HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19920421
.....".:......
"'~-'
~>.,
,
'"."""
AGE N D A
==================================================================
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 21, 1992, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Kraut Affordable Housing Text Amendment (continued
from March 17, 1992; to be tabled to May 5, 1992),
Leslie Lamont
B. Burton/Allen Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Kim Johnson
C. Patrick Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Kim Johnson
D. Longoria Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Kim Johnson
E. Weinberg Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Kim Johnson
IV. WORK SESSION (1 hour)
A. Williams Ranch
V. ADJOURN
"-
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Burton -Allen Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory
Dwelling Unit
DATE: April 21, 1992
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use for the
Burton -Allen attached accessory dwelling unit with conditions.
APPLICANT: Marvin Burton and Douglas Allen
LOCATION: The parcel is at 777 Castle Creek Drive, Lot 10 of
Castle Creek Subdivision
ZONING: R-15
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use
approval to develop one attached accessory dwelling unit in
conjunction with the construction of a duplex. The studio -style
accessory unit will be 392 s.f. of net livable area and will be
located on the ground floor of the duplex. Please see Attachment
"A" for f loorplans and building elevations.
STAFF COMMENTS: On the subject property there exists a single
family dwelling which will be demolished prior to construction of
the new duplex. Ordinance 1 requires replacement affordable
housing or cash -in -lieu for demolition of existing residences.
The application proposes an accessory dwelling unit in order to
comply with Ord.l. Prior to demolition of the existing home, the
applicant must verify square footage and number of bedrooms through
the Zoning Office.
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 a
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 duplex.
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: The accessory unit will be completely contained within
Unit A of the proposed duplex. A parking space is not required by
code for a studio accessory unit, but the applicant states that one
space will be designated on the property. The unit will access the
exterior on the north side of the house. Interior access is
provided. 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 facilities are all ready 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 proposed deed restricted unit will satisfy the
Ordinance 1 requirements for duplex development. 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.
Please Note: As this accessory dwelling unit is 100% above grade,
the main structure is eligible for floor area bonus as allowed by
Ordinance 1.
2
6
Section 8-104 l.d. allows the Commission to approve accessory
dwelling units to be exempt from growth management competition.
This proposal qualifies upon approval of its conditional use
review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends approval of
Conditional Use for a 392 s.f. attached accessory dwelling unit
for the Burton -Allen duplex with the following conditions:
1. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The units
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.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the duplex, a copy
of the recorded deed restrictions for the accessory dwelling units
must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
3. One parking space shall be provided on -site for each accessory
dwelling unit.
4. Prior to demolition of the existing residence, the applicant
shall verify its square footage and number of bedrooms with the
Zoning Official.
5. 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 Conditional Use for a 392
s.f. attached accessory dwelling unit within the proposed Burton -
Allen Duplex at 777 Castle Creek Dr. with the five conditions
recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 4/21/92.
Attachments: "A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplans, and Elevations
Burton.Allen.memo
3
7
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
I, Pamela J. Hope, upon oath depose and say that I mailed the
attached Public Notice to Adjacent Property Owners this 3rd day of
April 1992.
Pamela J. H pe
STATE OF COLORADO
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of April, 1992,
by Pamela J. Hope.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
No
53
As
W2os.oaoi2
PUBLIC NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
RE: BURTON/ALLEN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, April 21, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd floor Meeting Room, 130
South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by Marvin Burton, P.O. Box 1224, Aspen, CO 81612; and
Douglas Allen, 530 E. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611, requesting a
conditional use permit for construction of an accessory dwelling
unit within a newly constructed duplex, located at 777 Castle Creek
Drive.
For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/
Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
box 11300. 18 roaring fork dr. architectural
aspen, colorado 81612-9599 design
phone or fax: 303-925-6114
Patrick Conditional Use.Review
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
April 21, 1992
All the adjacent homeowners within 300 feet of Lot 4 of the Woerndle Subdivision
were sent copies of the attached notice within 10 days of the public hearing.
The notices were mailed to the addresses on the attached list on Saturday, April
11, 1992.
Respectively Submitted,
Susan Furr
Representative for John Patrick, owner of Lot 4
PUBLIC NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
RE: PATRICK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, April 21, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd floor Meeting Room, 130
South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by. Susan Furr, P.O. Box 11300, Aspen, Colorado 81612,
requesting a conditional use permit for an attached accessory
dwelling unit to be constructed on a residence located at 1365
Mayflower Court.
