Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19920505 ,-~ AGENDA ================================================================== ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 5, 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), Leslie Lamont B. Penn Conditional Use Review for a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont C. Patterson Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling unit and Final PUD, Kim Johnson D. Text Amendment Revising PUD Requirements, section 7-902, Leslie Lamont E. Johnston Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, Kim Johnson IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Johnston Hallam Bluff ESA Review, Kim Johnson B. Zele (Ryanco) Special Review for Use of Open Space, Kim Johnson V. ADJOURN --- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Christensen, Planning Office RE: Upcoming Meetings DATE: April 30, 1992 This is a list of your scheduled upcoming meetings. Regular Meeting, May 19th * Crestahaus Employee Triplex, GMQS Exemption (KJ) * Caribou Club Outdoor Dining Special Review for Open Space (KJ) Regular Meeting, June 2nd * Aspen Savings & Loan Conditional Use (PH) (KJ) a.nex MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Text Amendment for Sections 24-7-902, Development DATE: May 5, 1992 Planned Unit --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant seeks to amend the Land Use Code to remove a residential duplex development from the Planned Unit Development review. In 1990 the City Council directed staff to eliminate the necessity for a duplex to go through the two-step Planned Unit Development review process as required in the Land Use Code. APPLICANT: Dan Patterson, as represented by Don Huff APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Amend Section 24-7-902, Planned Unit Development STAFF COMMENTS: In 1990, staff was directed to reduce the development review burden for a residential duplex by eliminating the PUD review requirement. Currently the development of a duplex on a parcel with a mandatory PUD overlay must go through a two- step PUD review process. Council and staff have concluded that no public benefit is gained through this level of review for a duplex structure. However, additional review may be required depending upon parcel location, whether Ordinance 1 is applicable or other development considerations e.g. 8040 Greenline Review, Stream Margin Review etc. Following are the proposed text changes (bold indicates proposed language): I. That Article 7, Division 9, Section 24-7-902 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: Section 7-902 Applicability. Before any development shall occur on land designated planned unit development (PUD) on the official zone district map or before development can occur as a planned unit development (PUD) , it shall receive PUD approval pursuant to the terms of the division, provided that in no event shall compliance with this division be required for the construction of a detached or duplex residential dwelling on a separate lot. All land with a planned unit development (PUD) designation shall also be designated with an underlying zone district designation which is determined most appropriate for that land. A development application for a planned unit development may be applied for by the property owners of any proposed development in the City of Aspen that is on a parcel of land greater than twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet. A planned unit development (PUD) designation may be applied to land intended for residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the following standards of review apply for a text amendment: a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any portions of this chapter. b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address this type of code amendment. However, the 1992 Draft Community Plan purposes to de-emphasize regulation of residential development. The Housing Sub -committee has challenged the regulations to be more user friendly to reduce development costs. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: This text amendment will not eliminate other required development review that may apply to duplex and single family residential development alike. Most areas of town that are zoned with a PUD overlay are adjacent to water ways, on steep slopes or above the 8040 Greenline which require a separate review for these Environmentally Sensitive Areas. d . The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The amendment will not affect traffic or roads. 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 proposed amendment will not affect the demand on public facilities or cause a negative impact on the capacity of the community's facilities. 2 f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: Potential environmental impacts would be assessed on a site by site basis (e.g. stream margin, 8040 Greenline) by a separate review independent of a required PUD review. g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: A recent legal interpretation determined that the slope density reduction criteria in the PUD review section of the Land Use Code cannot reduce the density from a duplex to a single family home if a duplex is a permitted use on the site. Eliminating PUD review for a duplex will not cause a development that is not allowed on the parcel. h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: This is a text amendment that will affect all duplex development on parcels with a PUD overlay. i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: The amendment is consistent with recent Council goals to reduce redundant development review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to Council approval of this Code Amendment-. to Section 24-7-902 of the Municipal Code finding that the proposed Code Amendment is not in conflict with the Land Use Code or public interest. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to recommend to City Council approval of the text amendment for Section 24-7-902 as proposed in Planning office memo dated May 5, 1992 finding that the proposed amendment is not in conflict with the Land Use Code or public interest. 3 t.. