HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19910219
AGENDA
ASPEN PLAlOl'ING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR a=o.ull'G
February 19, 1991, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting ROOIIl
City Ball
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
.Planning staff
Public
II. MDroTES
-
III. PUBLIC BEARINGS
A. Golf Course PlJD bendlllent Nordic Council
Lighted Skiing
B. Schiller COnditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit
C. Seyaour COnditional Use Revi_ for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit
D. Moores Hall_ Lake Bluff Review, Special Review
and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit
IV. ADJOURN
a.cov
."."",
.-
134 M VOW, I IPM190
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commiss
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Planning Officf
RE: Upcoming Meetings
DATE: February 14, 1991
This is a list of your scheduled upcoming n gs .
Work Session, February 26th
* Aspen Area Community Plan (AM)
Regular Meeting, March 5th
* Holden/Marolt Mining Museum Final PUD boriing (PH) (KJ)
* Sweeney/533 West Hallam ADU (PH) (LL)
* Art Park/Trolley/Snow-melt Concept SPA (7)
* Braden Stream Margin Review (KJ)
Special Meeting, March 12th
* Tentative Planning Commission Work Sesson the Aspen Area
Community Plan (3:30 to 5:30)
Regular Meeting, March 19th
* Aspen Meadows Final SPA, Rezoning & Fential GMQS (PH)
(KJ/AM )
Special Meeting, March 26th
* Possible Special Meeting on the Meadowmtinued)
Regular Meeting, April 2nd
* 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision/PUD, Conda'al Use Review of
8040 Greenline Review (PH) (KJ)
* Lewis 8040 Greenline Review (LL)
Regular Meeting, April 16th
* Gordon Stream Margin Review (PH?) (KJ)
a.nex
r v154Y O jkl1'_1,)VI
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Amendment to PUD at the Aspen Golf Course for
Lighted Nighttime Nordic Skiing
DATE: February 8, 1991
Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the PUD
Amendment with conditions, to allow lighted nighttime use of
existing nordic trails for a trial period of one season.
Applicant: Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council, Mark Pearson
representative
Location: The proposal involves setting lights on approximately
1 kilometer of the existing nordic trails at the Aspen Golf
Course.
Zoning: The Golf Course is zoned (P) Park PUD and (P) Park (GCS)
Golf Course Support.
Proposal: Please see Attachment "A" for application information
and a sketch of the locations of the lighted trails and light
equipment proposed. The application calls for the installation
of seven light fixtures mounted on existing structures and posts.
An alternative to three building -mounted lights could be
accomplished by laying an electric line under the snow near the
ninth fairway. The light fixtures will use flood type bulbs of
50 to 100 watts angled downward to minimize lighting out of the
ski loop. Proposed hours of operation are dusk to 8:00 pm, seven
days a week.
Costs associated with the light fixtures will be paid by the
Nordic Council and the Ute Mountaineer. Electricity costs will
be borne by the Aspen Cross Country Center, Ute Mountaineer, and
public donations.
The Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council, as a non-profit organization,
requests that the Planning Office fee deposit of .$780.00 be
waived by City Council.
Referral Comments: George Robinson and Rich Coulombe have
forwarded comments (Attachment "B"):
1. The Golf Superintendent should be present for locations and
installation of lights.
2. A separate electric meter should be installed for lights to
determine usage/costs.
3. A "sweep" of the ski loop should be made at the end of each
night to ensure that no problems/accidents have occurred.
4. The City Attorney should be consulted to inquire if
additional liability and/or insurance is needed. If so, Nordic
Center (Ute Mountaineer) should be responsible for the cost.
5. If any problems or complaints occur, they should be*directed
to the Nordic Center, and the Parks Department should be
notified.
Staff Comments:
At the November 26, 1990 City Council meeting during Citizen's
Comments, Nordic Council representative Mark Pearson asked the
City Council for permission to pursue this proposal involving the
City -owned golf course. This was approved by a vote of 4-1.
Pursuant to Section 7-908 B. of the Aspen Land Use Code, any
amendment proposed which is consistent with or enhances an
existing PUD shall be processed under the terms and procedures
for a Final Development Plan. This proposal will be heard at a
public hearing by the Planning Commission and the Commission's
recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their
consideration.