For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/
Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 3, 1992
PROPOSED JOHN PATRICK RESIDENCE
Lot 4, Woerndle Subdivision
Aspen, Colorado
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS (within 300 feet):
Open Space, Woerndle Subd'n
James Costley
Box 884
Aspen, CO 81612
Lot 1, Woerndle Subd'n
Terry Goodrich
2249 North Burling
Chicago, IL 60614
Lot 2, Woerndle Subd'n
Roberta Goodrich
Box 11842
Aspen,.CO 81612
Lot 3, Woerndle Subd'n
James Crown
300 West Washington #1200
Chicago, IL. 60606
Lot 5, Woerndle Subd'n
Jan and Michele Rosen
9828 Glouster Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Lot 6, Woerndle Subd'n
Diana L. Bauer
7 Oak Hill Drive
Newman, Georgia 30263
Lot 7, Woerndle Subd'n
Lantz Welch
Box 64196
Kansas City, MO 64196
Ardmore
Alexander Gross
Box 9500
Aspen, CO 81612
Lot 1, Aspen Grove Subd'n
John L. Knudson
2470 Long West Circle
Littleton, CO 80120
Lot 2, Aspen Grove Subd'n
Eugene S. Mason
0145 McSkimming Road
Aspen, CO 81611
Lots 3 and 4, Aspen Grove Subd'n
Irving Shechter, Trustee of Shecter Trust
1794 Winterwarm Road
Fallbr.00k, CA 92098
Lot 7, Aspen Grove Subd'n
Lise B. Bodek
P.O. Box 736
Aspen, CO 81612
Lot 19, Aspen Grove Subd'n
W. Everett and Eleanor B. Biggs
1036 Craigland Ct.
Knoxville, Tennessee 37919
Lot 5, Aspen Grove Subd'n
Ursula R. Freudiger
0096 McSkimming Road
Aspen, CO 81612
Lot 6, Aspen Grove Subd'n
Nancy G. Thomas
Box 4862
Aspen, CO 81612
Lot 1, Blk.2, Aspen Grove Subd'n
Andrew and Jeanne Doremus
154 South Grape Street
Denver, CO 80222
Lot 1, Eastwood Subd'n
Jill P. Fink
0113 Aspen Grove Road
Aspen, CO 81611
McSkimming Road M/B
Larry D. Fredrick
52 McSkimming Road
Aspen, CO 81611
Lot 1, Riverside Subd'n
Terry and Molly Swanton
Box 1403
Aspen, CO 81612
Lot 2, Riverside Subd'n
Helen Ann Klanderud
Box 1558
Aspen, CO 81612
Lot 3, Riverside Subd'n
Lizabeth Kerr Duson, Trustee
9030 Greenville Avenue
Dallas, TX 75243
Lot 25, Riverside Subd'n
Amy Hayden Fulstone or Jill Ann Mackie
31 Rivers Road
Smith, NJ 89430
Riverside Addition
James and Christina Martin
Alpine Lodge
1240 East Hwy 82
Aspen, CO 81611
Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption
Larry F. Ferguson, Loma Alta Corporation
6210 North Central Expressway
Dallas, TX' 75206
Melinda Goldrich
Crestahaus Lodge
1301 East Hwy 82
Aspen, CO 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Patrick Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory
Dwelling Unit
DATE: April 21, 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use for the
Patrick attached accessory dwelling unit with conditions.
APPLICANT: John Patrick, represented by Susan Furr
LOCATION: 1365 Mayflower Court, Lot 4 of the Woerndle Subdivision
(please see attached location map)
ZONING: R-15 PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use
approval to develop a basement level accessory dwelling unit in
conjunction with the construction of a new 2,171 s.f. residence.
The accessory unit will be approximately 480 s.f. of net livable
area. Please see Attachment "A" for floorplans and building
elevations.
STAFF COMMENTS: The subject property in vacant. For the
construction of a residence, Ordinance 1 requires either deed
restriction of the new home, provision of an accessory dwelling
unit, or cash -in -lieu for affordable housing. The applicant is
proposing a deed restricted accessory dwelling unit to comply with
Ordinance 1. 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 a
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.
mm
1V-1d N0—IS IAIa—e S
NO AVM-d0-1—Ho
12i
,Ob
PV\
Q
1
OE 1£e 6S 3
O,ON3dCS � �O PISIO09
/ Q
Q O
J O
Q O
O
h
O o�
o)
O
P441
�
/ C)
V O
r
C, Y
y 00
y 6b 7 N
2 N a O
3 Z
SN33NYj N3A3 „21•„ 9 't'
r / Z
W w , VI
C i >
Q o O w o 9 C.
3 �}' z P� ' b W
0 V h Q¢ P I n W W v
(�• O tl ¢ �-
Z
`` r7 w � � ' ► W � G
1 0
41
\CL
CD c
o \N OJ a\
ia �1 a
u u - Z -
Z
0
W =
_ 1 1
,041 1 M,b£ o£I N 1 21,b b91
AO ID 0 3
► 1
— ONIAYd
1V Id NOISIAI08OS
NO ,09
3NV-1
S3*1V0S
AVM-.40-1H018
A8313W3 0
RESPONSE: The accessory dwelling use is compatible with the other
residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The unit will
not be visible from the outside.