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Text Amendment for Sections 24-3-101, 24-5-208 and 24- 8-104 Affecting the Affordable Housing Zone District DATE: May 5, 1992 SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council have directed staff to amend the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District. The amendment would enable the development of free market commercial square footage and a parking garage within the AH Zone District. The Commission tabled review of these amendments, at their March 17, 1992 meeting, to give staff more time to work on the amendments and the Commission another opportunity to review the -proposal. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has participated in numerous worksessions with the Commission and Council regarding the rezoning of the Kraut property to AH Zone District. As part of those discussions, the concept of a mixed -use development was considered. As a result, staff has proposed to amend the AH Zone District, for those parcels that are within the commercial or office zone districts, to allow up to 40% of the total square footage to be free market commercial and residential development with a minimum of 60% of the total square footage as deed restricted dwelling units. Following are the proposed text changes (bold indicates proposed language) : I. That Article 3, DEFINITIONS, Section 3-101 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: Mixed -use development means a combination of residential and commerical/off ice land uses in one structure or structures on one parcel. II. That Article 5, Division 2, Section 24-5-208 of the Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: Section 5-208 Affordable housing (AH) A. Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District is to provide for the use of land for the production of low, moderate and middle income affordable housing and Resident Occupied Units. The zone district also permits a limited component of free market dwelling units or commercial square footage to off -set the cost of developing affordable housing. It is contemplated that land may also be subdivided in connection with a development plan. The Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District is intended for residential use primarily by permanent residents of the Community. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. To promote mixed -use development within the commerical core, sites within the commerical and office zone districts may be considered for rezoning to Affordable Housing for a mixed -use development. For those mixed -use projects, in the commercial and office zone districts, a mandatory PUD overlay is required to establish appropriate dimensional requirements that are consistent with the commercial and office zone districts. Lands in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District should be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by its working residents; at the same time the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District can protect the City's neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other non - community oriented zone districts may produce. Further, lands in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District should be located within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit routes. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District. 1. Residential uses in residential zone districts restricted to low, moderate and middle income affordable housing guidelines and resident occupied units as determined in the Affordable Housing guidelines must comprise at least 70 percent of -the unit mix, of the development. Free market residential development may comprise up to 30 percent of the unit mix and 40 percent of the bedroom mix of the development. Residential uses may be comprised of single-family, duplex and multi- family dwelling units; 2. Residential uses in a mixed -use development deed restricted to low, moderate and middle income affordable housing and resident occupied units as determined in the Affordable Housing guidelines must comprise at least 60 percent of the total square footage of the development. Free market residential development must be combined with commercial/office development and shall not exceed 40 percent of the total square footage of the development. 3. Home occupations; and 2 44 4. Accessory buildings and uses. C. Conditional uses. Free market commercial development, which may include free market residential development, shall not exceed 40 percent of the total square footage of a mixed -use development. Parking for on -site users or parking approved as an essential public facility pursuant to Section 8-104 C (1) (b) shall be excluded from the total square footage of the free market commercial/off ice and free . market residential development. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in Affordable Housing (AH) Zone Districts located within the commercial or office zone districts and are subject to the standards and procedures established in Art. 7, Div. 3. 1. Drug Store 2. Food Store with limited customer seating not to exceed ten seats and not to include waitservice 3. Liquor store 4. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up station S. Barber -shop 6.. Beauty shop 7. Post office branch 8. Record store 9. T.V. sales and repair shop 10. Shoe repair shop 11. Video rental and sale shop 12. Laundromat 13. Garden shop 14. Hardware store 15. Business and professional office 16. parking garage 17. open use recreation site 91 18. day care center 19. satellite dish antennae 20. dormitory D. Residential dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District in residential zone districts within the City of Aspen. 1. Minimum lot size (sq.ft.): 3,000 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (sq.ft.): Detached residential dwelling: 3,000 Duplex: 1,500 For multi -family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 sq. ft. or less or for lots of 43,560 s.f. or less when approved by special review pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4, the following sq. ft. requirements apply: studio: 300 1 bedroom: 400 2 bedroom: 800 3 bedroom: 11200 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one (1) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area. For multi -family dwellings on a lot of more than 27,000 sq. ft. (except when varied by Special Review) the following sq. ft. requirements apply: studio: 11000 1 bedroom: 1,250 2 bedroom: 21100 3 bedroom: 31630 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (ft.): 30 4. Minimum front yard (ft.): principal building: 10 accessory building: 15 5. Minimum side yard (ft.): The minimum side yard for single-family and duplex dwellings is 0 ft. for each side yard; 15 ft. total minimum for both side yards. (Minimum side yard shall be 5' for yards which are contiguous to any zone district other than Affordable Housing.) The minimum side yard for multi -family dwellings shall be 5 feet. 