The following are General Review Requirements for PUDs:
-a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element of the
Comprehensive plan sets goals of developing and providing parks,
trails and open spaces which serve a wide variety of public
needs, including active and passive activities, and provides for
maintenance within high community standards. The increased
availability for night use of the existing nordic trails supports
these goals. The funding support provided by the Nordic Council,
Ute Mountaineer, and the Aspen Cross Country Center relieves most
or all of the expenses which will result from this activity.
The recently adopted Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan, a
supplement to the Trails/Comp. Plan, does not directly reference
a proposal of this type. However, it states that lighting "along
the designated pedestrian corridor shall be improved for safety;
light scatter shall be controlled. Lighting shall be
neighborhood specific, with actual design handled at the
neighborhood level." The golf course nordic trail is not
designated as a pedestrian corridor, although the far western
edge of the driving range area is identified as a portion of a
proposed secondary commuter system.
2
C
i l
autumn, it is recommen ed by staff that all- venues of lighting
efficiency be explored. This might include low voltage trail
lights, solar power, etc. Please read attachment "C", an
article provided by a Planning staff member regarding light
pollution.
As mentioned by Parks staff, there should be some patrol of the
trails prior to turning off the lights each night. if someone
were hurt on the trails, it would be important to find him/her
before everyone left the area.
The Nordic Council should be commended for enlisting support of
local groups and businesses for financial support of the lighting
project. In order to successfully monitor and charge for
electrical consumption, a meter should be installed at the
junction between the trail lights and the golf course electrical
system. The billing method must be worked out between the
applicant, the golf course, and the electric company.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends approval for one
season of lighting for the Golf Course cross country ski trails
with the following conditions:
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to dusk to 8:00 pm, seven
days per week, until the season ends in spring 1991.
2. The applicant shall install the light fixtures under the
supervision and consent of the Golf Course Superintendent.
3. No more than seven (7) spot type light fixtures shall be
installed with maximum bulb wattage of 100 watts. The lamps
shall be downcast to minimize visibility from outside the ski
loop.
4. Electricity used by the trail lights will be paid for by the
applicant. A separate meter shall be installed under the
supervision of the Golf Course Superintendent to determine
electrical consumption. Billing/payment methods shall be worked
out between the applicant, the golf course, and electric company.
5. At the end of each evening of lighted skiing, the applicant
must make a final sweep of the trails to insure that no one is
stranded on the trails prior to turning off the lights.
6. Any problems or complaints will be directed to the Nordic
Center and the Nordic Council will notify the Parks Department of
these situations.
7. If additional liability or insurance needs are incurred, the
Nordic Center and Ute Mountaineer shall be responsible for costs.
8. If the Nordic Council / Ute Mountaineer wish to reapply for
4
b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
Response: The use of the nordic trails will remain the same.
The nighttime use of lights will expand the hours of use for
local residents and visitors alike. The Planning Office is
concerned that increased "urbanization" will result from this
proposal. The lights may impact the Truscott Place residents and
the homes bordering the golf course. The trial period will allow
these impacts to be addressed. The golf course parking lot will
still be available for the nordic trails.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the
future development of the surrounding area.
Response: The surrounding area "is nearly fully developed with
multi -family, single family and duplex uses.
d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to
the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the
applicant.
Response: GMQS allotments are not applicable to this proposal.
Other review PUD standards pertinent to this application are:
Off -Street Parking: Existing parking for is available seasonally
for golfing and skiing patrons. Additional spaces are not
required because of expanded ski. hours. The golf course lot is
used for overflow parking by Truscott Place residents. RFTA
provides regular bus service to the site.
Open Space: The area is currently used for recreation (golf and
skiing) and the level of use will not significantly change as a
result of this proposal. Open space within the PUD is not
reduced.
Lighting: The review standard states that "All lighting shall be
arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference
of any kind to adjoining streets or lands." As diagrammed, the
light fixtures will not be shining towards Hwy. 82. The nearest
residences on Sierra Vista Dr. are approximately 450 away from
the lights near the ninth fairway. The lights will also be aimed
away from the Truscott housing development .