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: The proposed accessory unit will be completely contained
within the proposed home. A parking space is not required by code
for a studio accessory unit, but staff believes that one should be
provided for the unit assuming it will be occupied by a long-term
tenant. Ms. Furr indicates that a bus stop is located nearby the
proposed home. The unit will access the exterior through a garden
level patio on the west side of the house. No other 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 all ready in place for the
existing neighborhood.
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 be able to house
a local employee. 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.
Section 8-104 l.d. allows the Commission to approve accessory
dwelling units to be exempt from growth management competition.
This proposal qualifies upon approval of its conditional use
review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends approval of
2
I-3
Conditional Use for a 482 s.f. basement level accessory dwelling
unit for the Patrick residence with the following conditions:
1. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The units
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.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the property, a
copy of the recorded deed restrictions for the accessory dwelling
units must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
3. One parking space shall be provided on -site for the accessory
dwelling unit.
4. 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 Conditional Use for a 482
s.f. basement level accessory dwelling unit within the proposed
Patrick residence at 1365 Mayflower Court with the four conditions
recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 4/21/92.
Attachments: "A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplans, and Elevations
Patrick.adu.memo
K3
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
March 31, 1992
I, Toni McWilliams, hereby certify that on March 31, 1992 a copy of the attached
notice of public hearing for the Longoria Residence, 936 King Street, Aspen,
Colorado, was mailed to the attached list of adjacent property owners.
44�'
Toni McWilliams, Office Manager
SUTHERLAND FALLIN, INC.
Attachments
a
SUTHERLANDTALLINo INC.
Bruce Snnttlinerla nJ, Preoide nt ° Rich ll,J Fafli , Vice e Prernde n4 - Davit Pa nko, ABoociaie
Achiiecttnnre & Planning 0 1280 Utte Avenue ° Aspen, Colo °a& SH614 0 303/925-4252 0 FAX 3(03/925-2 39
PUBLIC NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
/ARE: LONGORIA CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, April 21, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd floor Meeting Room, 130
'r South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by Bruce Sutherland, Sutherland Fallin, 1280 Ute Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado 81611, requesting a conditional use permit for an
attached accessory dwelling unit to be constructed on a proposed
new residence located at 936 King St.
For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/
Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
�,
List of Adjacent Property Owners
Longoria Residence
936 King Street, Aspen, CO
Charles A & Bryce M. Maple
927 Gibson Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Michael W. Morgan
Miriam Elmore Harthill
3649 Austin Road
Brawley, CA 92227
James & Marlene Mickey
927 Gibson Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Ernst Kappeli
P.O. Box 1962
Aspen, CO 81612
Donald William Lamg
Jacquelyn A Kasabach
P.O. Box 4166
Aspen, CO 81612
Howard Isao Hatanaka
Sally Jan O'Neal
980 IGng Street
Aspen, CO 81611
C.L. Astor & Co., A Partnership
981 IGng Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Michael J. GarrM
P.O. Box 621
Aspen, CO 81612
William R. Dunaway
Anne Peterson
Tena D. Farr
c% Anne Peterson Richards Byard
P.O. Box E
35 Locust
Aspen, CO 81611
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Thomas D. Isaac
Ralph L Braden
975 King Street
2 Vine St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen, CO 81611
Edwin C. Vare
Jeffrey S. Shoaf
Darlene DeSedle Vare
113 Neale Avenue
628 Winthrop Avenue
P.O. Box 3123
New Haven, CT 06511
Aspen, CO 81612
PS Productions Ltd. Benefits Pension Plan
Ann Marshall
c/o BGF,L
P.O. Box 10894
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Aspen, CO 81612
Joe L Candreia
Kenneth & Jane Owen
930 Icing Street
P.O. Box 88
Aspen, CO 81611
Chapman Ranch, TX 78347
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Longoria Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory
Dwelling Unit
DATE: April 21, 1992
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use for the
Longoria attached accessory dwelling unit with conditions.
APPLICANT: Ricardo Longoria (Sunnybrook Colorado, Inc.),
represented by Bruce Sutherland
LOCATION: The parcel is at 936 King Street (Parcel A, a part Lots
19,20,21 and 22, Block 14, Hughes Addition, Tract 40.)
