The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ca.Adu Far Code Amendment.0066-04 "" ,,_..,.... ., City of Aspen Community Development Dept. CASE NUMBER 0066.2004.ASLU PARCEL 10 NUMBER 9999-99-9-99-999 PROJECT ADDRESS 0 ZERO PLANNER CHRIS HENDON CASE DESCRIPTION ADU FLOOR AREA AMENDMENT TO LAND USE CODE REPRESENTATIVE GIDEON KAUFMAN 925-8166 DATE OF FINAL ACTION 5/4/2005 CLOSED BY Denise Driscoll . , r' ro, Pe, nul, 1-1 ci' 1[lI1 Fie &:l: Record Navigate Form Reports Tab Help - ..-...--...T.....' ,/ IS). . J ~ .. I "'" i ej M ~ So.i>e..... I !!loin I R_ S..... I AldVEng I P"cejo P..... T"", I"'" ..:.I""" Lend U.. 2004 Addo... lAy I :-pRvtlnlolmalion ~._._._._-_._._...--._........._.. ..........T-.--~.- ~ .1 \(lieu C' - ___ I ~- I Cuolom F._ I F... 1 Foe S........ P"milOllWi2004.ASW .sI """....1 Steler-::] J .,1 _. __m___~_J r.~ __ lit..:,", I ..-.1,. ',-01 ~ S z.,1 .sI --~18l M..."p_1 .sI R......Q_I.." _10710812OO4.J Plojectl .sI St""'I_ -"CDI_ -V.ID.qr.t1 0_ ADU FLOOR AAEAAMENDMENT TO LAND USE CODE '-I.J O~ ~\.~ 'Nil .J So.i>milted IGIDEDN I<AlJFMAN 925-8166 Clod< IR....... D...1To2 E......1'01'312OO5 EJ r VdlIeQ"llheweb? PeImil:ID: I 31877 '" ~ . C!> , rn -0_ LooI N""" II<AlJFMAN Phone 119101925-8166 ~ Owner l~ Applicant? --- L...N""" II<AlJFMAN Phone 119101 925-8166 Lender .sI FO" N""" IGIDEON 315E~AVE OWNEA'S REP ASPEN CD 81611 ~ Fld Name IGIDEON Cu1,ol25461 315Eff'r"MANAVE DWNER~ REP .J ASPEN CD 81611 I ~... ~I ...,.1___t';......'~_AJ _I R"""'*3af3 ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council FROM: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~ Reconsideration of Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Code Amendment for Non-Conforming Accessory Dwelling Units THRU: RE: DATE: January 10,2005 SUMMARY: On November 22, 2004, City Council considered Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004, and voted to adopt it by a 3 to 2 vote. At the next regular City Council meeting, December 13, 2004, City Council voted to reconsider the Ordinance with specific questions regarding the number of Historic TDRs the Ordinance allows to be transferred to a property. The Ordinance was amended during the motion and discussion to permit up to 500 square feet to be transferred to a non-conforming property containing an Accessory Dwelling Unit through the City's Historic TDR Program. This equates to two (2) TDRs of 250 square feet each. The amended Ordinance also permits up to 500 square feet to be transferred from a non-historic property to a non-conforming property contain an ADU which is restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. There is no TDR equivalency for this second option, only a square footage limit. The specific question relates to the number of TDRs which Council intended to be transferred to anyone property through Ordinance 35. City Planner James Lindt, who presented the amendment, recalls the discussion leading up to the motion as involving a total limit of 500 square feet, equivalent to two TDRs of 250 square feet each. The code amendment application, submitted by Gideon Kaufman, requests the ability to transfer 500 square feet and the Applicant's recollection of the hearing is that the ability to transfer 500 square feet was approved. City Clerk Kathryn Koch listened to the tape of the hearing. The motion included reference to a maximum of 500 square feet and the discussion included a clarifying question from Planner Lindt. Verbatim minutes are attached. Staff believes Council's intent was to permit up to two Historic TDRs (500 square feet) to be transferred to a non-conforming property containing and Accessory I Dwelling Unit and up to 500 square feet to be transferred from a non-historic property to a non-conforming property containing an ADU restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. Based on this review of the record, staff recommends City Council approve Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004, as amended. STAFF COMMENTS Planning staff is satisfied with the result of the code amendment discussion of November 22nd Staff originally objected to the creation of another TDR program as staff believed it could detract from the Historic TDR Program. The result of Council's discussion on November 22nd is satisfactory in that it relies on the Historic TDR Program in all cases accept when the Accessory Dwelling Unit is restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. There are three properties containing ADUs restricted to Mandatory Occupancy and staff does not believe this represents a significant threat to the Historic TDR Program. Staff believes Ordinance 35, as amended, represents a reasonable solution. Staff amended Ordinance 35 according to the motion of November 22nd. These amendments are reflected in the attached version of Ordinance 35, Series of 2004. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: W-G()~ ~~ 01~ Y ~I;~ 6-. ~~ RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004, as amended." ATTACHMENTS: A - Proposed Ordinance 35, Series of2004. B - City Council verbatim minutes of 11.22.04 motion and discussion. 2 6~\ bIt 1Z. iiii=:II I\.~~.~ (l~~\ To the maximum allowable FAR? So that would allow this to go the the Mt ~ Semrau would you consider amending your motion to include to the maximum allowable FAR for an ADU? Richards 1200 feet? Semrau Richards Otherwise it's open ended? I would support that Lindt And to a maximum of 500 square feet for the transfer, which was what was originally proposed? Richards Semrau Paulson I would agree to that Do you agree, too? Yes c 11111111111111111111 ~ :~~;~~:;;:1 :401 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 21.00 o 0.00 Ordinance No. 35 (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE CODE TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES CONTAINING AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR AREA - SECTION 26.312.030.C.3 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE - NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the applicant to submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to sections 26.208; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson DisWer Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030.C.3 of the Land Use Code and would permit additional development on properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit and which are non-conforming with respect to floor area; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewe~and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning D ector and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action s all be by City Council after reviewing and I considering these recommendations; and, ' WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended denial of amendments to the Land Use Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments, as described herein, on September 7, 2004, and continued October 5, 2004, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a three to two (3-2) vote, City Council not adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council tinds that the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City C01IDCil finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Page 1 ........ \....,,/ 506210 SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO Page: 2 of 4 01/20;2005 01: 401 R 21.00 D 0.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Section 26.312.030.C of the City of Aspen Land Use shall include a new subsection 3 to read as follows: 3. Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carriage House and also provided that the ADU or Carriage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, and Special Review approval pursuant to Section 26.430. The 500 square foot floor area expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with the character of surrounding uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated. Only the floor area which will increase the ADU or Carriage House beyond the legally created non-conforming floor area (the expansion floor area) is required to be mitigated. If the impacts of the expanded use cannot be sufficiently mitigated otherwise,. an additional method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to extinguish Historic Transferable Development Rights, pursuant to Chapter 26.535, up to a maximum of 500 square feet. In addition to the ability to extinguish a Historic Transferable Development Right, as discussed above, an ADU deed-restricted as a Mandatory Occupancy unit, and only an ADU unit that is deed-restricted as a mandatory occupancy unit, shall have the option to apply to transfer up to a maximum of 500 square feet from a non-historically designated property that has sufficient available floor area pursuant to the special review procedures detailed in this section. In addition to the special review criteria in Section 26.520.080, floor area from a TDR may be approved pursuant to the following additional review criteria: (I) The additional floor area is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable.) Ordinance No. 35, Series of2004 Page 2 506210 PagE:: 3 of 4 01/2012005 01 :401 R 21.00 D 0.00 (2) The additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional ~mpacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. c "'""' (3) The additional floor area creates a unit which is more suitable for caretaker families. (4) The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADO. (5) No variance from setbacks can be required to accommodate the bonus floor area approved through this section of the Code. (6) The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. (7) Historic Transferable Development Rights, commensurate with the floor area expansion, are extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.535 - Historic Transferable Development Rights. (8) For the transfer of allowable square footage up to 500 square feet from a non- historically designated property to an ADU deed-restricted as a Mandatory Occupancy unit, the Applicant shall record an instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney removing floor area from the sending property to the Mandatory Occupancy ADO. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, .subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Ordinance No. 35, Series of2004 Page 3 ..-... '''''-''' '-,,/ .~ 11111111111111111 111111 :~~;~~:~~: 1401 SILVIA D~WIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 21.00 0 0.00 Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 22nd day of November, 2004, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (\5) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 6: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISH~~p~ol~d:d by law, )ly..the,City Council of the City of Aspen on the.;1.5 day ~ ~ ,"', ~f .4S,.. . "... " ~ ... <.; . t~ ....... '. 7- .'~. ~> ...... - /, --)4. ~ Helen Kalin K anderud, Mayor , ,,.,,-';-, ,>..Y , '_ .,.. '.to,,,,,~ . Approvetl as to form: Helen Kalin Klan erud, Mayor ~~/~ ohn Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Page 4 ________ ~_,_~V _____ _~.~ ~__ 1Ile- . MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council RE: John Worcester, City Attorney Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director Chris Bendon, Senior Planner 0h~ Code Amendment - Section 26.312.030 - Non-Conforming Structures Second Reading of Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 / THRU: FROM: DATE: November 22, 2004 SUMMARY: Gideon Kaufman, on behalf of the Lauder family, has submitted an amendment to the City's Land Use Code. The amendment would permit the development of additional floor area on a property that currently exceeds its maximum allowable floor area. The additional floor area would be transferred from another property through a new TDR program. The specific case involves an Accessory Dwelling Unit that was built, along with the primary residence, with certain floor area bonuses that have since been removed from the Land Use Code. The Background section of this memo goes into greater detail. Staff is not supporting the code amendment as proposed and is recommending denial. Staff strongly prefers any transfer of floor area use the fledgling Historic TDR program. A new TDR program may dilute the potential of the Historic TDRs. During the Planning and Zoning Commission review, two other aspects of the proposed code amendment were addressed. Clarification was provided on whether the transferred floor area must accommodate the extent of the nonconformity plus the expansion or only just the expansion floor area. The proposed text was revised to clarify that TDRs would only be needed to cover the expansion, not the current overage. The second issue dealt with staff and P&Z's preference for a system whereby a P&Z review of the specific case is required - not a "by-right" system. The proposed text was amended by the applicant to this effect. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial by a three to two (3 against, 2 for) vote. Staff is also recommending denial of this proposed code amendment. Staff would support this amendment if it relied on the Historic TDR Program. Minutes of the P&Z hearing are being prepared and will be provided for second reading. Staff recommends City Council not approve Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004. I ApPLICANT: Gideon Kaufman, Ka\!fman Peterson Dishier Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission recommended denial of this code amendment by a three to two (3-2) vote. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. BACKGROUND: The Lauder residence and ADU were built in compliance with the City's Floor Area code, which has since been amended. The former code granted two floor area bonuses for Accessory Dwelling Units. Fifty percent of an ADU's floor area was exempt if the ADU structure was detached from the primary residence and another 50% was exempt if the ADU was deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. Together, a 100% exemption was available for an ADU that was both detached and mandatory occupancy. The Lauder ADU qualified for this 100 % exemption and the primary house was developed to the maximum size considering the bonus. During the period of this mandatory occupancy floor area bonus, three ADU's were developed with a mandatory occupancy restriction. The City experienced significant difficulty in administering the mandatory occupancy and, in 2001, decided to remove this option from the code altogether. The ADU code was amended to require ADUs be detached to gain a growth management exemption for the primary residence and the floor area exemption was retooled to provide a 100% exemption only if the ADU was condominiumized and sold to a local working resident through the Housing Authority's Guidelines. The program allows the property owner to choose the first purchaser, as long as that person qualifies through the Housing Guidelines. At the same time as eliminating the mandatory occupancy bonus, the City amended the code to provide a process of removing the mandatory occupancy restriction from an existing ADU through a landowner provision of either an off-site deed restricted unit or a cash-in-lieu payment equal to the market value of the bonus area. This was done in response to a landowner with a mandatory occupancy ADU. The City's code amendment in 2001 made the Lauder property a "legally created non- conformity." Specifically, the Lauder ADU no longer qualified for a floor area exemption and the property contained too much floor area. The City's non- conforming regulations allow legally created non-conformities to exist in perpetuity, but prohibit expansions of the non-conformity. (i.e. a house that is over it's floor area cannot be added on to.) 2 The Lauder ADU is a one-floor unit developed over a storage basement that was also exempt from the calculation of floor area. The storage area was purposely developed as non-inhabitable space (no window wells) to maintain it being exempt from floor area. Basement levels count towards floor area proportionately to the extent they are exposed. Window wells increase the exposure and require more of that basement level to count towards the property's total Floor Area allowance. The Lauder family now wants to convert the basement to habitable space to accommodate the caretaker's expanded family. To do so requires the installation of window wells to serve as emergency egress, requiring floor area. The non- conforming status of the property prevents any additional floor area to be developed although two development options exist. A no-net-gain plan, whereby the increase in floor area on the ADU would be balanced with an equal floor area reduction to the primary house, and deed restricting the ADU and selling it to the caretaker. Neither of these options have been sought. A building permit to install window wells in the ADU structure was submitted to the Building Department and denied due to a lack of floor area. The improvements were built without a permit and the construction was "red tagged" by the Building Department. The improvements were then removed and the property returned to its previous condition. Code amendments can be initiated by the Planning Director, the P&Z, or the City Council. Amendments can be initiated by a private party if one of the three bodies allows the application. The applicant requested staff initiate a code amendment to alleviate this circumstance and staff declined to initiate the action. The applicant approached City Council and requested they allow the application to be submitted. In allowing the application to be submitted, City Council did not endorse or otherwise address the merits of such an amendment. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff does not support this code amendment. Introducing a new transferable development rights program is not recommended. The City recently created a Historic TDR program to transfer floor area from historic landmark properties to non- historic properties. The Historic TDR program is in its infancy and no transactions have yet occurred, although interest has been expressed. A potential applicant has pre-app'd with staff and a potential 16 Historic TDRs could be created. At a minimum, this proposed amendment should rely on and bolster the existing Historic TDR program and not dilute it through creation of a new system. The Historic TDR Program was established to facilitate an important community goal ~ the preservation of historic resources - and a demand for Historic TDRs is critical for the program's viability. 3 The applicant has clarified the proposed text addressing whether or not the proposal is to transfer only enough floor area to accommodate the expansion or if the intent is to first accommodate the floor area overage and then the expansion. The text was also amended to require a P&Z review to weigh the merits of each specific case, the benefits to the community, impacts on the neighborhood, the resulting house size, etc. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council not adopt this ordinance. Staff does support a similar code amendment which relies on the Historic TDR Program for transferring square footage. ~ RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.35, Series of2004." ALTERNATE MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.35, Series of2004, with the amendments described in Exhibit D." A TT ACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B - Application (provided with I st reading packet) _ Exhibit C - P&Z minutes. Exhibit D - Proposed amendments to Ordinance to use Historic TDR Program. 4 Ordinance No. 35 (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE CODE TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES CONTAINING AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR AREA - SECTION 26.312.030.C.3 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE - NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the applicant to submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to sections 26.208; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishier Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030.C.3 of the Land Use Code and would permit additional development on properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit and which are non-conforming with respect to floor area; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended denial of amendments to the Land Use Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments, as described herein, on September 7, 2004, and continued October 5, 2004, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a three to two (3-2) vote, City Council not adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance No. 35, Series of2004 Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section I: Section 26.3I2.030.C of the City of Aspen Land Use shall include a new subsection 3 to read as follows: 3. Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADO) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carriage House and also provided that the ADU or Carriage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, and Special Review approval pursuant to Section 26.430. The 500 square foot floor area expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with the character of surrounding uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated. Only the floor area which will increase the ADU or Carriage House beyond the legally created non-conforming floor area (the expansion floor area) is required to be mitigated. If the impacts of the expanded use cannot be sufficiently mitigated otherwise, an additional method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to transfer the 500 square feet of floor area, or any amount up to 500 square feet, from a property with excess or unused floor area (the sending property) to the site containing the detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House (receiving ADU/Carriage House property). The amount of the floor area expansion bonus up to 500 square feet, will be subtracted from the maximum floor area allowed on the sending property. Only available floor area not developed or utilized on the sending site can be transferred. A deed restriction encumbering the sending site shall be recorded to reflect the extinguished floor area which has been transferred and is no longer available for use on the sending property. In addition to the special review criteria in Section 26.520.080, floor area from a TDR may be approved pursuant to the following additional review criteria: (I) The additional floor area is a conversion of existing square footage which was not Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Page 2 previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable.) (2) The additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. (3) The additional floor area creates a unit which is more suitable for caretaker families. (4) The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADU. (5) No variance from setbacks can be required to accommodate the bonus floor area approved through this section ofthe Code. (6) The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. By way of example, a 15,000 square foot lot in the R-15 zone district is allowed 4,500 square feet of floor area. If 3,500 square feet of floor area in an existing home has been developed on the property, the sending site, there is 1,000 square feet of excess, unused floor area remaining. Five hundred (500) square feet of this unused floor area can be transferred to an ADU or Carriage House which is non-conforming with regard to floor area. A deed restriction limiting the allowed floor area on the sending site to 4,000 square feet (4,500 square feet allowed minus the 500 square foot bonus transferred) must be recorded. To utilize this floor area bonus, the receiving property's ADU or Carriage House after the expansion must not be larger than the maximum size allowed. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion Ordinance No. 35, Series of2004 Page 3 shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 22nd day of November, 2004, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 6: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _day of _,2004. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ~ day of Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No. 35, Series of2004 Page 4 Exhibit A Non-Conforming Structure Amendment STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment Section 26.310.040, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to the text ofthis Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed code amendment intends to create a process to allow a property owner to expand a non-conforming structure by transferring floor area from another property. The proposed text does not clearly indicate whether the floor area by which the structure is non-conforming (the overage) is to be part of the required floor area transferred. This ambiguity needs to be corrected. Otherwise, the text will need to be interpreted prior to its use. Staff does not believe this standard is met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The AACP speaks to both limiting the size of houses, for community character reasons, and promoting affordable housing opportunities, especially by the private sector. This code amendment could address both issues by transferring floor area from one lot to another and by increasing opportunity for affordable housing. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This amendment is proposed for all residential zone districts and is not specific to one parcel. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 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 facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. staff comments page I F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not allow for any density changes and no impacts on infrastructure are expected as a result of the amendment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The amendment would make it easier to make an addition to existing ADUs located on lots where more than the allowable floor area has been developed. The flexibility for ADUs is compatible with community character. The increase in allowable square footage for a particular lot could be out of scale with surrounding properties and could be considered out of character. Without a review process to determine the neighborhood compatibility of each use of this code amendment, staff does not believe this standard is met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The amendment is not specific to one parcel. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: This proposed amendment could dilute the potential of the recently adopted Historic Transferable Development Rights Program. This would occur if any property could become a sending site for floor area. Staff believes this represents a conflict with the public interest - namely the public interest of preservation of historic resources through the Historic TDR program. staff comments page 2 ,r', r'~, ASPEN PLA"NNING & ZONING COMMISSltSN - Minutes September 07. 2004 Q\?ltC - oil and grease intercept In the multi-purpos oom/kitchen. 23... pplicant shall join any ure improvement district at are formed to co ved improvements to the goining/ surrounding right -ways. 24. All exte. lighting shall me!i< e City of Aspen Lightin de pursuant to Land Use C e Section 26.575. 15gA utdoor Lighting, '! ay be amendedfrom time time. 25. All design, inst ation, and maintena - of the pool and spa." ust comply with the State Colorado's h Regulations. "Po water shall be drained di tly into the sanitary sewer d shall not be drai into the storm sewer e Applicant must have Aspen Consolidated Sa . ation District appro the drain size for the imming pool and spa b e installing them. 26. ch owner of an esta shall have an undivi interest in the common creational areas within the facility. 27. The A icant shall pay the a lcable school land dedi ion fees as determined by the of Aspen Zoning . lcer prior to buildi ermit issuance. 28. Al sold timeshare units that are used by the A icant for exchange, rketing or promotional poses shall be made available r short-term nt until purchased. s condition shall be incl d in the PUD/Subdivision Ag>; ment to be recor. d in the Pitkin Cou lerk and Recorder's Offj . 29. Nothing in the timesh 'documents shall ohibit short-term re Is or occupancy. It is the. ent of this condition that the n-deed re icted units shall be ilable for short-term rent urposes when not occupied the purchaser or . guests or utilizedfj exchange programs. The licant shall submit timesha 'documents to the City Attorney for revie nd approval prior to recor . g them at the office of the 1'.. .n County Clerk and Recorder. 30. Applicant shall maintain t option of signing up to tw ~ on-street parking spac adjacent to t nnsbruck Inn as short-term op-off parkingfor guests cking in and checking 0 if the Applic chooses to sign up to two (. on-street parking spaces short-term drop-off par. ,they may si the spaces either on Main S et or South Second Street econded by Dy/a ohns. Roll call vote: Skadron, ye ow/and, yes; John, yes; Kruger, no; gre yes. APPROVED 4-1 PUBLIC HEARING: ':JI: CODE AMENDMENT - TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the TDR Code Amendment; notice was provided. Joyce Allgaier explained that Gideon Kaufman presented this code amendment on behalf of the Lauder family. City Council requested per Gideon Kaufman this code amendment and after the P&Z review it will go to Council. Allgaier stated the former code granted floor area bonuses for 50% for detached ADUs and another 50% for deed-restricted ADUs so in this situation the ADU was 100% exempt from the floor area charge. The Lauder's built the main residence to the maximum floor area. Allgaier said after this was built there was a code change that required ADUs to be detached and the floor area exemption was revoked unless it were condominiumized and sold to a working resident. That was what made this property non-conforming; the Lauder property was a legally created non- conforming ADD. The applicant's wanted to convert the basement into livable space. Staff identified 2 options that could exist where the Lauders decreased the size of their house in order to add to the floor area of the ADU or deed-restrict and sell the ADU and neither option was being sought by the applicant at this time. 9 .'~'-"'" ~. '-' -- ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes September 07. 2004 Staff did not recommend approval because it was unclear if the proposal was to allow only enough floor area to accommodate the expansion or that the TDR purchase would make up for the deficit. The proposal was for a by right system and staff felt it should be a special review to weigh in on each case-by-case scenario. Allgaier said there was the possibility of a number of applications but were not sure how many and would like to see the fledgling HPC TDRs get under way before adopting another TDR program. Gideon Kaufman, represents the proponent of this code amendment, said that a detached and deed-restricted ADD created floor area exemptions for the residence; the code changes created the non-conformity. Kaufman said when the ADD was built there was a kitchen, bath, bedroom and living area and below grade there was an existing office, storage, mechanical and a full bathroom. Because it didn't have the required ventilation and light it didn't count in FAR. Kaufman said it was probably the best ADD built in Aspen but they have tried to figure out how to accommodate the growing needs of a family. If 2 window wells were added for the required light and ventilation then the FAR counts and you cannot add FAR because it was non-conforming. Kaufman said that was why they came forward with the proposed code amendment to help these detached and mandatory rented ADD units; he distributed an amendment to the code amendment adding special review. These TDRs from free-market housing can only be transferred to an ADD and would only count for the amount of square footage added. Kaufman illustrated through photos and drawings the placement of the window wells. Kaufman restated the floor area would be utilized from free-market to enhance Affordable Housing Program; it would be positive for the community. Jasmine Tygre inquired about the number of ADDs that would be affected by the code amendment. Kaufman said the size of the ADD has also increased and at special review P&Z would make the decision. Johns asked why the TDR part of this speak to the free-market and not tie into the Historic TDR program. Kaufman replied the Historic TDR program means that a TDR can only come from a Historic structure; those TDRs are worth $100,000.00 to $150,000.00 per TDR, which makes sense because it is free-market value but if you increase an employee unit they don't want to pay those TDR prices. Tygre asked where these TDRs would come from that would be so much cheaper. Kaufman replied that there were a few properties and the TDR would include deed-restrictions but Historic TDRs could not be used for this program. 10 ,''',,", -., -"C"/ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes September 07, 2004 Steve Skadron asked how the TDR receiving property would be able to accept the TDR ifit was built to what was at the time the maximum and now why would it be acceptable. Allgaier replied that was one of issues. Kaufman responded it was only for the affordable housing program and would not exceed what the code allowed for the ADD to be expanded up to. Tygre asked what the criteria would be cited. Kaufman replied the code for special review, compatibility with the neighborhood, impacts on water and sewer. Tygre stated that everything was in pieces and it was not clear what P&Z was to vote on; those criteria were not included. Kaufman answered it was referenced in the code. Tygre said she wanted all the pieces in front at the same time and how many properties were involved in this type of situation. Skadron asked the size of an ADD. Johns replied the size ranged from 300 to 900 square feet net livable. The commissioners voiced concern for the incomplete information on the number of units that could be affected; the specific criteria for the special review; specific and detailed restrictions on the sending party, site specificity; the addition of dimensional requirements regarding the detached ADD and enforcement. The commissioners were concerned about the TDR program. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearingfor the TDR Code Amendment to September 21,2004; seconded by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11 ASPEN PLANNING'&"ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes - October 05. 2004 ~~,~~ Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners Brandon Marion, ~ Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson, John Rowland and Steve Skadron were present. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Chris Lee, James Lindt, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Ruth Kruger opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning COMMENTS Ruth Kruger hoped this meeting would adjourn by 6:45 p.m. Kruger inquired about the new windows in the ElE's building and asked if they were historic or went through a historic review process. James Lindt will follow up on Elli's. MINUTES MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from July 27, August 03rd, 11th and 17'h, September 7th and 21't 2004; seconded by Steve Skadron. Rowland, Johnson and Skadron approved the minutes, Motion Carried. DECLARA nONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/21104): CODE AMENDMENT-TDR'S Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on the Code Amendment; Chris Bendon noted this was a continued hearing from 9/21 st. There were 5 members present for this hearing. Gideon Kaufman addressed the 2 items that concerned P&Z and placed suitable review by Planning & Zoning and staff. Kaufman raised questions regarding staffs interpretation that the only way to accomplish this was through the Historic TDR Program. Chris Bendon stated there was concern that this would take away from the Historic TDR Program, which has not yet been proven. Kaufman said this code amendment was for this particular unit because of code changes, which has made this a non-conforming unit so they cannot add 2 window wells to make the downstairs legally 2 bedrooms. Kaufman said their TDR code amendment was only used for employee housing; their TDR program enhances only affordable housing and doesn't have the same mark-up as the Historic TDR Program so they are not taking from that existing Historic TDR Program but they are creating a market from the surplus of free-market housing and converting it for the community. Kaufman said that each special review would go through P&Z for approval for each particular situation, which accomplishes a valuable community goal. Kaufman provided the criteria for P&Z to follow. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes - October 05, 2004 Ruth Kruger asked where the TDR was coming from. Kaufman replied that it was from a free-market house that did not want to use all of the FAR allowed. Kruger reiterated that Kaufman was creating a new program ( code amendment) that would create sending sites that were not historic and opening the market for a larger opportunity taking FAR from a free-market house to an ADD. Bendon re- stated concern for the demand and the Historic Program could leverage the TDRs. Jack Johnson asked if the code had never been changed would there have been sufficient FAR on this property to amend this ADD. Bendon answered no. Johnson asked if the transferred floor area must accommodate the extent of the non-conformity plus the expansion or if only just the floor area has been resolved. Bendon replied that Joyce covered the first meeting on this and P&Z addressed that question by saying that you should only cover the amount that is necessary to accommodate the actual expansion and should have to first cover the overage. Johnson asked the overage. Bendon answered it was 750 square feet. Johnson stated that was only created because the bonuses were taken away, correct. Bendon explained that between 1999 and 2002 where there were 2 bonuses for ADDs; one for detached ADDs that provided 50% bonus and the other was for mandatory occupancy. Bendon said there were 3 mandatory occupancy ADDs created and this was the only one occupied. Bendon said in 2002 the bonuses were taken away and the only way to ensure the 100% bonus was if the ADD was sold through the housing lottery system. Johnson asked by simply selling this ADD to the family that was living there was insufficient without a TDR. Bendon replied that was correct. Public Comments: Lynn and daughter, who live in this ADD, were present. Kaufman stated that when this unit was legally built it was mandatory rental. Kaufman stated that this code change would allow this ADD to expand and continue to house this family. Bob Staradoj, public, asked ifthere had ever been a case where an ADD on site has been sold. Bendon replied no; the community was looking for the first one to be sold. Bendon added if the ADD were sold the property owner would gain a 100% of the FAR, which was exempt and the property owner gains an additional 50% FAR bonus. David Hoefer reiterated that the commission was not dealing with a specific case for this code amendment. Bert Myrin, public, stated that the code that Jack and Chris spoke about gave an incentive to the employee side and what was presented tonight was from the employee side not the owner side. Myrin reiterated what Chris stated for the bonuses. 2 ASPEN PLANNING~ ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes - October 05, 2004 John Rowland stated that he was in favor of this code change and the only negative aspect was administrative for staff; he said that staff could handle the challenge. Steve Skadron shared John's thoughts considering the restrictions placed on the economics on the property and there was a viable argument for this but Skadron also shared Jack's concern of getting this done under the current code rather than actually changing the code. Jack Johnson stated 3 issues: there were ways that this could be done for this family under the existing code; this code change was in the best interest for this applicant but not for the city and voiced concerned about the TDR sending and receiving sites. Brandon Marion mirrored Jack's no vote because ofthe far- reaching effect on the entire city. Ruth Kruger asked how long the historic TDR program has been in existence and the number of applications to date. Bendon replied it has been in place for about 7 months and there was one application pending. Kruger said that the vote on this code change wouldn't diminish a program that wasn't being utilized. Kruger did - not see a problem with this application and P&Z would look at each application for these types of situations. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #30, 2004 recommending approval of a code amendment to permit expansion of non- conforming structures; seconded by Steve Skadron. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Skadron, no; Johnson, no; Marion, no; Kruger, yes. DENIED 3-2. Bendon asked the commission if there was a particular element of this code amendment that if it were different then you would support it. Marion replied he liked the concept of giving FAR to affordable housing but wanted a more comprehensive plan than the one presented. Johnson said it would have to be a last resort otherwise more big houses were being created and Johnson wanted the Historic TDR Program to prove itself prior to creating another TDR program. Chris Bendon introduced Chris Lee the new planner. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT 1, ODEN LOT SPLIT STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Stream Margin Review for Lot of the Oden Lot Split. James Lindt 3 Section 1: ~~ibi~ t) Section 26.312.030.C of the City of Aspen Land Use shall include a new subsection 3 to read as follows: 3. Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carriage House and also provided that the ADU or Carriage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, and Special Review approval pursuant to Section 26.430. The 500 square foot floor area expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with the character of surrounding uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated. Only the floor area which will increase the ADU or Carriage House beyond the legally created non-conforming floor area (the expansion floor area) is required to be mitigated. If the impacts of the expanded use cannot be sufficiently mitigated otherwise, an additional method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to cxtinguish IIistorie Transferable Develoj)ment Rights. pursuant to Chapter 26.535, UP to a maximum of 500 square feet. transfer the 500 ~;quare feet of floor area, or any amount up to 500 ~;qt"H.O feet,fi.OIu a property with e)~ce,;~; or H11Used floor area (the ~;ending property) to the site con:aining the detached /\ccessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage ll(lH~;e (receiving .'\DUlCarriage House property). The amount of the noor area c);pan~Jion bORH~; up to 500 ;;quare feet, will be subtracted from the maximum floor area allowed OR the sending property. Only a'iEtilahle floor area not developed or utilized on the 'lending site caR be transferred. "'\ deed restriction efleumbering the sendiflg site shall be recorded to reflect the extinguir.hed floor area which ha:; been tran:;ferred and is no longer m.ailable for w;e on tl1e sending prop0lty. In addition to the special review criteria in Section 26.520.080, floor area from a TDR may be approved pursuant to the following additional review criteria: (I) The additional floor area is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable.) (2) The additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. ,....~~."~--~._--""'...,......_----""--,"'~..,'....._.. (3) The additional floor area creates a unit which IS more suitable for caretaker families. (4) The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADU. (5) No variance from setbacks can be required to accommodate the bonus floor area approved through this section of the Code. (6) (6) The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. (7) Historic Transferable Development Rights, commensurate with the floor area cxpansion. are extinguishcd pursuant to Chapter 26.535 -- His10rie TnUlsferable I}.evclopment Rights. fly way of c)(ample, a 15,000 ~Jquare foot lot in the R 15 zone di~Jtrict i,; allowed 1,500 ~;quare feet of floor area. If 3,500 squ;,re feet of noor area in an eKisting hOfnc has been developed on thc property, the sendillg :;ite, there is 1,000 square fcet of mices", l;nu~;ed floor area remaining. Five hundred (SOD) square feet of fhi:; unu,;ed floor urea can bc tramferred to an "'.DIl or Carria;;c Hou:;e which i~; Ron conformin;; with regHro-tH-.fuWf arCll. A-deed rcstriction limiting -the allowed floor arca Dn 1he -sending ,lite to 1,nOO "quare feet (1,500 squarc feet aEov:ed minus the 500 :;quare foot bonus transferred) must be recorded. To utilize thi~; floor urell bonus, the receiving property',; /\DIJ or Carriage House LIller the expansiDn mu~;t l:ot be larger thUR the mmcimuHl siztJ-allowed. MEMORANDUM Vl \a, TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney..jj\,\ Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director Chris Bendon, Senior Planner~ Code Amendment - Section 26.312.030 - Non-Conforming Structures First Reading of Ordinance No.35 , Series of 2004 Second Reading Scheduled for November 8, 2004 FROM: RE: DATE: October 25,2004 SUMMARY: Gideon Kaufman, on behalf of the Lauder family, has submitted an amendment to the City's Land Use Code. The amendment would permit the development of additional floor area on a property that currently exceeds its maximum allowable floor area. The additional floor area would be transferred from another property through a new TDR program. The specific case involves an Accessory Dwelling Unit that was built, along with the primary residence, with certain floor area bonuses that have since been removed from the Land Use Code. The Background section of this memo goes into greater detail. Staff is not supporting the code amendment as proposed and is recommending denial. Staff strongly prefers any transfer of floor area use the fledgling Historic TDR program. A new rDR program may dilute the potential of the Historic TDRs. During the Planning and Zoning Commission review, two other aspects of the proposed code amendment were addressed. Clarification was provided on whether the transferred floor area must accommodate the extent of the nonconformity plus the expansion or only just the expansion floor area. The proposed text was revised to clarify that TDRs would only be needed to cover the expansion, not the current overage. The second issue dealt with staff and P&Z's preference for a system whereby a P&Z review of the specific case is required - not a "by-right" system. The proposed text was amended by the applicant to this effect. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial by a three to two (3 against, 2 for) vote. Minutes of the P&Z hearing are being prepared and will be provided for second reading. Staff recommends City Council approve Ordinance No._, Series of 2004, upon first reading. I , ApPLICANT: Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson DisWer Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner. PREYIOUS ACTION: The Commission recommended denial ofthis code amendment by a three to two vote. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. BACKGROUND: The Lauder residence and ADU were built in compliance with the City's Floor Area code, which has since been amended. The former code granted two floor area bonuses for Accessory Dwelling Units. Fifty percent of an ADU's floor area was exempt if the ADU structure was detached from the primary residence and another 50% was exempt if the ADU was deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. Together, a 100% exemption was available for an ADU that was both detached and mandatory occupancy. The Lauder ADU qualified for this 100 % exemption and the primary house was developed to the maximum size considering the bonus. During the period of this mandatory occupancy floor area bonus, three ADU's were developed with a mandatory occupancy restriction. The City experienced significant difficulty in administering the mandatory occupancy and, in 2001, decided to remove this option from the code altogether. The ADU code was amended to require ADUs be detached to gain a growth management exemption for the primary residence and the floor area exemption was retooled to provide a 100% exemption only if the ADU was condominiumized and sold to a local working resident through the Housing Authority's Guidelines. The program allows the property owner to choose the first purchaser, as long as that person qualifies through the Housing Guidelines. At the same time as eliminating the mandatory occupancy bonus, the City amended the code to provide a process of removing the mandatory occupancy restriction from an existing ADU through a landowner provision of either an off-site deed restricted unit or a cash-in-lieu payment equal to the market value of the bonus area. This was done in response to a landowner with a mandatory occupancy ADU. The City's code amendment in 2001 made the Lauder property a "legally created non- conformity." Specifically, the Lauder ADU no longer qualified for a floor area exemption and the property contained too much floor area. The City's non- conforming regulations allow legally created non-conformities to exist in perpetuity, but prohibit expansions of the non-conformity. (i.e. a house that is over it's floor area cannot be added on to.) 2 The Lauder ADU is a one-floor unit developed over a storage basement that was also exempt from the calculation of floor area. The storage area was purposely developed as non-inhabitable space (no window wells) to maintain it being exempt from floor area. Basement levels count towards floor area proportionately to the extent they are exposed. Window wells increase the exposure and require more of that basement level to count towards the property's total Floor Area allowance. The Lauder family now wants to convert the basement to habitable space to accommodate the caretaker's expanded family. To do so requires the installation of window wells to serve as emergency egress, requiring floor area. The non- conforming status of the property prevents any additional floor area to be developed although two development options exist. A no-net-gain plan, whereby the increase in floor area on the ADU would be balanced with an equal floor area reduction to the primary house, and deed restricting the ADU and selling it to the caretaker. Neither of these options have been sought. A building permit to install window wells in the ADU structure was submitted to the Building Department and denied due to a lack of floor area. The improvements were built without a permit and the construction was "red tagged" by the Building Department. The improvements were then removed and the property returned to its previous condition. Code amendments can be initiated by the Planning Director, the P&Z, or the City Council. Amendments can be initiated by a private party if one of the three bodies allows the application. The applicant requested staff initiate a code amendment to alleviate this circumstance and staff declined to initiate the action. The applican1 approached City Council and requested they allow the application to be submitted. In allowing the application to be submitted, City Council did not endorse or otherwise address the merits of such an amendment. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff does not support this code amendment. Introducing a new transferable development rights program is not recommended. The City recently created a Historic TDR program to transfer floor area from historic landmark properties to non- historic properties. The Historic TDR program is in its infancy and no transactions have yet occurred, although interest has been expressed. At a minimum, this proposed amendment should rely on and bolster the existing Historic TDR program and not dilute it through creation of a new system. The applicant has clarified the proposed text addressing whether or not the proposal is to transfer only enough floor area to accommodate the expansion or if the intent is to first accommodate the floor area overage and then the expansion. The text was also amended to require a P&Z review to weigh the merits of each specific case, the benefits to the community, impacts on the neighborhood, the resulting house size, etc. 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council adopt this ordinance upon first reading and schedule second reading for November 8,2004. CITY ~AGER'S COMMENTS: __ O~~::;;':tr~~ /;J ~fp::-~ ~.~ c' J.,.;n;_ ~ ~AAA_ / v RECOMMENDED MOTION: ":2.f "I move to approve Ordinance No.~ Series of 2004, upon first reading." A TT ACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B - Application 4 "_"__~"_,_,~~,___""~_,~_,,,,,,____________~,,,'_'__'. .__. ._".,,,"_<O.._.'_T-<'__ Ordinance No.:3fj (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE CODE TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES CONTAINING AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR AREA - SECTION 26.312.030.C.3 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE - NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the applicant to submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to sections 26.208; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishier Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030.C.3 of the Land Use Code and would permit additional development on properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit and which are non-conforming with respect to floor area; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended denial of amendments to the Land Use Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments, as described herein, on September 7, 2004, and continued October 5, 2004, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation ofthe Planning Director and recommended, by a three to two (3-2) vote, City Council not adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance No.~, Series of2004 Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Section 26.3I2.030.C of the City of Aspen Land Use shall include a new subsection 3 to read as follows: 3. Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carriage House and also provided that the ADU or Carriage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, and Special Review approval pursuant to Section 26.430. The 500 square foot floor area expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with the character of surrounding uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated. Only the floor area which will increase the ADU or Carriage House beyond the legally created non-conforming floor area (the expansion floor area) is required to be mitigated. If the impacts of the expanded use cannot be sufficiently mitigated otherwise, an additional method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to transfer the 500 square feet of floor area, or any amount up to 500 square feet, from a property with excess or unused floor area (the sending property) to the site containing the detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House (receiving ADU/Carriage House property). The amount of the floor area expansion bonus up to 500 square feet, will be subtracted from the maximum floor area allowed on the sending property. Only available floor area not developed or utilized on the sending site can be transferred. A deed restriction encumbering the sending site shall be recorded to reflect the extinguished floor area which has been transferred and is no longer available for use on the sending property. In addition to the special review criteria in Section 26.520.080, floor area from a TDR may be approved pursuant to the following additional review criteria: (1) The additional floor area is a conversion of existing square footage which was not Ordinance No. _' Series of 2004 Page 2 . ---- -~-_..~.~_._---"""""-,._~.............,------'"~---_.- '~. previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable.) (2) The additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. (3) The additional floor area creates a unit which is more suitable for caretaker families. (4) The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADD. (5) No variance from setbacks can be required to accommodate the bonus floor area approved through this section of the Code. (6) The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. By way of example, a 15,000 square foot lot in the R-15 zone district is allowed 4,500 square feet of floor area. If 3,500 square feet of floor area in an existing home has been developed on the property, the sending site, there is 1,000 square feet of excess, unused floor area remaining. Five hundred (500) square feet of this unused floor area can be transferred to an ADU or Carriage House which is non-conforming with regard to floor area. A deed restriction limiting the allowed floor area on the sending site to 4,000 square feet (4,500 square feet allowed minus the 500 square foot bonus transferred) must be recorded. To utilize this floor area bonus, the receiving property's ADU or Carriage House after the expansion must not be larger than the maximum size allowed. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion Ordinance No. _, Series of 2004 Page 3 shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 8th day of November, 2004, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 6: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _day of ~,2004. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ~ day of Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No. _, Series of2004 Page 4 "",_~,,,,~_~,,,,,,______,,,__~.,,,,_"'_"'_'_""_~""H_""_'~'>'''__'.._" ._.._'O....~_~~~'".,,_. Exhibit A Non-Conforming Structnre Amendment STAFF COMMENTS:. Text Amendment Section 26.310.040, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed code amendment intends to create a process to allow a property owner to expand a non-conforming structure by transferring floor area from another property. The proposed text does not clearly indicate whether the floor area by which the structure is non-conforming (the overage) is to be part ofthe required floor area transferred. This ambiguity needs to be corrected. Otherwise, the text will need to be interpreted prior to its use. Staff does not believe this standard is met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The AACP speaks to both limiting the size of houses, for community character reasons, and promoting affordable housing opportunities, especially by the private sector. This code amendment could address both issues by transferring floor area from one lot to another and by increasing opportunity for affordable housing. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This amendment is proposed for all residential zone districts and is not specific to one parcel. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 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 facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. staff comments page I F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not allow for any density changes and no impacts on infrastructure are expected as a result of the amendment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The amendment would make it easier to make an addition to existing ADUs located on lots where more than the allowable floor area has been developed. The flexibility for ADUs is compatible with community character. The increase in allowable square footage for a particular lot could be out of scale with surrounding properties and could be considered out of character. Without a review process to determine the neighborhood compatibility of each use of this code amendment, staff does not believe this standard is met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The amendment is not specific to one parcel. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: This proposed amendment could dilute the potential of the recently adopted Historic Transferable Development Rights Program. This would occur if any property could become a sending site for floor area. Staff believes this represents a conflict with the public interest - namely the public interest of preservation of historic resources through the Historic TDR program. staff comments page 2 PLANNER: PROJECT: REPRESENTATIVE: OWNER: TYPE OF APPLICATION: DESCRIPTION: .-." .,,".... , CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY Chris Bendon, 920.5072 DATE: 6.9.04 ADU Floor Area Amendment Gideon Kaufman Lauder 2 step - Land Use Code Amendment Mr. And Mrs. Lauder have expressed interest in a code amendment to permit the expansion of an ADU on their property. The property has a non-conforming Floor Area Their house and ADU were built under a previous FAR code which exempted the net livable square footage of the ADU. The code has since changed and the ADU now fully counts towards the calculation of Floor Area. The Lauders wish to expand the ADU by converting uninhabitable basement space to living space. This requires window well improvements which increase the Floor Area calculation of the structure. Land Use Code Sections: 26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures Staff for Completeness, Community Development Director for recommendation, Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation, City Council for final decision. Yes, P&Z, and City Council. Notice is publication in the newspaper. Zoning Officer $2,620 (deposit for 12 hours) $0 $2,620 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $220/hour). Review by: Public Hearing: Referral Agencies: Planning Fees: Referral Agency Fees: Total Deposit: To apply, submit the following information: 1. Proof of ownership and letter signed by the applicant stating representative authorization. 