Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19930420 AGE N D A ================================================================== , ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING.COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 20, 1993, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room City Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARING A. Fortier Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, Kim Johnson B. Whipple Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont .C. Gordon/Callahan PUD Amendment and Rezoning, Leslie Lamont IV. OLD BUSINESS A. East Cooper Affordable Housing Special Review for Increased FAR on Lot 8, Kim Johnson B. Rio Grande Subdivision conceptual SPA Master Plan Adoption, Leslie Lamont (continued from March 16, 1993) IV. ADJOURN .~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative"',Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: April 20, 1993 Regular Meeting - May 4 Text Amendment for Off -Street Parking (LL) City Shop Final PUD, Stream Margin, Conditional Use, GMQS Exemption, and Parking Special Review (KJ) Garrish Accessory Dwelling Unit (KJ) Truscott Place Final PUD/Final Plat Amendment & Special Review (LL) Regular Meeting - May 18 a.nex MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Fortier Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit - Public Hearing DATE: April 20, 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Fortier Conditional Use for a 699 s.'f. attached accessory dwelling unit with conditions. APPLICANT: Tim and Lisa Fortier LOCATION: 1465 Red Butte Drive (Lot 12B Quillen Subdivision) The lot is 31,858 s.f., at'the corner of Cemetery Lane and Red Butte Drive. ZONING: R-15 Moderate Density Residential APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use approval to build an accessory dwelling unit within a new residence pursuant to the housing mitigation requirements in Ordinance 1, Series 1990. The site is currently vacant. The accessory dwelling unit will be 699 s.f. and will be split above and below grade. Please refer to application information, Exhibit "A". REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "Bit Housing: The proposed 699 s.f. unit meets the minimum housing guidelines. The resident occupancy deed restriction must be approved by the Housing Office and recorded with the County Clerk, with copies forwarded to the Housing Office and Planning Office prior to the issuance of any building permits. The unit may not be leased for tenancies less than six months. Engineering: Chuck Roth has reviewed the.proposal and forwards the following comments: 1.'There appears to be more than adequate space on site for -off- street parking, however the building -permit application plans must indicate all parking spaces and dimensions. 2. No development of the right-of-way shall be undertaken which precludes pedestrians the ability to move off of the pavement out of the way of vehicular traffic. 3. The building permit application plans must indicate a trash storage area on the applicant's property in order to preclude such use of the public right-of-way. 4. 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. 4 5. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase''to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. 8. This reviewer was unable at the time of writing to examine previous conditions of approval (Quillen Subdivision Exemption) except for the plat which is on file. No details of concern to this review were noted on the plat. 9. There is a major drainage or irrigation ditch on the property alongside the Cemetery Lane frontage. There is no visible culvert under -Red Butte Drive for the ditch. This ditch must remain as it currently exists. 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 use is compatible with the other residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The unit will not be visible as a distinct unit from the exterior of the Fortier residence. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. 2 RESPONSE: The accessory unit will be completely contained within the proposed residence. Three garage spaces and at least two exterior spaces are available per the site plan. One parking space is required by code for a two -bedroom accessory dwelling unit. The principal residence will contain three':gdrooms. The proposed ADU will have an exterior doorway and ani'.interior access into the laundry/mudroom area. 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. No other 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. RESPONSE: All public utilities are in place for the proposed home and neighborhood. Per the City Engineer, the applicants must leave ,the ditch alone as it crosses their property. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. RESPONSE: The proposed deed restricted unit will satisfy the Ordinance 1 requirements for a new single family residence. 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 prior to issuance of any building permits. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE:, This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable conditional use standards. As this accessory dwelling unit is not 100% above grade, the.main structure is not eligible for floor area bonus per Ordinance 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Fortier Conditional Use for a 699 s.f. accessory dwelling unit with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following items to be approved by the Engineering Department: 3 a. A storm runoff plan prepared by an engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado demonstrating that no additional storm runoff shall be conveyed to the public right- of-way by the development for the 1.q0-year runoff event; '� A rev' d respo s� to c. 24-17�,34. D ef1ectig c tact ntl com uni atio with all utes to conf'rm t eir bi itie to ha dle �n rease s for he propos d eve nt; an 2. The Engineering Department shall be routed the building permit application for approval of items identified in this memo, including the improvement survey (which must show the existing berm) that is required for a building permit in order to determine any possible issues regarding the public right-of- way, such as unlicensed encroachments. 3. 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 minimum 6 month leases. Upon approval by the Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 4. Prior to issuance of any building permits a copy of the recorded deed restrictions for the accessory dwelling units must be forwarded to the Planning Office. 5. One parking space shall be dedicated for the accessory dwelling unit on the building permit site plan. 6. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on Building Permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements. 7. The existing ditch must not be altered in any way. 8. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Conditional Use for a 699 s. f . attached accessory dwelling unit for the Fortier residence at 1465 Red Butte Drive with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 4/20/93." Exhibits: "A" - Application Information "B" - Referral Memos L! April 15, 1993 I, Timothy J. Fortier and I. Lisa Fortier atteset to posting the Public Notice Conditional Unit Sign on Saturday, April 3, 1993. The Public Notice Conditional Use Unit Sign was posted on our land at 1465 Red Butte Dr., Aspen, CO. Timoy J. Fortier date ��.a,,, �•'r'�'�4�"f;'`��"SM �re�� �`� ��''� ;. ���-'��°.t`�� yt".e , �„�k ram.. � � ;t ';t a'z E^r 35 )e w L4. C r r ti� \ r DEBRA SUE IDEKER - NOTARY PUBUC Y COMMISSION EXPIRES 03-04-95 BANK OF ASPEN P.O. BOX 0 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 i Fortier c r " T f i i=� • NOTARY PUBLIC :,;, �• N6' ON EXPIRES 03-04-95 ;SANK OF ASPEN P.O. BOX 0 COLORADO 81612 date Ann R. Crockett Trustee of Price Living Trust 10898 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 David Kruidenier Elizabeth S . Kruidenier 3409 Southern Hills Drive Des Moines, IA 50321 Anne S . Feld 1700 Pacific Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) Augustus F. Hallum Margery L. Hallum 410 South Aspen Street Aspen, CO 81611 R. Brill and Elizabeth R. Key 506 W. Hallam Street Aspen, CO 81611 John F. Shafroth Diana H. Shafroth 288 Clayton Street, Suite 303 Denver, CO 80206 Aspen Historical Society 620 W . Bleeker Aspen, CO 81611 Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this � OffA- day of April 1993, by Ruby D. Burkhalter. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: bra Notary Public Address: 533 E. Hopkins, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I hereby certify that I have this 6th day of April 1993, placed true and correct copies of the attached Public Notice Re: Whipple Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: Mr. George Vicenzi Box 2238 Aspen, CO 81612 Nina Coulter Ware 34 Clermont Lane St. Louis, MO 63124 David Zimman 126 Pine Drive Fairfax, CA 94930 James P. Iglehart 610 West Hallam Aspen, CO 81611 Thomas J. Daly Judith J. Daly 520 West Hallam Street Aspen, CO 81611 Sally Rae Glenn 504 West Hallam Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Robert I. Blaich Janet S . Blaich 319 North Fourth Street Aspen, CO 81611 James L. Curtis c/o Curtis & Associates 117 S. Monarch Street Aspen, CO 81611 Sue Hall P.O. Box 2088 500 W. Bleeker Street Aspen, CO 81612 Arthur H. Stromberg Fredna C. Stromberg 145 Bridge Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 John Kerrigan Patricia Kerrigan 1850 White Swan Drive Oshkosh, WI 54901 John J. Strandberg Jane T. Strandberg 2510 Grand Avenue, Apt. 2403 Kansas City, MO 64108 ULLR Lodge, Inc. a Colorado corporation 520 West Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Eileen L. Ilgen, Jack D. Ilgen and Eloise M. Ilgen 518 West Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 James R. McDade P.O. Box 3099 Aspen, CO 81612 William A. Levin P.O. Box 3004 Aspen, CO 81612 Charles B. Dolan Trustee of Dolan Realty Trust 170 Sandy Pond Road Lincoln, MA 01773 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Whipple Conditional Use Review DATE: April 20, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a single family home with an attached, 559 square foot (net liveable), accessory dwelling unit. Staff recommends approval of conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit. APPLICANT: George Whipple LOCATION: 204 North 5th Street, Aspen ZONING: R-6 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To provide an attached studio accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Ordinance 1 requirements. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Parking - The building permit application plans must show the garage and other parking dimensions to ensure meeting code requirements. Parallel parking spaces require 22 feet of length. 2. "Sidewalk" -The recently adopted Pedestrian Plan established that no concrete or other hard surface sidewalks would be permitted or required to be constructed in the West End of Aspen. However, the Plan did provide for maintaining a usable pedestrian space off of the street. This space must be indicated on the building permit application plans. The site visit revealed that this space is in existence at this time. The guidelines provide for this space to be located five feet back from the curb and to be five feet wide. 3. Trash - The sketch plan does not indicate a trash storage area. The building permit application plans must indicate a trash storage area in order to preclude such use of the public right-of-way. It appears that the current trash storage area is located in the alley right-of-way and not on private property. 4. 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. The application makes no representations about having contacted each of the utilities to confirm that existing facilities can provide anticipated load increases for the project. 5. Curb and Gutter - Prior to final i-pspection, the portions of the existing driveway that are in the p4bl'ic right-of-way shall be removed, and the curb cut shall be `removed and replaced with matching rolled curb and gutter. 6. Site Drainage - One of the considerations of a development application for conditional use is that there are adequate public facilities to service the use. One public facility that is inadequate is the City street storm drainage system. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. 7. Development in the Public Right-of-waV - 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). 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 will be approximately 559 square feet on the ground floor of the proposed single family home. The unit will comply with the Housing Guidelines and the requirements of Ordinance 1. The unit will be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for residents of Pitkin County. Provision of an accessory dwelling unit is consistent with the City's .policy to encourage affordable housing in all neighborhoods. 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 2 RESPONSE: The accessory dwelling unit is attached to the proposed single-family residence and below grade. It does not increase the mass or floor area of the proposed homey The design of the house would be the same if the accessory dwelling unit were not included. 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 will have no adverse effect upon surrounding properties. The proposed residence will continue to appear as a single-family structure. Four parking spaces are provided for on -site. There is an exterior access to the unit and an internal access from the main house to the ADU which enables the resident of the ADU to use the laundry and ease caretaker functions such as childcare and maintenance. 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: No new services are required to redevelop the site with a primary residence and the 559 square foot accessory dwelling unit. The Engineering Department is requiring the applicant to maintain historic storm runoff patterns and any increased storm runoff must be contained on -site. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and RESPONSE: The proposal includes a studio accessory dwelling unit for employees of P.itkin 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 Comprehensive Plan and other requirements of this chapter by integrating a community housing need into the redevelopment of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for the attached accessory dwelling unit with the following conditions: 3 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits: a. the applicant shall, upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Authority, record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. b. the applicant shall submit the following items to be approved by the Engineering Department: i. A storm runoff plan prepared by an engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado demonstrating that no additional storm runoff for the 100-year runoff event shall be conveyed to the public right-of-way by the development; and 1 A ev'sed es ons to Sec. 24- -304. r lecti g ontact nd co mun'ca ion w'th a 1 utili 'es o c nfir t eir bill 'es t handl incre e loa or th p opo ed 'development. C. the Engineering Department shall be routed the building permit application in order for approval of items identified in this memo, including the improvement survey that is required for a building permit in order to determine any possible issues regarding the public right-of-way, such as unlicensed encroachments. 2. Prior to final inspection, the existing driveway shall be removed from the public right-of-way and the curb cut shall be replaced with matching rolled curb and gutter. 3. All representations that are made in the application and those reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be complied with. 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. 5. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 559 square foot accessory dwelling unit for 204 N. 5th Street with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 4/20/93.11 ATTACHMENTS: Site Plans 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Project - Special Review for Increased FAR (Floor Area Ratio) in an AH Zone District DATE: April 20, 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of Special Review for increased FAR on the townhome parcel (Lot 8) of the proposed AH subdivision. :rThe application was originally presented to the Commission with an FAR of .32:1. The increase is necessary because of slight revisions to the floor plans that have been made, and also that an error was made in calculating the original FAR. The footprints and heights of the buildings have not changed since the Commission reviewed the East Cooper Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, and other reviews on March 16 and 30, 1993. APPLICANT: C&G Mustard Seed, Craig Glendenning, represented by Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group, Inc. LOCATION: The entire East Cooper parcel is 2.35 acres located on Highway 82, about one-half mile east of the Cooper Street Bridge. Lot 8 is the 37,548 s.f. townhome parcel on the lower portion of the proposed subdivision, adjacent to Highway 82. ZONING: The current zoning of the parcel is R-15 PUD. The requested zoning is AH (Affordable Housing). APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The project seeks Special Review as permitted by the AH zone district to increase the FAR on Lot 8 from .32:1 (as presented in the Final PUD application) to .45:1. The AH zone dimensional requirements limit external FAR on lots between 27,001 and 43,560 to .36:1 unless Special Review is granted. Maximum FAR by Special Review is 1:1. . The FAR difference was discovered by the project architect after making slight changes to.the deed restricted townhomes necessitated by the division of a three bedroom unit into a one bedroom and a two bedroom unit. All of the townhomes were enlarged slightly also. It became apparent while calculating these FAR differences that the original FAR of .32:1 as included in the Final PUD application was in error by several percent. It is noted that the size of the buildings and their position on the site do not change because of the FAR recalculation. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the FAR information dated April 15, 1993.. 1 REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office contacted the Housing Office regarding the new FAR figures. Tom Baker commented that the Housing Office supports the slight enlargement of the deed restricted units and the reconf iguration of the three bedroom unit . The change in the FAR does not matter to the Housing Office. STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office believes that the FAR change is acceptable based on the fact that the building sizes and site layout does not change from the plan submitted in the Final PUD, Subdivision and Rezoning application. The Commission has already approved Special Review for parking and open space for this project. Staff has determined that these approvals do not have to be amended as a result of the FAR Special Review. The Applicant alerted Planning staff immediately when the calculation errors were discovered. The tight timeframe for this project requires this Special Review to be accomplished prior to City Council's second reading of an approval ordinance for the project already scheduled and published for public hearing on April 261 1993. This change in FAR will be noted at the public hearing at City Council. Special Review for Increased FAR on an AH zoned parcel• Lot 8 of the proposed East Cooper AH Subdivision is 37,548 s.f. Per the AH dimensional requirements, parcels of this size have an allowable FAR of .36:1. The code allows FAR to be increased to 1:1 by Special Review. Sections 7-404.A.1 and 2 read: 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. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open 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: The Final PUD Plan which was reviewed by the Commission on March 16 and 30, 1993 does not change as a result of this FAR increase. The Commission liked the Plan and made comments supporting the layout, size and livability of the deed restricted multi -family units. The .45:1 FAR is still fairly low in the eyes of Planning staff. Considering that this is basically a "paper change", staff finds that the new FAR is compatible with the surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the AH zone district. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate RESPONSE: The accessory unit will be completely contained within the proposed residence. Three garage spaces and at least two exterior spaces are available per the site plan. One parking space is required by code for a two -bedroom accessory dwelling unit. The principal residence will contain three bedrooms. The proposed ADU will have an exterior doorway and an.t'interior access into the laundry/mudroom area. 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. No other 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. RESPONSE: All public utilities are in place for the proposed home and neighborhood. Per the City Engineer, the applicants must leave the ditch alone as it crosses their property. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. RESPONSE: The proposed deed restricted unit will satisfy the Ordinance 1 requirements for a new single family residence. 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 prior to issuance of any building permits. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE:* This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable conditional use standards. As this accessory dwelling unit is not 100% above grade, the.main structure is not eligible for floor area bonus per Ordinance 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Fortier Conditional Use for a 699 s.f. accessory dwelling unit with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following items to be approved by the Engineering Department: 3 a. A storm runoff plan prepared by an engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado demonstrating that no additional storm runoff shall be conveyed to the public right- of-way by the development for the 1Q0-year runoff event; b. A revised response to Sec. 24-7,y304.D reflecting contact and communication with all utilities to confirm their abilities to handle increased loads for the proposed development; and 2. The Engineering Department shall be routed the building permit application for approval of items identified in this memo, including the improvement survey (which must show the existing berm) that is required for a building permit in order to determine any possible issues regarding the public right-of- way, such as unlicensed encroachments. 3. 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 minimum 6 month leases. Upon approval by the Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 4. Prior to issuance of any building permits. a copy of the recorded deed restrictions for the accessory dwelling units must be forwarded to the Planning Office. 5. One parking space shall be dedicated for the accessory dwelling unit on the building permit site plan. 6. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on Building Permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements. 7. The existing ditch must not be altered in any way. 8. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Conditional Use for a 699 s.f. attached accessory dwelling unit for the Fortier residence at 1465 Red Butte Drive with the conditions recommended in the. Planning Office memo dated 4/20/93." Exhibits: "A" - Application Information "B" - Referral Memos 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Whipple Conditional Use Review DATE: April 20, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a single family home with an attached, 559 square foot (net liveable), accessory dwelling unit. Staff recommends approval of conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit. APPLICANT: George Whipple LOCATION: 204 North 5th Street, Aspen ZONING: R-6 APPLICANTS REQUEST: To provide an attached studio accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Ordinance 1 requirements. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Park1jig - The building permit application plans must show the Rgarage and other parking dimensions to ensure meeting code ' requirements. Parallel parking spaces require 22 feet of length. 