Issues and Concerns:
The Planning staff was split in opinion regarding this
application. While some felt that this would greatly increase
the urban impacts in this location, others felt that much urban
influence already exists and would not be raised a significant
degree. As it is hard to predict how bright the lights will
appear from a distance and how much actual activity will result
from this proposal, it is proposed that one trial season be
approved. The community will be better able to evaluate impacts
after one season of use. If the applicant wishes to reapply next
3
any additional seasons of lighted skiing they should do so early
in the fall to allow for adequate processing time.
Attachments:
"A"- Application Information, Sketch Maps
"B"- Referral from Parks and Golf Course
"C"- Magazine Article Regarding "light pollution"
jtkvj/nordic.memo
5
Attachment "A"
ATTACHMENT 2 INFORMATION
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
APPLICANT'S NAME
Aspen Snowmass Nordic Council
P.O. Box 10e05
Aspen, Co. e1612
920-2006 (Craig Ward)
Representative
Mark Pearson
C/O Aspen Cross Country Center
. p
22475. West Hwy E32
Aspen, CO. 81611
Business 925-2145
Home 920-2653
Location of the proposed night skiing trail is -on the
Aspen Golf Course
22475 West Hwy 82
Aspen, Co. e1611
The'actual parcel of the proposed night trail is on a small
portion of the existing cross-country trail system.
The City of Aspen owns the Aspen Golf Course property.
Attached to this information is a map of the Aspen Golf
Course with its existing cross country trail system and the
proposed night skiing trail.
This proposal is to provide cross country night skiing to
Aspen locals and visitors. This is to be accomplished by
using existing buildings situated on the Aspen Golf Course.
These buil-dings border the cross country trails and have
electrical outlets which will furnish the electricity.
Since we propose this light system as experimental, the
.light fixtures would be set up an the buildings on a
temporary seasonal basis. The Superintendeht of the Golf
Course.supports this proposal and is considering the use of a
portion of the lights for summer night time security due to
recent vandalism.
Due to snow0s, reflective properties (65% reflective) the
amount of light needed would be at a minimum. Low wattage
-flood lights (100 - 150 watts) would be situated directly on
the buildings (see map B) and angled down between 45-70
degrees to minimize visual impact from outside the skiing
loop. Sufficient light for skiing can be accomplished with
light attached only to the existing buildings, however, we
would be able to maximize our trail lighting with the use of
laying line in two places on the course (see building #1 and
42). This would not expand our light wattage or numbers bUt
would allow us to use lower wattage bulbs because the lights
FEB io
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen Planning Dept.
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: Application for a Lighted track at the Aspen Golf Course
Dear Kim,
It is rewarding to see the heavy use of the Aspen/Snowmass Nordic
Council trails throughout our valley, especially since the
inspiration for our system came from our sister city, Davos,
Switzerland in 1984.
From the very beginning the concept of offering a small, well lit
but inconspicuous lighted track has been a part of the concept
conceived from Davos. They, too, have a small track on their golf
course. Their concerns about appropriate lighting was probably
quite similar to the concerns here in Aspen.
As President of the Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council I would urge that
the proposed lighted track application from Mark Pearson, also a
member of the A/SNC Board, be approved. I probably have skied on
more lighted trail systems in the world than any other local, and
I can truthfully say that this compliments our system in a very
beneficial way.
I'm sorry that I will not be able to make the hearing on Tuesday,
the 19th due to a previous commitment. Please see that this letter
is submitted as support for the applicant.
Sincerely,
Craig'C. Ward
ispen
Nordic
(associates
Box 5033 Aspen, CO 81612
r—EMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Schiller Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit
DATE: February 8, 1991
SUMMARY: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use approval in order
to voluntarily construct a studio accessory dwelling unit of
approximately 650 square feet in a single family residence
located at 1605 Silverking Dr. Planning Staff recommends
approval of this Conditional Use with conditions.
APPLICANT: Carl Schiller, represented by Don Huff
LOCATION: 1605 Silverking Dr. (Lot 26, West Aspen Subdivision)
ZONING: R-15
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conditional Use approval for an accessory
dwelling unit.
