HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19911217
;
...
/
iO
110
..
AGBNDA
-----------------------------
-------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMKISSION
REGULAR IIBETING
December 17, 1991, Tuesday
4: 30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meetinq Room
City Ball
-- -------------------
------------------------
I. SITE VISIT - 4:00
Leave promptly at 4:00 from city Ball, ride provided for
tbe Marsball Ballam Lake Bluff ESA Review
II. COMKENTS
commissioners
Planninq staff
Public
III.
MINUTES
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Marsball Ballam Lake Bluff ESA Review - Kim Jobnson
V. PUBLIC BEARING
VA.
316 East Bopkins Landmark Desiqnation - Roxanne
Enin
-B.
Bade Stream Marqin Review, Conditional Us. Review
for an Accessory Dwellinq unit, GMQS Exemption for
an Accessory Dwellinq Unit - Kim Jobnson
Old Li~rary Text Amendment for a Condition Use -
Leslie Lamont
~C.
D.
Kraut Parcel Map Amendment for Rezoninq from Office
(0) to Afforda~le Bousinq (AB) - Leslie Lamont
VI. COUNTY REFERRAL
A. Mary B Subdivision Amendment - Bllen Sassano
VII. ADJOURN
,
',.;
~~
MOtS"
10000
.--.-
--
-----~
•Z
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Planning Office
RE: Upcoming Meetings
DATE: December 12, 1991
This is a list of your scheduled upcoming meetings.
Regular Meeting, January 7th
* Aspen Winter Garden PUD Amendment (PH) (DM)
Regular Meeting, January 21st
* Ute Park Subdivision Final PUD, 8040 Greenline, Rezoning, Text
Amendment (PH) (KJ)
* Berger Rezoning to R-15 (upon annexation) (PH) (KJ)
* Berger Landmark Designation (PH) (RE)
* Phelps/McFarlin Stream Margin Review (LL)
a.nex
-71
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff (Environmentally Sensitive
Area (ESA) and Special Review - *Site Visit*
DATE: December 17, 1991
Summary: The project under consideration has already been built.
The Planning Office recommends denial of this item as proposed. If
the Commission wishes to approve a hot tub and deck in this general
area, the Planning Office recommends that the hot tub be moved back
to the 15' setback line and the deck be approved by special review
to encroach up to 9' into the setback. Staff proposes conditions
for special review approval. This would eliminate any development
below the top of the slope and limit above ground development in
the setback area, in compliance with the goals of the
Environmentally Sensitive Area.
Applicant: Ms. Ronnie Marshall, represented by Katie McMahon
Location: 320 Lake Ave. (Parcel 1, Marshall Lot Split)
Zoning: R-6, overlain by the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally
Sensitive Area (ESA). Please see Exhibit "A" for vicinity map.
Proposal: Ms. Marshall seeks to legalize a hot tub and deck
project that was built in the summer of 1990 without a building
permit. In order to receive a building permit, all Planning
approvals must be in place. Please see Exhibit "B" for site plan
and site sections.
Background: The hot tub and deck was red -tagged for not having a
building permit in mid summer of 1990. It was determined at that
time that the Historic Preservation Committee had to approve the
project before a building permit could be sought. In August 1990,
HPC granted approval with the condition that landscape plantings
be done to provide screening.
When the applicant again applied for a building permit, the Zoning
Official determined that a setback variance must be obtained before
he could approve the application. In June of 1991, the Zoning
Board of Adjustment approved the setback variance based on the
hardship that the structure was already built.
However, between the time that the applicant received HPC approval
and applied for the variance, the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council adopted the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmental
Sensitive Area overlay and review criteria. Now the project must
receive approval by the Commission in order to allow a building
permit to be issued. Please see Exhibit "C" for application and
history summary.
Referral Comments:
During the Development Review Committee hearing for this project,
George Robinson from Parks was concerned that vegetation may have
been removed that required permits from Parks. He wants the
applicant to verify any removals and obtain permits if applicable.
Staff Comments:
This is the second project to be reviewed under the Hallam Lake
Bluff ESA which 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. Attached for your reference is Ordinance 71 (series
1990). Please keep this for future reference.
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: As built, this project required excavation of the slope
to accommodate the hot tub and a level area for part of the deck.
According to the drawing submitted in the application roughly four
feet of earth was removed from a 15' -20' section of the slope.
Also, about half of the deck cantilevers out over the slope and is
approximately 3.5' above the natural grade at its highest point.
This review standard is clearly not met with the as -built project.
It is for this reason that staff recommends denial of the existing
design.
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: Half of the tub and a portion of the deck are within the
15' setback but are below original grade. Staff cannot support
the development in consideration of this review standard. As an
alternative, staff proposes that the hot tub be moved up and back
so that it better complies with this criteria. Staff also believes
that the western edge of the deck should be moved back to the
setback line. The bulk of the deck would then be at grade at the
setback line and the original grade would fall away gently towards
the bluff. The deck would probably be about 12" above grade at its
2
-2—
in the application and your packet.
ESA Special Review: Four review criteria must be met in order to
grant a Special Review for location of any above or below grade
structure within the 15' setback from the top of slope or above
the height limit established by the 45 degree angle originating at
the top of slope. As mentioned, staff recommends denial of the as -
built proposal but would support an amended design that places the
tub and deck up and back from where it now exists. Please see this
in sketch form, Exhibit "D". If the Commission agrees to consider
staff's idea, the following special review criteria must be
addressed.
1. A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence
to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design
problem.
Response: Ms. Marshall's rear year is not very deep. With the
proposal from staff there would be a 13' separation from the rear
of the house to the relocated deck, and 18' to the tub. The
Commission could direct the applicant to keep the deck at grade
within the setback or it could allow the deck not to exceed 12"
above grade. This height is what staff calculates the deck would
be given the gentle fall towards the bluff.
2. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height limit
is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Response: Staff sketch shows the deck to extend 8-9' into the
setback at approximately 12" above what would, have been the
original grade. This height would not be perceptible from below
the slope. Staff would recommend that the excavated area of the
current development be backfilled to original grade and compacted
to original density as part of any relocation approval.
3. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are
located outside the top of slope setback line or height limit
to the greatest extent possible.
Response: This criteria is satisfied if the hot tub is relocated
as staff proposes.
4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or
development in the setback from all adjoining properties.
Response: Please refer to the landscape plan in the exhibits.
Staff feels that if the plantings below the deck were installed and
continue to thrive, no further landscaping is necessary. The
juniper shrubs above the deck would have to be relocated.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of ESA review for
4
eastern edge. For a sketch of staffs design concept, see Exhibit
"D". Please read further comments in Special Review section below.
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.
r'Response: The existing development complies with LAs height
limit. Staff's recommended design would also comply,
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.
IResponse: The landscaping done as a result of the HPC review was
approved by Tom Cardamone of ACES. As the landscape plan in
Exhibit "B" illustrates, the 50% requirement is met. As previously
mentioned, the Parks Department was not consulted prior to removal
of existing vegetation prior to construction. Any approval by the
Cuss ; �; actiouuiLOnsoud be co1dt1o1ed bythe applicant contng Fares ,
supplying information about the previous vegetation, and complying
with any permit requirements that Parks deems necessary.
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 no lighting has been
P PP g g
installed with the project.
�(
No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the
6 slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be
maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the
slope.
)Response: The application states that no fill or debris has
occurred on the slope and the tub does not drain down the slope.
Staff would like the applicant to inform the Commission where the
tub drains.
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: Architect Jim VonBrewer has submitted sketches included
the deck and hot tub as it currently exists. Staff recommends
approval of ESA review and Special Review if the applicant agrees
to relocate the development as shown on Exhibit "D". If the
Commission does not approve the existing situation, staffs design
concept or a similar concept, the hot tub and deck must be removed
and can only be replaced on -site in accordance with the exemption
allowance within the ESA Ordinance.
