to the
commercial core and lends itself to infill on small neighborhood
scale rather than being a major housing project.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The AH zone is intended to be used as infill zoning
scattered throughout the community within residential
neighborhoods. Site design is critical to the compatibility of
a proposed development and its immediate surroundings. This
project proposes a fourplex townhome structure adjacent to the
existing multi -family and mixed single family and duplex
structures. .This configuration evolved after three neighborhood
meetings where citizens gave input to the vision of their area.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
Response: The proximity of this site to the downtown area will
promote walking to the core. The project is undertaking a
substantial improvement of the street section (widening, curb,
gutter and sidewalks) along its frontage on Hopkins. This
improvement appeals to but the Streets Department and the Fire
Marshal's office.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
1
ILI
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: Because of its location, the potential reduction for
transit needs is reduced. The site is readily served by Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District and city water.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response: The rezoning will not, on its own, have a negative
effect on the natural environment. As many trees will be saved as
possible, with the potential of relocating several large spruces
to the alley area behind the project. Because of neighborhood
input, auto access to the units was split between Hopkins and the
alley. THis necessitates two driveways/garages on Hopkins and
excavation of the slope in the Hopkins right-of-way.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: This rezoning meets the location criteria for AH
properties, those being "within walking distance to the center of
the city or on transit routes". The character of much of the east
end is that of a mix of residential types. This rezoning allows
for local residents to remain in an area slowly changing into
second homes.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: The purchase of this property for affordable housing
definitely supports this rezoning to AH.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
Response: Rezoning this site will not be in conflict with the
public interest nor with .the Land Use Regulations.
2
\
k
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT _Cl , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION •
SUBDIVISION REVIEW STANDARDS
East Hopkins AH Subdivision
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 3-101 Definitions, any land to
be used for apartments or multi -family dwellings constitute a
subdivision and must comply with applicable subdivision criteria
contained in Section 7-1004 C.
1. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be
located on land unsuitable for development because of
flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural
hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health,
safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed sub-
division.
There are no unsuitable lands proposed for development within
this subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not
be designed to create spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of publ.ic
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
No duplication of public facilities will result from this
subdivision. Improvement of the street will result from this
project.
2. Improvements. The following improvements shall be provided for
the proposed subdivision.
(1) Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements for paving
and improvements of a collector street.
(2) Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
(3) Paved alleys.
(4) Street trees or landscaping.
(5) Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers.
3. Design standards. The following design standards shall be
required for all subdivisions:
Streets and related improvements. E. Hopkins will be improved
with wider pavement, curb and gutter and sidewalk along the
frontage of this parcel. The alley will also be opened from
Cleveland Street for access of this project and the duplex on
the other side of the alley. New access agreements are
necessary from the properties directly south of this project.
Engineering has required this as a condition of approval.
Street trees are also being added to the Hopkins right-of-
way.
a. Easements. Alley access easements with neighbors to the rear
must be updated per Engineering's requirements.
b. Lots and blocks. Not applicable.
c. Survey monuments. Not Applicable.
d. Utilities. All utility plans have been reviewed by the
appropriate utilities.
e.- Storm drainage. Rehabilitation of E. Hopkins requires that
drainage not be impeded.
f. Flood hazard areas. Not Applicable.
`A