PROPOSAL: The existing residence is a 3 bedroom home of approx.
3040 sq. ft. The applicant wishes to remodel a storage area into
a studio accessory dwelling unit of approximately.650 sq. ft. 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 conditions are:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the accessory
dwelling unit, Owner shall submit an appropriate deed restriction
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval.
Upon approval by the Authority the Owner shall record the deed
restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
STAFF COMMENTS: An accessory dwelling unit is a conditional use
in the R-15 zoning 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 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 is not 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 accesso
contained within the existing hom(
will not be needed as one bedroom o
no parking requirement. The site
that there is room to park four
significant impacts will result, a
than two persons.
ry unit will be completely
Additional parking spaces
studio accessory units carry
plan for the home indicates
vehicles t)n site. No other
s the unit can house no more
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve
the conditional use including but not limited to roads,
potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire
protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical
services, drainage systems, and schools.
RESPONSE: All public facilities are all ready in place for the
existing neighborhood.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by
the conditional use.
2
RF=SPONE: This is a voluntarily provided unit and 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 RECOMM]DATION: Planning recommends approval of this
conditional use with the following condition:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the accessory
dwelling unit, Owner shall submit an appropriate deed restriction
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval.
Upon approval by the Authority the Owner shall record the deed
restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
2. A copy of the recorded deed restriction must be forwarded to
the Planning Office.
Attachment "A" - Floorplan and Site Sketches,
jtkvj/schiller.memo
3
\ JI
1,4
Y"GY e
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Seymour Conditional Use Review for Detached Accessory
Dwelling Unit
DATE: February 13, 1991
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this
conditional use for a detached accessory dwelling unit.
APPLICANT: Gene and Judie Seymour, represented by Al Beyer
LOCATION: 390 N. Spring (Lot 1, Volk Lot Split, Oklahoma Flats)
The parcel size is 31,680 s.f.
ZONING: R-30
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant seeks Conditional Use
approval to utilize an existing miner's house as an accessory
dwelling unit detached from a new primary residence.
PROPOSAL: The proposal calls for remodeling an old miner's house
located on the western part of the property and deed restricting
it for resident occupancy. The structure contains one bedroom
and is 693 square feet in area. Please see Attachment "A" for
site plan, floor plan and elevation sketches.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Housing Authority standard review
comments are: prior to the issuance of any building permits, the
unit must be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit with
minimum lease periods of 6 months or longer. Upon approval of
the deed restriction by the Housing Authority, the applicant
shall record the restriction with, the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office.
Comments from the Engineering Office relate mostly to the
easements and r.o.w. reserves located on this parcel: The
applicant needs to apply for an insubstantial plat amendment to
change the easement locations prior to issuance of a building
permit to improve this building. Additionally, a trash are for
this site must be designated and shown to Engineering prior to
issuance of a building permit. (Attachment "B")
STAFF COMMENTS: Ordinance 60, approved in October 1990, provides
for Conditional Use review of accessory dwelling units detached
from the primary residences. This parcel is located adjacent to
1
the Hamilton residence, which last month received Conditional Use
approval for an accessory unit above the garage. .
This parcel was created by the Volk Lot Split in 1989. A
condition of all lot splits is the requirement that any
development on the lots must include an accessory dwelling unit.
When the City Council approved the split, it was anticipated that
the cottage would be removed, hence the easements and reserves
were platted creating the encroachments. Council strongly urged
that the cottage be retained if at all possible, and urged that
creative means be explored to keep it on site. The Seymours,
knowing of Council's feelings and also needing to provide an
accessory dwelling unit, are seeking to improve and deed restrict
the house.
Review Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (Detached)
Section 5-508 of the Land Use Code (along with amendments from
Ordinance 60) describes the required standards for accessory
dwelling units. The size of the proposed unit (693 s.f.) fits
within the 300-700 square foot range as the code requires. The
unit must be deed restricted to resident occupancy with minimum
leases of 6 months -or longer. Parking is not required for studio
or one -bedroom units.
Review standards for detached units are found in Section 5-508 B:
1. The proposed development is compatible and subordinate in
character with the primary residence located on the parcel
and with development located within the neighborhood.