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to Council approval of this Code Amendment to Section 24-3-101, 24-5-208 and 8-104 of the Municipal Code finding that the proposed Code Amendment is not in conflict with the Land Use Code or public interest and that the amendment is consistent with the Goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Draft 1992 Community Plan and will not cause negative effects upon the downtown business area. If the Commission has substantive changes to the amendment, staff recommends tabling the amendment for further review and discussion by the Commission and staff. 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Penn Conditional Use Review DATE: May 5, 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to remodel a single family home and remodel the detached carriage house providing an approximately 307 square foot (net liveable), accessory dwelling unit. Staff recommends approval of conditional use for a detached accessory dwelling unit. APPLICANT: Susan and Paul Penn as represented by Jake Vickery LOCATION: 134 East Bleeker, Aspen ZONING: R-6 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To provide a detached studio accessory dwelling unit. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Engineering - Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. 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 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. 2. Right-of-way - the new driveway cannot exceed ten feet in width and requires an excavation permit for construction. In addition, any other design considerations of development within public right- of-way must be approved by either the streets department, the engineering department or the parks department. Landscaping shall be provided in the public right-of-way adjoining the building site in accordance with.the adopted street landscaping plan. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. The construction drawings submitted for permit must have provisions for maintaining all but historical storm run-off on site, i.e. drywells. 2. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way. Housing - Having reviewed and the plans and made a site visit the Housing Authority has the following comments: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall submit floor plans and elevations of the carriage house accurately describing the layout and living space of the unit for Housing Authority approval. 2. applicant shall record a standard deed restriction for an accessory dwelling unit. 3. The unit is just barely over the minimum size for a studio unit, the Housing Authority staff strongly recommends that if acceptable to the HPC and planning office, an exterior deck on the west elevation should be provide for a more adequate dwelling unit. 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 307 square feet on the second floor of the existing detached carriage house. The applicant will comply with the Housing Guidelines and deed restrict the unit 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. In addition the applicant is converting an existing detached carriage housing which is consistent with the goals of the Cottage Infill program. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and RESPONSE: Cottage Infill was a program designed with the West End in mind. This carriage house is on the alley and will be the second type of accessory dwelling unit on this alley. The provision of the accessory dwelling unit in the carriage house will not increase the size of the building unless the applicant extends a second floor balcony to provide an outdoor amenity. However any OA exterior changes to the carriage house will be reviewed by the HPC for historic compatibility. 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 accessory dwelling unit will have no adverse effect upon surrounding properties. The carriage house will continue to appear.the same. although the unit is only 307 square feet of net liveable a site visit confirmed that the unit is very liveable. To help offset the small unit size staff is strongly recommending the provision of a second floor balcony to provide some private outdoor space for the tenants thus enhancing the liveability of the unit. 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 protec- tion, 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 a 307 square foot accessory dwelling unit with three parking spaces. 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 detached accessory dwelling unit. with the following conditions prior to the issuance of any building permits: 1. The applicant shall submit the appropriate deed restriction 3 to the Housing Authority for approval. 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. Upon approval by the Housing Authority, the applicant shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's office. 2. A copy of the recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit must be forwarded to the Planning Office. 3. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way. 4. The applicant shall submit floor plans and elevations of the carriage house accurately describing the layout and living space of the unit for Housing Authority approval. 5. The construction drawings submitted for permit must have provisions for maintaining all but historical storm run-off on site, i.e. drywells and must be reviewed by the Engineering Department. 