2. "Sidewalk" -The recently adopted Pedestrian Plan established that no concrete or other hard surface sidewalks would be permitted `.a'. or required to be constructed in the West End of Aspen. However, .,the Plan did provide for maintaining a usable pedestrian space off of the street. This space must be indicated on the building permit application plans. The site visit revealed that this space is in exist_e- e at this time. The guidelines provide for this space to be,:'locate five feet back from the curb and to be five feet wide. Trash The sketch plan does not indicate a trash storage area. T, e building permit application plans must indicate a trash storage area--in.-order to preclude such use of the public right -of way. It appears that the current trash storage area is located in the alley right-of-way and not on private property. n� 4. 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. The application makes no representations about having contacted each of the utilities to confirm that existing facilities can provide anticipated load increases for the project. 5. Curb and Gutter - Prior to final inspection, the portions of the existing driveway that are in the public right-of-way shall be removed, and the curb cut shall be `removed and replaced with matching rolled curb and gutter. 6. Site Drainage - One of the considerations of a development application for conditional use is that there are adequate public facilities to service the use. One public facility that is inadequate is the City street storm drainage system. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. 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). 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 will be approximately 559 square feet on the ground floor of the proposed single family home. The unit will comply with the Housing Guidelines and the requirements of Ordinance 1. The unit will be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for residents of Pitkin County. Provision of an accessory dwelling unit is consistent with the City's policy to encourage affordable housing in all neighborhoods. 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 2 RESPONSE: The accessory dwelling unit is attached to the proposed single-family residence and below grade. It does not increase the mass or floor area of the proposed home. The design of the house would be the same if the accessory dwelling unit were not included. 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 will have no adverse effect upon surrounding properties. The proposed residence will continue to appear as a single-family structure. Four parking spaces are provided for on -site. There is an exterior access to the unit and an internal access from the main house to the ADU which enables the resident of'the ADU to use the laundry and ease caretaker functions such as childcare and maintenance. 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: No new services are required to redevelop the site with a primary residence and the 559 square foot accessory dwelling unit. The Engineering Department is requiring the applicant to maintain historic storm runoff patterns and any increased storm runoff must be contained on -site. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and RESPONSE: The 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 Comprehensive Plan and other requirements of this chapter by integrating a community housing need into the redevelopment of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for the attached accessory dwelling unit with the following conditions: 91 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits: a. the applicant shall, upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Authority, record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. b. the applicant shall submit the following items to be approved by the Engineering Department: i. A storm runoff plan prepared by an engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado demonstrating that no additional storm runoff for the 100-year runoff event shall be conveyed to the public right-of-way by the development; and ii. A revised response to Sec. 24-7-304.D reflecting contact and communication with all utilities to confirm their abilities to handle* increased loads for the proposed development. C. the Engineering Department shall be routed the building permit application in order for approval of items identified in this memo, including the improvement survey that is required for a building permit in order to determine any possible issues regarding the public right-of-way, such as unlicensed encroachments. 2. Prior to final inspection, the existing driveway shall be removed from the public right-of-way and the curb cut shall be replaced with matching rolled curb and gutter. 3. All representations that are made in the application and those reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be complied with. 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. 5. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building,permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 559 square foot accessory dwelling unit for 204 N. 5th Street with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 4/20/93.11 ATTACHMENTS: Site Plans 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Y FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner.` RE: Gordon/Callahan PUD Amendment and Rezoning Public Hearing - DATE: April 20, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicants, Aspen River Friends (ARF), seek to amend the PUD/Subdivision approval to reduce from the number of subdivided parcels from four single family lots to one single family lot. The applicants propose to define a specific building envelope and establish an allowable floor area as defined in the Municipal Code at 8,500 square. feet and dedicate to the City a public trail easement. The applicants also request a map amendment to rezone the property from R-15 PUD to Rural Residential (RR) PUD. Staff has determined that the proposed changes are substantial in nature requiring an amendment to the final PUD development plan. A substantial amendment to the final development plan and a map amendment are a two step review process by the Commission and Council. Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendments and the rezoning. APPLICANT: Aspen River Friends (ARF), represented by Skip Behrhorst, Dick Fallin and Brooke Peterson. LOCATION: Lots 2A, 2B, 2C and 9 of the Gordon/Callahan Subdivision located off of Centennial Circle Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-15, PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Amend the final PUD development plan and rezone the parcel from R-15 PUD to RR PUD. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following referral agencies have submitted comments. Engineering - Having reviewed the above application the Department has the following comments: 1. "Right to excavate partial envelope pad" - As discussed, storm runoff exposed to excavated materials shall be maintained on site and shall not be permitted to drain to the Roaring Fork River. The proposed drainage plan should be approved by the City Engineer. Plat - 1. Amend Riverside Ditch relocation note to read: The City has no land use conditions to relocating th;6 ditch except that "a new easement. 2. Change title to Amendment No. 1, Gordon/Callahan Resubdivision. 3. Owner certificate needs clarification: Own Lots 2A, 2B, 2C, and 9 of the Gordon/Callahan Resubdivision. 