Response: The proposed unit is an existing miner's cottage and
will receive new exterior siding, windows and winterized
utilities. The new residence will be clearly the principal
structure on the property by virtue of size and design.
2. Where the proposed development varies from the dimensional
requirements of the underlying zone district, the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall find that such variation is more
compatible in character with the primary residence than the
development in accord with the dimensional requirements.
Response: The existing cottage is encroaching into the R-30 side
yard setback by approximately 2.5 feet. However, Ordinance 60
amends dimensional requirements for side setbacks to be a minimum
of 3 feet. The structure is approximately 15 feet from the side
property line. As long as the structure is not enlarged to
further increase the non -conformity, this is a grandfathered
situation. As discussed above, the plat must be changed to
adjust the utility/access easement and Spring Street "reserve for
dedication." Planning, Engineering,and the applicant have met to
discuss this requirement and all feel comfortable with this
process.
2
Response: This is a unit provided to comply with the affordable
housing requirement of the lot split process. Because this
detached unit is 100% above grade, the parcel is eligible for a
floor area bonus of 50% of the square footage of the unit (346
s.f.) as provided by Ordinance 60 (1990).
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: As a deed restricted unit, this will comply with
requirements of the Aspen Area Comp. Plan and other requirements
of the Land Use Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of
the Conditional Use for a 693 s.f. accessory dwelling unit to be
located in the existing miner's cottage with 'the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permits for remodel of the
accessory dwelling unit or the principal residence, the applicant
shall provide a deed restriction to the Housing Authority for
approval. The restriction shall state that the accessory unit
meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition
of Resident Occupied Unit, and shall be rented for periods of six
months or longer. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the
Housing Authority, the applicant shall record the deed
restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office.
2. A copy of the recorded deed restrictions must be forwarded to
the Planning Office.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permits for this unit or the
principal residence, the plat shall be amended and filed with the
County Clerk.to reduce the utility/access easement and the Spring
St. "reserve for dedication" so that the unit is not encroaching
into these elements.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permit a trash service
location shall be identified on the site plan and approved by the
Engineering Department.
Attachment: "A" - Site plan and elevation sketch
4
3. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic
Preservation Committee may exempt existing non -conforming
structures, being converted to a detached accessory dwelling
unit, from Section 5-508 B.2.(a-g) provided that the non-
conformity is not.increased.
Response: As described above, the structure's non -conformity is
not being increased. Review standards require a minimum of 3
feet for a side yard setback, with which this cottage complies.
4. Conditional Use Review shall be granted pursuant to Section
7-304 Standards applicable to all conditional uses.
Response: See the following information.
Conditional Use Review Standards:
A. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed
for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the
mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
Response: The neighborhood is comprised of single family homes on
fairly large lots. As a condition of the lot split approval,
this site must provide an accessory dwelling unit. By retaining
this cottage, some historical context of the neighborhood is
retained.
B. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery,
noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and
Response: As the unit is an existing house, no further visual
impacts will occur. A parking space already exists for this
unit. A studio or one bedroom accessory dwelling unit does not
carry a mandatory parking requirement.
C. 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 public services and utilities are provided for
this parcel and the others in the vicinity.
D. The -applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by
the conditional use; and
3
�oRArrDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Moores Hallam Lake Bluff ESA and Special Review and
Conditional Use Review
DATE: February 9, 1991
Summary: The Planning Office recommends tabling this multi -
review item. The Commission should direct the applicant to
relocate the proposed residences to minimize encroachment into
the top of slope setback and height limit. The -landscape plan
should include additional evergreens upon evaluation of photos
indicating the building elevations through the deciduous
vegetation. Also, the applicant must reduce the net livable area
of the accessory dwelling unit on Lot B to comply with size
limitations contained in Ordinance 60 (1990.)
Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. John Moores, represented by Joe Wells
Location: 200 W. Gillespie, north and east of the intersection
of Lake Ave. and Gillespie St. (Lots A and B of the Moores Lot
Split, approved in October 1990.)
Zoning: R-6, overlain by the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally
Sensitive Area (ESA).