If the Commission approves the hot tub and deck as currently built,
staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant must
receive approval from the Parks department regarding any vegetation
removal resulting from the current development. Any applicable
permits must be in place.
2. The applicant must verify where the hot tub drains to the
satisfaction of the Planning Office. This shall be a letter from
the plumbing contractor, general contractor or Building Department.
If the Commission wishes to approve staff's design concept and
Special review, the following condition is recommended in addition
to the two above:
'; 3. The excavation resulting from the current development must be
'backfilled to original grade. Compaction to original density must
Jbe attained in order to maintain stability on the slope.
Exhibits: "A" - Vicinity Map
"B" - Application Site Plan, Section, and Landscape
Plan
"C" - Application and History of Project
"D" - Staff sketches with proposed tub/deck location
Ordinance 71 adopting the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA
jtkvj/marshall.esa.memo
5
As
r
Issw-
COO
IIiIIIi �iiiiGC�: ara�76r �.. `•��� 7VI�i9���
I'�IIII IIII�1111 III��IItI IlllUIII �►i:� `c-
IIIIII IIIC'llll IIIIIIIII I�1111111 IIIIIIIII ti��� �I
1_Ilul6 IIIRIIII IIIlAllll 111'U��1 tfll�llll III��IIII i
IIIIN IIIIIIIII 1lII�11111 IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIlI IIIIIIIII II'
Migal1=
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Roxanne Eflin Historic Preservation Officer
Re: 316 E. Hopkins: Landmark Designation (public hearing)
Date: December 17, 1991
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Landmark Designation for the
parcel located at 316 E. Hyman.
APPLICANT: Margaret Johnson, represented by B. Joseph Krabacher,
Krabacher, Hill and Edwards, attorneys
LOCATION: 316 E. Hyman, Lot O, Block 80, City and Townsite of
Aspen
LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 7-702 of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations define the six standards for local landmark
designation, requiring that the resour-�---- under consideration meet
at least one of the following standard a
A. Historical importance: The structure or site is a
principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified
or associated with a person or an event of historical
significance to the cultural, social or political history of
Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States.
Response: Our records do not indicate this parcel being
associated with a person or significant historical event. It
is referred. to as the "Annie Krapf" house, however, no
additional historical information on this owner is found in
our inventory files.
B. Architectural importance:
an architectural style that
traditional Aspen character.
The structure or site reflects
is unique, distinct or of
Response: The principal structure is best described as a
typical one story Aspen "miner's cottage", with gable and
window proportions illustrative of traditional Aspen
character. We find that the outbuilding, due to the extensive
and incompatible modifications, does not contribute to the
architectural importance of the parcel.
C. Architectural importance: The structure or site embodies
the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique
architectural type or specimen.
Response: We find that this standard does not apply in this
case.
D. Architectural importance: The structure is a significant
work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the
character of Aspen.
Response: Our records do not indicate an architect was
involved in the design or construction of this cottage.
E. Neighborhood character: The structure or site is a
significant component of an historically significant
neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is
important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
Response: The contribution this small scale residential
structure and open space makes to the Commercial Core Historic
District is considered to be a valuable cultural asset. Only
10 historic cottages remain in the District, each balancing
and supporting the historic character and scale of Aspen's
commercial neighborhood. The 300 block of East Hyman alone
contains four residences, three of which have been adapted to
commercial use. Adaptive uses of historic resources are
considered significant components of the character of the
Aspen community.
F. Community character: The structure or site is critical
to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community
because of its relationship in terms of size, location and
architectural similarity to other structures or sites of
historical or architectural importance.
Response: Aspen's "miner's cottages" are signatures of our
town. The preservation of these small scale, vernacular
resources is critical to the character and economic vitality
of Aspen.
Z
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommend Landmark Designation for the parcel
at 316 E. Hyman Ave.
Additional comments:
memo.pz.316eh.ld
5
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM
State Site Number:
Photo Information:
ASP-CC-2-9
Local Site Number: 316.EH
Township 10 South Range 84 West Section 7
USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15'
Building or Structure Name: Annie Krapf HousefOn Location Hair Salon
Full Street Address: 316 East Hopkins
Legal Description: Lots O. P. Block 80 --
City and Townsite of A
City Aspen County Pitkin
Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Commercial Core
Owner: Private/State/Federal
Owner's Mailing Address:
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Building Type: � Residence
Architectural Style: _Victorian Miner's Cottage
Dimensions: L: x W: Square Feet:
Number of Stories: _ 1
Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Irregular rectangle
Landscaping. or Special Setting Features: No
Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and
Function (map number / name): Single gable shed with shed addition;
rolled asphalt and vertical board, new retail, modif ications with
fixed glass
For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in
the description as appropriate:
Roof: Cross gabled; asphalt shingles
Walls: Clapboard with decorative shingles
Foundation / Basement: Unknown
Chimney(s): Red brick corbeled
Windows: All new: 2 3-sided bays. sidelights, storefront type
Doors: 2. transom / 112 light / wood ,panel
Porches: Shed entrance on turned posts with cut out brackets
General Architectural Description: Victorian Miner's Cottage with
extensive modifications to accommodate commercial *use.
Page 2 of 2 State Site Number
Local Site Number 316.EH
FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
Current Use: Commercial Architect: Unknown
Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown
Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: 1884 - 1885
Actual X Estimate
Based On: Building style
MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS
Minor Moderate Major X _. Moved Date
Describe Modifications and Date: Date unknown, but changed from
residential to commercial use with associated modifications in the
I9801s. bay windows, doors, canopy - dates unknown
Additions and Date: Rear shed addition, date unknown
NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA
Is listed on National Register; State Register
Is eligible for National Register; State Register
Meets National Register Criteria: A B C D E
Map
Key Local Rating and Landmark Designation
Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register
4-1
Contributing: Resource has maintained historic
architectural integrity.
O Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations,
however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort.
Locally Designated Landmark
Justify Assessment:
Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The historical sic:ni-
ficance of this former residential structure is not of those who owned
it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although it is represen-
tative of Aspen's Mining Era. It illustrates the home/environment and
lifestyle(s) of the average citizen in Aspen which was then dominated
by the silver mining industry.
Other Recording Information
Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court-
house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps
Archaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify:
Recorded By: Date: March 1991
Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Asu _
Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Plc
F
Order No. A 9 1 - 0 5 7
ADJ ACENT OWN ERSH I P CERT I F I CATS
ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado,
HEREBY CERTIFIES
That It has made a careful and di I i gent search of the records In the
off ice of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitki n County, Colorado, and has
determined that those persons, f i rms or entities set forth on the Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein and made a part
hereof, ref lect the apparent owners of lots, tracts, parcels and condom ini um
units lying within 300 feet of the following described real property situate,
lying and being In the County of Pitki n, State of Colorado, to -wit:
300 feet from Lots E, F, G, H and I, Block 105,
T0WNSITE OF ASPEN
This Certificate has been prepared for the use and benefit of the above
named appl icant and the City or Town of Aspen in the County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado. THE LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY HEREUNDER IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED
TO THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE PAID FOR THIS CERTIFICATE PLUS $250.00.