ZONING: R-15A
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use
approval to develop a basement level one -bedroom accessory dwelling
unit in conjunction with the demolition/reconstruction of a single
family residence as required by Ordinance 1, the housing
replacement ordinance. Net livable area of the unit will be 691
s.f. as pointed out in an addendum to the application. Please see
Attachment "A" for floorplans and building elevations.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Dave Tolen from the Housing Authority forwarded
concerns about the location of the mechanical room and its
intrusion into the privacy of the ADU. Also, he mentioned that the
exterior access into the ADU bedroom is undesirable. The pathway
to the ADU entrance should be realigned to avoid the spa and
sideyard of the principal residence. (Attachment "B")
STAFF COMMENTS: On the subject property there exists a single
family dwelling which will be demolished prior to construction of
the new 4,649 s.f. house. Ordinance 1 requires replacement
affordable housing or cash -in -lieu for demolition of existing
residences. The applicant is proposing development of an accessory
dwelling unit deed restricted to resident occupancy.
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
ij
proposed to be located.
RESPONSE: As a resident -occupied deed restricted unit, this
apartment will allow the property to house a 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 from the outside.
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: The proposed accessory unit will be completely contained
within the single family residence. A parking space is not
required by code for a studio accessory unit, but staff recommends
that one space for the ADU be designated on the site. The unit
will access the exterior through a below grade patio and stair to
the east side of the house. Planning and Housing staff are
concerned about the configuration of the stairway. As proposed in
the application, the ADU egress leads to the spa and sideyard area
of the site. This detracts from the privacy of both the ADU
occupant and uses of the spa and yard. The stairs and walkway
should be configured to wrap around the corner of the house to be
more directly oriented to the rear yard and parking area.
A more pressing concern of Planning and Housing is that the
mechanical facility for the principal residence is located within
the accessory unit. This prohibits complete independence of the
ADU as a separate dwelling unit. If a fuse blows or the furnace
fails, other persons would have to enter the unit. Staff strongly
recommends that f loorplan be changed so that the mechanical room
is placed centrally within the basement and that access to this
room and the ADU be by separate doorways. Also pointed out by
Housing is that the living area and bedroom of the ADU should be
reversed so that the exterior entrance of the unit occurs into
living space rather than private bedroom. Planning agrees with
this recommendation, especially since the ADU should be redesigned
because of the mechanical room problem.
No other significant impacts are anticipated.
0
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 all ready 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 proposed deed restricted unit will satisfy Ord.1
requirements. 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 al.l-other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and any other applicable conditional use standards.
Section 8-104 l.d. allows the Commission to approve accessory
dwelling units to be exempt from growth management competition.
This proposal qualifies upon approval of its conditional use
review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Off ice recommends approval of
Conditional Uses for the basement level attached accessory dwelling
unit for the Longoria residence with the following conditions:
1. One parking space shall be provided on -site for the accessory
dwelling unit.
2. The mechanical room shall be removed from the accessory dwelling
unit and be provided with separate access from the principal
residence.
3. Exterior access to the accessory unit shall not enter directly
into the bedroom.
4. The exterior stairs and walkway for the accessory unit shall be
reconfigured to avoid the spa and sideyard area of the principal
residence.
03
,9f
5. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The units
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.
6. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the duplex, a copy
of the recorded deed restrictions for the accessory dwelling units
must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
7. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the Conditional Use for a
691 s. f . basement level accessory dwelling unit within the proposed
Longoria residence at 936 King Street with the seven conditions
recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 4/21/92.
Attachments: "A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplans, and Elevations
"B" - Housing Authority Referral Comments
longoria.adu.memo
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Weinberg Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory
Dwelling Unit
DATE: April 21, 1992
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use for the
Weinberg attached accessory dwelling unit with conditions.
APPLICANT: Jay Weinberg, represented by Bruce Sutherland
LOCATION: The parcel is at 715 Meadows Road, Lot 2 Pine Hollow
Subdivision
ZONING: R-15
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use
approval to develop a basement level one -bedroom accessory dwelling
unit in conjunction with the construction of a single family
residence as required by Ordinance 1, the housing replacement
ordinance. Net livable area of the unit will be 625 s.f. as
pointed out in an addendum to the application. Please see
Attachment "A" for floorplans and building elevations.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant plans to build a five bedroom 4,650
s . f . house. Ordinance 1 requires provision of a deed restricted
accessory dwelling unit or cash -in -lieu for new home construction.
The applicant is proposing development of an accessory dwelling
unit deed restricted to resident occupancy. 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: As a resident -occupied deed restricted unit, this
apartment will allow the property to house a 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 separate dwelling from the outside.
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: The proposed accessory unit will be completely contained
within the single family residence. A parking space is not
required by code for a studio accessory unit, but staff recommends
that one space for the ADU be designated on the site. The unit
will access the exterior through a stair to the west side of the
house. Interior access is also shown on the plan.
