Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19910903 AGENDA -- --------------------------- ---------------------------- ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 3, 1991, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 1st Floor city council Chambers city Hall ----- ---------------------------- -- ------ I. COMMENTS commissioners Planninq Staff Public II. MINUTES III. NEW BUSINESS A. Roarinq Fork Stream Marqin Review - Leslie Lamont IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development Ice Rink Map Amendment (Tabled to September 17) - Diane-Moore B. , 100 Park Avenue Planned Unit Development, Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housinq - Kim Johnson C. Krebs Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwellinq Unit - Kim Johnson V. ADJOURN a.cov A G E N D A ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 3, 1991, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 1st Floor City Council Chambers City Hall ------------------ I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. NEW BUSINESS A. Roaring Fork Stream Margin Review - Leslie Lamont IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Aspen Mountain Planned Unit Development Ice Rink Map Amendment (Tabled to September 17) - Diane Moore B. 100 Park Avenue Planned Unit Development, Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing - Rim Johnson V. ADJOURN a.cov )MORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Christensen, Planning Office RE: Upcoming Meetings DATE: August 29, 1991 This is a list of your scheduled upcoming meetings. Regular Meeting, September 17th Aspen Mountain PUD Ice Rink Rezoning (PH) (DM) a. nex MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: Roaring Fork River Trail Stream Margin Review DATE: September 3, 1991 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a pedestrian/bike path and a new bridge along the Roaring Fork River, and replace the existing Hopkins Street pedestrian bridge. Pursuant to Section 7- 504, Stream Margin Review is required. The Planning Department recommends approval with conditions. APPLICANT: City of Aspen, as represented by Gary Lacey and Patrick Duffield LOCATION: The new trail will connect the Art Museum to the Rio Grande Trail with a Mill Street underpass and new bridge downstream from the Mill Street Bridge. The Hopkins Street pedestrian bridge will be replaced. ZONING: Public, Park, R-15, and R/MF APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Stream Margin Approval for a new pedestrian/bike trail, a new bridge and replacement of an existing bridge. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see the attached referral comments from the Engineering Department and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. STAFF COMMENTS: The Parks Department proposes to provide a new segment of trail along the Roaring Fork River between the Rio Grande Trail and the Art Museum. The new trail will require a new pedestrian/bike bridge downstream from the Mill Street Bridge and an underpass at the Mill Street Bridge. The Department also needs to replace the Hopkins Street pedestrian/bike bridge. Please see attached drawings and maps for your review. The City is developing a lease with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District for the ACSD land that the trail will pass over. Recent conversations with the Distr-ict Manager, Bruce Matherly, confirmed that the lease is almost completed. A. Stream Margin: Pursuant to Section 7-504 C., development is required to undergo Stream Margin Review if it is within 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the one hundred year floodplain. The applicable review standards are as follows: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. RESPONSE: According to the application, the proposed replacement of the Hopkins Street pedestrian bridge will not affect the existing 100 year floodplain or floodway. The low chord of the new bridge will be more than 2' above the 100 year flood elevation, reducing the chance of debris blockage. The bridge itself is designed as a "breakaway" bridge which is tethered on one end. In the event of a major flood, it will breakaway and not become debris downstream. The proposed trail from the Art Museum to Rio Grande Trail will be at or below existing grade, thereby not affecting the existing floodplain or floodway. The proposed new pedestrian bridge will not affect the existing 100 year floodway or floodplain. The new bridge and approaches will cause a minor constriction in the 100 year floodplain limits. This bridge is engineered so as not to create a blockage during the peak flows and will have a minimum of 2' clearance above the 100 year flood. It also will be a "breakaway" bridge. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. RESPONSE: The proposed trail is on the Plan and will be dedicated for public use as will the bridges. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. RESPONSE: The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan specifically identifies trail system criteria. The development of this new trail, in this location, is consistent with this criteria primarily the provision of access to the river for fishermen and other interested groups, 4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. RESPONSE: According to the applicant, no vegetation removal or slope grade changes are being made that will produce erosion or 2 sedimentation. A number of disturbed areas will be restored reducing the amount of erosion and sedimentation. All new cut and fill areas will be revegetated. A tree removal permit shall be reviewed for the removal of any tree greater than 6" in caliper. The applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to identify erosion mitigation measures during construction. 