( SEAL )
DATE: November 25, 1991
ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION,
a Colorado corporation
B '
Y'
EXH 113 IT "A"
Carlos 01 ivares and Monika S. de 01 lvares
826 E. Hyman, Aspen, Col orado, 81 61 1
John 0. Antonel I 1 and Joan C. Antonel 11
2300 Sunrise Key Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 33304
Sylvia B. B r i ngo i f-Smith and George A. Smith
250 So. Original Curve, Unit E. Aspen, Colorado, 81 61 1
Ma de l i ne L i eb Sch u l to Trust
800 East Hyman Avenue, Unit A, Aspen, Colorado, 8161 1
Jon Chapman, as Trustee
800 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado
Col In Chapman
250 South Original , Apartment B, Aspen, Colorado
Candice L. Lavigne
P.O. Box 7695, Aspen, Colorado, 81 612
Robert C. B i l tz and J oh n 0. Antonel 1 1
9701 River Road, Potomac, Maryland, 20854
Sky Ier S. DeBoer
Box 6381, Snowmass V i I lage, Colorado, 81615
Robin Michael Mol ny and John Doremus
No address on recorded document
Galen A. Martin and Mary Lou Martin
5001 Hopewell Road, Loui sv i I le, Kentucky, 40299
Adrian C. Dorw or th
P.O. Box 2694, Aspen, Colorado, 81612
Mi ch ael a A. Game
No address on recorded document
Robin Michael Mol ny
1 020 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado
Michael Victor Goldman and Gloria Anna Goldman
62 West Gl aconda Way, Tucson, Arizona, 85704
Herbert S. Davis and Harriet S. Davis
210 West Railroad Avenue, Forked River, New Jersey, 08731
Susan C. Chaput and Armond J. Chaput
3426 Westcl iff Road South, Fort Worth, Texas, 76109
John Hayes
835 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, 81 61 1
Kathleen L. Smith and Walter B. Smith, Jr.
6527 Lange Circle, Dal I as, Texas, 75214
EXHIBIT "A" Continued
Lisa Cl aw son
710 East Durant, #C, Aspen, Colorado, 81 61 1
DLR Financial Corp., a Texas corporation
2907 Lucern Court, Arlington, Texas, 76012
E. Sawyer Smith, Jr.
No address on recorded document
W. R. WaI ton
400 West Main Street, City of Aspen
Frank J. Woods, I I I
P.O. Box 1 361 , Aspen, Colorado
Spring Street PO, a Colorado general partnership
c/o V incenz i, P.O. Box 2238, Aspen, Colorado, 8161 1
M B Joint Venture, a Colorado joint venture
c/o Fred Martel 1, 3 Q ua i I Run, 01 d Westbury, New York, 1 1 568
Richard P. Simmons and Dorothy P. Simmons as joint tenants in a
I i fe estate, with the remainder to Brian P. Simmons and Amy P.
Simmons, as tenants in common
c/o Code, Henni sy & Simmons, 303 West Madison, 1 7th Floor,
Chicago, I I I i not s, 60606
Katherine Oki e, Merrie Oki e, Jacqueline Oki e, Susan Okla and
Theodore Okie III
No address on recorded document
Bel I Mountain Lodge, Inc.
No address on recorded document
Simon P. Kel ly and Nora D. Kel ly
P.O. Box 1583, Aspen, Colorado, 81 61 1
City Market, Inc., a Colorado corporation
No address on recorded document
Frank D. Ross
520 E. Durant, Suite 204, Aspen, Colorado, 81 61 1
Popish
No address on recorded document
Jack Granda I I
No address on recorded document
Jon M. Henr icks and Bonnie W. Henr icks, and Michael WI Me
e
No address on recorded document
Francis P. Hof fman, as Trustee of the
Francis P. Hof fman Revocable Trust
210 Inverness Lane, Schery i I le, Indiana, 46375
-2-
EXH 113 IT "A" Continued
Donald H. Witt
1 41 2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 81 601
Wilbur A. Haber
No address on recorded document
Stanl ey L. Sel Igman
P.O. Box 72, Grand Junction, Colorado, 81 502
Karen Bernice Kiefer Trust
c/o Wa I ter J . Ki of er.. Jr. , P. 0. Box 70136, Seattl e,
Wash i ngton, 98107
Kathleen Elizabeth Kiefer Trust
c/o Walter J. Kiefer., J r. , P.O. Box 70136, Seattle
Washington, 98107
Kathleen Elisabeth Kiefer Trust aka Kathleen Elizabeth Kiefer
Trust
c/o Walter J. Kiefer, J r. , P.O. Box 701 36, Seattle.,
Washington, 98107
Kristin Patricia Kiefer Trust
c/o Walter J. Kiefer, J r. , P.O. Box 701 36, Seattle..
Washington, 98107
Wal ter John Ki efer I I I Trust
c/o Walter J. Kiefer, J r. , P.O. Box 70136, Seattle,
Wash i ngton, 98107
Florence W. Hel I i nger
1 849 Wycl i ff Drive, Orlando, Florida, 32803
Max Natterer and Helen Natterer
c/o Rei nmax Ltd, Box 5069, Station F, Ottawa Ontario, Canada,
K2C-3H3
Nancy Well
1 401-23rd Avenue Court, Greeley, Colorado, 80631
Jack P. Maddox and Lul a Belle Maddox
No address on recorded document
Christi L. Treuer
No address on recorded document
Ethel Caro Gofen
455 Cl ty Front PI aza, Sul to 3000, Ch icago, I I I inol s, 60611
Don B. Wi I loughby and Marian V. Wl I loughby
12322 Rio Van Winkle, Houston, Texas, 77002
James Ferry, Jr.
No address on recorded document
-3-
EXHIBIT "A" Continued
Matthew B. Kel I ner and George S. Kel I ner
570 Dover Drive, Walnut Creek, Cal iforni a, 94596
Steve W. Nielson and Carol D. Nielson
No address on recorded document
Paschen Contractos, Inc., a Delaware corporation
No address on recorded document
Richard G. Benter and Robert N. Rivers
c/o Richard G. Benter, 21 Morgan, Irvine, Ca I i for n i a, 91 718
Manutea Knight nee Reasi n and Alan A. Storey
100 Pol oke Place, Honol ul u, Hawaii, 96822
Paige Bov ee V i tousek and Arden Bovee Moore
100 Pol oke Place.. Honol ul u, Hawaii, 96822
W i I I lam C. King and Carolyn Thorne King
405 Buckingham Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
CDES Partners, a Colorado partnership
No address on recorded document
W i I I lam F. Carr, Trustee
P.O. Box 4619, Aspen, Colorado, 81 612
Fred Martel I and Barbara Martel 1
3 Qua i i Run, Old Westbury, New York, 1 1 568
Robert Baum
35 Mayflower Drive, Tenafly, New Jersey, 17670
Ronald J . Cohen and Dana L. Cohen
6500 Rock Spring Drive, Bethesda., Maryland, 2 081 7
Stephen J. Salzman and El issa P. Salzman
789 Woburn Street, Wilmington, Massachusetts, 01887
Red River Val ley Investments Company, a Minnesota general
partnership
408 St. Peter Street, Suite 440, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55102
Edge of Ajax, Inc., a Colorado corporation
No address on recorded document
Dennis Chookaszian
c/o CNA Insurance, CNA Plaza, 40 South, Chicago, I I I inoi s, 60685
Tamara G. Hunting and James F. Hunting
2720 Darby S. E., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49506
Phy I I i s M. Coors
Panorama Estates, Rte 5, Box 763, Golden, Colorado, 80401
:151C
EXHIBIT "A" Continued
Joel Gershman and Elaine Levitt Gershman
250 South 1 8th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1 91 03
Hannah Dustin Building Associates
No address on recorded document
AJae Limited Partnership, a I i m i ted partnership
Suite 202, 1910 N. Grant Street, Little Rock, Arizona, 72207
David Melton
No address on recorded document
David Melton and Mike Otte
No address on recorded document
Toby J. Mazzie and Janet L. Mazzie
1 425 Sierra Vista, Aspen, Colorado, 81 61 1
Greg Sherwin
1 020 E. Hopkins, #1 , Aspen, Colorado, 8 1 61 1
312009 Ontario Limited, an Ontario corporation
180 Steel es Avenue West, #206, Thornh i I I, Ontario, L4J 21-1
757253 Ontario Limited, and Ontario Corporation
c/o Landaw n Shopping Centers Limited, 11 Poison Street, Toronto,
Canada M5 Al A4
Catharine Black Peterson
2309 Gad d Road, Cockeysville, Maryland, 21030
Peter J . Berman and Rochelle L. Berman
10021 Ormond Road, Potomac, Maryland, 20854
Bruce V. Michelson
56 Fair Oaks, St. Louis, Missouri, 63124
Mason Simpson and Brenda Simpson
25 Saddl ebach Road, Teq uesta, Florida, 33469
Patty K. Landers
P.O. Box 4680, Aspen, Colorado, 81 612
Patricia M. Seifer
No address on recorded document
Michael Alan Craig and Gat I Craig
6519 Seaside Walk, Long Beach, Cal i forni a, 90808
Mary Webster and Lisa Sorensen
White Horse Springs
-5-
EXHIBIT "A" Continued
Gerald Anthony Krans
No address on recorded document
Annette C. Krans and Gerald A. Krans
P.O. Box 1592, Aspen, Colorado,
Dasha Bel kova