6. All representations that are made in the application and those reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be complied with. ,� LIU�i AC ATTACHMENTS: Site Plan 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Patterson Duplex PUD Final Development Plan and Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit - Public Hearing DATE: May 5, 1992 SUMMARY: The Planning Off ice recommends approval of the Patterson Duplex Final PUD Plan and Conditional Use for an attached accessory dwelling unit with conditions. APPLICANT: Dan Patterson, represented by Don Huff LOCATION: 580 Cemetery Lane (Lot 2 Castle Creek Subdivision) The lot is 54,256 s.f., extending from Cemetery Lane down to Castle Creek. ZONING: R-30 PUD - APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Final PUD approval for expansion of a duplex and Conditional Use for the voluntary creation of an accessory dwelling unit. A duplex currently exists on the site. The applicant wishes to expand the structure and reconfigure the internal layout so that the new expansion becomes one unit of the duplex and a portion of the existing building becomes an accessory dwelling unit. The accessory dwelling unit will be approximately 642 s.f. Because the ADU is 100o above grade, the applicant is eligible for, and is seeking a FAR bonus of 250 s.f. for the principal structure. The total FAR for the proposed building will be approximately 7,328 s.f. The applicant has submitted plan and elevation drawings. See Attachment "A". PROCESS: This PUD review is a two-step process. The Planning Commission shall make a determination on the Conditional Use for the accessory dwelling unit and shall forward a recommendation to City Council on the Final PUD Plan. Council will then approve or deny the PUD Plan as well as the request for condominiumization of the duplex. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "B" Environmental Health: The new half duplex has two fireplaces shown on the plans. These may only be gas log units. Engineering: Chuck Roth has reviewed the proposal and forwards the following comments: 1) Site Drainage must comply with Section 24-7-1004 C. 4 . f . of the Municipal Code. Historic on -site drainage shall be maintained. Roof and other drainage cannot be discharged on to the hillside causing erosion. Storm drainage during construction should be controlled with haybales to prevent erosion and disruption of vegetation. 2) The Final Plan must clearly indicate the size and location of parking spaces. 3) In order to protect vegetation, construction activities could be restricted to building footprint with use of fencing. 4 ) Cemetery Lane is identified as a primary commuter route in the Pedestrian Bikeway Plan. The property owner should construct a sidewalk area (not required to be paved), the design of which approved by the Engineering Department. Some small trees may need to be removed. The improvement should be in place prior to signing the final inspection or final plat for condominiumization. Also, a curb, gutter, and sidewalk agreement must be signed by the applicant for future improvements. 5) Any work in the public right-of-way must be reviewed by Engineering and receive permits from the Streets Department. 6) A 41x4' pedestal easement must be indicated on the plat. STAFF COMMENTS: In the summer of 1990, the Patterson's received a Planning Director's approval to expand a single family dwelling into a duplex and to establish a Final PUD Plan, as there was'not one existing prior to that time. The current request will amend the Final PUD Plan and will require filing of the new site plan. The Pattersons wish that the duplex be condominiumized. Council will hear this request when they consider the PUD Plan amendment. In 1990, staff processed a PUD Plan proposed for a duplex on Park Ave. At that time, the City Council expressed that it was excessive to require duplexes to go through a two-step review for PUD. They instructed staff to look into removing this requirement from the Land Use Code in the same manner that single family homes are exempt from PUD review. The Patterson application has triggered staff to concurrently process a code amendment exempting duplexes from PUD requirements. This code amendment is being presented to P&Z and Council under a separate memo and ordinance. FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Section 7-903 describes the development review process for projects with PUD designation. The General Requirements are: 2 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 duplex 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 is voluntary and 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Patterson Duplex Final PUD Development Plan and Conditional Use for an above -grade, 624 s. f . accessory dwelling unit with the following conditions: PUD: 1.- Prior to the sale of either unit, a condominium plat must be filed which meets the requirements of Section 24-7-1004 D of the municipal code. 2. Prior to signing the final plat, a site drainage plan meeting the requirements of Section 24-7-1004 C.4.f and be prepared by a registered engineer must be provided and constructed. 3. Hay bales or other techniques shall be employed during construction in order to prevent erosion of the hillside, and a debris fence shall be installed during construction to prevent damage to existing vegetation outside of the work area. Q 4. The final plat shall indicate a 41x4' utility pedestal easement. No utility pedestals shall be installed in the public right-of-way. 5. Prior to signing of final plat, or prior to final inspection of the construction, the applicant shall construct yomr- p-r-o-v-i-de- ffinancial assu-ran- f-or- construct r- C _ __ I - - `sidewalk area as approved by the City Engineers an` ''`s' iall `sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement. 6. A Final PUD Plan (including building elevations) and PUD Agreement shall be submitted to the City, approved as to form by the City Attorney, and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval. Any revisions to the recorded development plan shall be processed through the Planning Office. Conditional Use for ADU: 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. One parking space shall be provided on -site for the accessory dwelling unit. 10. 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. 11. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to City Council approval of the Patterson Duplex Final PUD Development Plan with conditions numbered 1-6 in Planning Office memo dated 5/5/92. I also move to approve the Conditional Use for a 624 s.f. attached accessory dwelling unit for the Patterson Duplex at 580 Cemetery Lane with �J:-jy 5, 1992 Planning and Zoning Committee, I, Uan Patterson, do solemnly swear that I have sent notice concerning PUD review for an attached accessory dwelling unit at 580 Cemetery Lane to all owners of property within 300 feet of my property. Notice was mailed 10 days prior to the hearing. Pan Patterson PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT + �r , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION • MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C7� Date: April 16, 1992 Re: Patterson Final PUD, Condominiumization & Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. Site drainage - Site drainage is required to meet Section 24-7-1004 C.4.f of the municipal code. No storm runoff is permitted to enter the irrigation system. The site drainage plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site, particularly regarding possible drainage onto Cemetery Lane. The plan must also provide that roof and other drainage not be discharged onto the hillside and cause hillside erosion. Construction activities should be protected, as with hay bales for example, so that storm runoff during construction is not conveyed to Castle Creek and so that the hillside and its native vegetation are not subjected to erosion. 