Proposal: The Moores propose to build one principal residence on
each of the two lots, each residence to contain an accessory
dwelling unit. Both homes will be accessed by one driveway off
of Gillespie St. Please see Attachment "A" for site plan,,site
sections and selected floor plans.
Referral Comments: Tom Cardamone with A.C.E.S. reviewed the
proposal and spoke with staff about it. He plans to attend the
meeting to speak about the application. He appreciates that the
applicant worked with ACES to help develop a workable set of
criteria during the development of the ESA overlay.
The applicant's landscape designer met with Tom at A.C.E.S. to
try to visualize the vegetative cover needed for the property.
Photos were taken and submitted in the application. He would
like to see the outlines of the buildings and proposed ponderosa
pines drawn onto photo #3 to get an idea of winter visibility
through the deciduous vegetation. While the summertime
vegetation would appear to provide the required 50% cover, more,
evergreen plantings may be needed for winter. screening. Tom
thinks that a few substantial evergreens (14-16 feet tall) might
need to be planted on the flat area above the slope.
Staff Comments:
Staff made a few observations not directly related to the
specific review criteria:
- The lot split plat has yet to be filed.
- It appears that a covered walkway runs between the two
residences: This crosses the lot line and side setbacks,
therefore it cannot be allowed.
- The driveway may not be totally within the access easement.
The development plan must include the easement to verify this.
Square footage of the residences was not given. This might be
important to Lot B because of the oversized accessory dwelling
unit.
Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Units - As a result of the
Lot Split action, any development on these lots must contain an
accessory dwelling unit, requiring Conditional Use approval. The
unit in the Lot A home is proposed to be 370 s.f. The Lot B
unit is proposed to be 842 s.f. The following standards must be
addressed for each of the two proposed units:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it
is proposed to be located; and
Response: As earlier stated, the units are provided as required
by the approval of the 1990 Lot Split. Accessory dwellings are
conditional uses in the R-6 zone.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed
for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the
mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development;
and
Response: As attached units, they are as in character with the
neighborhood as the main homes.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery,
noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and
Response: In general, these two units will not create impacts
K
over and above the proposed principal residences.. The unit
proposed for Lot B (the guest house) exceeds the 700 square foot
size limit for ADUs as required by the latest language contained
in Ordinance 60 (1990). However, the unit as proposed is 842.3
square feet. There is not a variance process for the size of
ADUs, so it must be reduced to comply with Ordinance 60. The FAR
of the parcel must still comply with R-6 requirements (taking
into consideration any FAR "bonus" for 50% of the ADU square
footage.) The proposed ADUs are configured as one bedroom or
studio units, not requiring a dedicated parking space.
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: The lot split required drainage easements be provided
along the south borders of both lots. Other public facilities
are already provided for the neighborhood.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by
the conditional use; and
Response: These units are proposed in order to comply with the
City's affordable housing goals.
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: Other than the size issue of the Lot B ADU, the
proposed units comply with all other additional standards and
requirements.
Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review: This is the first project to be
reviewed under the recently designated Hallam Lake Bluff ESA.
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. Attached for your reference is
Ordinance 71, 1990. Please keep this with your Code book for
future reference.
The review standards and responses are as follows:
1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native
vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of
slope.
3
Response: No development or excavation is proposed below the
top of slope except for native vegetation plantings. Further
discussion of the method of determining the top of slope is
contained in the Special Review section below.
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: Staff is not comfortable with the method of
determining top of slope for Lot A. Discussion of this is
contained within the Special Review section below, as both lots
would then appear to encroach into the top of slope setbacks.
The applicant is pursuing special review for Lot B. Staff is
reviewing Lot A under this criteria also.
3. All development outside the 15' setback from the top of
slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn
at a 45 degree angle from ground level at the top of slope.
Height shall be measured and determined by the Zoning
Officer utilizing that definition set forth at Section 3-
101 of this Chapter 24.
Response: Staff suggests that the method of calculating the top
of slope line for Lot A should be revised. See Special Review
discussion below. It would then appear that the main _residence
will exceed the height limit. If the structure is relocated as
per staff's proposal (Attachment "B"), this problem would be
lessened somewhat. Staff did not have time to redraw a section
reflecting this situation. The residence on Lot B exceeds the
height limit and is reviewed later in this memo.