2. Signed fee agreement 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which request is applicable, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Total deposit for review of the application 5. 20 Copies of the complete application packet. 6. Additional materials as required by the specific review. Please refer to specific submittal requirements of the code sections noted above. 7. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Review standards are included in the above reference code citations. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Notes: . A site improvement survey is not required. . A general description of the property and its development history should be included. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. ,"'-", .-., \......F ..... ,,/ APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO LAND USE CODE 1. Application for Amendment. This Application for Amendment to Land Use Code is made pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Title 26, Land Use Regulations, Part 26, Sections Sections 26.310 and 26.304. 2. Factual Summarv. A brief summary of the proposal is as follows: The amendment to the Code is proposed to alleviate a situation created by previous Code changes, and allow a positive result for employee housing. What precipitated this request is a caretaker unit which was approved and has been built. After the unit's approval and construction, the Code was changed - making the caretaker unit non-conforming because of FAR. This eliminated flexibility and options. When this caretaker unit was approved, its occupants were a couple who were long-time employees of the owners of the property and of Aspen. They now have two children. The unit, a wonderful free-standing house, contains one bedroom, one bath, a kitchen, and living area above grade. Below grade, there is an office and storage/mechanical room. It is a beautiful, free-standing employee unit - one that was described glowingly by the Planning Office in its original memo, supporting the approval of this particular unit. In order to accommodate a family of four, all that would need to be modified from the existing footprint would be to place two window wells that would provide appropriate egress and ventilation so that below ground space can be used as bedrooms. Then the unit, without changing its footprint, could accommodate a family. As a non-conforming structure, Applicant is not able to increase, modify, or change the unit in any way. We, therefore, have proposed a Code amendment that would allow changes to a legally created unit made non-conforming by Code changes, so the window wells can be placed on the property, allowing the family to utilize the bedrooms for the children. By doing this, we will be able to accomplish a very important community goal of providing quality affordable housing for families. Our proposed Code amendment would allow the use of TDRs. The extra FAR that will result from the additional window wells can be permitted as a community benefit, or if you feel 1 ~ ~, -, mitigation is necessary, we are providing that one could acquire free-market FAR from a property that has not been fully developed and deed-restrict it so that whatever FAR is added to the ADU would come out of FAR of a free-market unit, thereby taking free- market FAR and converting it to employee housing FAR. This amendment is a small item, but a major item for the family concerned, and also a wonderful opportunity for the city to enhance its affordable housing program without detriment to anyone, a win-win situation for everyone. 3. Standards of review. (a) Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the applicable portions of this title. (b) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed amendment fosters the idea of managing growth, consistent with the concept of a community growth boundary, and maintaining growth inside the boundary. The proposed amendment is consistent with the concept of protecting open lands, and has no negative effects with respect to development outside the boundary. The proposed amendment is consistent with the concept of affordable housing. It is a good example of promoting the continuing goal of providing affordable housing under circumstances that require community and government to work together towards the community goal. The proposed amendment promotes the concept of managing transportation insofar as it would certainly encourage employees in the City of Aspen to continue to reside within the City limits, and therefore reduce the traffic associated with commuting. In addition, with employee units located within the City limits, the obvious benefits of traveling by foot, bicycle and public transportation would also be promoted. The proposed amendment promotes economic sustainability. It 2 --. ... .,' allows the employees in the City of Aspen to maintain a productive and healthy lifestyle ~ithin the City limits, and thereby promotes the concept of a healthy and diverse economic base supporting the local economy, as the well as the tourist industry. The proposed amendment allows for managing parks and open space and the environment. It fosters the concept of minimal expansion of existing employee units with little to no negative impact as a result, and thereby reduces the need to construct new employee housing, and perhaps encroach on open space and have negative effects on wildlife corridors as a result of such new construction. In addition, proposed mitigation would promote the concept of reducing available increased square footage of free- market units, both within and without the City, through use of the TDR transfer system. Finally, the proposed amendment contributes towards maintaining community character and design. Again, through the minimal expansion of existing ADU for purposes of accommodating the needs of employees in the City, community character and design are promoted. This is especially true in light of the current situation where long-time employees have decided to settle in the Aspen area and have children, which strengthens community character. Making available additional space for existing ADUs for employee units promotes the idea of a consistent standard of design of the highest quality. Existing units have already been approved and have been determined to be compatible with the community and its historic features and environment. (e) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. The proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing uses and neighborhood characteristics. The existing use and characteristics of the neighborhood is primarily residential. The proposed amendment fosters the concept of residential neighborhood and the growth of local employees and their families in the area. This produces a postive henefit, both socially and economically. (d) The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic 3 --- , generation and road safety. There is no negative effect on traffic generation and road safety as a result of the proposed amendment. Insofar as the proposed amendment pro~otes the continued viability of employees living in the city, it is contrary to the concept of increased automobile traffic, which reduces the potential for unsafe road and traffic conditions. (e) Whether and to the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. The proposed amendment would not result in excessive demands on public facilities, and would not cause the capacity of such public facilities described above to be exceeded. The proposed amendment promotes use of existing construction for employee housing. It does not promote new and additional growth, and thereby does not create any increased demand on the public facilities. (f) Whether and to the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed amendment would no adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed amendment promotes preservation of the natural environment. It promotes the concept of utilizing existing employee units for purposes of accommodating an increase in the size of families who utilize and need the existing employee units. This creates less of a demand for the construction of new employee units or other construction- related effects that may have a negative affect on natural environment. (g) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with community character in the City of Aspen. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with community character in the City of Aspen. The community character in the City of Aspen is one of strong family relationships, and common core values which promote the concept 4 -. \./ -- of a strong diverse community. As conditions in Aspen's residential neighborhoods change due to positive impacts of employees residing and raising their families in the community, the proposed amendment allows for a less expensive method of providing needed employee housing and facilitates growth of families while simultaneously promoting common core values and positive community benefits. (h) affecting the which support Whether there have been changed conditions subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood the proposed amendment. There have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel in that the couple residing in the employee unit now have two children and desire to use existing space within the ADU to create bedroom area for the two children. This condtion is not unusual to the City of Aspen, and is a situation which we see happening more and more all the time. There are no changed physical conditions which have any negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood. (i) Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes of the title to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Aspen through the establishment and enforcement of comprehensive, efficient, clear, and consistent standards, regulations, and procedures for the planning, evaluation, approval, and implementation of land uses and development within the City as it applies specifically to the goal of providing affordable employee housing. The proposed amendment furthers the foregoing purpose, and when viewed in light of its impact on historic, architectural, aesthetic and natural environmental character of the City, the city's economic and infrastructure needs and capacity and the legitimate rights and reasonable expectations of property owners, the proposed amendment will confer benefits to the city. (j) The context of the proposed code amendment is attached hereto. In summary, it provides for enlargement of a detached ADU or carriage house by up to 500 square feet of floor area. It provides a method for mitigating any adverse impacts on the surrounding uses by allowing people to require use of free- 5 ~ , / ~ ,~) market FAR from a property that has not been fully developed and to deed restrict it to whatever FAR is added to the ADU which would come out of the FAR of the free-market unit. This would result in taking free-market FAR and converting it to employee housing FAR. (k) Conclusion. Sometimes, small items that provide a positive and a win-win result for the goals of both the City of Aspen and its citizens get caught up in our very complex land use code. The proposed amendment is a common-sense solution to the question at hand, and provides a positive and cost-efficient method for achieving a community oriented goal. C:\Clients\Lauder\code amendment application.wpd 6 Jun 03 04 10:56a YUS~ / HORN ''''' 970::)25 -5180 p.3 26.312.030 Non-conforming structures. (C) (2) Historic structures. Thefirst only exemption..... (3) Accessorv Dwelling Units. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor.area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carriage House and also provided that the ADU or Carriage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units. The 500 square foot floor area expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards of the Aspen Land.Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with and consistent with the purposes of the underlying uses and consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone and the expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated. One method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to transfer the 500 square feet of floor area, or any amount up to 500 square feet, from a property with excess or unused floor area (the sending property) to the site containing the detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House (receiving ADUlCarriage House property). The amount of the floor area expansion bonus up to 500 square feet, will be subtracted from the maximum floor area allowed on the sending property. Only available floor area not developed or utilized on the sending site can be transferred. A deed restriction encumbering the sending site shall be recorded to reflect the extinguished.floor area which has been transferred and is no longer available for use on the sending property. By way of example, a 15,000 square foot lot in the R-15 zone district is allowed 4,500 square feet of floor area. If 3,500 square feet of floor area in an existing home has been developed on the property, the sending site, there is 1,000 square feet of excess, unused floor area remaining. Five hundred (500) square feet of this unused floor area can be transferred to an ADU or Carriage House which is non-conforming with regard to floor area. A deed restriction limiting the allowed floor area on the sending site to 4,000 square feet (4,500 square feet allowed minus the 500 square foot bonus transferred) must be recorded. To utilize this floor area bonus, the receiving property's ADU or Carriage House after the expansion must not be larger than the maximum size allowed. ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADD"""'O',,"O"RTY, 71>R. - (' ~ f1-VGl ~~,"'CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 11/~ () . ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, TOl VV\0 L---,'LJ\.J f (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: X Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. .-----:. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained frontthe l ., Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, I ~',':,. waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches Wl.de ,. and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not ':;. C' less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days ., prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of '1"- ' , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _ lv.iuihng vI nVllce. fly the mailing uf a nULice ubLained frurn (he Cunnnwliry Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) d'j,Ys prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class p<\5tage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal goveqrnent, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental ag~ncy that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the c\1rrent tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) "" -". Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. The foregoing "Affidavit of Notige:' was a~;wledged be~ me th~ay ~~ ,200~,by '- ~ . S. :I.......... WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL I mday, October 23-24, 2004 I PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE AMEND- MENT - NEW TRANSfERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM PROPOSED TO ALLEVIATE NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES _ SECTION 26.312.030.C.3. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearlog will be held on Monday, November 8. 2004 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the City 01 Aspen City CounciL Council Chambers. City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an appllca!ion submitted by Gideon Kaufman lor a new transferable development rights program to legalize floor area non-conformilles on properties with an k:cessory Dwelling Unlt or Carriage House. The amendment proposal is lor Section 26.312.030.C.3. ~ For further iniorma n, contact Chris Bendon at the City of Aspen ommunity Development De- partment, 130 S, G na St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920- 5072,chrlsb@cLas n.co.us. slHelen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in The Aspen Times on October 23. 2004.(2060) ATTACHMENTS: COpy OF THE PUBLICATION iPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) 'ill GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL 1Vf?- c;A ~. f().5:04 ~ - C4/Wf ~ h.i~ 7PR:.-s ~ ~s. ()7e ~,c .,f7)~. r?efh~"1W ~ Clnff1rar. ~ (;u/- Itls/Mi.--). ~t.I "1 ~ ~ C#rJ1 ~ \OO't~. <PUS sr>7...~. ~'fri~ S~~~'.fi"",,,\-- ~~11vt. ~ ~) ~ y ~ _ \'^ ~v".,- 13e~:A-Is?4A i:,. (occls. MW\i~\~ieo-\rJ.c. \~c;.J~ N b~L- \~ ~. -- ~ d, 10 cW.~~ ~. t q:~ ~ ~~s. ~ ? tkrt w{~ ck.o':" (~. ~~_ ~I""'~t ~ ~ . A. Lf ~~ t\~ ~ ~...J ~. ~~, <;:!4 ~ c:ff..v- "7' JI V ?> ~ &>cJ.. ~- i1inrT~. ~ ~~~ 'b~1kh.,.. '0b~ ~. ~ ry~ ~ro AWtr W\lM7. -+I+ill ~ , ~~ tjijG ~ t&.. - ~'f- J'M\i"it~ h~ tprt..- ~ L--, d*Yrwtt ~ ~~. ~}~ (;..~. 14H- ---n;e.*) ~ ~.. ~ I rvrvfeW ()/e1r ~ CA~ . ~~~ ove--i~ dta(. N 1--1 . f7M. ~ ~~cttl ~n. ~- ~ ~ ~~J.o i1w ~~. ~,r.f ~~ W7~ TfJe. I'IA MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ~ Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director Chris Bendon, Senior Planner ~ Code Amendment - Public Hearing continued from September 7,2004 Section 26.312.030 - Non-Conforming Structures THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: September 21, 2004 Col'\1\~\KJ. ~ ~ 5) 'Zlt>4 SUMMARY: Gideon Kaufman, on behalf of the Lauder family, has submitted an amendment to the City's Land Use Code to allow the transfer of Floor Area to accommodate the expansion of an ADU on a property with nonconforming FAR. The P&Z reviewed the amendment on September 7'h and continued the hearing with several requests for additional information. P&Z requested an understanding of the number of properties which might be eligible for this new provision. Without an extensive FAR review of the residential inventory, it is not possible to know precisely how many properties containing ADUs are nonconforming. Staff estimates this number is very low. If the City lowers the FAR schedule in the future, more nonconformities would be created and additional properties may be eligible for this provision. P&Z should not expect this provision to apply to a significant number of properties. Mr. Kaufman provided criteria for which a Special Review would be judged. These have been incorporated into the proposed resolution. These criteria should adequately address the circumstances of each case and staff supports these criteria. Staff has also provided criteria from the City's Historic TDR code for creating and extinguishing Historic TDRs. These have been modified to address this Floor Area transfer provision and cover such issues as analyzing a property for unbuilt FAR, deed restricting the sending site, acknowledging additional rights on the receiver site, and not creating or increasing nonconformities. These additional criteria may be useful in P&Z's discussion and are attached as Exhibit B. Lastly P&Z requested a definition Carriage Houses. Carriage Houses are essential larger ADUs. This term was recently defined as follows: Carriage Hoase. A deed restricted dwelling unit attached to or detached from a principal residence situated on the same lot or parcel, and which meets the occupancy, dimensional and other requirements set forth in Section 26.520 of this Title, and requirements setforth in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. I ~" " - The design standards of the ADU/Carriage House section ofthe code states: An ADUmust contain between 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of which must be a closet or storage area. A Carriage House must contain between 800 and 1,200 net livable square feet, 10% of which must be closet or storage area. Staff recommended denial of this application due to the uncertainty of the text, a desire for these cases to be reviewed by P&Z, and a desire for the transferred floor area to rely on the City's newly-created Historic TDR program. The first two issues are addressed with the revised text. Again, P&Z may want to consider some or all of the Historic TDR criteria of Exhibit B. Staff continues to believe the floor area should be achieved through the City's Historic TDR program is recommending denial for that reason. ApPLICANT: Gideon Kaufinan, Kaufinan Peterson Dishier Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner. PREYIOUS ACTION: The Commission considered this application on September 7, 2004, and continued it to this date. REYIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commiss~~ recommend denial of the proposed amendment as described in Resolution No.~ Series of 2004. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No.