650 N. Rio Vista B I vd. , Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 33301
Pene) ope W i I son
No address on recorded document
John A. Elmore, 11
P.O. Box 881, Wrightsville Beach, North Carol Ina, 28480
Weston T. Anson
1345 Crest Road, De Mar, Cal ifornia, 92014
Weston T. Anson
2041 Del Mar Heights, Del Mar, California, 92014
John E. Correia
6730 E. Northwest Highway, Dal (as, Texas, 75231
Gal a D. Spence
P.O. Box 9806, Aspen, Colorado, 81 612
Gary D. Spence
P.O. Box 9806, Aspen, Colorado, 81 612
Yvonne S. KI i ka and Raymond Riggs KI i ka
32415 Burl wood Drive, Solon, Ohio
James L. Price and Julia P. Price
32670 Woodsdal a Lane, Solon, Ohio, 44139
Herron -Gray Partnersh ip
Box GG, Aspen, Colorado, 81 612
Harol d H or i uch i and Ed i th Hor i uch i
No address on recorded document
Nickol as Pasquarel la and Bette E. Pasquarel la
No address on recorded document
Frederick Marshal I Karsten and Douglas S. Hi I I
No address on recorded document
Joseph Carri I to and Anna Marie Carri I to
236 Henry Street, Brooklyn Heights, New York, 11201
Andrew R. Pfei ffenberger and Bernadetta B. Pfei ffenberger
No address on recorded document
am
EXHIBIT "A" Continued
Andrew R. Pfei ffenberger and Bernadetta B. Pfei ffenberger, and
Franklin H. Pfei ffenberger and Peggy M. Pfei ffenberger
No address on recorded document
Alan Berkowitz and Karen Berkowitz
P.O. Box 35, Brook l andv i I I e, Maryland, 21022
W. C. Mears
1 91 4 Peninsular Road, Akron, Ohio, 44313
Matthew M. Obl ock, Jr.
No address on recorded document
MKDG III Aspen, Inc... a Delaware corporation
41 0-1 7th Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202
myc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson,, -Planning Office
RE: Emde Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use for Accessory
Dwelling Unit
DATE: December 17, 1991
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Stream Margin review and
Conditional Use/GMQS Exemption for an attached accessory dwelling
unit with conditions.
APPLICANT: William and Sally Emde, represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION: The parcel is at 285 N. Spring Street (Block 1, Lots
4,5,6 and half of Lots 3 and 7 of the Oklahoma Flats Addition)
ZONING: R-30 (PUD)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting stream margin
review for the development of a single family residence situated
within 100' of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. The
home will contain a 384 s.f. accessory dwelling unit. Please see
Attachment "A".
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The complete Engineering memo from Chuck Roth
is as follows: (Please reference Attachments "B" and "C" for
floodplain information.)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made
a site inspection, the engineering department has the following
comments:
Stream Margin Review
1. The application presents a site -specific floodway line prepared
by a consulting engineer. This floodway line and the existing FEMA
study f loodway line must be shown on the map prepared by the
surveyor in order to determine if there is a difference and in
order to see the relationship to the high water line. If the new
floodway line is closer to the river than FEMA's, the applicant
must obtain a map revision approval from FEMA. Depending on how
much difference there is between the two lines, it may be
preferable to the applicant to accept the FEMA f loodway line.
2. The building envelope as staked in the field appeared to be
closer to the high water line than as shown on the engineer's map.
There are no setback requirements from the f loodway line, however
t
the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan may be interpreted to address how
close to the river the house could be. In any event, there must
be no disturbance of native vegetation, including root systems, of
any vegetation within the floodway. A setback line from the
floodway line must be indicated on the final stream margin review
map which states that the setback distance varies according to
depth of construction and width of root systems of adjacent native
vegetation. Building permit plans should be approved by planning,
engineering and parks before permits are issued. Any excavation
for foundation or any other disturbance or development must not
encroach into the floodway. These requirements must be clearly
stated on construction plans to ensure that the contractor is
informed. It is recommended that the stream margin map be required
to be submitted with the building permit package to help insure
proper development.
3. The municipal code requires that no increase in the base flood
elevation occur as a result of development within the 100 year
floodplain. The engineer's letter does not state what the rise in
the base flood elevation will be if a fifty foot wide building with
a solid walled foundation is constructed within the 100 year
floodplain. This must be clarified. It may be necessary to
require that the structure be built on piers such as the Wiener
Residence which is located a hundred yards or so downstream and on
the same side of the river, by the Art Museum.
4. It is recommended that the applicant provide a fisherman's
easement. Generally these easements are to a distance five feet
beyond the high water line.
5. The applicant is advised that design and construction within
the 100 year floodplain must comply with Section 7-141(c) of the
municipal code.
6. The Schedule B was lacking one or more pages as indicated by
the word "continued" on the sheet included with the application.
This should be required to be submitted for review prior to final
approvals for the application.
Conditional Use and GMQS Exemption
7. It is recommended that parking on site for the accessory
dwelling unit be required because the adjacent street is not
developed to typical residential widths, and there is no on -street
parking.
8. It is advisable that the City accept the offered 20 foot right-
of-way reservation so that typical right-of-way development might
occur in the future when the need arises. Since no plat is
required for this land use development, the applicant may need to
provide an agreement which is approved by the city attorney and
engineering offices.
2
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Off ice recommends approval of
Stream Margin review for a new residence and Conditional Use/GMQS
Exemption for an attached accessory dwelling unit with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall
satisfy the Engineering Department regarding documentation of the
floodway lines and rise in flood level as discussed in the
Engineering -referral comments.
2. The applicant shall file with the Pitkin County Clerk the
approved site plan and foundation design requirements for the
subject parcel. The documents shall be in the form of graphic
representation as well as deed restriction. Prior to filing, these
documents shall be reviewed by the City Engineering Office.
3. The applicant shall verify on site the dimensions between the
river and the n.w. building corner of the house as shown on the
site plan, Attachment "A".
4. Excavation for® the foundation on the river side of the house
shall be done from the inside out. Excavated soil shall not be
placed on the river side of the building footprint in order to
protect existing vegetation and grade.
5. There shall be no removal of vegetation outside of the building
footprint without Parks Department approval and required permits.
6. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant should
dedicate a fisherman's easement from the centerline to 5 feet
(measured horizontally) above the highwater line of the Roaring
Fork River.