2. Parkin - The final plat must clearly indicate the size and location of parking spaces. 3. Existing vegetation_ - It is suggested that construction procedures be restricted to minimizing disturbance to hillside vegetation. Construction activities could be restricted to the building footprint. It is suggested that fencing be provided during construction so that no debris or excavation spills damage existing vegetation. 4. Pedestrian Bikeway Plan - The system map on page 1-20A indicates Cemetery Lane as a Primary (commuter) route. Currently there are no sidewalks on Cemetery Lane, but pedestrian areas are definitely needed. Therefore it is our recommendation that the property owner be required to construct a sidewalk area in all regards except the installation of the concrete, which could be done if the property owner so desired. The sidewalk area design would need to be approved by the engineering department. It should not be directly adjacent to the pavement lest it become utilized for parking. The removal of some small caliper trees may be needed and others pruned up to 7' above the walking area to permit pedestrian use of the space. The design would need to be approved by engineering department. The pedestrian improvement would need to be in place prior .o signing of the final plat, or prior to the final inspection for the new construction, or TDe location of this dwelling close to city facilities and on the bus route, provides the potential for the residents to get to downtown without using a car. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I, Cyndi Beauchamp, being duly sworn, state that, on March 311 1992, I mailed, by first class postage prepaid, a Notice to Adjacent Property Owners, regarding Johnston Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, for the property described as Lot 2, Merriam Subdivision. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31st day of March 1992, by Deborah R. Pease. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public 1 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 3031925-4755 FACSIMILE 3031920-2950 April 20, 1992 Leslie Lamont Aspen City Planner Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Leslie: Please find attached: 1. Public Notice RE: 134 East Bleeker Penn Conditional Use Review Hearing, 5/22/92 Before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 2. Mailing list of property owners within 300 feet of 134 East Bleeker. certify that the above mentioned Public Notice was mailed to the above mentioned mailing list on Monday, April 20, 1992. Sincerely, a *1Jake Vickery Project Architect Enclosures: Public Notices, Mailing List PUBLIC NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS RE: PENN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 5, 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 and Paul Penn, represented by Jake Vickery, Bill Poss & Associatas, 605 East Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611, requesting a conditional use review for a detached accessory dwelling unit. Property location: Lot S and the Easterly 15 feet of Lot R, Block 65, Township 10 South, Range 84 West, Section 7, also known as 134 East Bleeker. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/ Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090. s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT "' i"' , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION M E M O R A N D U M TO: Kim Johnson, City Planner FROM: rueding, City Zoning Officer DATE: A ril 9, 1992 SUBJECT: ZELLIt- GODIVA BUILDING As.I recall, this building competed in the growth. management process and contained a restaurant space. They were charged for employee mitigation and trash areas. They later amended their GMP application to replace the restaurant with retail space and, thus, about $40,000 was returned and the trash area reduced. They also amended their landscape plan to include the benches which were never put in place. They may need to amend their landscape plan. Tables or benches outside for commercial use would be prohibited in this open space unless adjacent to a restaurant, which I assume this will not be. If they prepared and served food inside, we would have to look at the use. Stoves, hood vents, seating, etc., would trigger a look. MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, City Planner From: Roxanne Ef lin, Historic Preservation officer k---. Re: 121 S. Galena - outside seating Date: April 6, 1992 The outside seating request for 121 S. Galena requires a Minor Development review approval by the HPC. An application must be completed which shall include the review fee of $100. The item will be scheduled at the first HPC meeting possible following receipt of a complete application. Generally, the HPC looks upon pedestrian/street activity as positive, provided the street furniture is compatible in character to the Commercial Core Historic District, and generally meets the guidelines. Plastic has not been approved in the past. Material quality is a large consideration. I see no problem with this application in general design terms, provided the applicable Development Review Standards are met. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT ' APPROVED , § 3-101 ASPEN CODE 19 BY RESOLUTION exercise room, playground and playfield activity center or club house. A recreation club may include kitchen facilities, bathing and toilet facilities, locker facilities and halls for assembly. Remodeling means any act which changes one or more of the exterior architectural features of a structure, designated as a H, Historic Overlay District. Residential use means used or intended for use exclusively for dwelling purposes, but not including hotel or lodge rooms. Resident occupied unit means any dwelling unit which is limited, by deed restriction or other guarantee running with the land, to occupancy (but not to price or income limitations) by qualified employees in Pitkin County, meeting the guidelines or approval of the city coun- cil's housing designee. When considering granting approval to an individual not meeting the guidelines as a qualified employee, the housing designee shall take into account the length of residence of the individual in the community and the place where he or she votes and pays personal income taxes. Restaurant means a commercial eating and drinking establishment where food is pre- pared and served indoors, for consumption on or off premises. A restaurant shall only be permitted to prepare or serve food outdoors, in required open space, when approved by the commission pursuant to Section 3-101, Open Space. A restaurant shall be required to have service delivery access from an alley or other off-street service delivery area. If .the restaurant is located off ground level, it shall have use of an elevator or dumbwaiter for service access. A grocery store or similar establishment which prepares and serves food but which principally sells packaged or nonperishable food and drink shall not be considered a restaurant. Reversed corner lot means a corner lot which is bounded on three (3) sides by streets. Right-of-way means the land on which facilities such as roads, railroads, canals, utilities, and other similar uses exist or may be constructed. Roominghouse means the same as boardinghouse. Satellite dish antenna or satellite radio frequency signal reception and/or transmission device means a dish -shaped or parabolic -shaped reception or transmission device, whose antenna is more than two (2) feet in height and/or "dish" component is more than two (2) feet in diameter, which is used for the reception and/or transmission of satellite signals, including but not limited to television signals, AM radio signals, FM radio signals, telemetry signals, data communications signals or any other reception or transmission signals using free air space as a medium, whether for commercial or private use; provided: A. Area and bulk requirements. The installation of a satellite dish antenna shall not cause a violation of area and bulk requirements within the zone district in which it is located, unless a variance is granted by the board of adjustment. B. Right-of-way. A satellite dish antenna shall not be placed on an easement or in the city right-of-way, unless an encroachment permit is secured. C. Increased danger. The installation of a satellite dish antenna shall not cause any increased danger to neighboring property in the event of collapse or other failure of the antenna structure. Supp. No. 1 1590 60 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 3031925-4755 FACSIMILE 3031920-2950 �X3tt43b'� �j 4`2o�gz l TICE I PUBLIC NOTICE I�NSD�y 2 MEETINGS: p5AW ^COUNitr :11,22,19g2 DATE M1AyIi,1,11 00 pM TIME �''WH. 5:00rm. NALT Go A GIT'NAU CIT7NAU, PLACE' � '�°�F" _ � M" CON5IDERAN 'LIGATION FOR PURPOSE ' PARTIAL 'ANSION To CoNSIDm AN T0GOW61M AN APPLICATIou fop. APPLICATION fart �OT 5 AND °CONDITIONAL U06 '{Apl WM Wi6#4A* REV16 W CDR AN Aaf45olcy FOp THIti PAgw FIfa. 1LY bLOGK 65, 9Wf F& WNIT"f*-rHlS A AT AND TO , _ PAFCi6 uIATLbAT tOfSAND 10 Faf Of tar'R; 51El;KEP, 6T, THr-tWERLy 19fEEfofWT8 black-&9,Crry0P AGM%% BLOCK /n3, CIT7 Of A5PE14, ' 1'3+ EAST uageR 6T. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning RE: Zele Special Review for Use of Open Space DATE: May 5, 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Applicant seeks to place public outdoor seating in the required open space area in the front of the "Godiva" building. Staff recommends approval of the use with, conditions. APPLICANT: Ryanco Partners, LTD. XVI, represented by Roland Parker LOCATION: 121 South Galena, Aspen ZONING: CC - Commercial Core APPLICANT'S REQUEST: According to the sketch submitted in the application, three four -person umbrella tables will be located in the triangular area in front of the lease space formerly occupied by Godiva Chocolate. Please see Exhibit "A". It was explained to staff that the anticipated tenant of the interior space will be a gourmet coffee shop selling whole -bean and brewed coffees, as well as scones baked off -premise. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete comments are attached as Exhibit "B`". Zoning: Bill Drueding stated that the outdoor area currently under consideration was approved for bench seating as part of a Growth Management project when the entire building was proposed. •The benches were not installed. It is pointed out that the original plan called for a restaurant in the space being occupied by Zele. However, the GMP application was amended to exclude restaurant square footage and reduce trash service area. This resulted in a refund of around $40,000 in mitigation fees for employee housing. It must be noted that the space to be occupied by Zele cannot be used as a restaurant (as per the definition of "Restaurant" in the Land Use Code) unless employee mitigation and trash service area is re -studied. Please see Exhibit "C" for definition of "restaurant". In additional conversation with Mr. Drueding, he mentioned that any outdoor signage (on the building or table umbrellas) must comply with the City's sign regulations. Historic Preservation Committee - Roxanne Eflin forwards the following comments: Because the proposal is in the Commercial Core Historic District, the HPC must review the proposal as a Minor Development. Generally, the HPC looks positively upon pedestrian/street activity, provided the furniture is compatible with the character of the Commercial Core Historic District. I see no problem with the application in general design terms. STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 3-101, required open space may be used for commercial restaurant use if the commission determines that such use is compatible with or enhances the purposes of these open space requirements and that adequate pedestrian and emergency vehicle access will be maintained. This proposal is not being made in conjunction with a "restaurant", which is defined by the Land Use Code as having indoor food preparation and service. However, staff determined that the same review criteria should be utilized. The applicant proposes to place up to three four -person umbrella tables in the plaza area in front of the mixed commercial building. General public seating will be allowed. Staff believes that the proposed tables and chairs can be placed in the proposed area without interfering with pedestrian circulation on the sidewalk or to/from the doorways into the building. Currently the front of the building is under-utilized. The original Growth Management proposal (which had included restaurant space) had this area designed as a plaza with seating. So in effect, the current request recalls the original intended use of the space. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of up to three four - person tables and chairs in the plaza of the'"Godiva Building with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must receive Minor Development approval from the HPC prior to placement of the tables and chairs. 2. The seating shall be available for general public use. Specific placement shall be only within the subject property lines and shall not interfere with sidewalk traffic or access into the two doorways into the building. 3. The lease space occupied by Zele cannot be a "restaurant" as defined by the Land Use Code unless the requirements for employee mitigation and trash service area reviewed and met. 4. Outdoor signage on the building or on the table umbrellas must comply with the City's sign regulations. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve Special Review to allow three four -person tables and chairs in the approved open space at 121 S. Galena, with the four conditions recommended in the May 5, 1992 Planning Office memo. Exhibits: "A" - Proposed Table Locations and Example of Furniture "B" - Referral Comments "C" - Definition of "Restaurant" from Land Use Code 2 �j IFY Attachment 3 PLANNING U&LONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION 4 �Jt• Tom. ra, i � '�, r �"�A{.b i=Yt .,;►t•t:. fS I. { \S �S � [. ,tb'-�',. '•i•.w-i t. hr - - �i1(r: .� ♦t. 1 4 t ti a,��6 r � _ <' _.., � t� � ��ri; y� ' i �,t• ratn'., 1K,t ti rj :c+ / tir 4,� i -y - 't -.. •'• �'::..,r .C-i: / r� • �•!•f,•1 - / �.H te4y t' �•'i/h f ^3- •.. � � x - • .. �, � y, y:i 'w+n,'-'�1 t+ A y�.`�.•sur.�/f, � �•+i• fags Y;3-*•etc f,...;� -l"y� � �.`y � .s.a H- i ' J L'• VA •ram► A '� i :i+`- `f• ....ts... •� [.Z�"L��'� � ♦ Ir; � .• y ,. ' - _ • - :y • -. _ s . K •- tit 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT , APPROVED , 19 BY RESOLUTION M E M O R A N D U M TO: Kim Johnson, City Planner FROM: rueding, City Zoning Officer DATE: A ril 9, 1992 SUBJECT: ZEL GODIVA BUILDING As.I recall, this building competed in the growth management process and contained a restaurant space. They were charged for employee mitigation and trash areas. They later amended their GMP application to replace the restaurant with retail space and, thus, about $40,000 was returned and the trash area reduced. They also amended their landscape plan to include the benches which were never put in place. They may need to amend their landscape plan. Tables or benches outside for commercial use would be prohibited in this open space unless adjacent to a restaurant, which I assume this will not be. If they prepared and served food inside, we would have to look at the use. Stoves, hood vents, seating, etc., would trigger a look. IzIWz163OIN`\ U To: Kim Johnson, City Planner From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer k---- Re: 121 S. Galena - outside seating Date: April 6, 1992 The outside seating request for 121 S. Galena requires a Minor Development review approval by the HPC. An application must be completed which shall include the review fee of $100. The item will be scheduled at the first HPC meeting possible following receipt of a complete application. Generally, the HPC looks upon pedestrian/street activity as positive, provided the street furniture is compatible in character to the Commercial Core Historic District, and generally meets the guidelines. Plastic has not been approved in the past. Material quality is a large consideration. I see no problem with this application in general design terms, provided the applicable Development Review Standards are met. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: Johnston Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review and Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit DATE: May 5, 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of this request with conditions. Mr. Johnston seeks to construct a new three bedroom home with a 498 s . f . basement level accessory dwelling unit on a vacant lot created by a Lot Split in 1990. Applicant: Jeff Johnston, represented by Michael Doyle Location: Roaring Fork Road (Lot 2, Merriam Lot Split) Zoning: R-15, with Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) overlay. The parcel is 15,141 s.f. Please see Exhibit "A" for vicinity map and Exhibit "B" for site plan and site section. Referral Comments: Parks Department: Rebecca Baker expressed concern that proposed trees along the north and east sides of the house block access to the ADU and will outgrow those spaces. She recommends using different slower growing species. She sees a discrepancy between sheets Ll and A2.1 regarding which trees will be removed. More trees appear to be impacted by construction than indicated on the plans. All trees 6" caliper and over must be shown on the landscape plan. A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any building permits. See Exhibit "C" for complete memo. A.C.E.S. - In a phone conversation with staff, Tom Cardamone expressed that this proposal is acceptable and does not negatively impact the nature preserve below the bluff. Staff Comments: Hallam Lake Bluff E.S.A. Review: The Hallam Lake Bluff ESA was adopted in November of 1990. The intent of this overlay area is to provide a minimal level of protection from development impacts on the A.C.E.S. nature preserve below this hillside. Various human impacts to the nature preserve that concern A.C.E.S. include visual, noise, and light intrusion as well as damage to the slope and vegetation which may increase runoff and erosion. The review standards contained in the ordinance are as follows: 1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope. Response: None of these activities will take place below the top of slope. An existing deck is located about 10' below the top of slope. This cannot be altered without ESA review. 2. All development within the 15' setback from the top of slope shall be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the 15' setback must be approved by special review pursuant to Section 7-404D of this Article 7. Response: The rear yard section shows that the only intrusion into the 15' setback is an at -grade terrace. 