5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary. RESPONSE: The application states that the "proposed trails and bridges allow for natural changes in the river to the greatest extent possible. Some areas along the trial will be able to trap urban runoff pollution prior to it flowing into the river." 6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. RESPONSE: There will be no alteration or relocation of a water course. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. RESPONSE: There will be no work below the normal high water line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the new bridge and underpass, new trail segment, and replacement of the Hopkins Street Bridge subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits: a. the applicant shall provide a set of drawings stamped by the engineer who performed the hydraulic analysis and shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. b. an erosion mitigation plan shall be approved by the Engineering Department and the plan shall include, but not limited to, revegetation of disturbed areas. C. tree removal permits are required from the Parks Department before any trees greater than 6" in caliper may be removed. Every 3 effort should be made to relocate on site the trees that must be disturbed. 2. All representations that have been made in the application and during the presentation shall be adhered to. 4 MEMORANDUM AUK 2 3 1,17 0 To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Department 0-11 From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer �Z,S Date: August 23, 1991 Re: Roaring Fork River Trail Stream Margin Review Having reviewed the above application, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. Responses to attachment four should be required conditions of approval. 2. The applicant must provide a set of drawings stamped by the engineer who performed the hydraulic analysis. The applicant has verbally agreed that this will be provided rt/memo91.64 AWm'-eonsolidated sanitation district 565 NarCh Mill Street Aspem Colrnado dish Tele. (303) 925-3601 August 13, 1991 Leslie Lamont Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: City trail across 565 N. Mill street/ ACSD property Dear Leslie: 'I le. (303) 925-2537 t ' AUG 1 419�1 This letter is written to confirm that we are in the process of developing a license in order to facilitate the construction of a segment of trail which will link the Rio Grand trail with Mill Street. We have been working with Patrick Duffield and his engineer on this. Our Board of Directors has agreed to grant a license to the City for this project if we can address the Board's concerns in the license agreement. Their concerns included fencing, the construction and placement of berms where the trail elevation is not at a lower elevation than the District property, and the posting of signs where necessary. The overriding concern of the Board was that the construction of trail not preclude the District's future use of the central portion of our property. We feel that the Board's concerns can be addressed in the text of the license, and we have identified on the map exhibit which will be attached to the license, suggested locations for fencing, berming, etc.. Please call if you have any questions. The proposed license is currently being reviewed by our attorney in Denver. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning RE: 100 Park Avenue - Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing DATE: September 3, 1991 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of Final PUD Plan (as a consolidated two-step review), Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for affordable housing with conditions. The proposal calls for demolition and replacement of multi -family housing in compliance with Ordinance 1, the Housing Replacement Ordinance. APPLICANT: Margaret Stanzione, represented by Sunny Vann PROJECT LOCATION AND ZONING: 100 Park Avenue (a metes and bounds parcel of approximately 14,090 s.f. located between Park Avenue, Midland Avenue and Regent Street). The property is zoned R-MF, Residential Multi -Family with a PUD overlay. Please see Attachment "A" for location map. APPLICANT'S REQUEST / PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks to redevelop the parcel which contains presently five existing unrestricted units in a multi -family arrangement. One of the existing units is listed on the City's inventory of 1-.1,Storic structures. The historic house will be relocated on site facing Park Avenue and will be converted to two one -bedroom affordable housing units. The upper level unit (price/income category #3) will be 640 s.f. The garden level unit (price/income category #1 ) will be 610 s.f. Five new free market units will be constructed in a multi -family configuration facing south. Each is described as 2,320 square feet in area, containing 2 bedrooms and 3 baths. A garden level containing an exercise area and mud room is included in each free market unit. Two enclosed parking spaces will be provided for each of the free market units. One uncovered space will be provided for each of the affordable housing units. The applicant requests a two-step consolidated PUD review rather than a four -step review. A four -step process allows the Commission and Council to review a project at a conceptual level as well as final detailed level. Typically the full four -step review is utilized with large scale, complex proposals. Planning staff concurs with the request for two-step review, believing that there would be no specific public benefit to a longer review process. However, either the Commission or the Council may require adherence to the four -step review process if they determine it is necessary. Please refer to Attachment "B" for proposed site plan, floor plans and elevation sketches. PROCESS: The Commission shall consider the application and forward recommendations to the City Council regarding PUD and Subdivision approval, and GMQS Exemption for affordable housing. The City Council will then make final determination on these items as well as condominiumization and vested rights as requested by the applicant. Prior to final approval by Council, the Planning Director must also grant GMQS Exemption for the replacement of the free-market units associated with this project. Prior to submission of the application to Planning, the proposal received Conceptual approval (with conditions, Attachment "C") from the Historic Preservation Committee. This occurred on February 13, 1991. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following are summaries of comments received by the Planning Office. Complete memos are contained in Attachment I'Du Enaineerina: Rob Thomson forwards these comments: - Planning should interpret Sec.24-7-903.12.d. which states that "every residential building shall not be farther than 60 feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street." (Note: Planning staff has discussed this and found both proposed buildings to meet this requirement.) - A trash/utility area has not been designated on the plan. One is necessary, fulfilling the requirements of Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code. The R-MF zone carries no size requirement. - The driveway and drop-off area do not comply with Section 24- 19-103 of the Municipal Code. One curb cut is permitted with a maximum width of 18 feet. Park Avenue is very narrow. Cars in the drop-off area would be partially in the City right-of-way. This area would probably end up being used for regular parking. - The applicant agrees to join any future improvements districts which may be formed to construct improvements in the public right- of-way. - The applicant offers to landscape and maintain the area in the public right-of-way in exchange for a reduction in the required open space. This landscaping is required anyway pursuant to Section 19-122 of the Municipal Code. Any reductions to open space 6 should be granted based on its own merits, not because of the proposed landscaping in the public right-of-way. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design consideration of development within the public right-of-way. Permits must be obtained from the City Streets Department for any work or development done in the right-of-way. - Historic drainage must be maintained. A Colorado Registered Engineer must provide drainage/drywell calculations, and verify the functional aspects of the design, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. - The applicant shall verify the easements for the proposed transformer on the south property line. If necessary, an easement shall be granted on this property. Housing: Yvonne Blocker offered the following comments (from a conversation with Planning staff): - The proposal meets the intent and requirements of Ordinance 1, the replacement housing ordinance. - The exercise rooms proposed in the free market units appear to be designed as potential bedrooms. Because of lot area and parking requirements, these cannot be used as bedrooms. - Access to the two parking spaces dedicated to the affordable units is awkward, circling the complex along Park Avenue. An internal walkway through the free market structure would be more direct and desirable. - The proposed deed restriction categories are satisfactory. There is a question regarding the unheated storage area in unit #1 depicted on the floor plan for the existing structure. Yvonne requests the following conditions be placed on the approvals: 1. All Uniform Building Code requirements shall be met with the renovation of the historic building. 2. The deed restricted units must meet all applicable housing guidelines. 3. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the project, deed restrictions for the category 1 and category 3 units shall be approved by the Housing Authority and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Proof of recordation shall be forwarded to the Planning Office. 3 3 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: Bruce Matherly forwards the following information: - Sufficient capacity is available. - An additional development impact fee may be required as stated by the project's engineer. A prorated fee may be required for downstream line rehabilitation in the future. - All associated connection fees must be paid prior to connection onto the sewer system. Fire Marshal: Ed VanWalraven states that a residential sprinkler system is required for the five unit building. STAFF COMMENTS: This project requires multiple approvals. Review criteria are discussed as follows: Subdivision: According to Section 3-101 of the Land Use Code, any multi -family dwelling project is by definition a subdivision. Section 7-1004.C. contains the review criteria for Subdivisions. The general criteria and staff review are as follows: 1. General Requirements. a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The Plan indicates this site is within a single family residential land use area. However, the parcel is zoned R-MF as is much of the surrounding area. The reconstruction of a multi -family project is consistent with the zoning of the parcel. The Comprehensive Plan update currently under way by the Planning Office and the community is expected to address how the existing Plan is inconsistent with neighborhood zoning designations. b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The multi -family nature of this project is consistent with the mixed use character of the neighborhood. There are several condominium projects, duplexes, and single family homes in the area. c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The undeveloped parcels in the vicinity of this project should not be adversely affected by this development. In addition, there are no hazards associated with this site which will adversely affect this development or off -site development. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. The affordable housing component is exempt from GMQS competition upon approval by City Council. Pursuant to Section 24-8-104 A.l.a. n of the Municipal Code, the replacement freemarket units shall be exempted by the Planning Director. The proposal must demonstrate that affordable housing and parking is provided for the reconstructed units. The Director's approval is conditioned to occur prior to final approval by City Council. At review by Council, this project will also seek condominiumization and vested rights for three years, as allowed within the Land Use Code. The proposal does not call for the creation of multiple lots or new streets as it basically replaces the existing structures on the site. Therefore, most of the review criteria in the subdivision section do not apply. All necessary utilities are readily available within the adjacent streets. Any easements onto the property for utility extensions will be provided on the final plat and subdivision agreement for recordation. The applicant commits to joining any improvement districts when formed for the purpose of installing sidewalks, curbs and gutters if such a district is formed. The project does include the installation of a walkway on the parcel along the Park Ave. side. The driveway off of Regent Street must be narrowed according to the comments received from Engineering. Also, Engineering remarked that the proposed drop- off area on Park Ave. is not in compliance with curb cut requirements. The Municipal Code allows for a variation of the curb cut requirements. This must be requested in writing to the City Engineer. A variation must be granted through this process or the drop-off area must be removed from the Final PUD Plan. PUD: Section 24-7-903 of the Municipal Code outlines review standards for Planned Unit Developments. This parcel is overlain with a PUD designation, but due to its small size and limited proposed impact to the environment, many PUD review criteria are not applicable. The general review standards for PUD are the same as for Subdivision, and have been discussed previously in this memo. The following is consideration of other PUD criteria pertinent to this project review. I. Density: The maximum density allowed under the R-MF zone district is met with this proposal based on the five (5) free market unit containing two bedrooms. The code requires 2,100 s.f. of lot area for each 2 bedroom unit and 1,250 s.f. of lot area for each 1 bedroom unit on site. The total lot area requirements based on these figures is 13,000 s.f. The lot is approximately 14,090 s.f. For this reason, a condition is proposed that requires the Subdivision/PUD Agreement to restrict the exercise rooms from ever being used as bedrooms. The applicant has supplied slope density reduction calculations which show that the project also meets the density requirements under the slope reduction category. II. Dimensional Requirements: All of the dimensional requirements (setbacks and height) of the R-MF zone are met with the exception 5 of the minimum open space requirement of 35%. The project proposes 30% of the site as open space which meets the code definition. The definition requires that open space be visible from the street, be at least 10' in depth, and not include parking. This excludes the landscaped area along Midland Ave. and some courtyard area between the affordable units and the rear two free market units. A PUD approval can include variation to minimum dimensional requirements including minimum open space, if the reduction is not detrimental to the character of the development. In this case, staff agrees with the applicant that the definition excludes open areas that add to the pleasurable use of the property by the occupants, and which also allow for landscaping. Staff supports this variation request, with the condition that more vegetation, including trees, be added along the south side of the affordable housing and along the east facade of the free market unit adjacent to Midland Ave. The final Landscape Plan will be submitted with the Final Plat, according to the applicant. As with other properties within the City, tree removal permits from the Parks Department are required for removal of trees 6" caliper or greater. III. Parking: The project meets the minimum parking requirement of one space per bedroom, based on the free market units having two bedrooms each. As previously mentioned, a condition is proposed to prohibit the exercise rooms from being used as third bedrooms within the free market units. IV. Architectural Site Plan: The proposed designs of the new and renovated structures are suitable to the intended purposes, and are in harmony with the neighborhood. See Attachment "B". The Historic Preservation Committee reviewed the new building and the relocation and renovation of the historic cottage on February 13, 1991. They granted Conceptual Development approval with conditions to be addressed at Final submission. V. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: As mentioned previously, the Engineering Department has a concern with the drop-off area proposed along Park Ave. as it exceeds maximum curb cut allowances. This issue must be resolved through Engineering prior to final approval by City Council. It is also a concern of the Housing Authority and Planning Office that the access from the affordable units to their parking spaces (around the free market building) is circuitous and awkward. Other options should be restudied by the applicant prior to consideration by Council. GKQB Rtemption for Affordable Housing: Pursuant to Section 8-104.C.1.c, City Council may grant GMQS Exemption for deed restricted Affordable Housing. The Planning Commission must forward a recommendation based on the need for the units, the proposed unit mix, price categories, and compliance with the adopted housing plan. The proposed replacement of affordable 6 housing complies with the criteria contained in Ordinance 1, the Housing Replacement Ordinance. When demolition of a multi -family residential structure occurs, Ordinance 1 requires minimum replacement of 50% of the bedrooms and 50% of the square footage lost. The replacement housing must be at least 50% above grade. The price and income categories of the replacement units must be at a minimum of 20% low income and no more than 20% restricted to resident occupancy. The applicant proposes that the above grade unit be restricted to category 13 and the below grade unit to category #1. The Housing Authority supports the proposed units. The Planning Office recommends approval of this GMQS Exemption. Please see Attachment "E" for the housing re cement data fry the application. WAI, 5u6DiviSie� 1�i✓ -------------------- /! -cue `x S 6X&A4PTroc- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of Subdivision, PUD Development Plan (including variation to the minimum open space requirements) and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing with the following conditions: 1. Prior to final approval by City Council, this project shall receive GMQS Exemption from the Planning Director for repla ement of existing residential units. 2. The Subdivision/PUD Agreement shall contain language th m'''de,., restricts the exercise rooms in the free market units from bein &44/,z,_,( converted into bedrooms. a5 3. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall i where the trash/utility area will be on the site. 4. All Uniform Building Code requirements shall be met with the renovation of the historic building. 5. The deed restricted units must meet all applicable housing guidelines. 6. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the project, deed restrictions for the category 1 and category 3 units shall be approved by the Housing Authority and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Proof of recordation shall be forwarded to the Planning Office. 7. The applicant shall study other pedestrian access options between the affordable and their parking spaces behind the free market structure. A report on the findings shall be provided to the Planning Office at least two weeks prior to the Council hearing. 8. The driveway curb cut shall be reduced to 18' or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7 9. A variance to the curb cut requirements must be granted for the proposed drop-off area by the City Engineer. If not obtained prior to final approval by City Council, this detail must be omitted from the final Subdivision Plat and PUD Plan. 10. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design consideration of development within the public right-of-way. Permits must be obtained from the City Streets Department for any work or development done in the right-of-way. 11 Prior to issuance of any building permits, a drainage n/drywell system shall be approved by the City Engineer. 12. The proposed transformer easement location shall be finalized with the City Engineer prior to recordation of the Final Plat. 13. A residential fire sprinkler system is required for the five unit building. 14. All associated connection fees must be paid prior to connection onto the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation system. 15. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the Planning Office shall approve a landscaping plan for recordation with the PUD Plan. Additional vegetation, including trees, shall be added to the landscape plan specifically along the south side of the affordable housing units and along the east facade of the free market unit adjacent to Midland Ave. 16. Any trees of 6" caliper or greater which are removed from the site must receive a tree removal permit from the Parks Department. 17. Within 180 days of approval by City Council, the Subdivision/PUD Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Final Plat must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure to do so will render any approvals invalid. 18. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council and Historic Preservation Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Attachments: "A"- Location Map "B"- Proposed Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevation Sketches "C"- Historic Preservation Approval Conditions "D"- Referral Comments "E"- Housing Replacement Data 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: Krebs Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit DATE: September 3, 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use approval in order to construct a studio accessory dwelling unit of approximately 303 square feet in a single family residence to be located at 916 W. Smuggler. An accessory dwelling unit is required on this parcel as a result of the Vandemoer Lot Split approval. Planning Staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use with conditions. The public hearing for this item was tabled on August 6, 1991 due to a notification error. New notices have since been sent and the property was re -posted. APPLICANT: George and Alice Krebs, represented by Fred Alderfer LOCATION: 916 W. Smuggler (Lot 2 of Vandemoer Lot Split) ZONING: R-6 PROCESS: Conditional Use review is a one-step hearing before the Planning Commission. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conditional Use approval for an accessory dwelling unit. - PROPOSAL: The proposed residence is a 4 bedroom home of approx. 3,238 sq. ft. The applicant wishes to include a 300 s.f. studio accessory dwelling unit. The unit will be a "walk -out" in the basement level. Please see Attachment "A" for a plan of the unit and the site. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Housing Authority requires that accessory dwelling units comply with the following standards: The accessory dwelling unit shall contain between 300 to 700 square feet of net livable area and be located within or attached to a principal residence. It shall meet the housing designee's guidelines for such units. The unit shall be deed restricted by Owner to meet the definition of a Resident Occupied Unit and be rented for period of six months or longer. The Owner of the principal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. Occupancy of the accessory dwelling unit is not mandatory. The recommended condition of approval is: 1. The owner shall submit an appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The 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 restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. A copy of the filed deed restriction shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to issuance of any building permits for the accessory dwelling unit. STAFF COMMENTS: An accessory dwelling unit is a conditional use in the R-6 zone district. 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 employee 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: This use is compatible with the other residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood. Located in the basement, the unit will not be visible from the outside as a separate unit. 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 existing home. An additional parking space is not required for a studio accessory unit. The site will accommodate at least five vehicles for off-street parking. No other significant impacts will result, as the unit can house no more than two persons. Access to the unit is internal through the family room or to the rear yard/alley via the patio doors and stairway. 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- 2 tion, 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: This unit is being provided pursuant to requirements of the Lot Split process. It will contribute to the affordable housing stock. 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. Note: As this unit is not 100% above grade, a floor area bonus cannot be granted to the primary residence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of this conditional use with the following condition: 1. The owner shall submit an appropriate deed restriction with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The 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 restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the accessory dwelling unit, a copy of the recorded deed restriction must be forwarded to the Planning Office. Attachment "A" - Floorplan and Site Sketches jtkvj/krebs.memo 791 - General Cowiacwtc� AUG 3 0 Aspen Professional Buildiric_a 201 N. Mill Street Ashen, (;olot adn 8161 1 Phone 303-925 10 1 /1 f-ax 303-925 14119 gle, ,--s �.; ��•���. Gam, 4sL;, �e1407z A:eE� �. ASPEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Post Office Box 2500 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: George and Alice Krebs residence at 916 West Smugglar Street Property owners within 330' radius of Lot 2 of the Vandemore Lot. Split, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. United States Forest Service 806 W. Hallam Aspen, Colorado 81.611 U.S. Forest Service John Schumacher 505 N. 8th Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mr. Schumacher John Do►•emus 822 W. Smuggler Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mr. Doremus Belton and Elizabeth Fleisher 592 Indian Summer Drive Columbus, Ohio 43214 Mr. & Mrs. Fleisher Joel Gershman 207 S. Original Street Aspen, Colorado 81.611 Mr. Gershman Lucy Hibberd 521 North Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ms. Hibberd Heinz Coordes 908 W. Francis Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mr. Coordes H.H, Marion, Mandy Vandemoer 1755 Monaco PliNvy Denver, CO 80220 Vandemoers George Bvennan 1441 Avacado, Suite 204 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. Bvennan Aspen Club Lodge 709 E. Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen Club Lodge Irving B. Harris 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 505 Chicago, IL 60607 Mr. Harris Donnelly & Cindy Erdman P.O. Box 10640 Aspen, Colorado 816.12 Mr. & Mrs. Erdman Lorenzo and Joyce Semple 905 W. North Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mr. & Mrs Semple John D. LaSalle Camalotta Enterprises, Ltd 530 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 8161.1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations) STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of the application for subdivision/PUD approval for the 100 Park Avenue GMQS Exemption Application was given by 1) posting of notice containing the information required in Section 6-205.E.2., which posting occurred on August 24, 1991, in a conspicuous place on the subject property and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from that date, and 2) mailing Notice of said development application to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, which mailing occurred on August 22, 1991. Applicant: MARGARET S TANZ By Sunny VarA The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged and signed before me this 'day of August, 1991, by Sunny Vann on behalf of the MARGARET STANZIONE. WITNESS my hand and offici 1 seal. My commission expires: 3� No ary Public