4. The City is not a recipient of ditch easements. STAFF COMMENTS A. Background - The Gordon/Callahan PUD/Subdivision was approved in 1990. The approval provided for the subdivision of Lot 2 of the Gordon lot split into three seperate parcels: Lots 2A, 2B and 2C. The subdivision also included a lot line adjustment between Lots 8 and 9 of the Callahan subdivision. Two of the single family parcel were to use two "transfer of development rights" that were originally created with the preservation.of the Smuggler Mobile Home Park. The final PUD development plan identified building envelopes and allowable floor area for Lots 2A, 2B, 2C and 9. The subdivision also identified an "out parcel" for the Maddalones (adjacent neighbors) and a small "permanent open space" parcel next to the out parcel. Accessory. dwelling units were also included in the final development plan for Lots 2A, 2B, 2C and 9. The PUD/Subdivision required a $25,000 payment for the eventual construction of a pedestrian/bike bridge connecting City owned land on the west side of the river. The subdivision also included a lot line adjustment between Lots 8 and 9 of the Callahan subdivision. Since the time of approval Lot 8 has been developed. B. Proposed Amendment - The Aspen River Friends have recently purchased the Gordon/Callahan.PUD/subdivision. ARF proposes the following amendments to the approved subdivision: 1. reduce the four parcels (Lots 2A, 2B, 2C and 9) to one parcel (Lot 9); 2. reduce the total allowable floor area from 19,970 to 8,500 square feet; ►a subdivision/PUD will substantially reduce the pre -approved development of the parcel and provide a trail easement on the east side of the river. i. Whether the proposed amendment.'would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in haj,Mony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: The proposed rezoning amendment enhances the public's interest and is consistent with community goals to reduce the density along the river thereby preserving more open space along the river. F. Summary - Staff believes the -_proposed _amendment to -the Gordon Callahan PUD and the rezoning from R-15 to _.. benefits the surrounding neighborhoods and community by reducing the approved density by 75 The reduction in the number of— Lts to be developed on the site,,notably increases --the amount of open space on `the parcel-. In exchange for the requested amendment to the PUD the applicant's conveyance of the public trail easement will enable the City to begin valuable work on the missing section of the Roaring Fork river trail. RECOMMENDATION:- The Planning Department recommends approval of the PUD amendment and the rezoning from R-15 PUD to RR PUD with the following conditions: 1. Prior to construction of various driveway and entry landscape features and excavation of a partial envelope pad the applicants shall receive an earth moving permit (to be amended for City applications) from the Aspen/Pitkin County building department. 2. If the applicant chooses to construct partial improvements pursuant to condition #1, storm runoff exposed to excavated material shall be maintained on site and shall not be permitted to drain to the Roaring Fork River. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the earth moving permit. 3. The applicant shall amend the PUD plat and *PUD agreement to depict the approved amendments to the final PUD development plan. 4. Prior to filing, the amended plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. �5. The applicant shall file an amended PUD development plan and PUD agreement within 180 days of final approval or the approval is rendered invalid. 6. All representations that the applicant has made regarding this and the more dense zoning of the Aspen Club, Riverside and Ute Place neighborhoods. In addition, the 2.1 acres of open space will provide a relief to the rapidly and sizable developments that have recently occurred at Ute Place and the Aspen Club subdivisions. d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The rezoning will reduce the density potential of the parcel thus decreasing traffic. Although a larger home (8500 sq. ft.) may generate more traffic than a 4,500 square foot home, the overall reduction in the number of homes and floor area should reduce traffic. e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. RESPONSE: The development of a single family home will place less demand on public facilities then 4 single family homes. Development of the new home shall provide for any additional demands on public services as part of the amendment to the subdivision/PUD. Land uses, other than residential, that could be developed in the RR zone district (e.g. academic school) require a conditional use review which would prevent the establishment of inappropriate land uses on this particular site. f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: This rezoning will have no adverse impact on the natural environment. The rezoning will ensure the preservation of 2.1 acres of open space. Future subdivision could, not occur without a rezoning of the parcel to a greater density. g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: Preservation of open space along the river and the ability to extend the pedestrian/bike trail along the river are priority goals of the community. h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment to the Gordon/Callahan 7 amendment shall be adhered to during any development. 7. All water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and CATV connections will be the responsibility of owner of, new Lot 9 at time of a building permit. 8. All landscaping will be by the owner of new Lot 9 except for improvements which may be constructed by the Applicant described in condition #1. 9. Construction scheduling will be at the discretion of the Applicant or assigns. 10. Costs for necessary public facilities related to construction of the single family home shall be borne by the applicant. ATTACHMENTS: A. Existing PUD site plan B. Amended PUD site plan C. Surrounding Zone Districts 01 p_a PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT , APP OVED 19 B�SO • 'Qoor%o9 Fork 6,?93 N 4g U.,) Q0 a O y 00, 44 4. Qo`c(4�00 � o�nMr •O O S �, __ -_ tCC3 cz,i (> 1 C OQp' • • ITS _ Qn r rn� j:Jl Q O \l t4 _ CIO cyl O`O (— I�^ O n • a l8'Bl �7 O v! °j 4 -� p 0 � 86. SZ.fO N �Z�• Q� � � o w � I �a \ 19z p• O 13.00 I'O •adol5 xO� . : : O p p C 'L �I o Q O r-rl bt.t t N cn cn a. t t yt.t t D �"I o a 01 Cr _ Access � M �OS.LO�00 /� / O NEcs�ment - � C�L tr..uv 3arsrltiw .or � / ?D -SEER —� m v i I °' Ln -- ---- ` l Qti �� UTILSTY �A,4, 4N AIENr & CE x e o v (� U `O S S 08*J0 O0. i24L A S o w O 43 '411�3 yM 'N3M35 o 0 0 0 0 a 30. 0C.80 N u �' ; o : n (f! Q-Y) cf� ct' O Q jl IRi 'cb Q �t a n' O �•�a�. o 0 J,cb �o "It rn °a °°,� J O °p k 003°�� ° J 7 Q CO ti�C j Q OJT aaa O O m p 4 � p y GOi O . tD J J •� C a � 3 J �to.ap C O J o �n Cb k j O j p % n Q O J O O O J C �; �Cb Q � Oy ° a cl a ° o lF v�. j Aze MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner.'1 RE: Gordon/Callahan PUD Amendment and Rezoning Public Hearing DATE: April 20, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicants, Aspen River Friends (ARF), seek to amend the PUD/Subdivision approval to reduce from the number of subdivided parcels from four single family lots to one single family lot. The applicants propose to define a specific building envelope and establish an allowable floor area as defined in the Municipal Code at 8,500 square -feet and dedicate to the City a public trail easement. The applicants also request a map amendment to rezone the property from R-15 PUD to Rural Residential (RR) PUD. Staff has determined that the proposed changes are substantial in nature requiring an amendment to the final PUD development plan. A substantial amendment to the final development plan and a map amendment are a two step review process by the Commission and Council. Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendments and the rezoning. APPLICANT: Aspen River Friends (ARF), represented by Skip Behrhorst, Dick Fallin and Brooke Peterson. LOCATION: Lots 2A, 2B, 2C and 9 of the Gordon/Callahan Subdivision located off of Centennial Circle Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-15, PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Amend the final PUD development plan and rezone the parcel from R-15 PUD to RR PUD. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following referral agencies have submitted comments. Engineering - Having reviewed the above application the Department has the following comments: 1. "Right to excavate partial envelope pad" - As discussed, storm runoff exposed to excavated materials shall be maintained on site and shall not be permitted to drain to the Roaring Fork River. The proposed drainage plan should be approved by the City Engineer. Plat - 1. Amend Riverside Ditch relocation note to read: The City has no land use conditions to relocating the ditch except that "a new easement. . . ." 2. Change title to Amendment No. 1, Gordon/Callahan Resubdivision. 3. Owner certificate needs clarification: Own Lots 2A, 2B, 2C, and 9 of the Gordon/Callahan Resubdivision. 