Planning is concerned that the elevator equipment and laundry
facilities are shown to be accessed through the ADU. The doorways
for these functions can be easily changed to other walls to exclude
them from the ADU. This will allow true privacy for the ADU
occupants. If an alternative laundry facility is available on the
upper levels of the home for the principal residents, the proposed
situation is satisfactory. This must be indicated on the building
permit plans. 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 facilities are all ready in place for the
existing home and neighborhood. Meadows Road will be relocated
slightly to the east as approved by the Meadows SPA Development
Plan approved in June 1991. The driveway for the subject property
must reflect the easement indicated on the Final Plat for the
Meadows SPA.
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 Ord-1
requirements. 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.
2
RESPONSE: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and any other applicable conditional use standards.
Section 8-104 l.d. allows the Commission to approve accessory
dwelling units to be exempt from growth management competition.
This proposal qualifies upon approval of its conditional use
review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends approval of
Conditional Uses for the basement level attached accessory dwelling
unit for the Weinberg residence with the following conditions:
1. One parking space shall be provided on -site for the accessory
dwelling unit.
2. The door for the elevator equipment closet shall be redesigned
to provide access from without the ADU.
3. If there is not another laundry facility in the principal
residence, the doorway configuration to the washer/dryer in the
basement shall be changed to provide access from without the ADU.
4. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The units
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.
5. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the duplex, a copy
of the recorded deed restrictions for the accessory dwelling units
must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
6. 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
625 s.f. basement level accessory dwelling unit within the proposed
Weinberg residence at 715 Meadows Road with the six conditions
recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 4/21/92.
Attachments: "A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplans, and Elevations
3
Ar#cNmrAv1 q /(
ly
i70�� 0
All"
T.,O.
Ke. ' _. 1 T9i:vl /( i_(C��(_ 7,� L..M+bw c•
40
te,
Kmmo p
- FGa•J GF+Y.G._�. + -T ./ 1 _ __ _ �. I I � _'. r.Y/. ( .rll•16 W "-YrI+ r
r-e-w W !' --� I .1.. IG' / ' I \� ; — - - s, �r' -�, CG:a•�N o4..r..0 I __
-4n. 64
Hl
Tir r.T,
-We
V v 'o. 75"la-1 ip,
b 41
4,
LorTt*4#
lz
SITE PLAN
0 TH I' = ic7l
Cz- -
1 ra
-vJ - a,'
ri.-az:v- mj-
1AN r;zc*.
r-f ALFvINE 6LJR-s-evt!,, In
X.Vl NO, F44Aft,
C-C1,41'rZ TO VERIFY AJ-L
ZL-Z\/ -4,IV t-Omry A�rzc�
CERTIFICATE OF SIGN POSTING
April 21, 1992
I, Scott Weinberg, hereby certify that on April 10, 1992 1 posted the hearing
notice .51gn at the Weinberg Residence, 715 Meadows Road, Aspen, Colorado.
Scott Weinberg
SUTHERLANDoFALLINo INC.
Bruce
Suthen4an[nd9
President ° Rnc harJ
Min, Vice Press. nJent o
DaviJ Panic o, AsBoc late
Architecture
& Ha nnnnnng
° 1280 Ute Avenue ue ,
Aspen, ` olora & 816H 0
303/925-4252 0 FAX 303/925-2 39
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
March 31, 1992
I, Toni McWilliams, hereby certify that on March 31, 1992 a copy of the attached
notice of public hearing for the Weinberg Residence, 715 Meadows Road,
Aspen, Colorado, was mailed to the attached list of adjacent property owners.
Toni McVQilliams, Office Manager
SUTHERLAND FALLIN, INC.
Attachments
SUTHERLANDTALLINo INC.
Bruce Suuther6nJ,
PresnJent RncharJ
Fal n, Vice PresnJent °
Davi l ll a nnc o, Associate
Architecture & Ha nunnng
0 R280 U4e Adeunuue °
Aspen, Colorado 816RI °
303/925=4 252 ° FAX 303/925-2 39
PUBLIC NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
RE: WEINBERG CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, April 21, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd floor Meeting Room, 130
South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by Bruce Sutherland, Sutherland Fallin, 1280 Ute Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado 81611, requesting a conditional use permit for an
attached accessory dwelling unit to be constructed on a proposed
new residence located at 715 Meadows Rd., Lot 2, Pine Hollow
Subdivision.
For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/
Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
sliasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
List of Adjacent Property Owners
Weinberg Residence
715 Meadows, Road, Aspen, CO
Stanley & Sandra Heller
Alan & Dee Robin
1535 Stone Canyon Rd.
Los Angeles, CA 90077
Joan Gantzel
705 Meadows Road
Aspen, CO 81611
Larry J. & Deborah Hoffman
1221 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
David Duncan
Jane Coventry
c!o John D. LaSalle
675 Meadows Road
Aspen, CO 81611
Elizabeth & John Hollenbeck
4200 E. Cedar Ave.
Denver, CO 80222
George J.M. & Harriet Howe Kelly
37 Polo Club Circle
Denver, CO 80209
Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies
100 N. Third Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Savanah Limited Partnership
600 E. Cooper #202
Aspen, CO 81611
AFFIDAVIT FOR POSTING OF SIGN
AT 777 CASTLE CREEK DRIVE
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
I, Douglas P. Allen, upon oath depose and say that I posted a sign at 777 Castle Creek
Drive on April 4, 1992, giving public notice of date, time, and place of the public hearing in
regard to an accessory dwelling unit, a photographpLwhich is attached hereto.