7. If it is determined that an agreement between the applicant and
the City is required for City acceptance of the 20' right-of-way
dedication, the applicant agrees to provide such agreement prior
to issuance of any building permits.
Conditional UseJGMOS Exemption
8. 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.
9. 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.
8
a
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
RESPONSE: The proposed accessory unit will be completely contained
within the existing home. A parking space is not required by code
for a studio accessory unit. Engineering states that a parking
space should be provided on the Emde property as Spring St. is not
developed to handle on street parking. Access to the unit is
internal through the home with exterior entry at the front of the
house. Engineering also wants a trash storage area indicated on -
site on the building permit plans. No other significant impacts
are anticipated.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks,, police, f ire 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. Engineering is willing to accept the 20'
right-of-way reservation for future road development. Chuck Roth
is exploring whether an agreement of some form will be required for
the reservation.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
RESPONSE: The proposed deed restricted unit will satisfy Ordinance
1 requirements and contribute to the affordable housing stock. 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.
Note: As this unit is 100% above grade, a floor area bonus
according to the terms of Ordinance 1 may be granted to the primary
residence.
GMOS Exemption for Accessory Dwelling Units Section 8-104 l.d.
allows the Commission to approve accessory dwelling units to be
exempt from growth management competition. This proposal qualifies
upon approval of its conditional use review.
7
7
10. The oment must comply with curb cut requirements as
stip-w_____?lated; City Engineer.
11. One p, space shall be provided on -site for use by the
A.D. occu
12. tr'astage area must be indicated on the site plan in the
buil 9=_:ff- sng pe)lans.
13. 31Ando
y ty pedestals required by the project must be
inst r subj ect property.
14. M'rior 'suance of a building permit, the applicant must
demor'"Jr- trate the proposed construction complies with drainage
requ i- _-x:-_- ements;luding stream pollution criteria.
15. IF'er'mits required from the City Streets Department for any
work %,,� _Ithin lublic rights of way.
16. All mat,l repro. entations made by the applicant in the
app1 i. G ation auring punlic meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Comm � l ion s; be adhered to and considered condii_'. _ c,ns of
approves 1 i unl otherwise amended by other conditions.
Attac%lrnents : '- Site Plan
'- Existing Conditions map
"- Floodplain Drawing from Applicant' Engineer
"- Floorplan Sketch of Accessory Dwelling Unit
etude . meIMa
9
4�k.0
Rialto 6
�. i
hit?.0v 11
, ell
j{IBIT 4
.� C. CP
c SON
FLPrnxmI ,� O N ED
EXHIBIT ► 7-.
19 BY RE SOLU a o c
.eWRPv f p. 7Z5 0 0. , so
o u T H 3 r M- ) N Cr
SITE PLAN
Resident Housing:
EMDE REsioENCit
/10
c
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends approval of
Stream Margin review for a new residence and Conditional Use/GMQS
Exemption for an attached accessory dwelling unit with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall
satisfy the Engineering Department regarding documentation of the
floodway lines and rise in flood level as discussed in the
Engineering referral comments.
2. The applicant shall file with the Pitkin County Clerk the
approved site plan and foundation design requirements for the
subject parcel. The documents shall be in the form of graphic
representation as well as deed restriction. Prior to filing, these
documents shall be reviewed by the City Engineering Office.
3. The applicant shall verify, on site t sirens�ions betwee�he
-' river and the n.w. building corner �of- the house ��a shown on brie
- �-_
ite plan, Atta schment "A"
'uc
b
. .DF
4. Excavation for the foundation on the river side of the house
shall be done from the inside out. Excavated soil shall not be
placed on the river side of the building footprint in order to
protect existing vegetation and grade.
5. There shall be no removal of vegetation outside of the building
VVot
Ictift without Parks Department approval and required permits.
6. Prior to iFi
vance o any ldirmi s, the picant ould
ase a rom th center�line� to eet
at�a (mea used ozonta ly) abo e t highw er lines of th oar ng
7. f it is determined th t an a r ment b tw n the plican nd
ty requi for' a cep nce f th 20 r ht-o - y
c edicat , e a pl an a to p vi a such reem t rio
to issuance of bui ' g permits.
Conditional Use/GMQS Exemption
,:5z S. 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.
. 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.
8
I
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
RESPONSE: The proposed accessory unit will be completely contained
within the existing home. A parking space is not required by code
for a studio accessory unit. Engineering states that a parking
space should be provided on the Emde property as Spring St. is not
developed to handle on street parking. Access to the unit is
internal through the home with exterior entry at the front of the
house. Engineering also wants a trash storage area indicated on
site on the building permit plans. No other significant impacts
are anticipated.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools.
RESPONSE: All public facilities are all ready in place for the
existing neighborhood. Engineering is willing to accept the 20'
right-of-way reservation for future road development. Chuck Roth
is exploring whether an agreement of some form will be required for
the reservation.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
RESPONSE: The proposed deed restricted unit will satisfy Ordinance
1 requirements and contribute to the affordable housing stock. 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.
Note: As this unit is 100% above grade, a floor area bonus
according to the terms of Ordinance 1 may be granted to the primary
residence.
GMOS Exemption for Accessory Dwelling Units Section 8-104 l.d.
allows the Commission to approve accessory dwelling units to be
exempt from growth management competition. This proposal qualifies
upon approval of its conditional use review.
7
10. The development must comply with curb cut requirements as
stipulated by the City Engineer.
11. One parking space shall be provided on -site for use by the
A.D.U. occupant.
12. A trash storage area must be indicated on the site plan in the
building permit plans.
13. Any utility pedestals required by the project must be
installed on the subject property.
14. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant mush
d� isio�t
sincldi=rlream 01-lutor� h-�c toµ l__
- d
z-, g p
15. Permits are required from the City Streets Department for any
s
work within the public rights of way.
16. 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.
Attachments: "A" - Site Plan 1
"B" - Existing Conditions map
"C" - Floodplain Drawing from Applicant' Engineer II
- Floorplan Sketch of Accessory Dwelling Unit `r
'n ,
3 Y
c»
ti
K
erode . memo
tr
A
yz aa,
9
EXHIBIT 4
F-o A G COMMISSION
fr IT AP D
19 EXHIB
BY virCrIT."Tr
East - CPO
...............
10 4.� 0-POPS
o WAY
coo
0
j � --C L � 'r-ram•-. � �
15 1 N
to --
SITE PLAN Y20 9 / / .
Resident Housing'
CO
STIc� LT
EMOE RESIOENCZ
16
Owd- X-,-
BTAFF COMMENTS:
Stream Margin Review:
Stream Margin Review as
Section 7-504 outlines the criteria for
follows:
Criteria 1: It can be demonstrated that any proposed development
which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the
base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This
shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the State of
Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be
raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation
techniques on or off -site which compensate for any base flood
elevation increase caused by the development.
Response: The applicant's engineer, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, has
calculated that the base flood elevation will not be increased if
the building foundation does not exceed 50 feet in width.
According to the comments from Engineering, the applicant's
engineer has not specified the actual increase in the base flood
elevation if a solid foundationed structure is built. City
Engineer Chuck Roth wants this information provided. Graphic
examples of foundation design based on the Schmueser Gordon Meyer
information are offered to be filed by the applicant.
Criteria 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: According to the adopted Pedestrian and Walkways Plan,
no trail has been designated across the parcel. Planning and
Engineering recommend dedication of a 5 foot Fisherman's Easement
on this parcel. Fisherman's easements were granted by the lots
owners on either side of the Emde lot during stream margin
approvals last year.
Criteria 3: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan
are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable.