~ Series of 2004, recommending approval ofa code amendment to permit expansion of non-conforming structures. Note: Motions should always be made in the positive and then voted upon. This eliminates the possible confusion of a failed negative motion. A TT ACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B ~ Additional Criteria adapted from Historic TDR Program 2 " ,~ RESOLUTION NO. ~ (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26.312.030.C.3 OF THE CITY LAND USE CODE - NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURES TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR AREA. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the applicant to submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to sections 26.208; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishier Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030.C.3 of the Land Use Code and would permit additional development on properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit and which are non-conforming with respect to floor area; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended denial of amendments to the Land Use Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments, as described herein, on September 7, 2004, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a _ to _L-.J vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.312.030.C.3 to include the following text: 26.312.030 Non-conforming structures. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Nom.., Series of2004 Page 1 (C) (3) Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carriage House and also provided that the ADU or Carriage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, and Special Review approval pursuant to Section 26.430. The 500 square foot floor area expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards ofthe Aspen Land Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with the character of surrounding uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated. Only the floor area which will increase the ADU or Carriage House beyond the legally created non-conforming floor area (the expansion floor area) is required to be mitigated. If the impacts of the expanded use cannot be sufficiently mitigated otherwise, an additional method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to transfer the 500 square feet of floor area, or any amount up to 500 square feet, from a property with excess or unused floor area (the sending property) to the site containing the detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House (receiving ADU/Carriage House property). The amount of the floor area expansion bonus up to 500 square feet, will be subtracted from the maximum floor area allowed on the sending property. Only available floor area not developed or utilized on the sending site can be transferred. A deed restriction encumbering the sending site shall be recorded to reflect the extinguished floor area which has been transferred and is no longer available for use on the sending property. In addition to the special review criteria in Section 26.520.080, floor area from a TDR may be approved pursuant to the following additional review criteria: (I) The additional floor area is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable.) (2) The additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. (3) The additional floor area creates a unit which is more suitable for caretaker families. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 3Q., Series of2004 Page 2 (4) The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADU. (5) No variance from setbacks can be required to accommodate the bonus floor area approved through this section of the Code. (6) The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. By way of example, a 15,000 square foot lot in the R-15 zone district is allowed 4,500 square feet of floor area. If 3,500 square feet of floor area in an existing home has been developed on the property, the sending site, there is 1,000 square feet of excess, unused floor area remaining. Five hundred (500) square feet of this unused floor area can be transferred to an ADU or Carriage House which is non-conforming with regard to floor area. A deed restriction limiting the allowed floor area on the sending site to 4,000 square feet (4,500 square feet allowed minus the 500 square foot bonus transferred) must be recorded. To utilize this floor area bonus, the receiving property's ADU or Carriage House after the expansion must not be larger than the maximum size allowed APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on ,2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No.::tl, Series of2004 Page 3 ""''0 '. -,,' Exhibit B Criteria adapted from Historic TDR Program I. The development of a single-family or duplex residence is a permitted use on the sending site, pursuant to Chapter 26.710 - Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. 2. It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt Floor Area, for either a single-family or duplex home equaling or exceeding the requested Floor Area to be transferred and that the transfer will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. 3. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development, any approved development order, and the allowable development right prescribed by zoning for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives. 4. If the sending site has a Development Order to develop a site-specific development plan which can no longer be developed due to Floor Area being transferred from the property, then that Development Order shall be considered null and void. If the sending site has a Development Order which is unaffected by the transfer of Floor Area, then that Development Order shall remain valid. 5. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is established as the property's use) minus the amount of Floor Area transferred. 6. For properties with multiple or unlimited Floor Areas for certain types of allowed uses, the maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall be the Floor Area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus the amount of Floor Area transferred. 7. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area for a single-family or duplex residence, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. 8. It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area. 3 9. The Receiving Site is not restricted by a prescribed Floor Area limitation or the restricting document permits the extinguishment of Historic TDR Certificates for additional development rights. 10. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development on the Receiver Site, as established by this Title, have been obtained. II. The applicant has submitted the necessary materials for a building permit on the Receiver Site, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, and the additional development can be accommodated on the Receiver Site in conformance with all other relevant requirements of the Land Use Code. The transfer of Floor Area shall not permit the creation of a non-conforming use or structure. 12. Prior to, and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit on the Receiver Site for a development requiring the transferred Floor Area extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate(s), the Sending Site property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 13. The Community Development Director shall issue a letter confirming the transfer of Floor Area and increasing the available development rights of the Receiver Site. The applicant may wish to record this document with the Piktin County Clerk and Recorder. The confirmation letter shall not stipulate an absolute total Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage increase from the allowable Floor Area, according to the zone district and land use of the Receiver Site at the time of building permit submission. The Receiver Site shall remain subject to amendments to the allowable Floor Area and eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the confirmation letter shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. 4 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES (July 27, August 3, August 10, August 17, September 7, 2004) III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CODE AMENDMENT-TDR'S, Chris Bendon, contd from 9/7 V. BOARD REPORTS VI. ADJOURN '-' .I ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes September 07, 2004 COMMENTS ..............................................................................................................................2 MINUTES .................................................................................................................................... 2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST..................................................... 2 INNSBRUCK INN MINOR PUD AND TIMESHARE REVIEW.............................. 2 CODE AMENDMENT - TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ..............9 I ~"".'" ~ ~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes Sevtember 07, 2004 situation; currently there was a curb cut on Main Street that would be eliminated and utilize parking on South Second Street. Allgaier noted the Historic Preservation Commission supported the elimination of parking from the front on Main Street and the head-in parking on South Second conflicted with Historic Preservation Goals ofleaving the streetscapes in tact and not cut into the green-strip but rather utilize the 12 parking spaces in the back in the alley. Allgaier explained one parking option was coming in off Main Street with 4 parking spaces orientated so they could back out on-site and head out onto Main Street and using Second Street. Staff and HPC did not favor the South Second Street option; there were many spaces on the street, which could accommodate the lodge use. Allgaier stated the dimensional requirements met with the underlying Office (0) zone district and they were not asking for an increase in height; the lodge character was maintained with the cosmetic enhancements and landscaping. There was no net increase of employees. Staff recommended approval of the proposed resolution with conditions and the recommended parking option to utilize the 12 spaces in the alley and on street parking in the neighborhood. Mitch Haas, applicant's planner, eXplained that the architecture on the front fal(ade would add a couple of dormers but the main ridgeline did not change. The new wing would be built to match the other side to give symmetry to the building with the lobby on the ground floor and a common room above it. The remainder ofthe building would be the reconfigured lodge rooms combining 4 front and back rooms making 10 2-bedroom suites with the bedrooms on the back half with a livinglkitchen area in the front and lock -offs and 2 I-bedroom suites, which is a total of 22 keys. There will be new basement space under the new addition for storage, laundry and house needs. The affordable housing unit will be below grade under the office, which wasn't necessary for the approval and the lodge manager would be housed in that unit. Haas noted the affordable unit exceeds the housing standards with regards to natural light and amenities. Haas stated the parking plan included public head-in spaces on Second Street right- of-way but did not go over well with HPC or staff so the idea was abandoned unless P&Z and Council approved of that parking. Haas said the number of bedrooms decreased in the lodge so the parking demand, in theory, decreases substantially as well. The LP program allows a deficit in parking; the city counts the alley spaces as 6 parallel and not 12 pull-in spaces because of the encroachment into the alley. Allgaier said the city counted 10 spaces. Haas stated 3 P'" "" ...; . ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes September 07. 2004 owners budget. Johns asked when the last capital improvements were made on this property. Dickenson replied last year and the occupancy remained the same. Jasmine Tygre asked if there was any indication from the city to change the 12 parking spaces in the alley to 6. Haas answered no; the 6 was a technical numbers calculation for code compliance and after the last approvals an encroachment license was issued to leave the parking the way it was. Tygre asked if there were any problems in the past for the parking of hotel guests. Haas replied no and this neighborhood doesn't have a parking problem. Allgaier said there was no objection from parking or engineering for on street parking in the neighborhood. Tygre asked if the setbacks were a minor deviation form the code. Allgaier cited the table on page 3 of the staff memo the underlying zoning required 5 feet on the side yard and the proposed was 4 feet; 15 required and 13.5 feet proposed for the rear yard setbacks. Haas stated the architecture would be reminiscent of the chalet style with gables and exposed joists providing the horizontal breakup pattern. Public Comments: Scott Martin, public, said he was moving immediately across the alley and approved of the proposal. Martin said there were no concerns about the parking on the street. Haas requested the addition of a condition adding the check-in/checkout guest spaces. Johns said the parking wasn't an issue but another lodge going timeshare was an issue. Allgaier stated that the criteria for judging the project were from the PUD; the goals of the fractional ownership regulations were to make fractional ownership as much like a lodge as possible. Allgaier said when the units were not used by owners the units were placed into the rental pool. Johns stated that there was no operable timeshares to come out of the regulations at this time. Ruth Kruger agreed with Dylan about loosing the small lodges and questioned the ability of this small lodge being operated as fractional ownership. Allgaier said there were mandatory operational characteristics. Haas stated that the timeshare was a way to provide hotbeds and keep the lodges working as opposed to a lodge running at a loss. Haas eXplained there were 12 estates in each unit with the rights to 4 weeks over a year, which adds up to 48 weeks a year leaving 4 weeks per unit set aside not being used by the ownerS to go into a central reservations pool. Haas stated there was a front desk and they planned on a local and national reservation system; this was a different market than the Hyatt, Dancing Bear or Nell. 5 ...,~'" ASPEN PLA'N'NING & ZONING COMMISSiO"N - Minutes September 07, 2004 6,000 No re uirement 60 eet 4 Feetfor building/ 1.5 Feetfor 2" Floor Decks, 0 Feet for Planter Box and Monument Si na e Wall 4 Feetfor building/O Feetfor 2" Floor Decks and Roo Overhan s 13.5 Feet (Railroad Tie Retaining Wall to ROW No Re uirement 25 Feet No Re uirement Per Final PUD Plans .985:1 Per Final PUD Plans 0.26 spaces per bedroom (6 spaces and 23 total bedrooms, including one Affordable Housing bedroom) (This represents the Parking Option of removing the parking spaces accessed from Main Street without replacing them on site 4. The building permit application shall include: a.) A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution, as well as the Final HPC Resolution. b.) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c.) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d.) A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for offsite replacement or mitigation of any removed trees. The tree removal permit application shall be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan indicating which trees are to be removed and new plantings proposed on the site. e.) A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. f) A construction management plan pursuant to the requirements specified in Condition No. 21 included herein. g.) A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department, as detailed in Condition No. 15 included herein. 5. Throughout the structure, the Applicant shall install afire alarm system meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal. The Applicant shall also install afire sprinkler system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a.) The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that all conditions of approval have been read and understood. b.) All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 7. The Applicant shall convey an undivided fractional interest (one-tenth of one percent (0.1 %)) in the ownership of the deed-restricted employee housing to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for the purposes of complying with rent control legislation and common law. To satisfy rent control issues, the Applicant may submit an alternative option acceptable to the City Attorney. Conveyance of the undivided fractional interest in the affordable housing unit shall occur prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the reconjigured and expanded lodge. 8. If the Applicant 7 ......., ASPEN PLA~ING & ZONING COMMISSI'l'fN - Minutes September 07. 2004 oil and grease interceptor in the multi-purpose room/kitchen. 23... The Applicant shall join any future improvement districts that are formed to complete future City approved improvements to the adjoining/ surrounding right-of ways. 24. All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, as may be amendedfrom time to time. 25. All design, installation, and maintenance of the pool and spa must comply with the State of Colorado 's "Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations. " Pool water shall be drained directly into the sanitary sewer and shall not be drained into the storm sewer. The Applicant must have the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District approve the drain size for the swimming pool and spa before installing them. 26. Each owner of an estate shall have an undivided interest in the common recreational areas within the facility. 27. The Applicant shall pay the applicable school land dedication fees as determined by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer prior to building permit issuance. 28. All unsold timeshare units that are not used by the Applicant for exchange, marketing or promotional purposes shall be made available for short-term rent until purchased. This condition shall be included in the PUD/Subdivision Agreement to be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 29. Nothing in the timeshare documents shall prohibit short-term rentals or occupancy. It is the intent of this condition that the non-deed restricted units shall be available for short-term rental purposes when not occupied by the purchaser or. its guests or utilizedfor exchange programs. The Applicant shall submit timeshare documents to the City Attorney for review and approval prior to recording them at the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 30. The Applicant shall maintain the option of signing up to two (2) on-street parking spaces adjacent to the Innsbruck Inn as short-term drop-off parking for guests checking in and checking out. If the Applicant chooses to sign up to two (2) on-street parking spaces as short-term drop-off parking, they may sign the spaces either on Main Street or South Second Street. Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Skadron, yes; Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, no; Tygre yes. APPROVED 4-1 PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT - TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the TDR Code Amendment; notice was provided. Joyce Allgaier explained that Gideon Kaufman presented this code amendment on behalf of the Lauder family. City Council requested per Gideon Kaufman this code amendment and after the P&Z review it will go to Council. Allgaier stated the former code granted floor area bonuses for 50% for detached ADUs and another 50% for deed-restricted ADUs so in this situation the ADU was 100% exempt from the floor area charge. The Lauder's built the main residence to the maximum floor area. Allgaier said after this was built there was a code change that required ADUs to be detached and the floor area exemption was revoked unless it were condominiumized and sold to a working resident. That was what made this property non-conforming; the Lauder property was a legally created non- conforming ADD. The applicant's wanted to convert the basement into livable space. Staff identified 2 options that could exist where the Lauders decreased the size of their house in order to add to the floor area of the ADU or deed-restrict and sell the ADU and neither option was being sought by the applicant at this time. 9 ,." ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSI15N - Minutes September 07, 2004 Steve Skadron asked how the TDR receiving property would be able to accept the TDR if it was built to what was at the time the maximum and now why would it be acceptable. Allgaier replied that was one of issues. Kaufman responded it was only for the affordable housing program and would not exceed what the code allowed for the ADD to be expanded up to. Tygre asked what the criteria would be cited. Kaufman replied the code for special review, compatibility with the neighborhood, impacts on water and sewer. Tygre stated that everything was in pieces and it was not clear what P&Z was to vote on; those criteria were not included. Kaufman answered it was referenced in the code. Tygre said she wanted all the pieces in front at the same time and how many properties were involved in this type of situation. Skadron asked the size of an ADD. Johns replied the size ranged from 300 to 900 square feet net livable. The commissioners voiced concern for the incomplete information on the number of units that could be affected; the specific criteria for the special review; specific and detailed restrictions on the sending party, site specificity; the addition of dimensional requirements regarding the detached ADD and enforcement. The commissioners were concerned about the TDR program. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearingfor the TDR Code Amendment to September 21,2004; seconded by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ~ , Deputy City Clerk II ~" , PIA MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ',A4- Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director Chris Bendon, Senior Planner ~ Code Amendment - Public Hearing continued from September 7, 2004 Section 26.312.030 - Non-Conforming Structures THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: September 21, 2004 SUMMARY: Gideon Kaufman, on behalf of the Lauder family, has submitted an amendment to the City's Land Use Code to allow the transfer of Floor Area to accommodate the expansion of an ADU on a property with nonconfonning FAR. The P&Z reviewed the amendment on September 7'11 and continued 1he hearing with several requests for additional information. P&Z requested an understanding of the number of properties which might be eligible for this new provision. Without an extensive FAR review of the residential inventory, it is not possible to know precisely how many properties containing AD Us are nonconforming. Staff estimates this number is very low. If the City lowers the FAR schedule in the future, more nonconformities would be created and additional properties may be eligible for this provision. P&Z should not expect this provision to apply to a significant munber of properties. Mr. Kaufman provided criteria for which a Special Review would be judged. These have been incorporated into the proposed resolution. These criteria should adequately address the circumstances of each case and staff supports these criteria. Staff has also provided criteria from the City's Historic TDR code for creating and extinguishing Historic TDRs. These have been modified to address this Floor Area transfer provision and cover such issues as analyzing a property for unbuiJt FAR, deed restricting the sending site, acknowledging additional rights on the receiver site, and not creating or increasing nonconformities. These additional criteria may be useful in P&Z's discussion and are attached as Exhibit B. Lastly P&Z requested a definition Carriage Houses. Carriage Houses are essential larger ADUs. This term was recently defined as follows: Carriage Haase. A deed restricted dwelling unit attached to or detachedfrom a principal residence situated on the same lot or parcel, and which meets the occupancy, dimensional and other requirements set forth in Section 26.520 of this Title, Clnd requirements setforth in the AJpenlPitkin County Housing Guidelines. ,..... ..... / RESOLUTION NO. '?JO (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26.312.030.C.3 OF THE CITY LAND USE CODE - NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURES TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR AREA. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the applicant to submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to sections 26.208; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishier Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030.C.3 of the Land Use Code and would permit additional development on properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit and which are non-conforming with respect to floor area; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Plalming Director recommended denial of amendments to the Land Use Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments, as described herein, on September 7, 2004, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a _ to _L-.J vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLOR~DO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Plmming and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.312.030.C.3 to include the following text: 26.312.030 Non-conforming structures. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 3/), Series of2004 Page 1 (4) The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADU. (5) No variance from setbacks can be required to accommodate the bonus floor area approved through this section of the Code. (6) The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. By way of example, a 15,000 square foot lot in the R-15 zone district is allowed 4,500 square feet of floor area. If 3,500 square feet of floor area in an existing home has been developed on the property, the sending site, there is 1,000 square feet of excess, unused floor area remaining. Five hundred (500) square feet of this unused floor area can be transferred to an ADU or Carriage House which is non-conforming with regard to floor area. A deed restriction limiting the allowed floor area on the sending site to 4,000 square feet (4,500 square feet allowed minus the 500 square foot bonus transferred) must be recorded. To utilize this floor area bonus, the receiving property's ADU or Carriage House after the expansion must not be larger than the maximum size allowed APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on ,2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Planning 3l1d Zoning Commission Resolution No. 3D, Series of 2004 Page 3 9. The Receiving Site is not restricted by a prescribed Floor Area limitation or the restricting document permits the extinguishment of Historic TDR Certificates for additional development rights. 10. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development on the Receiver Site, as established by this Title, have been obtained. II. The applicant has submitted the necessary materials for a building permit on the Receiver Site, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, and the additional development can be accommodated on the Receiver Site in conformance. with all other relevant requirements of the Land Use Code. The transfer of Floor Area shall not penuit the creation of a non-conforming use or structure. 12. Prior to, and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit on the Receiver Site for a development requiring the transferred Floor Area extinguisluuent of a Historic TDR Certificate(s), the Sending Site property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin COlmty Clerk and Recorder's Office. 13. The Community Development Director shall issue a letter confilming the transfer of Floor Area and increasing the available development rights of the Receiver Site. The applicant may wish to record this document with the Piktin County Clerk and Recorder. The confirmation letter shall not stipulate an absolute total Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage increase from the allowable Floor Area, according to the zone district and land use of the Receiver Site at the time of building permit submission. The Receiver Site shall remain subject to amendments to the allowable Floor Area and eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time 10 time. The form of the confirmation letter shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. 4 1 (1- ~ /r , . . .,? · .t-l uw .IfVI-UV\ / ~r:yvv1\"~, () I' -t. \;Je --+u /Ie I (J c/t bJvd . · (}J~,^+ GIn ~ cv:~: Ct (SP&V;~ vw,'w) -H!'cf.At f /1: lJJ0\Al& jlA~e.. - {;..J{JIA"p ~fe0t{.L t(j?ft:r- · pAt Cfl~ ~VV'- ~ wcCir (Ce.--f 1= Art ADu ~l/' Jil.JWc~- ev"'-o~U7 ~(Y~ ~~. /1-'\" 1V\-1-1lGVv\.' AO~ l,ljC<V\.TcJ v~7 JfLC1 ~ (.; . fYDc.vn. ct h."v0 s~; Vlff (p,UJ,/)- W I I I . * P/:& Cflv--~ o..~ vJ/ G-.'~_ Dyla", - cLu~J-- Lvl1.V'-+ OVL{ AYJvu wk...rk {).VC-- ~ fNv"\ l? M !A(Otvt- {) [e ~,h--. A OGG - vv,,-,.rt- ~ tLX"01 ~ &; d2tl~ ,. V1. +~W'>:J b~ J\Y-- L, - ~ ~ ~~k lC1.n,'{t~ YtoVveW'- tw\tl V,')j c{. ~ 1/21 MEMORANDUM '''''"'.....- TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission '-.J\A- Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director Chris Bendon, Senior Plalmer ~ Code Amendment - Public Hearing continued from September 7, 2004 Section 26.312.030 - Non-Conforming Structures THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: September 21, 2004 SUMMARY: Gideon Kaufman, on behalf of the Lauder family, has submitted an amendment to the City's Land Use Code to allow the transfer of Floor Area to accommodate the expansion of an ADU on a property with nonconforming FAR. The P&Z reviewed the amendment on September 7'11 and continued the hearing with several requests for additional information. P&Z requested an w1derstanding ofthe number of properties which might be eligible for this new provision. Without an extensive FAR review of the residential inventory, it is not possible to know precisely how many properties containing ADUs are nonconforming. Staff estimates this number is very low. If the City lowers the FAR schedule in the future, more nonconformities would be created and additional properties may be eligible for this provision. P&Z should not expect this provision to apply to a significant number of properties. Mr. Kaufman provided criteria for which a Special Review would be judged. These have been incorporated into the proposed resolution. These criteria should adequately address the circumstances of each case and staff supports these criteria. Staff has also provided criteria from the City's HIstoric TDR code for creating and extinguishing Historic TDRs. These have been modified to address this Floor Area transfer provision and cover such issues as analyzing a property for unbuilt FAR, deed restricting the sending site, acknowledging additional rights on the receiver site, and not creating or increasing nonconformities. These additional criteria may be useful in P&Z's discussion and are attached as Exhibit B. Lastly P&Z requested a definition Carriage Houses. Carriage Houses are essential larger ADUs. This term was recently defined as follows: Carriage House, A deed restricted dwelling unit attached to or detachedfi'om a principal residence situated on the same lot or parcel, and which meets the occupancy, dimensional and other requirements set forth in Section 26.520 of this Title, and requirements set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. The design standards of the ADU/Carriage House section of the code states: An ADU must contain between 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of which must . be a closet or storage area. A Carriage House must contain between 800 and 1,200 net C livable square feet, 10% of which must be closet or storage area. Staff recommended denial of this application due to the uncertainty of the text, a desire for these cases to be reviewed by P&Z, and a desire for the transferred floor area to rely on the City's newly-created Historic TDR program. The first two issues are addressed with the revised text. Again, P&Z may want to consider some or all of the Historic TDR criteria of Exhibit B. Staff continues to believe the floor area should be achieved through the City's Historic TDR program is recommending denial for that reason. ApPLICANT: Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson DishIer Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission considered this application on September 7, 2004, and continued it to this date. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed amendment as described in Resolution No.~, Series of2004. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No._, Series of 2004, recommending approval of a code amendment to permit expansion of non-conforming structures Note: Motions should always be made in the positive and then voted upon. This eliminates the possible confusion of a failed negative motion. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Additional Criteria adapted from Historic TDR Program 2 ...,''''' RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2004) ,- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26.3I2.030.C.3 OF THE CITY LAND USE CODE - NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURES TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR AREA. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the applicant to submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to sections 26.208; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishier Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030.C.3 of the Land Use Code and would permit additional development on properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit and which are non-conforming with respect to floor area; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended denial of amendments to the Land Use Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments, as described herein, on September 7,2004, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a _ to _L-~ vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.312.030.C.3 to include the following text: 26.312.030 Non-conforming structures. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. _, Series of2004 Page 1 ,',...... (C) (3) Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carriage House and also provided that the ADU or Can-iage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, and Special Review approval pursuant to Section 26.430. The 500 square foot floor area expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with the character of surrounding uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated. Only the floor area which will increase the ADU or Carriage House beyond the legally created non-conforming floor area (the expansion floor area) is required to be mitigated. If the impacts of the expanded use cannot be sufficiently mitigated otherwise, an additional method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in tile land use review, is to transfer the 500 square feet of floor area, or any amount up to 500 square feet, from a property with excess or unused floor area (the sending property) to the site containing the detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House (receiving ADU/Carriage House property). The amount of the floor area expansion bonus up to 500 square feet, will be subtracted from the maximum floor area allowed on the sending property. Only available floor area not developed or utilized on the sending site can be transferred. A deed restriction encumbering the sending site shall be recorded to reflect the extinguished floor area which has been transferred and is no longer available for use on the sending property. In addition to the special review criteria in Section 26.520.080, floor area from a TDR may be approved pursuant to the following additional review criteria: (I) The additional floor area is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable.) (2) The additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. (3) The additional floor area creates a unit which is more suitable for caretaker families. Plmming and Zoning Commission Resolution No. _, Series of 2004 Page 2 (4) The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADU. (5) No variance from setbacks can be required to accommodate the bonus floor area approved through this section of the Code. (6) The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. By way of example, a 15,000 square foot lot in the R-15 zone district is allowed 4,500 square feet of floor area. If 3,500 square feet of floor area in an existing home has been developed on the property, the sending site, there is 1,000 square feet of excess, unused floor area remaining. Five hundred (500) square feet of this unused floor area can be transferred to an ADU or Carriage House which is non-conforming with regard to floor area. A deed restriction limi1ing the allowed floor area on the sending site to 4,000 square feet (4,500 square feet allowed minus the 500 square foot bonus transfelTed) must be recorded. To utilize this floor area bonus, the receiving property's ADU or Carriage House after the expansion must not be larger than the maximum size allowed APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on ,2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. _' Series of 2004 Page 3 -,.0'''. " ". .., Exhibit B Criteria adapted from Historic TDR Program I. The development of a single-family or duplex residence is a pennitted use on the sending site, pursuant to Chapter 26.710 - Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. 2. It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt Floor Area, for either a single-family or duplex home equaling or exceeding the requested Floor Area to be transferred and that the transfer will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. 3. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development, any approved development order, and the allowable development right prescribed by zoning for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives. 4. If the sending site has a Development Order to develop a site-specific development plan which can no longer be developed due to Floor Area being transferred from the property, then that Development Order shall be considered null and void. If the sending site has a Development Order which is unaffected by the transfer of Floor Area, then that Development Order shall remain valid. 5. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is established as the property's use) minus the amount of Floor Area transferred. 6. For properties with multiple or unlimited Floor Areas for certain types of allowed uses, the maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall be the Floor Area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus the amount of Floor Area transferred. 7. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area for a single-family or duplex residence, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The fonn of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. 8. It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area. 3 /'""",, ',,,,,,,, ,~"'c..... "".""' ".,," " 9. The Receiving Site is not restricted by a prescribed Floor Area limitation or the restricting document permits the extinguishment. of Historic TDR Certificates for additional development rights. 10. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development on the Receiver Site, as established by this Title, have been obtained. II. The applicant has submitted the necessary materials for a building permit on the Receiver Site, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, and the additional development can be accommodated on the Receiver Site in confOlmance with all other relevant requirements of the Land Use Code. The transfer of Floor Area shall not permit the creation of a non-conforming use or structure. 12. Prior to, and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit on the Receiver Site for a development requiring the transferred Floor Area extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate(s), the Sending Site property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 13. The Community Development Director shall issue a letter confirming the transfer of Floor Area and increasing the available development rights of the Receiver Site. The applicant may wish to record this document with the Piktin County Clerk and Recorder. The confirmation letter shall not stipulate an absolute total Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage increase from the allowable Floor Area, according to the zone district and land use of the Receiver Site at the time of building permit submission. The Receiver Site shall remain subject to amendments to the allowable Floor Area and eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the confimlation letter shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. 4 SEP.14.2004 250PM KAUFMAN PETERSON DIS~LER ~O. 7189 p 2/3 DRAFT 26.312.030 Non-conformin& structures. (C) (2) Historic structures. The first exemption..... (3) Accessorv Dwellini Units. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carrialle House structure may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Camage House and also provided that the ADU or Carriage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Special Review approval pursuant to Section 26.430. The 500 square foot floor area expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a froding that the expansion shall be compatible with the character of surrounding uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated. Only the floor area which will increase the ADU or Carriage House beyond the legally created non- conforming floor area (the expansion floor area) is required to be miti~ated. If the impacts of the expanded use cannot be sufficiently mitigated otherwise, an additional method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to lI1lIIsfer the 500 square feet of floor area, or any amount up to 500 square feet, from a property with e)[cess or unused floor area (the sending property) to the site containing the detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House (receiving ADU/Carriage House property). The amount of the floor area expansion bonus up to 500 square feet, will be subtracted from the maximum floor area allowed on the sending property. Only available floor area not developed or utilized on the sending site can be transferred. A deed restriction encumbering the sending site shall be recorded to reflect the extinguished floor area which has been transferred and is no longer available for use on the sending property. In addition to the special review criteria in Section 26.520,080. floor area from a TOR may be approved pursuant to the following additional review criteria: (I) The additional floor area is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable.) (2) The additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. (3) The additional floor area creates a unit which is more suitable for caretaker families. .""", ().e. cLkc~ e ~CT (J/~ ~ 0..(7-/04:- 26.312.030 Non-conforming structures. (C) (2) Historic structures. Thefirst only exemption..... (3) Accessory Dwelling Units. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carriage House and also provided that the ADU or Carriage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Special Review approval pursuant to Section 26.430. The 500 square foot floor area expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with and consistent with the purposes of the underlying uses and consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone and the expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated.= Only the floor area which will increase the ADU or carriage house beyond the legallv created non-conforming floor area (the expansion floor area) is reauired to be mitigated. One method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to transfer the 500 square feet of floor area, or any amount up to 500 square feet, from a property with excess or unused floor area (the sending property) to the site containing the detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House (receiving ADU/Carriage House property). The amount of the floor area expansion bonus up to 500 square feet, will be subtracted from the maximum floor area allowed on the sending property. Only available floor area not developed or utilized on the sending site can be transferred. A deed restriction encumbering the sending site shall be recorded to reflect the extinguished floor area which has been transferred and is no longer available for use on the sending property. By way of example, a 15,000 square foot lot in the R-15 zone district is allowed 4,500 square feet of floor area. If 3,500 square feet of floor area in an existing home has been developed on the property, the sending site, there is 1,000 square feet of excess, unused floor area remaining. Five hundred (500) square feet of this unused floor area can be transferred to an ADU or Carriage House which is non-conforming with regard to floor area. A deed restriction limiting the allowed floor area on the sending site to 4,000 square feet (4,500 square feet allowed minus the 500 square foot bonus transferred) must be recorded. To utilize this floor area bonus, the receiving property's ADU or Carriage House after the expansion must not be larger than the maximum size allowed. TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: 1'1]3. MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission <..JA" Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director Chris Bendon, Senior Planne~tN\ Code Amendment - Section 26.312.030 - Non-Conforming Structures September 7, 2004 SUMMARY: Gideon Kaufman, on behalf of the Lauder family, has submitted an amendment to the City's Land Use Code. The amendment would permit the development of additional floor area on a property that currently exceeds its maximum allowable floor area. The additional floor area would be transferred from another property through a new TDR program. The specific case involves an Accessory Dwelling Unit that was built, along with the primary residence, with certain floor area bonuses that have since been amended. The Background section of this memo goes into greater detail. Staff is not supporting the code amendment as proposed and is recommending denial. Staff strongly prefers any transfer of floor area use the fledgling Historic TDR program. Otherwise, a new TDR program may dilute the potential of the Historic TDRs. The proposed text is unclear as to whether the transferred floor area must accommodate the extent of the nonconformity plus the expansion or only just the expansion floor area. And, staff prefers a system whereby a P&Z review of the specific case is required - not a "by-right" system. However, there may be some value in further discussing the ability of non-conforming structures to expand or the use of more than one Historic TDR per residence through an additional review. If the Planning and Zoning Commission is interested in such a system, staff suggests P&Z provide guidance to staff for further analysis. It should be noted that, associated with a soon-to-be submitted land u~e application, staffis expecting a request to amend the TDR program to permit more than one TDR be landed per residence. Staff recommends denial of the proposed amendment and that P&Z provide guidance to staff on any desired alternatives to be further explored. I ~ "~_.,~.-,..,~...".----~~........."~,~,..".,,~-,~"._..,,.....,---,,~~~,, ApPLICANT: Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishier Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered this application. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. BACKGROUND: The Lauder residence and ADU were built in compliance with the City's Floor Area code, which has since been amended. The former code granted two floor area bonuses for Accessory Dwelling Units. Fifty percent of an ADU's floor area was exempt if the ADU structure was detached from the primary residence and another 50% was exempt ifthe ADU was deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. Together, a 100% exemption was available for an ADU that was both detached and mandatory occupancy. The Lauder ADU qualified for this 100 % exemption and the primary house was developed to the maximum size considering the bonus. During the period ofthis mandatory occupancy floor area bonus, three ADU's were developed with a mandatory occupancy restriction. The City experienced significant difficulty in administering the mandatory occupancy and, in 200 I, decided to remove this option from the code altogether. The ADU code was amended to require ADUs be detached to gain a growth management exemption for the primary residence and the floor area exemption was retooled to provide a 100% exemption only if the ADU was condominiumized and sold to a local working resident through the Housing Authority's Guidelines. The program allows the property owner to choose the first purchaser, as long as that person qualifies through the Housing Guidelines. At the same time as eliminating the mandatory occupancy bonus, the City amended the code to provide a process of removing the mandatory occupancy restriction from an existing ADU through a landowner provision of either an off-site deed restricted unit or a cash-in-lieu payment equal to the market value of the bonus area. This was done in response to a landowner with a mandatory occupancy ADU. The City's code amendment in 2001 made the Lauder property a "legally created non- conformity." Specifically, the Lauder ADU no longer qualified for a floor area exemption and the property contained too much floor area. The City's non- conforming regulations allow legally created non-conformities to exist in perpetuity, but prohibit expansions of the non-conformity. (i.e. a house that is over it's floor area cannot be added on to.) 2 ~".~~_...._--_......--.>_._~-,~,~-,~.,.~~,"..., -. The Lauder ADU is a one-floor unit developed over a storage basement that was also exempt from the calculation of floor area. The storage area was purposely developed as non-inhabitable space (no window wells) to maintain it being exempt from floor area. Basement levels count towards floor area proportionately to the extent they are exposed. Window wells increase the exposure and require more of that basement level to count towards the property's total Floor Area allowance. The Lauder family now wants to convert the basement to habitable space to accommodate the caretaker's expanded family. To do so requires the installation of window wells to serve as emergency egress, requiring floor area. The non- conforming status of the property prevents any additional floor area to be developed although two development options exist. A no-net-gain plan, whereby the increase in floor area on the ADU would be balanced with an equal floor area reduction to the primary house, and deed restricting the ADU and selling it to the caretaker. Neither of these options have been sought. A building permit to install window wells in the ADU structure was submitted to the Building Department and denied due to a lack of floor area. The improvements were built without a permit and the construction was "red tagged" by the Building Department. The improvements were then removed and the property returned to its previous condition. Code amendments can be initiated by the Planning Director, the P&Z, or the City Council. Amendments can be initiated by a private party if one of the three bodies allows the application. The applicant requested staff initiate a code amendment to alleviate this circumstance and staff declined to initiate the action. The applicant approached City Council and requested they allow the application to be submitted. In allowing the application to be submitted, City Council did not endorse or otherwise address the merits of such an amendment. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff does not support this code amendment, as written, for the following reasons: Introducing a new transferable development rights program is not recommended. The City recently created a Historic TDR program in to transfer floor area from historic landmark properties to non-historic properties. The Historic TDR program is in its infancy and no transactions have yet occurred, although interest has been expressed. At a minimum, this proposed amendment should rely on and bolster the existing Historic TDR program and not dilute it through creation of a new system. It is unclear with this proposed language whether or not the proposal is to transfer only enough floor area to accommodate the expansion or ifthe intent is to first accommodate the floor area overage and then the expansion. Staff recommends that a system of permitting oversized houses to expand should require a transfer of floor area equal to the overage plus the expansion, not just the expansion. 3 M _,___._.""._.. _, _ .".,..__~.~,__~_,.",_.._~~_,,_~._._~..,,____,~"__-~.,,_ ,. . ..,--"..... Staff also believes a review process with P&Z should be included for such an action as opposed to a by-right system as proposed. A P&Z review could weigh the merits of a specific case, the benefits to the community, impacts on the neighborhood, the resulting house size, etc. The idea of permitting rnore than one Historic TDR to be landed per residence may be worth pursuing. The intent of the one-per-residence allowance was to reduce potential impacts on surrounding properties and not create significantly over-scaled houses. Allowing more than one TDR to be landed per residence could be administered through a Planning and Zoning Commission review to address issues of neighborhood compatibility. The P&Z should consider the application, as submitted, and render a decision on it's merits. If the P&Z does not recommend approval of the application, staff recommends a more general discussion take place regarding the merits of permitting non-conforming structures to expand through some process and the concept of permitting more than one Historic TDR per residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed amendment as described in Resolution No3Q Series of 2004. If the proposal is not endorsed, Staff recommends P&Z conduct a general discussion and direct staff accordingly. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No..3Q, Series of 2004, recommending approval of a code amendment to permit expansion of non-conforming structures Note: Motions should always be made in the positive and then voted upon. This eliminates the possible confusion of a failed negative motion. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B - Application 4 ,fro" .-~-",.,,< RESOLUTION NO. f:[) (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26.312.030.C.3 OF THE CITY LAND USE CODE - NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURES TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR AREA. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the applicant to submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to sections 26.208; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishier Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030.C.3 of the Land Use Code and would permit additional development on properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit and which are non-conforming with respect to floor area; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended denial of amendments to the Land Use Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments, as described herein, on September 7, 2004, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a _ to _L-.J vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.312.030.C.3 to include the text of Exhibit A, appended to this resolution. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 3D, Series of2004 Page 1 >.,...___"~__,,.~_ _._..._.._..__~_r,_~__._."~_~..~..----""~">>~''''''~'''''^'~'''''' APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on , 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No.3D, Series of 2004 Page 2 YUs.",'1 / HORN 970 '25-5180 p.3 26.312.030 Non-conforming structures. ~hib'tt A - ~~ ~ ND. ~i~ of- ~ (C) (2) Historic structures. Thefirst only exemption..... (3) Accessorv Dwelling Units. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor .area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carriage House and also provided that the ADU or Carriage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlargement or expansion must. comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units. The 500 square foot floor area expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards of the Aspen Land. Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with and consistent with the purposes of the underlying uses and consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone and the expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated. One method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to transfer the 500 square feet of floor area, or any amount up to 500 square feet, from a property "vith excess or unused floor area (the sending property) to the site containing the detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House (receiving ADU/Carriage House property). The amount ofthe floor area expansion bonus up to 500 square feet, will be subtracted from the maximum floor area allowed on the sending property. Only available floor area not developed or utilized on the sending site can be transferred. A deed restriction encumbering the sending site shall be recorded to reflect the extinguished floor area which has been transferred and is no longer available for use on the sending prop~rty. By way of example, a 15,000 square foot lot in the R-15 zone district is allowed 4,500 square feet of floor area. If 3,500 square feet of floor area in an existing home has been developed on the property, the sending site, there is 1,000 square feet of excess, unused floor area remaining. Five hundred (500) square feet of this unused floor area can be transferred to an ADU or Carriage House which is non-conforming with regard to floor area. A deed restriction limiting the allowed floor area on the sending site to 4,000 square feet (4,500 square feet allowed minus the 500 square foot bonus transferred) must be recorded. To utilize this floor area bonus, the receiving property's ADU or Carriage House after the expansion must not be larger than the maximum size allowed. ~"i' .", Exhibit A Non-Conforming Structure Amendment STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment Section 26.310.040, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed code amendment intends to create a process to allow a property owner to expand a non-conforming structure by transferring floor area from another property. The proposed text does not clearly indicate whether the floor area by which the structure is non-conforming (the overage) is to be part of the required floor area transferred. This ambiguity needs to be corrected. Otherwise, the text will need to be interpreted prior to its use. Staff does not believe this standard is met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The AACP does speaks to both limiting the size of houses, for community character reasons, and promoting affordable housing opportunities, especially by the private sector. This code amendment could address both issues by transferring floor area from one lot to another and by increasing opportunity for affordable housing. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This amendment is proposed for all residential zone districts and is not specific to one parcel. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 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 facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. staff comments page I "'~ ", - " ,,,iT F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not allow for any density changes and no impacts on infrastructure are expected as a result of the amendment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The amendment would make it easier to make an addition to existing ADUs located on lots where more than the allowable floor area has been developed. The flexibility for ADUs is compatible with community character. The increase in allowable square footage for a particular lot could be out of scale with surrounding properties and could be considered out of character. Without a review process to determine the neighborhood compatibility of each use of this code amendment, staff does not believe this standard is met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The amendment is not specific to one parcel. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: This proposed amendment could dilute the potential of the recently adopted Historic Transferable Development Rights Program. This would occur if any property could become a sending site for floor area. Staff believes this represents a conflict with the public interest - namely the public interest of preservation of historic resources through the Historic TDR program. staff comments page 2 - """' ,""c,.( , CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Al!reement for Pavment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and GIDEON KAUFMAN (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for ADU Floor Area Amendment to Land Use Code (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a detennination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing Dr present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a detennination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 2.620.00 which is for J1...hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $210.