P. Allen
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this i day of April, 1992, by Douglas P. Allen.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: 9/24/92
t
Notary Public
Address: 530 E. Main, Aspen, CO 81611
W21o.04072
April 14, 1992
Larry Fredrick
52 McSkimimng
Aspen, Co. 81611
Kim Jmhnsom
Aspen Plexnning and Zoning
130 S. B�lena
Aspen, Co~ 81.611
Re: Patrick-- conditional mse revitz--vv.
Lot 4 WormdelI Subdivision
As an adjacent homeownern and full tiooe. r-esidlent, I have no
objection to a 5ingle family unit being built on lot 4,.
do objEH:t 1:0 an additiomaI --ecessiory dwelling unit bei�.ng all«»vwed.
Mavfoliw,ar Court is a.
dead. end dirt
rckad= AP-ddinq
an additional
from three to four units. This
will alscn imcrease
d.g s1C.
y eu proportional amount.
AlIowinq addit�mrtakl
living
units, reguard-less of
their size will
impact the area
even more.
If you aDow aWditimmal livimg unlitss Umgits) in
this cu.1-de-satc the total living units could eventually total
eight seyperate living units. That would mean an increased ioxpcact
of This is assumming that
lot 5 canmot tb*e developed as we ll ~
To allow such an -impaact to this
neighborhood
in. eff«ect you.change
the zoning
to ome of du�lexs
rather than single family
units~
This
is nolt-hing more than a
bareauratic way '!L:o bring
back b::Indit
un-its leagaIlyt5 when just a
short while ago they were considered
a blight on the community~
The idea that the acesssory unit could be re-S-tricted to long
term rental is encouraging, however silly~ Given the
LPu.reaucracy required to enforce it , abuse is but a simp�e
matter~ Pet-somaI experience in this neighborhood in attempts to
control short ter-m remtals has been a of my time tr'yinO
to get the system to wof-k. I don't forsxse anything in the fu�ure
t�at would make the sysstem wo�k amy bcst�er.
Given the
Iike atmosphere within
the city government
for low c-ost
�alc es�ory Owelling umits Z havi?
no doUbt
my
arguments
wilI have lit -tie effect and. be passed off aS jus�
another NIMBY.
Tha� i� indee� sad �� I will
h�ve �o
�ea1 **�flh
the impact
of increased noisen dust, tr�f�icr
loose and noisy
pets, et-c~.
On�e- tbe impact is incmrred t-here
will be
no way to
cor-rect it
in the fmture. If it were not for
NIMBY's
ju�t
imagine what Aspen could have become?
Unfortunate.1y I wUD be out of town during the hearing on April
21St. I �hop*e le,te�- will express my discontent with
the acessory dwelling unit concept.
Sincerel
�,vrr�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: William Ranch AH Zone Project - Worksession #2
DATE: April 21, 1992
The Williams Ranch project was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission in a worksession setting on February 18, 1992. Staff
presented several areas of concern in a memo of that same date.
During the worksession, discussion fell into the following
categories: applicability of affordable housing at this location,
access, housing mix and resident occupancy restrictions, timing of
construction of affordable units, and open space. Attached is a
summary of that first worksession meeting. Since P&Z's meeting,
the applicant sought a worksession with City Council. Council
however declined in favor of having the Commission work through
preliminary issues with the applicant. This second worksession was
scheduled to review the project as amended since February 18. The
applicant seeks P&Z comments prior to going to the drawing board
to develop the actual plan for submission.
The applicant's design team has submitted a revised site plan
(attached) which attempts to address the concerns expressed in
February. Please refer to the blueline print and letter from Gary
Wright. This revised plan retains access from three points:
Smuggler Road, Spruce Street, and through the Centennial complex
via Brown Lane. Overall density has been reduced by 10%. They
have proposed 17 employee lots at 4,500 s.f. each and 2 resident
occupied lots. The townhome configuration has changed to 4 -
fourplexes. The proposed deed restrictions are: four Category 1,
six Category 2, and six Category 3 units. Fifteen free market lots
are shown,
Staff believes that this proposal makes good headway with the P&Z's
concerns regarding housing types, categories, and blend of lot
sizes and locations to reduce the perception of an affordable
housing "ghetto". It is noted that for the most part, the open
spaces still lack suitable size for family -oriented users. The
largest area indicated (to the left of the townhomes) is
approximately 16,000 s.f. or .38 acre. The layout of the
fourplexes seems somewhat rigid, but as indicated by the applicant
this plan is very schematic in nature and will evolve further
before actual plan submission.