Response: The plan does not specifically address these parcels in
its recommendations. The building envelopes proposed will not
significantly affect the riverfront vegetation or natural
appearance, according to the applicant. The Engineering Department
expresses concern that any vegetation (including roots of
vegetation) in the floodway must not be harmed.
Criteria 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 will be
removed or any slope regraded such that the river would be
adversely affected. The site is fairly flat, so minimal grading
4
IM
9. Plans for a building permit must indicate a trash storage area
which is on the applicant's property And not in the right-of-way.
Any utility pedestals required by the project must also be
installed on the applicant's private property.
General
10. Both conditional use and stream margin review require that the
applicant address stream pollution. Prior to issuance of a
building permit, the applicant must submit a drainage plan which
demonstrates compliance with this requirement, that stream
pollution will not be caused by this development during a 100-year
runoff event.
11. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in pub is rights -of -way, we would advise the applicant
as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080)
for design considerations of development within public
rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or
development within public rights -of -way from city streets
department (920-5130).
This is perhaps especially relevant in terms of the driveway and
curb cut. Section 19-101 of the runicipal code regulates driveways
and curb cuts within public right, of -ways. For this property, the
maximum width of a driveway and #urb cut w" shin the right-of-way
is 10 (ten) feet for a single driveway or 18 (eighteen) for a
double driveway. Only one "curb" cut or driveway is permitted.
The property owner may not develop a personal parking lot in the
right-of-way. Parking in the right-of-way shall be parallel
parking available to the public.
12. The conditions of approval recommended in this memo should be
required to be met to the satisfaction of the engineering
department before issuance of a building permit.
PARRS DEPT: At the Development Review Committee meeting on this
project, George Robinson's comments were:
1. A condition is,needed that prohibits current or future removal
of any vegetation outside of the building envelope without Parks
Department approval and required permits.
2. Check Pedestrian Plan for public trails requirement on this
parcel.
3
5
should take place. However, the building envelope staked on site
showed the northwest corner of the proposed house to be
approximately 10 feet from the top of the bank/high water line.
This does not agree with the site plan which shows the area of
building corner approximately 18' from the mean high water line.
Planning concurs with Engineering that one map should show all
pertinent information including FEMA flood information and proposed
footprint.
Any tree over 6 inches caliper on the lots will require a permit
for removal. Additionally, Parks Department comments recommend
that no vegetation occurring outside of the building envelope be
removed. Small aspens are the primary vegetation found within the
proposed building envelopes. The application mentions that other
landscaping will be added after construction. Planning recommends
that due to the proximity of the river and riparian vegetation, all
excavation should be done from the "inside out" of the building
footprint on the river side of the house. This will limit
compaction of the topsoil layer.
Criteria 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 proposed envelopes will have no adverse effect upon
the natural changes normally experienced by the Roaring Fork,
according to the applicant. Revegetation of disturbed areas will
preclude erosion and appropriate safeguards will be utilized during
construction to prevent pollution of the river. The Engineering
Department requires that the applicant must submit a drainage plan
addressing stream pollution prior to issuance of any building
permits.
Foundation design as described by Schmueser Gordon & Meyer and
filed with the County Clerk will be adhered to for the residence
and will put future property owners on notice of these
requirements.
Criteria 6: Written notice is given to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water
coursed and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal
Emergen,-:y Management Agency.
Response: No alteration or relocation of the existing water course
will be required.
Criteria 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
5
Criteria 8: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year
floodplain.
Response: The applicant states that no federal or state permits
are required to construct within the proposed building envelopes.
However, the Engineering Department requires compliance with FEMA
Elevation Certificate requirements.
Conditional Use for attached accessory dwelling unit: Ordinance
1 (the housing replacement ordinance) requires that development of
a single family residence (either new or resulting from demolition
of an existing house) must mitigate for affordable housing by
either restricting the new residence to resident* occupancy,
providing a deed restricted accessory dwelling unit, or paying a
cash -in -lieu amount based on square footage of the home. An
existing house on the property will be demolished in order to
construct the new house. The Emdes have chosen to provide a 384
s.f. second floor accessory dwelling unit as mitigation (see
Attachment "D".) An accessory dwelling unit is a conditional use
in the R-30 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. 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,
6
C
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 a conditional use approval for the Emde Accessory
Dwelling Unit was given by 1) posting of notice containing the
information required in Section 6-205.E.2., which posting occurred
on December 7, 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 December 6, 1991.
Applicant:
WI
N: �
The foregoing Af .davit of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this ` day of December, 1991, by Sunny Vann
on behalf of the WILLIAM O. EMDE.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Office Zone Text Amendment for Broadcasting Station -
Section 24-5-213 C. and Conditional Use Review l
DATE: December 17, 1991
SUMMARY: The applicant seeks to amend Section 24-5-213 C. of the
Aspen Land Use Code changing the language that allows a
Broadcasting Station, as a conditional. use, only in Historic
Landmarks. The applicant proposes to change the text to allow a
Broadcasting Station as a conditional use in the Office zone in any
structure.
The applicant also seeks a conditional use review for the
broadcasting station in the Office Zone.
A text amendment is a two step review process requiring noticing
in the newspapers at the Commission and Ordinance adoption
procedures at Council.
A conditional use review is a one step to the Planning Commission.
Staff recommends approval of the text amendment for Section 24-5-
213 C. and conditional use approval for a broadcasting station in
the Office zone.
APPLICANT: Charles B. Moss, Jr. as represented by Sunny Vann
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Amend Section 24-5-213 C. allowing a
broadcasting station as a conditional use in any structure in the
Office zone.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. Background: Pitkin County received a rezoning (from Public to
Office) and a change in use for the old Library building in April
of 1990. The potential purchaser of the building is Charles Moss
who intends to relocate the KSPN broadcasting studio.
Professional and business offices are permitted as of right in the
Office zone district. A broadcasting station, along with various
other commercial uses, is permitted as a conditional use in the
district, provided that the use is located in a structure which has
been designated as a historic landmark. The old Library building
is not a historic landmark.
B. Proposal: The applicant purposes to amend the text to enable
a broadcasting station as a conditional use in the office zone
district in a non -designated structure.
The applicant asserts that the original rationale for allowing
commercial uses in the Office zone in historic landmarks was to
provide an incentive for the preservation of historic structures.
Designation of a structure as a landmark provides a level of
protection for the structure while the owner's ability to use that
structure for a wider range of commercial purposes enhances the
economic viability of its preservation. This historic preservation
incentive is found in the 1975 Land Use Code. The historic
preservation program was relatively new at that time and few other
incentives appear in the Land Use Code. In addition commercial
development in the Office zone was exempt from Growth Management.
Today the Historic Preservation program is more pervasive and
preservation guidelines are more stringent. The Historic Structure
Inventory, and the Commercial Core and Main Street Historic
Districts all serve to provide a greater level of scrutiny and
control over our historic resources.
Because of this higher level of control over historic resources
maintaining use incentives limited to landmark structures is not
as necessary. As the applicant states "clearly, the determination
that such uses are acceptable from a land use perspective has
already been made, as evidenced by the considerable number of
conditional use approvals which have been given in the past."
In addition, the Historic Preservation Planner has pointed out that
a broadcast studio, as compared to other commercial uses allowed
in historic structures, requires a large amount of space and is not
as easy to adapt to a historic landmark.
Permitted commercial uses within the Office zone vary widely in
their potential impacts and conditional use review is an effective
means to address impact mitigation. Consequently, the applicant
proposes to revise the section of the Code to include a broadcast
station as a conditional use in a non -designated structure in the
Office zone.
C. Amendment: Section 24-5-213 C. is proposed to be amended as
follows:
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted as
conditional uses in the Off ice-(0) zone district, subject to the
standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3.