4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development
applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative
screening of no less than 50 percent of the development as
viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative
screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be
replaced with the same or comparable material should it die.
Response: The project's Landscape Designer met with Tom Cardamone
at the site. Limited pruning of cottonwood saplings is suggested
by Tom to promote quick regrowth of the vegetation that had been
previously cut down. The building elevations and proposed pine
plantings should be added to the applicant's photo *3 to clarify
the buildings' visual impact. Further discussion of the landscape
plan is contained below.
5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no
light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down
the slope.
4
Response: A lighting plan was not submitted with the
application. The applicant commits that all lighting will comply
with this requirement.
6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of
the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be
maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the
slope.
Response: The applicant states that no disturbance will occur
below the top of slope line. Dry wells or other engineered
methods will be installed to replicate historic drainage
patterns.
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: Hagman Yaw Architects have submitted sketches included
in the application and your packet (Attachment "A".)
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.
The application requests Special Review for Lot B as the
structure clearly intrudes into the setback from the top of slope
as well as the height limit. Additionally, for Lot A, staff
feels that the top of slope line as submitted by the applicant
does not accurately reflect the true contours of the site. The
application states that the three points were chosen to smooth
out the irregularities of the slope, and that discussion during
the code amendment process determined that an applicant may
choose any three points to establish the top of slope. After
listening to the tape of the 10/2 P&Z meeting, staff is assured
that it is not the ultimate discretion of the applicant to
determine the three points. The Commission could decide if the
chosen points accurately reflect the topography. At, that
meeting, Commissioner Peyton stated that it would probably be
appropriate to choose a point at each side and one near the
middle. This would compensate for "concave" or "convex" lots.
Chairperson Anderson stated that an applicant should contact
staff if there's a question how to apply the top of slope
definition to a specific project.
For Lot B, the applicant used six points -closely following the
5
contours to determine the top of slope. Conversely for Lot A,
the applicant chose to use only three points, two being within
15-20.' of each other near the south and east property line. In
effect, a large concave part of the site is traversed to the
obvious benefit of moving the structure closer to the slope.
Attachment "B" reflects how staff redrew the top of slope for
Lot A using the same philosophy that the applicant used for
Lot B. This moves the setback line into the site, the building
then encroaching approximately 11 feet.
The review criteria and responses are as follows:
I. A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence
to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design
problem.
Response: The "guest house" proposed for Lot B encroaches into
the setback as well as the height limit. Please see the
applicant's section sketches provided in your packet. Both lots
resulted from the recent lot split proposed by the Moores. The
two homes were being designed at the same time the Hallam Lake
Bluff ESA was being developed. Specific to this, Condition *12
of the lot split approval which City Council imposed on the
properties reads:
"Development proposed for any lot(s) resulting from this lot
split shall conform to the terms and requirements of the
Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) if
such ESA is enacted prior to issuance of any building
permits for construction on said lot(s)."
It is staff's opinion that the owner and architect proceeded with
extensive design efforts for both homes prior to the lot split
being finalized and in full knowledge that an ordinance was being
developed which may bear on the design of both structures.
The applicant shows that two sections of the guest house are
located 6-7 feet into the top of slope setback. This situation
is a self-imposed hardship caused by his choice of lot
configuration. Both lots are currently vacant, and it is the
burden of an owner/developer to design within the constraints of
land use regulations in place at the time application is
submitted. There has been no "vested right" for -any building
design on this property. A structure could certainly be designed
to fit within the top of slope setback'(and height limit) and the
front and side setbacks for the lot (see Attachment "B".)
2. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height limit
is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Response: For the same reasons as stated above, staff feels that
little effort was made to fit the structure to the site in light
C=
of the ESA provisions as. adopted. An important consideration
which was not addressed by the applicant is the other setbacks
required for the two lots. Staff studied both sites and building
footprints regarding the front and side setback requirements.
Attachment "B" shows how the structures (white footprints) could
be rearranged on the lots to keep the intrusions into the
setbacks to a bare minimum. For Lot B the white footprint shows
that the house would be in the setback by only a couple of feet.