Regarding access, the applicant has indicated during conversations
with staff that the Spruce Street access is still being reviewed
for legal access. They still firmly believe that this project may
utilize Spruce Street and have included lot access onto Spruce for
three of the free market lots. The applicant has met with County
staff in a pre -application conference for 1041 Review of the
Smuggler Road access improvements. At this point, the 1041 Review
has not been scheduled before the County P&Z. According to Gary
Wright in his April 14, 1992 letter, there appears to be little
problem using the repository site from the point of view of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
cc: Dave Tolen, Housing Authority
Suzanne Konchan, Director of County Planning
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Summary of February 18, 1992 Workshop
Williams Ranch Affordable Housing Subdivision
Attached is the 2/18/92 Planning memorandum outlining three main
issues for the Commission's consideration. The following notes
summarize the Commission's comments on these issues. The
Commission lead into these items with a general discussion of the
appropriateness of affordable housing at this location. The
majority of the Commission "feels good" about a project of this
type mixing affordable housing with free market housing
development. Specific comments include: "housing for locals is
preferred", "need small freestanding units with little yards,
sidewalks", "this plan is not interesting or creative",, "positive
that the private developer is doing affordable housing", "this area
has absorbed an inordinate amount of the City's affordable
housing".
Specific to the issues outlined in the staff memo, the comments
were:
Access: In summary, the Commissioners were skeptical of the
workability of the Smuggler Road proposal. Concerns were the
steep, tight configuration of lower Smuggler Road, the pedestrian
and bike use of the same roadway, and the link to Park Ave. which
is problematic due to the Smuggler intersection and constraints of
lower Park Ave. Strengthening the mass transit to the employee
units was emphasized. RFTA service to Brown Lane within
Centennial, and a transit coalition of residents in Centennial,
Williams Woods, Hunter Creek and this project was suggested.
Walking a quarter mile with groceries is not reasonable to expect
of locals or free market owners ( free market people probably won't
use the bus no matter how close it is.)
Two neighbors spoke up about the proposed Spruce St. access. One
reasserted that this project does not have access rights above
Spruce St. and would object to any increased traffic on Spruce.
The other stated that people do not respect the no parking signs
on Spruce now, not enough people in Hunter Creek use the bus, and
upper Spruce shouldn't be paved.
Housing Mix: Dave Tolen of the Housing Authority noted that the
Housing Authority Board wanted to see fewer category 1 and 2 units
and only one or two Resident Occupied townhomes in this project.
Their concern was that the units would loose affordability. The
general consensus of the Commission was that a wide range of
housing types must be provided including Resident Occupied
opportunities. A "neighborhood feel" was stressed as important to
a project of this type. Small lots for local's housing was
discussed.
Timing of the Affordable Units: The Commission recognized the
importance of when the affordable units come on-line in relation
to the free market component of the project. It was suggested that
certain free market lots could be held in escrow by the City until
portions of restricted housing were completed.
Open Space: It was pointed out that the open spaces as proposed
were small and disjointed, therefore ineffective. A PUD overlay
would allow for clustering of structures and improvements to open
space.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning
DATE: February 18, 1992
RE: Williams Ranch AH Development Site Visit and Worksession
Introduction: This project is the subject of an annexation
application which will be heard at the March 9, 1992 City Council
meeting. A public hearing is scheduled on March 17 before the
Planning Commission on the zoning of this parcel to AH Affordable
Housing. Prior to the Commission's formal consideration of zoning
to AH, the applicant and staff would like to discuss the
development concept currently being considered by the applicant.
This workshop setting will give the project team a better feel for
issues important to the Commission before discussions in a public
hearing forum.
Project Description: The site is approximately 12.7 acres located
on the bench and hillside above the Centennial multi -family housing
project. Please see attached application package for location
information and conceptual site plan / subdivision layout. The
parcel is currently in the County with R-15 PUD and AF-1 zoning.
The applicant requests zoning the land to AH Affordable Housing,
which allows a mix of up to 30% of the units to be free market,
exempt from growth management competition. The proposal consists
of affordable housing in the form of 34 townhouses (1,2,3 and 4
bedrooms, at categories 1,2 and resident occupancy) and four single
family lots (resident occupancy). The free market component
consists of 16 single family lots.
Surrounding land uses include the 140 unit Centennial employee
housing complex to the west and south, the Smuggler Mine to the
southeast, 3-4 large lot residences to the north, and undeveloped
open space up the mountain to the east.
The plan calls for three access points via upper Spruce Street,
through the middle area of the Centennial complex, and from lower
Smuggler Road.