1. Only for those structures that have received historic
landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery,
bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore,
breadeasting Staten, church, dance studio, florist,
2
Z
fraternal lodge, furniture store, mortuary, music store
(for the sale of musical instruments), music studio,
restaurant, shop craft industry, visual arts gallery,
and provided, however, that (a) no more than two(2) such
conditional uses shall be allowed in each structure, and
(b ) off-street parking is provided, with alley access for
those conditional uses along Main Street.
Amended language is proposed to read as follows:
1. Only for those structures that have received historic
landmark designation: antique store, art studio, bakery,
bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, church,
dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store,
mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical
instruments), music studio, restaurant, shop craft in
industry, visual arts gallery, and provided, however,
that (a) no more than two (2 ) such conditional uses shall
be allowed in each structure, and (b) off-street parking
is provided, with alley access for those conditional uses
along Main Street.
9. Broadcasting Studio.
D. Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 7-304 the
standards for review of a conditional �. se are as follows:
A. The conditional use is c,- ..J;.stent with the purposes,
goals, objectives and s4..::,dards of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone
District in which it is proposed to be located in; and
RESPONSE: Main Street is a mixed area which contains residential,
office, lodge and commerical space. The proposed conditional use
is consistent with the existing land use pattern on Main Street.
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 ac-
tivities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed
for development; and
RESPONSE: According to the application, the proposed use was
previously located at the northeast corner of Third and Main Street
prior to its move to the AABC. It is compatible with the
surrounding land uses and the intensity of the land use will not
be detrimental to neighboring uses.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
3
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and
RESPONSE: The proposed broadcast station will occupy a portion of
the old Library building. No expansion or changes to the exterior
of the building are proposed. Any future changes to the exterior
of the building will require Historic Preservation review.
The property's trash and service delivery will remain unchanged
from the previous use as well as pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
With respect to parking, the applicant has requested a
clarification from the City Council regarding the property's
parking requirement. Only one space can be accommodated on -site.
The applicant has requested Council to consider parking along
Garmisch Street as parking that once served the old Library and
accept a cash -in -lieu for the balance. This issue is scheduled
before Council on December 16, 1991. Staff will report to the
Commission regarding Council's decision.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to
serve the conditional use including but not limited to
roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police,
fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and
medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and
RESPONSE: All services are adequate to service this proposed use.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
RESPONSE: On February 25, 1991, the City Council accepted, in
concept a proposal from the Board of County Commissioners to
dedicate several units in a future affordable housing project to
mitigate employee housing requirements for the next business to
locate in the old Library building. Note: when the new library
was being built employee mitigation was not required as all
employees were being transferred from the old building with the
condition that any new use of the old building would be required
to mitigate employee housing. The applicant will make a final
presentation to the City Council at their December 16, 1991 meeting
regarding the housing proposal, which dedicates Williams Woods
units for mitigation purposes. At that meeting Council will review
and direct the Library Board with regard to housing mitigation for
the old Library.
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.
4
RESPONSE: The conditional use complies with all other aspects of
the Comprehensive Plan and the elements of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission recommend to
Council approval of the text amendment for Section 24-5-213 C.
Staff recommends conditional use approval for a broadcasting
station at 120 East Main with the condition that any exterior
improvements shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation
Committee.
5
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
Charles B. Moss application for conditional use approval for a
broadcasting station, and for a text amendment to the Aspen Land
Use Regulations, was given by 1) posting of notice containing the
information required in Section 6-205.E.2., which posting occurred
on December 7, 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 ( 3 00 ) feet of the subject
property, which mailing occurred on December 6, 1991.
Applicant:
CH
By
The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this day of December, 1991, by Sunny Vann
on behalf of the CHARLES B. MOSS.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ,Ilj Tlq!5'
Notary Public
• ' 1
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Kraut Property Map Amendment - Office to Affordable
Housing
DATE: December 17, 1991
SUMMARY: The Housing Authority representing the City of Aspen
proposes :.o rezone the Kraut property from Office (0) to Affordable
Housing AH). Subsequent to rezoning, the applicant will submit
a development plan containing all the pertinent reviews for the
development of this parcel. Attached for your review is the full
application submitted by the applicant.
Staff recommends approval of the map amendment for the Kraut
property from Office to Affordable Housing.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen as represented by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority
LOCATION: Southwest corner of East Hyman Avenue and South Original
Street, Block 105, Lots E, F, G, H, & I.
ZONING: O, Office
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To amend the Official Zone District map.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Having reviewed the above application and having made a site visit,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. There are 72 to 150 vehicles trips/day that the applicant states
could be generated by this development plus the 700 trips/day for
Hyman Avenue and 4,700 trips/day for Original Street which was
given in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element.
These volumes can be adequately accommodated by the 50 foot widths
of the these streets.
2. The applicant indicates that this development will generate a
resident population of approximately 53 persons and that current
public facilities are capable of accommodating the service demands
of the project and its residents. Although the Engineering
Department utility maps show that this location is served by all
utilities, the applicant still needs to furnish confirmation that
the existing water and sewer systems have sufficient capacity to
accommodate this project.
3. The applicant needs to agree to join a special improvement
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: Based upon the Housing Guidelines, the development
should house approximately 53 residents in a 30 unit project.
There are existing utilities on the site or proximate to the site
which have the capacity to service the development.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
eaviranwent.
RESPOWSZ,j The: site is flat with no significant vegetation.
Development will not adversely impact the natural environment.
Landscaping and appropriate site treatments for drainage, runoff
etc. will be addressed during subdivision.
9- Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Affordable resident housing has historically been
intert,,-:persed throughout. Aspen Is neighborhoods. The Commercial Core
and the East End are comprised of various housing types including
housing for working residents. The proposal,, for multi -family
housing, is compatible with the character of the immediate
neighborhood. The rezoning is also consistent with the various
goals and programs tha-At the City has been working on to effectively
preserve the local nature of the town and provide housing for
working residents.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
# 11
RESPONSE: 11he neighborhood surrounding the Kraut property has
changed &*ignif icantly. The East End, traditionally home for
working residents, has greatly shifted to a neighborhood of second
homes. Affordable hoijsing throughout the City has been largely
replaced with second homes priced far beyond the reach of the
majority of the employees in town. The City, County and Housing
Authority have been actively working to counter this trend in a
comprehensive nanner. The Housing Production Plan approaches the
problem from several facets: preservation, production and
replacement. The AIF Zone District is one avenue available for t-he
public and private sectors to address the community's housing
Problems. �.-,'.Ihis rezoning is proposed as an attempt to develop new
affordable housing integrated into the community.
9
0
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Leslie Lamont, Planner
Kraut Property Map Amendment - Office to
Housing
1pecember 17, 1991
1,7
Af f ordable
SUMMARY: The Housing Authority representing the City of Aspen `
proposes to rezone the Kraut property from Office (0) to Affordable
Housing (AH). Subsequent to rezoning, the applicant will submit
a development plan containing all the pertinent reviews for the
development of this parcel. Attached for your review is the:. .full..; t
application submitted by the applicant.
Staff recommends approval of the map amendment for the Kraut'.,:
property from Office to Affordable Housing.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen as represented by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority
LOCATION: Southwest corner of East Hyman Avenue and South Original'
Street, Block 105, Lots E, F, G, H, & I.
ZONING: 0, Office
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: T �mndw„ the'Official Zone District map.;
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Having reviewed the above application and having made a site visit
the Engineering Department has the following comments: ryx..
There are 72 to 150 vehicles trips/day that the applicant states
could be generated by this development plus the 700.trips/day for.
Hyman Avenue and 4,700 trips/day for Original Street, which....was:
given in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; Tran�sportat.ior .Element'. f.
These volumes can be adequately accommodated by the.,. 50. fo .' widths
of the these streets.