4. The City is not a recipient of ditch easements. STAFF COMMENTS A. Background - The Gordon/Callahan PUD/Subdivision was approved in 1990. The approval provided for the subdivision of Lot 2 of the Gordon lot split into three seperate parcels: Lots 2A, 2B and 2C. The subdivision also included a lot line adjustment between Lots 8 and 9 of the Callahan subdivision. Two of the single family parcel were to use two "transfer of development rights" that were originally created with the preservation of the Smuggler Mobile Home Park. The final PUD development plan identified building envelopes and allowable floor area for Lots 2A, 2B, 2C and 9. The subdivision also identified an "out parcel" for the Maddalones (adjacent neighbors) and a small "permanent open space" parcel next to the out parcel. Accessory. dwelling units were also included in the final development plan for Lots 2A, 2B, 2C and 9. The PUD/Subdivision required a $25,000 payment for the eventual construction of a pedestrian/bike bridge connecting City owned land on the west side of the river. The subdivision also included a lot line adjustment between Lots 8 and 9 of the Callahan subdivision. Since the time of approval Lot 8 has been developed. B. Proposed Amendment - The Aspen River Friends have recently purchased the Gordon/Callahan PUD/subdivision. ARF proposes the following amendments to the approved subdivision: 1. reduce the four parcels (Lots 2A, 2B, 2C and 9) to one parcel (Lot 9); 2. reduce the total allowable floor area from 19,970 to 8,500 square feet; 2 and the more dense zoning of the Aspen Club, Riverside and Ute Place neighborhoods. In addition, the 2.1 acres of open space will provide a relief to the rapidly and sizable developments that have recently occurred at Ute Place and the Aspen Club subdivisions. d . The of f ect of the proposed amendment on traf f is generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The rezoning will reduce the density potential of the parcel thus decreasing traffic. Although a larger home (8500 sq. ft.) may generate more traffic than a 4,500 square foot home, the overall reduction in the number of homes and floor area should reduce traffic. e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. RESPONSE: The development of a single family home will place less demand on public facilities then 4 single family homes. Development of the new home shall provide for any additional demands on public services as part of the amendment to the subdivision/PUD. Land uses, other than residential, that could be developed in the RR zone district (e.g. academic school) require a conditional use review which would prevent the establishment of inappropriate land uses on this particular site. f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: This rezoning will have no adverse impact on the natural environment. The rezoning will ensure the preservation of 2.1 acres of open space. Future subdivision could not occur without a rezoning of the parcel to a greater density. g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: Preservation of open space along the river and the ability to extend the pedestrian/bike trail along the river are priority goals of the community. h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment to the Gordon/Callahan 7 subdivision/PUD will substantially reduce the pre -approved development of the parcel and provide a trail easement on the east side of the river. i. Whether the proposed amendment'"w,ould be in conflict with the public interest, and is in ha-mony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: The proposed rezoning amendment enhances the public's interest and is consistent with community goals to reduce the density along the river thereby preserving more open space along the river. F. Summary - Staff believes the proposed amendment to the Gordon/Callahan PUD and the rezoning from R-15 to RR substantially benefits the surrounding neighborhoods and community by reducing the approved density by 750. The reduction in the number of units to be developed on the site notably increases the amount of open space on the parcel. In exchange for the requested amendment to the PUD the applicant's conveyance of the public trail easement will enable the City to begin valuable work on the missing section of the Roaring Fork river trail. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the PUD amendment and the rezoning from R-15 PUD to RR PUD with the following conditions: 1. Prior to construction of various driveway and entry landscape features and excavation of a partial envelope pad the applicants shall receive an earth moving permit (to be amended for City applications) from the Aspen/Pitkin County building department. 2. If the applicant chooses to construct partial improvements pursuant to condition #1, storm runoff exposed to excavated material shall be maintained on site and shall not be permitted to drain to the Roaring Fork River. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the earth moving permit. 3. The applicant shall amend the PUD plat and *PUD agreement to depict the approved amendments to the final PUD development plan. 4. Prior to filing, the amended plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. 5. The applicant shall file an amended PUD development plan and PUD agreement within 180 days of final approval or the approval is rendered invalid. 6. All representations that the applicant has made regarding this amendment shall be adhered to during any development. 7. All water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and CATV connections will be the. responsibility of owner of., new Lot 9 at time of a building permit. 8. All landscaping will be by the owner of new Lot 9 except for improvements which may be constructed by the Applicant described in condition #1. 9. Construction scheduling will be at the discretion of the Applicant or assigns. 10. Costs for necessary public facilities related to construction of the single family home shall be borne by the applicant. ATTACHMENTS: A. Existing PUD site plan B. Amended PUD site plan C. Surrounding Zone Districts 9 Ui PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT , APP OVED 19 BYy--R-�SO 9 Fork "jjjoo? 6�'9J /V e�sl j S `� 2 p5r 00 jtom_•,. "��•• ''�,,�,, '' . ' � O � � p � �\c IN po•I f cOQ o ooY• �I O I� 4, OC �� • \� ON 1 co Q CD a' o n Q (n �F to O c o O 4 ��• 0 86. SZ.L O N N qzo 19 i pCFJ �. co O ^� cb Cb 4: �o' ao cn• . . . �aAo pad Q. o J 15.00cn o t yt.t t N cn I ( g t ; I O d �l X1.1 Uo cb N / n ! Qti 'in n�• ��� a o � 1 �Ol�y i i �� o Jol M .OS:LO,BO N/ �—' -_ _ ess Eoaem --A-I loc — c L � v 3nis�twr .or � ?O' Sew (A 100- o I v+ n --- yC:. ��, �� UTII /lY EgsE uENT EN�CENE i� off'C7 Jo, (Jo U)(J� (J) (1) cs tnJb ro 3 p9 Qao. (b o r� '�jdN N3M35 .5 t i \��� 0 0 0 0 rJ0 o o �-.80 io• o N Ic?nir'S 4 rrlUlUlv1Ul O O 7 ..,off °ay���°� oar 0 0�`b3�ao�3`�a� (bb C j y 0 Cb j L j CD O y `10 J o o ��oo�°-,bL lb oJ IOce� 1. 2Z j O o gyp`-oab�(b Io~, �b le j• QO �O C O � J O• �p J• Q O O CD O' q b n i3. "' ' Uj `O ; 0 o Qo �a ',,o 0 Cb ° C o � � C' .��`b .o `.o (boacna�`� J C 0 cb �4 D� o cto Cb r � lz � n � � J• J• J• a (b j, pa- DaQ'I y• O 0 Q p ti. T 'T Cb r o O cD 'J C �0 lb J J O � , QO C J o O ( C J 3 p btq Z ^ tD k j o I p � n Q a ��o O O J C a p Z C o cC Cb o cb �. a o ° c`D b' O I O a cD J O j ' �O �C. cb Cb MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Project - Special Review for Increased FAR (Floor Area Ratio) in an AH Zone District DATE: April 20, 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of Special Review for increased FAR on the townhome parcel (Lot 8) of.the proposed AH subdivision. :The application was originally presented to the Commission with an FAR of .32:1. The increase is necessary because of slight revisions to the floor plans that have been made, and also that an error was made in calculating the original FAR. The footprints and heights of the buildings have not changed since the Commission reviewed the East Cooper Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, and other reviews on March 16 and 30, 1993. APPLICANT: C&G Mustard Seed, Craig Glendenning, represented by Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group, Inc. LOCATION: The entire East Cooper parcel is 2.35 acres located on Highway 82, about one-half mile east of the Cooper Street Bridge. Lot 8 is the 37,548 s.f. townhome parcel on the lower portion of the proposed subdivision, adjacent to Highway 82. ZONING: The current zoning of the parcel is R-15 PUD. The requested zoning is AH (Affordable Housing). APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The project seeks Special Review as permitted by the AH zone district to increase the FAR on Lot 8 from .32:1 (as presented in the Final PUD application) to .45:1. The AH zone dimensional requirements limit external FAR on lots between 27,001 and 43,560 to .36:1 unless Special Review is granted. Maximum FAR by Special Review is 1:1. The FAR difference was discovered by the project architect after making slight changes to.the deed restricted townhomes necessitated by the division of a three bedroom unit into a one bedroom and a two bedroom unit. All of the townhomes were enlarged slightly also. It became apparent while calculating these FAR differences that the original FAR of .32:1 as included in the Final PUD application was in error by several percent. It is noted that the size of the buildings and their position on the site do not change because of the FAR recalculation. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the FAR information dated April 15, 1993.. 1 REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office contacted the Housing Office regarding the new FAR figures. Tom Baker commented that the Housing Office supports the slight enlargement of the deed restricted units and the reconf iguration:'� of the three bedroom unit. The change in the FAR does not matter tb the Housing Office. STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office believes that the FAR change is acceptable based on the fact that the building sizes and site layout does not change from the plan submitted in the Final PUD, Subdivision and Rezoning application. The Commission has already approved Special Review for parking and open space for this project. Staff has determined that these approvals do not have to be amended as a result of the FAR Special Review. The Applicant alerted Planning staff immediately when the calculation errors were discovered. The tight timeframe for this project requires this Special Review to be -accomplished prior to City Council's second reading of an approval ordinance for the project already scheduled and published for public hearing on April 26, 1993. This change in FAR will be noted at the public hearing at City Council. Special Review for Increased FAR on an AH zoned parcel: Lot 8 of the proposed East Cooper AH Subdivision is 37,548 s.f. Per the AH dimensional requirements, parcels of this size have an allowable FAR of .36:1. The code allows FAR to be increased to 1:1 by Special Review. Sections 7-404.A.1 and 2 read: 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. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open 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: The Final PUD Plan which was reviewed by the Commission on March 16 and 30, 1993 does not change as a result of this FAR increase. The Commission liked the Plan and made comments supporting the layout, size and livability of the deed restricted multi -family units. The .45:1 FAR is still fairly low in the eyes of Planning staff. Considering that this is basically a "paper change", staff finds that the new FAR is compatible with the surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the AH zone district. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate 2 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: No adverse impacts or changes to the, vicinity will result from the .45:1 FAR because the buildings are virtually the same as originally proposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of Special Review for the FAR increase to .45:1 for Lot 8 of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision. No conditions of approval are recommended. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Special Review for an FAR increase to .45:1 for Lot.8 of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision as allowed by dimensional requirements of the AH (Affordable Housing) zone district, pursuant to the criteria in Section 24-7-404 of the Aspen Municipal Code." Exhibit "A" - Information from Tom Stevens regarding the FAR changes 3 April 15, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 S. Galena. Aspen, CO 81611 PLANNING &�ONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION ;4 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING~ DEVELOPMENT FINAL SUBMISSION AMENDMENT ##3 Dear Kim, The program change, as well as continued refinement of the architecture for the deed restricted units, for the above referenced project have resulted in an increase in floor area ratio. Due to this increase, we must request that F.A.R. be included in the Special Review segment of required approvals for the project. As you may recall, we, requested Special Review for F.A.R. within the Final Submission (see page 1, paragraph 1, Introduction) and addressed the review criteria for Special Review in Section 'V' (L) of that application. Although this request for Special Review was made, the anticipated F.A.R. at the time of submission was .32:1. The lot area is 37,548 square feet which allows .36:1 F.A.R., increasable to 1:1 by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. This ratio was produced in error (based on 12,000 sq.ft. of floor area), as the revised number is actually .45:1 (based on 16,800 sq.ft. of floor area). Although the revision in program, as well as slight. modifications to the floor plans, has contributed to the higher ratio, (see amendments dated 3/23/93 and 4/9/93), the .32:1 ratio was in error as the project has not changed as much as the numbers imply. Please amend the application to include a .45:1 F.A.R. for Lot 8, the deed restricted units. It is my understanding that thin issue will need to go back to planning and Zoning for review which may in turn cause scheduling problems for the project. Anything you could do to assist in maintaining the current schedule would be greatly appreciated. There is an alternative to this floor area ratio requiring special review. By reducing the area of U)t 8 to 27,000 sq.ft., the allowed F.A.R. is 1.1:1. This. would require no special review for F.A.R., only an amendment to the application for reduction of lot area to Lot 8. It is not our preference to reduce the size of Lot 8 as we do not feel it best serves the employees that purchase these units, but it is clearly an alternative to this situation. Please advise me as soon as possible on the process for proceeding. if you have any questions or comments, or should require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas G. Stevens President cc: E.J.0lbriight Craig Glendenning Red Onion Offices, 418 E. Cooper Ave., Suite 205, Aspen, Colorado 816*1 ('301) 92 5-67*17 FAX; (.30.1) 92.5-671.)7 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: April 2'0, 1993 RE: Rio Grande Conceptual SPA Master Plan Attached for you review is the Rio Grande. conceptual SPA Master Plan. This plan has been amended to reflect Commissioner comments relayed to staff at the March 16, 1993 meeting. Specifically, a new land use map has been developed which identifies, in general terms, categories of land uses that the Rio Grande Group finds appropriate for the Rio Grande parcel, such as: Recreation/Transportation, Passive Park with Art Theme etc. Please review the plan making recommendations to staff regarding missing pieces or changes that the Commission would propose for the text or land use maps. Adoption of a conceptual SPA plan is a two step review process. The Commission shall review the plan and make a recommendation to Council. The City Council shall review the plan at a public hearing and adopt by Resolution. Staff recommends approval of the conceptual SPA plan for the Rio Grande property. LOCATION: Rio Grande property located between Rio Grande Drive and the Roaring Fork River, Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: Public with Specially Planned Area overlay. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has been working with a citizen committee, the Rio Grande Group, to formulate the conceptual Rio Grande SPA plan. The Group has recommended several land use actions and developed three land use development scenarios. Those three scenarios are represented by the land use maps provided in Appendix A of the plan. The maps are intended to serve as guides for site specific development. Based upon the Planning and Zoning Commissioner comments at the°)last meeting, the three "Potential Development Scenario" maps are provided only as guides for future development. The land use map that will be adopted with the plan is part of the text and found on page 20. Once the conceptual SPA plan is adopted, site specific development proposals may be reviewed based upon a final SPA development plan. The final SPA plan should be created with specific development proposals for the property and should be consistent with the conceptual SPA plan unless that plan has been amended by the Commission and Council. A. Pursuant to Section 24-7-804.C.3, a development application for a f inal development plan shall be submitted within two years of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless an extension is granted by the City Council prior to expiration, failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and Void the approved conceptual development plan. Staff had recommended that the two year time limit be extended for this conceptual SPA plan. The Commission strongly opposed staff Is suggestion and supports the expiration deadline to prevent misuse of the review process for future development on this property. B. Pursuant to Section 24-7-804 B., the Commission and Council shall consider the following review standards for a conceptual development plan: (The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate the general reasonableness and suitability of the proposed development, and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this. division and section, provided, however, that in the review of the Conceptual development plan, consideration will be given only to the general concept for the development, while during the review of the final development plan, detailed evaluation of the specific aspects of the development will be accomplished.) 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances. the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. RESPONSE: The conceptual plan strives to preserve as much open space as possible. Designation of Site A as a passive park with an art theme preserves the river as a public amenity and is an impetus for the final upgrade of the area for park use and ultimately eliminating the snow dump/melter activity. The plan recommends that the playing field remain a recreational site unless and only if a regional rail facility is developed on the site. The Potential Development Scenario maps depict full build out while still preserving a significant portion of the open space on the playing field. Designation of the eastern portion of Site B as transportation/ essential community services is consistent with the detached nature of this area from the park/recreational aspects of the rest of the property. Also, service oriented land uses on this site would be compatible with adjacent land uses in the S/C/I zone district. Identification of the youth/ recreation area takes advantage of the proximity to the Youth Center. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. RESPONSE: Sewer and water facilities are not in place for any development on Site A. Development on Site B would use services available in Rio Grande Drive. However, review of specific development during final SPA review will address individual service needs. The conceptual plan has identified some facility needs to service existing land uses. A small turn around for delivery and handicapped parking is necessary for the Theatre .(specifics will be reviewed during their final SPA review). There is an extensive trails system on the property that will be preserved and enhanced. The plan recommends the provision of additional parking near the Eagles Club and the sidewalk, curb and gutter should be improved for park users. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. RESPONSE: The plan recommends several site stabilization improvements. There are some leakage problems near the new river walk trail and the slopes around the existing recycle site will be vegetated and stabilized. Future development must carefully analyze below grade space given the experience with the parking garage. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities of the users of the project and the public at large. RESPONSE: A goal of the plan was to maintain the physical and visual connection with the river. Identification of Site A as a passive park with an art theme will prevent future encroachment of development activity (other then art or park related uses) onto this important public amenity. The existing trail system will be preserved with additional trails recommended. The plan recommends that future building profiles remain low, one story, to preserve the Independence Pass view plane. .The Potential Development Scenario maps consider the future location of trolley or rail tracks in a manner that will not impact the trail system. Similarly, the 20 foot buffer between Site A and Site B should protect Site A and the significant vegetation in the c� buffer zone from development encroachment, yet provide enough flexibility for development on Site B. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan contains several recommendations that support this current planning effort for the Rio Gran"de property. The Housing recommendations are consistent with the Rio Grande Group recommendation that housing is an inappropriate land use on Site A and housing should only be consider on site B if accessory to a primary land use e.g. trolley barn. The AACP open space recommendations concur with the conceptual SPA plan's preservation of key open spaces and identification of the eastern portion of Site B as a recycle center (essential community service) . The AACP transportation recommendations include the continued pursuit of the trolley option, designation of the Rio Grande property as a terminus for transportation activities. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. RESPONSE: Depending upon the future development of the property, certain infrastructure will be necessary. For example, sewer and water facilities are lacking on Site A. However, it has been the policy of the City that private sector development provide their own facility needs. During review of final SPA development plans, the City will be able to better assess the infrastructure needs of individual development. Some land ' use recommendations are publically oriented and expenditure of public funds will be necessary for development on the property. The City has already spent considerable public money to upgrade the river bank. Relocation of the snowmelter and upgrading the recycle site will also require public funds. Construction of additional recreational amenities will require public funds. It is unlikely that infrastructure needs will extend beyond the Rio Grande parcel except for the rail or trolley systems. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 7-903 (B) (2) (b) . 4 RESPONSE: There are no slopes in excess of 20% that will be developed. The 20 foot buffer between Site A and Site B follows the steep slope and is intended, in part, to prevent development along that slope. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. RESPONSE: Depending upon the development proposal, GMQS may apply, unless a proposal is found to be an essential public service (which exempts competition but not from mitigation) . However, the AACP has recommended a revamp of the current GMQS system and how development is exempted from the GMQS process may change. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the conceptual SPA plan for the Rio Grande property complies with the above review standards, is consistent with the recently adopted AACP, and public facility and infrastructure needs can be adequately addressed during site specific development review during final SPA review. Therefore staff recommends that the Commission recommend to Council adoption of the Rio Grande conceptual SPA Master Plan. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to Council adoption of the conceptual SPA Rio Grande plan." k Zg; f _ —DATE_ TtiliE� PLACE15c y F I NffiftE ,w DATE I /c4L TI 11 ' 3 ONI L) - f V., PLACE ISO le PURPOSP so