3. All development outside the 15' setback from the top of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a 45 degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Zoning Officer utilizing that definition set forth at Section 3-101 of this Chapter 24. Response: The proposed development complies with this height limit. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screening of no less than 50 percent of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. Response: The landscaping plan indicates an abundance of existing mature cottonwoods on and below the slope. Additional planti-rigs are proposed for the rear yard area. The existing and proposed vegetation meets this criteria. However, as pointed out in the comments from the Parks Department, changes or clarifications must be made on the landscape plan regarding placement of some trees. Any removals must done in accordance with the City's tree removal permit requirements. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope. Response: The application states that all exterior lighting will be designed in accordance with this requirement. 6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the slope. E Response: The application states that this requirement will be met. No hot tub is indicated on the plans. 7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level. Response: The application package includes sketches showing the slope, proposed structure and terrace. Conditional Use for Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit: The subject lot is currently vacant and resulted from a Lot Split in 1990. For any development on a Lot Split parcel, an accessory dwelling unit must be provided. Please see Exhibit "D" for the f loorplan of the basement ADU. 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 and with the Lot Split requirements. 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 unit 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 three bedroom.home. Four parking spaces are indicated on the plan. A parking space is not required by code for a one bedroom accessory unit, but staff believes that one should be dedicated for the unit assuming it will be occupied by a long- term tenant. The unit will access the exterior through a garden 3 level patio on the west side of the house. As mentioned earlier, the proposed plantings will impact the ability to access the unit along the east side and north corner of the residence. Since submission of the application, the applicant and architect met with staff to discuss providing a covered walkway along the east side of the structure to provide protection from rain and snow shedding. This will require an insubstantial plat amendment to add a plat note allowing this. The neighboring property owners, the Merriams, do not object to this proposal. Staff recommends that an overhang extending over the walkway be required due to the roof configuration. Consistent with recent P&Z requirements, staff has included a condition of approval requiring compliance with U.B.C. sound attenuation codes. 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 housina 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 or two. 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 the Lot Split requirements. �P� r r ----- -- `L -? :�1�1i -L-------------- RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Johnston Hallam Lake Bluff 'ESA Review sand Conditional Use for, an Accessory Dwelling Unit with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant must receive approval from the Parks department regarding any vegetation removal from the site. 2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, a revised landscaping 4 plan must be submitted to Planning which provides adequate access from the ADU to the driveway. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. One parking space shall be dedicated on -site for the accessory dwelling unit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit f-ar-- the- ADU, a covered walkway must be included to protect the ADU access from rain and snow shedding. 7. The building permit plans must clearly indicate the accessory dwelling as a separate dwelling. Compliance with U.B.C. sound attenuation codes is required. 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. Exhibits: "A" - Vicinity Map "B" - Site Plan, Section, and Landscape Plan "C" Referral Memo from Parks Department "D" - Accessory Dwelling Unit johnston.esa.adu.memo 5 .::.IPLANNING: & ZONING COMMISSION i•a! a_� . EXHIBIa �1 APPROVED = 19 u08'Y RESOLUTION OVq rii C,41(-t Y PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT 'f (2, 1/ , APPROVED , 19 BY RESOLUTION MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: April 20, 1992 RE: Johnston Conditional Use Review for an and a Hallam Lake Bluff ESA APR 2 1 accessory dwelling unit Upon review of the landscape plan submitted by Michael Doyle, Hagman Yaw Architects, for the Johnston Residence, Lot 2, Merriam Subdivision, Hallam Lake Bluff ESA, the Parks Department has the following comments/concerns: 1) The proposed landscape plan does not appear to allow clear access to the accessory dwelling unit. The proposed planting of evergreens on both the northeast and west sides of the building would block passage to the rear of the building, especially over time as the trees grow. 2) The two proposed evergreens on the northeast corner of the building are shown to be in the area of the concrete driveway. If in reality the trees are to be planted in the 15' space between the building and fence, we would recommend planting smaller, slow growing species that would * not outgrow the area too quickly and damage the building or foundation. 3) The landscape plan (1-1) shows no proposed tree removals. Drawing A2.1 shows one proposed tree removal for the concrete drive. However, comparing drawing A2.1 with the landscape plan (1-1) it appears there may be more tree removals in the area of the proposed terrace. The landscape plan shows approximately three evergreens which may be impacted by the construction of a terrace. Additionally, all existing trees on the property, particularly trees over 6" in diameter at approximately 4' high, should be noted on the landscape plan. A tree removal permit will be necessary at the time of construction. 4) Any proposed irrigation system should be in compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance. .5 ' PLANNING & ZONING "'-tom iIS$T EXHIBIT �� APPROVED- ` 19 BY RESOLUTION 44. � 2 Ile Ile I- 2 i . , � ''� � — /� 4af� is i..• 1 ._cl. .. pl l •y. 11,E �� ep . t ; k;