The applicantindicates that this development; will ge
resident population of approximately 53- persons and , that' current
public facilities are capable of accommodating the service Idemans
of the project and its residents. Although the , Engineer.i.44
nepartment,utility maps show that this-location,is served by alb.
utilities; ` the applicant 'still needs , to furnish: conf irmation that
the existing water and sewer systems have sufficient capacity..to
accommodate this project.
The applicant needs to agree to join a special improvement
district if one is ever formed.
4. The applicant needs to get an excavation permit from the Streets
Departttnt and approval of design from the Engineering Department
'for.a.hy-work done' in the public right-of-way.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. Background'- The City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Hcusing
'.Authority, have -together pursued a comprehensive plan to address
the cbmmuhity's housing problems. The housing plan is threefold
.it: seeks to preserve the existing affordable housing stock,
�requirds developers to mitigate a "fair share" of their affordable
housing impacts, and - produces new affordable housing to
reduce/eliminate the current affordable housing shortfall.
As part of this comprehensive approach the City Council adopted
Ordinance 59 establishing an Affordable Housing Zone District (AH) -
,The AR zone- enables the rezoning of land for the purposes of
..affordable housing.
Taking advantage of the Affordable Housing zone district, the
purchase and subsequent development of the Kraut property is a step
.toward the provision of affordable housing, within close proximity
to 'employment opportunities and neighborhoodservices, for those
citizens in need of housing.
. B. Site Description - The,Kraut property is located.'near-the base
of Aspen Mountain. The site is two blocks east of -the downtown
commercial core area� , and two blocks south of'Main Street at the
Intersection of East Hyman Avenue and original Street.
The 15,000 square foot lot is vacant and is currently being used
as a commerical parking lot. There are no natural hazards
associated with the site,, it is relatively flat. There is no
significant vegetation on the parcel and several inches of gravel
exist on top of the natural soil conditions.
The parcel is zoned Office. The areas north and west of the parcel
are also zoned Office. Across Spring Street, to the west, the
Commercial-1 zone district begins. The parcels immediately south
of the Kraut property are zoned Lodge Preservation and Commercial
Lodge. Across Original, to the east, is Residential/Multi-Family.
The property is bounded by several existing structures. West of
the parcel is a two-story A -frame and the three-story Hannah -
Dustin office building on the corner of Hyman and Spring streets.
The Buckhorn Lodge, a two and one-half story structure, is across
the alley along the site's southern boundary. To the southwest is
the two-story Bell Mountain Lodge. Across Hyman Avenue, to the
north, is the Aspen AthleticClub office building. West of the
two -plus story Athletic Club are the 700 Hyman Townhomes that
K
'2-
consists of three duplexes containing six units total. To the
east, across Original, are single and multi -family residences.
The parcel is accessible by paved public streets, East Hyman Avenue
and Original Street, and by a dirt alley between Hyman and Cooper
Avenues. The public streets have curb and gutter. There are no
paved sidewalks, only gravel paths. Utility lines are pro<x irate
and contained underground within the public street rights -of -way
and/or alleyway.
C. Project Summary - Many opportunities exist for development of
this site. The neighborhood is a mixed -use neighborhood containing
a variety of land uses, intensities of development, aid
architectural styles. Minimal site preparation .is involved. No
natural hazards, critical. Wildlife habitat or vegetation exist on
the site. All public; services are in place with th capacity to
serve the site. The site is within the Central Area of downtown
as identified in the 1973 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and is
within one block bus routes:
A very preliminary site plan indicates that between .24 to 30
affordable, deed -restricted residences could be developed on, o'he
parcel. The potential development plan may consist of studio and
cn.e-bedroom rental units.
It .is the goal of the development plan "to achieve a liR7able,
human -scale residential development consistent with the Commercial
Core and East End neighborhoods."
The following tables, from the application, detail. the dimensional
requirements applicable in the AH zone and how tnosa would. be
applied for a 24-30 unit development". These are provided at this
conceptual stage to help the review bodies envision the development
potential of the site.
r.
TAB LE 4 *' 1
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Criterion
Minimum front yard
Minimum rear yard
Minimum side yard
Minimum distance between bldgs.
Maximum height
Minimum lot size
Minimum lot area/unit
AH Zone Maximum
Requirements Proposal.
10' 1.0'
10' 10,
5' 5'
5'
25'
30' (by spec. review). 3C'
3,000 s.f. 15,000 s.f.
300 s.f.
per unit
One bedroom
400 s.f.
per unit
rI^ c bedroom.
S GO s . f .
Minimu-u `lc•�' a_ red total
Maximum FL . A'i � .v � ; ., � �
� 1.1:1
Maximum Floor Area
16,500 s.f.
(15,'000 s.f.' 10t)
Minimum open space
Special- Review
Ope' `space
Sje•cial Review
Off e r° arkixi`g
Special Review
4
10 units =
3,000 s.f.
10 units =
4,000 s.f.
10 units =
t3, 000 s.f.
15,000 s.f.
24-30 spaces
(l ` mace/unit)
.ys. _ u ,_ d� i.,a�b.l��:•5�d. yt q�F1 �., ...a l�.-,�. S%�a l�,€u¢� ,! i •h
i _F.
4
SEVEN HUNDRED EAST HYMAN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
December 17, 1991
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
City Hall
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Map Amendment
Dear City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission:
We are the owners of the Seven Hundred East Hyman Avenue
Condominiums which are located across Hyman Avenue to the north of
the Kraut property. You are considering an Application for Map
Amendment (rezoning) to the Kraut property at your meeting on
December 17, 1991. For the several reasons listed below, we
request you deny the application.
1. The need for the proposed housing no longer exists. A
couple of years ago, there was very limited affordable housing
available and the City Counsel, approved the Affordable Housing Zone
District. The market has changed. If anything, there is now a
glut of employee housing on the market. Landlords are having a
difficult time renting residential units and prices on those:;
rentals are down significantly. A rezoning which allows
approximately triple the density currently allowed on that property
and in the neighborhood is inappropriate and unwarranted.
2. Even if there was a need for employee housing,. to propose
high density employee housing is an inappropriate and inefficient
use of prime real estate. in the -heart of Aspen.
3. Parking in our neighborhood is extremely limited.. and
insufficient; the parking in our neighborhood is already a problem`.
The proposed rezoning will exacerbate this problem in two way..
First, it, will displace a commercial parking lot which -now 'prov des "�
parking for many cars, and, second, the proposed development will
greatly increase the number of residential units in the
neighborhood (bringing in many new cars) with very limited parking
to offset that new development.
4. The proposed development is for the maximum the site
could possibly handle. We oppose the construction of a massive
structure at the maximum allowed density and height, which is
inappropriate for and not consistent with the neighborhood.
r-
5. We have each invested a considerable amount of money in
our respective properties, and the proposed rezoning will cause
damage to us by causing our property values to be decreased.
6. The proposed rezoning will have negative impacts on a
traffic problem which is already congested. Both Hyman Avenue and
Original Street are major traffic corridors. The rezoning of this
property to allow significant new residential development will
bring even more traffic into the neighborhood.
7. It is our understanding one proposal is to rezone the
property and subsequently to amend the allowed uses in the zone
district to allow construction of an underwear store, a liquor
store, and -a grocery store on this site. There already exists a
ApDA grocery store across Cooper Avenue from this site, and despite the
� fact that the last thing Aspen needs is another liquor store, this
neighborhood location is inappropriate for that type of store.
Sincerely,
Seven/iundr)ed East Hyman Avenue Condominium Association Members
ri
",- -
'• • �-
B`ob Baum ,
�a-t �
teven Salzman
Linda Waag
mis.ltrs.seven