The applicant's proposed location (the grey footprint) shows the
structure into the setback 6 to 7 feet at two areas. Also, the
chimney on the guest house is located in the part of the house
closest to the slope, creating a +/- 20 foot intrusion into the
height limit, which conflicts with this review criteria.
As described in the ESA standards above, staff feels that the
Lot A top of slope should be corrected. This would cause the
residence to encroach into the top of slope setback by
approximately it feet. If the home on Lot A were relocated
toward the front and side setback as shown in Attachment "B", the
intrusion would be kept to around 5 feet. Staff would support
approval of this minimized intrusion.
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: Both building facades move back from the slope except
for limited parts of the building. This criteria is satisfied,
especially if the structures are relocated as staff proposes.
4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or
development in the setback from all adjoining properties.
Response: In Tom CardamoneIs discussions with the landscape
designer, it was determined that a 50% vegetative screen
currently exists, if only selective pruning of the cottonwood
saplings occurs. Tom and staff feel that additional plantings of
substantial evergreen trees be installed along the top of slope
especially if the Commission does not feel that the structures
should be moved back into the site. He suggested "substantial"
to mean 14-16 foot spruces and pines. They must be planted in
the flat yard area on top of the bluff so the installation of the
+/- 6 foot diameter root balls will not destroy the slope.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends tabling the proposal for
the following reasons which should be revisited .by the
Commission:
I. the discrepancy between staff's and the applicant's method of
determining the top of slope/setback for Lot A
7
2. the ability for the applicant to relocate the structures
towards the front and side setbacks on both lots to reduce
encroachments into the top of slope setback to a minimum
3. the accessory dwelling unit for Lot B exceeds the 700 square
foot maximum as required in Ordinance 60 (1990)
4. the -need to add the building outlines on the photographs for
better evaluation of the vegetation screening and/or need for
additional evergreen plantings
Before bringing this proposal back onto the table, the applicant
should submit to the Planning Office revised site plans, section
sketches, and floor plans which address these four concerns.
If the Commission does not wish to table this item, preferring
instead to approve it relying on further staff review, the
following conditions should be imposed:
I. The lot split plat must be filed prior to filing deed
restrictions or issuance of any building permits.
Conditional Use
2. The size of the accessory unit for Lot B must be changed to be
within 300 to 700 square feet of net livable area as defined by
the Housing Guidelines. Revised floorplans shall be submitted to
and approved by Planning and Zoning staff.
3. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for the individual
lots, each Accessory Dwelling Unit *gust be deed restricted for a
period of fifty years as a resident occupied unit with a six
month minimum lease. The Housing Authority must approve the deed
restriction prior to it being filed with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder's Office.
4. Proof of recordation of the deed restrictions shall be
forwarded to the Planning Office and the Housing Authority.
Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review
5. The applicant shall provide for Planning's review an amended
photograph *3 which shows the two building elevations and
proposed pine tree plantings. Staff shall evaluate this
information to determine if additional evergreen plantings will
be required to provide a 50% winter vegetative screen.
6. The applicant shall determine the top of slope for Lot A by
using six site sections. The 15' setback shall be taken from
this revised line.
8
7. The site specific development plan as approved shall be filed
at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office after signature
by the Planning Director and Planning and Zoning Chairperson.
8. Any amendment to the site specific development plan must be
reviewed according to the terms of the Land Use Code section
governing the Hallam Lake Bluff E.S.A.
Special Review
9. Both structures shall be moved onto the front and side
setbacks of their respective lots to minimize intrusion onto the
top of slope setback as much as possible.
10. The chimney shall be relocated further from the slope to
reduce intrusion into the height limit.
Attachments: "A" - Application Site Drawings, Floor Plans
"B" - Staff sketches with proposed building
relocations
Ordinance 71 adopting the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA
jtkvj/moores.esa.memo
9
d d d
a L V .� d B- � _�4)°� dQa E41
.a � g t .= r
�� 05 d Q
a Qd t&E y,as�i god
CI Li F4�w C' d �"C�•� ��Q.�
cc
ct 0-0
r"
•
w