Worksession Issues: For this worksession, staff has prepared the
following list of the issues that we have considered regarding this
site and the proposed development:
Roadway access: The access issue is of importance because of the
proposed densities. Three access points are delineated to disperse
ingress and egress throughout the surrounding neighborhoods and to
provide looped roadways to facilitate emergency access. For the
Spruce Street access serving the single family lots, the applicant
has indicated that an access easement exists from the end of upper
Spruce and along the northern boundary of the Centennial site.
Staff has received comments from two neighbors who use this access
easement. They assert that the Williams Ranch property has no
right to this easement. The applicant is seeking an opinion from
the City Attorney regarding the wording of this easement document
and whether it gives access rights to the proposed development.
The Centennial access is proposed through the center of the complex
at the upper end of the Teal Court parking area. The Williams
Ranch parcel has a non-specific access easement through Centennial.
Staff is concerned that the traffic for the multi -family portion
of Williams Ranch is drawn through the parking lot of an existing
dense residential project. The applicant is urged to consider
other location options within the allowances of the Centennial
access easement.
The Smuggler Road access is shown coming off of the third
switchback on lower Smuggler road. The applicant is seeking access
easements across the upper portion of the County owned Molly Gibson
Park. An obvious concern of staff is that the park is designated
as the EPA repository for contaminated mine soils. The proposed
road is above the actual containment area but still within the EPA
site. The Smuggler Mine is upslope from the park. According to
the applicant, access across the bench through the park land is
sought to reduce visual impact of a road cut. They state that the
land on Smuggler Mine property is more sloped and would result in
a larger, more unsightly road cut.
Bud Eylar, the County Engineer has indicated that the Board of
County Commissioners will discuss the Smuggler Road access at a
worksession on March 2, 1992. The issues to be discussed are the
following: 1) use of County park land for access to a residential
development; 2) use of lower Smuggler Road by the proposed
residential densities and the road's substandard grades and
switchback radii; 3) Smuggler Road as a designated scenic roadway
and limitations on improving it to levels required by proposed
development; 4) increased use of Smuggler Road (and any potential
improvements) may spur development pressure on Smuggler Mountain.
Additionally, if access through the park is found not to be an
option, the County must determine what level of access is allowed
by right through the Smuggler Mine property.
Housing types and restriction categories: The total estimated
population of this proposal is 148 residents, with approximately
92 generated by the employee units. The Housing Authority Board
has discussed the proposal and has made recommendations to the
applicant and staff. Their major concerns were the high density
as proposed and the need to create quality housing for families.
The Board suggested that the applicant provide category 4 lots for
single family and/or duplexes. They were not in favor of creating
more than one or two resident occupied lots. They also expressed
E
.f V,
that fewer category-1 townhouses be included in the mix, and that
they were not very interested in townhouses restricted to resident
occupancy. Planning staff believes that the current configuration
acts to segregate employee housing into the townhouses. The
applicant feels that providing a majority of category 1 and 2 units
is the most appropriate for current market demands.
Dave Tolen from the Housing Authority will be present at the
worksession.
Open Space and visual impacts: The AH zone requires that open
space for building sites is established by special review. As
proposed, staff believes that this project lacks open space in
tracts large enough to be viable activity areas for the intended
family users. This is especially true considering the affordable
units are relatively dense townhome clusters. Staff likes the
concept of placing parking behind the multi -family buildings which
gives open exposure to the south. The application states that the
project will be working to develop links to the existing tails
system. The Salvation Ditch runs through the parcel and is shown
to be manipulated into a water feature within the townhome area.
The townhomes are clustered on the fairly flat bench in the lower
portion of the Williams Ranch development. The topography rises
as steeply as 26% upslope from the townhomes. The 20 proposed
single family lots are fanned out behind and to the sides of the
townhomes. Staff is concerned that maximum buildout of these lots
will create a visual "wall" along the hillside, being very visible
from downtown. It is recommended that clustering lots and varied
setbacks around open spaces be considered to reduce the "wall"
effect.
Other concerns: Staff has proposed that the applicant strongly
consider requesting a PUD overlay along with the rezoning to AH.
This would allow for a list of variations, including building
envelope setbacks especially applicable to the single family lots.
As this is the second private sector AH project with a deed
restricted/free market mix, attention should be given to the issue
of timing of the affordable components. The AH zone language in
the Code is silent on this subject. Options might be (but are not
limited to) tying issuance of building permits of free market homes
to deed restricted building permits on a percent phasing, tying
restricted building permits to free market lot sales on a phased
basis, holding free market lots as security for affordable
development, or developing all deed restricted housing up front.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission discuss the
development concepts of this project in order that the applicants
readdress the proposal in light of the Commission's areas of
concern.
3