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building pennits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. APPLICAN. ~, By: By: nn Woods unity Development Director Date: '/17.../0~ r I Billing Address and Telephone Number: Reauired do Gideon Kaufman Kaufman Peterson and Dishier, 315 E. Hyman, #305 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-8166 g:\suPPDrt\forms\agrpayas.doc 6/05/03 "" \..," ......, , ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF ASPEN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEE POLICY The City of Aspen, pursuant to Ordinance 57 (Series of 2000), has established a fee structure for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. Referral fees for other City departments reviewing the application will also be collected when necessary. One check including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the AspenlPitkin Community Development Department. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for Administrative Approvals which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. The fee is not refundable. A deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff review is required, as hours are likely to vary substantially from one application to another. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Several different staff members may charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Staff time is logged to the case and staff can provide a summary report of hours spent at the applicant's request. After the deposit has been expended, the applicant will be billed monthly based on actual staff hours. Applicants may accrue and be billed additional expenses for a planner's time spent on the case following any hearing or approvals, up until the applicant applies for a building permit. Current billings must be paid within 30 days or processing of the application will be suspended. If an applicant has previously failed to pay application fees as required, no new or additional applications will be accepted for processing until the outstanding fees are paid. In no case will Building Permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. When the case planner determines that the case is completed (whether approved or not approved), the case is considered closed and any remaining balance from the deposit will be refunded to the applicant. Applications which require a deposit must include an Agreement for Pavment of Development Application Fees. The Agreement establishes the applicant as being responsible for payment of all costs associated with processing the application. The Agreement must be signed by the party responsible for payment and submitted with the application and fee in order for a land use case to be opened. The current complete fee schedule for land use applications is listed on the next page. - ....'" ~ , ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2004 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CATEGORY HOURS Major 12 Minor 6 Staff Approvals Flat Fee Board of Adjustment Exempt HP Certificate of No Negative Effect Minor HPC Significant HPC <1000 sq. ft. Significant HPC > 1000 sq. ft. Demolition, Partial Demolition, Relocation Substantial Amendment to Approved Certificate of Appropriateness Appeals Referral Fees - Environmental Health Major Minor Referral Fees - Housing Major Minor Referral Fees - City Engineer Major Minor Hourly Rate DEPOSIT 2,620.00 1,310.00 546.00 546.00 1310.00 2620.00 2620.00 546.00 546.00 FLAT FEE 302.00 177.00 00.00 312.00 355.00 185.00 355.00 185.00 355.00 185.00 220.00 - c.... , CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Chris Hendon, 920.5072 DATE: 6.9.04 PROJECT: REPRESENTATIVE: OWNER: TYPE OF APPLICATION: DESCRIPTION: ADU Floor Area Amendment Gideon Kaufman Lauder 2 step - Land Use Code Amendment Mr. And Mrs. Lauder have expressed interest in a code amendment to permit the expansion of an ADU on their property. The property has a non-conforming Floor Area. Their house and ADU were built under a previous FAR code which exempted the net livable square footage of the ADD. The code has since changed and the ADU now fully counts towards the calculation of Floor Area. The Lauders wish to expand the ADU by converting uninhabitable basement space to living space. This requires window well improvements which increase the Floor Area calculation of the structure. land Use Code Sections: 26.310 Amendments to the land Use Code 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures Review by: Staff for Completeness, Community Development Director for recommendation, Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation, City Council for final decision. Yes, P&Z, and City Council. Notice is publication in the newspaper. Zoning Officer $2,620 (deposit for 12 hours) $0 $2,620 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $220/hour). Public Hearing: Referral Agencies: Planning Fees: Referral Agency Fees: Total Deposit: To apply, submit the following information: 1. Proof of ownership and letter signed by the applicant stating representative authorization. 2. Signed fee agreement 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which request is applicable, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Total deposit for review of the application 5. 20 Copies of the complete application packet. 6. Additional materials as required by the specific review. Please refer to specific submittal requirements of the code sections noted above. 7. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Review standards are included in the above reference code citations. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Notes: . A site improvement survey is not required. . A general description of the property and its development history should be included. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. .- ';I """ APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO LAND USE CODE 1. Application for Amendment. This Application for Amendment to Land Use Code is made pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Title 26, Land Use Regulations, Part 26, Sections sections 26.310 and 26.304. 2. Factual Summarv. A brief summary of the proposal is as follows: The amendment to the Code is proposed to alleviate a situation created by previous Code changes, and allow a positive result for employee housing. What precipitated this request is a caretaker unit which was approved and has been built. After the unit's approval and construction, the Code was changed - making the caretaker unit non-conforming because of FAR. This eliminated flexibility and options. When this caretaker unit was approved, its occupants were a couple who were long-time employees of the owners of the property and of Aspen. They now have two children. The unit, a wonderful free-standing house, contains one bedroom, one bath, a kitchen, and living area above grade. Below grade, there is an office and storage/mechanical room. It is a beautiful, free-standing employee unit - one that was described glowingly by the Planning Office in its original memo, supporting the approval of this particular unit. In order to accommodate a family of four, all that would need to be modified from the existing footprint would be to place two window wells that would provide appropriate egress and ventilation so that below ground space can be used as bedrooms. Then the unit, without changing its footprint, could accommodate a family. As a non-conforming structure, Applicant is not able to increase, modify, or change the unit in any way. We, therefore, have proposed a Code amendment that would allow changes to a legally created unit made non-conforming by Code changes, so the window wells can be placed on the property, allowing the family to utilize the bedrooms for the children. By doing this, we will be able to accomplish a very important community goal of providing quality affordable housing for families. Our proposed Code amendment would allow the use of TDRs. The extra FAR that will result from the additional window wells can be permitted as a community benefit, or if you feel 1 ~ ,... " mitigation is necessary, we are providing that one could acquire free-market FAR from a property that has not been fully developed and deed-restrict it so that whatever FAR is added to the ADU would come out of FAR of a free-market unit, thereby taking free- market FAR and converting it to employee housing FAR. This amendment is a small item, but a major item for the family concerned, and also a wonderful opportunity for the City to enhance its affordable housing program without detriment to anyone, a win-win situation for everyone. 3. Standards of review. (a) Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the applicable portions of this title. (b) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed amendment fosters the idea of managing growth, consistent with the concept of a community growth boundary, and maintaining growth inside the boundary. The proposed amendment is consistent with the concept of protecting open lands, and has no negative effects with respect to development outside the boundary. The proposed amendment is consistent with the concept of affordable housing. It is a good example of promoting the continuing goal of providing affordable housing under circumstances that require community and government to work together towards the community goal. The proposed amendment promotes the concept of managing transportation insofar as it would certainly encourage employees in the City of Aspen to continue to reside within the City limits, and therefore reduce the traffic associated with commuting. In addition, with employee units located within the City limits, the obvious benefits of traveling by foot, bicycle and public transportation would also be promoted. The proposed amendment promotes economic sustainability. It 2 ~ ~ , / , ' allows the employees in the City of Aspen to maintain a productive and healthy lifestyle within the City limits, and thereby promotes the concept of a healthy and diverse economic base supporting the local economy, as the well as the tourist industry. The proposed amendment allows for managing parks and open space and the environment. It fosters the concept of minimal expansion of existing employee units with little to no negative impact as a result, and thereby reduces the need to construct new employee housing, and perhaps encroach on open space and have negative effects on wildlife corridors as a result of such new construction. In addition, proposed mitigation would promote the concept of reducing available increased square footage of free- market units, both within and without the City, through use of the TDR transfer system. Finally, the proposed amendment contributes towards maintaining community character and design. Again, through the minimal expansion of existing ADU for purposes of accommodating the needs of employees in the city, community character and design are promoted. This is especially true in light of the current situation where long-time employees have decided to settle in the Aspen area and have children, which strengthens community character. Making available additional space for existing ADUs for employee units promotes the idea of a consistent standard of design of the highest quality. Existing units have already been approved and have been determined to be compatible with the community and its historic features and environment. (e) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. The proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing uses and neighborhood characteristics. The existing use and characteristics of the neighborhood is primarily residential. The proposed amendment fosters the concept of residential neighborhood and the growth of local employees and their families in the area. This produces a postive benefit, both socially and economically. (d) The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic 3 - ....... \'".j' ',. ,J generation and road safety. There is no negative effect on traffic generation and road safety as a result of the proposed amendment. Insofar as the proposed amendment promptes the continued viability of employees living in the City, it is contrary to the concept of increased automobile traffic, which reduces the potential for unsafe road and traffic conditions. (e) Whether and to the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. The proposed amendment would not result in excessive demands on public facilities, and would not cause the capacity of such public facilities described above to be exceeded. The proposed amendment promotes use of existing construction for employee housing. It does not promote new and additional growth, and thereby does not create any increased demand on the public facilities. (f) Whether and to the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed amendment would no adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed amendment promotes preservation of the natural environment. It promotes the concept of utilizing existing employee units for purposes of accommodating an increase in the size of families who utilize and need the existing employee units. This creates less of a demand for the construction of new employee units or other construction- related effects that may have a negative affect on natural environment. (g) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with community character in the City of Aspen. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with community character in the City of Aspen. The community character in the City of Aspen is one of strong family relationships, and common core values which promote the concept 4 ,.-, ~. of a strong diverse community. As conditions in Aspen's residential neighborhoods change due to positive impacts of employees residing and raising their families in the community, the proposed amendment allows for a less expensive method of providing needed employee housing and facilitates growth of families while simultaneously promoting common core values and positive community benefits. (h) affecting the which support Whether there have been changed conditions subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood the proposed amendment. There have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel in that the couple residing in the employee unit now have two children and desire to use existing space within the ADU to create bedroom area for the two children, This condtion is not unusual to the City of Aspen, and is a situation which we see happening more and more all the time. There are no changed physical conditions which have any negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood. (i) Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. The proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes of the title to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Aspen through the establishment and enforcement of comprehensive, efficient, clear, and consistent standards, regulations, and procedures for the planning, evaluation, approval, and implementation of land uses and development within the City as it applies specifically to the goal of providing affordable employee housing. The proposed amendment furthers the foregoing purpose, and when viewed in light of its impact on historic, architectural, aesthetic and natural environmental character of the City, the City's economic and infrastructure needs and capacity and the legitimate rights and reasonable expectations of property owners, the proposed amendment will confer benefits to the City. (j) The context of the proposed code amendment is attached hereto. In summary, it provides for enlargement of a detached ADU or carriage house by up to 500 square feet of floor area. It provides a method for mitigating any adverse impacts on the surrounding uses by allowing people to require use of free- 5 r"" " ,..... market FAR from a property that has not been fully developed and to deed restrict it to whatever FAR is added to the ADU which would come out of the FAR of the free-market unit. This would result in taking free-market FAR and converting it to employee housing FAR. (k) Conclusion. Sometimes, small items that provide a positive and a win-win result for the goals of both the City of Aspen and its citizens get caught up in our very complex land use code. The proposed amendment is a common-sense solution to the question at hand, and provides a positive and cost-efficient method for achieving a community oriented goal. C:\Clients\Lauder\code amendment application.wpd 6 Jun 03 04 10:56a YU~ I HORN 97P->S25 -5180 p.3 . .. 26.312.030 Non-conforming structures. (C) (2) Historic structures. Thefirst only exemption..... (3) Accessorv Dwelling Units. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor.area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carriage House and also provided that the ADU or Carriage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units. The 500 square foot floor area expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards of the Aspen Land. Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with and consistent with the purposes of the underlying uses and consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone and the expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated. One method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to transfer the 500 square feet of floor area, or any amount up to 500 square feet, from a property with excess or unused floor area (the sending property) to the site containing the detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House (receiving ADU/Carriage House property). The amount of the floor area expansion bonus up to 500 square feet, will be subtracted from the maximum floor area allowed on the sending property. Only available floor area not developed or utilized on the sending site can be transferred. A deed restriction encumbering the sending site shall be recorded to reflect the extinguished ,floor area which has been transferred and is no longer available for use on the sending property. By way of example, a 15,000 square foot lot in the R-15 zone district is allowed 4,500 square feet of floor area. If 3,500 square feet of floor area in an existing home has been developed on the property, the sending site, there is 1,000 square feet of excess, unused floor area remaining. Five hundred (500) square feet of this unused floor area can be transferred to an ADU or Carriage House which is non-conforming with regard to floor area. A deed restriction limiting the allowed floor area on the sending site to 4,000 square feet (4,500 square feet allowed minus the 500 square foot bonus transferred) must be recorded. To utilize this floor area bonus, the receiving property's ADU or Carriage House after the expansion must not be larger than the maximum size allowed. , ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: -mfJ., (~')JIf2 4l-0 'f'U{'AAspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: o/~/d--r ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. Connty of Pitkin ) I, ~ VV1~ L, ~dl (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: X Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. _ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (.~ign) is attached hereto. _ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) - '- '" - Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. :J::i/A/J' L ~dt 19nature The for~oing "Affidavit of Notice" was a~ledged befO{e Q1e this#-~ay of ~..~ ,200.!t,by '-~S h'-~~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUBUC NOTICE RE: CITY- -OF AS ~ USE C-oDE- AMEND- MENT -- NEW.T lEDEVELOPM.ENT R1GtITS PR PROPOSED TO AlLEVIATE NON.cQ STIl~TURfS - _ SECTIo.N 26.312.03O.C.3.< NOTIcE IS Hml>:BY GIVEN th.....h!k heMl"ll Notary Public will be beld on TUesday, September 7, 2004 at a meetIn8'to -~at''':30 p.m,.beIore t~e Aspen Planning -and.lonlPB CommiSsion, SIster CIties - Roo!li" oty; HaR.130~! ,Galena St., Aspen, to con- sider an, ~ .ubmttt~ by Gideon' Kauf- manfora.~._~~trigbts program .10 legaJkefJoor area non-conrormltles on propeJ1ies wtth'an._~ Dwelling Unit or ~Jlouse; -~ IIMndnient proposal I. for SeeOoIi26.312.C't30:C.3. ATTACHMENTS Fo, ....h;,;c.._, ""'tact Ch... Bendoo " : the C1tyeil'AspefI COdmiimt&y'Development De- ~t. 130 S. Galena St..~. co, (970}.920- 5\172;......_.......:.0....... . . . COPYOFTHEPUBLICATlON . S/J~Tygre~ Chair """pen lng and ZoningCODJml&Slon enhl""" 10 1'h As.... "- on "-' 21, (PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE 'SIGN\ 2004. (1837) ~ I / m GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL o ,.-., ,.; CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AlITeement for Pavment of City of Aspen Develonment Anplication Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and GIDEON KAUFMAN (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for ADU Floor Area Amendment to Land Use Code (hereinafter, TIfE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee sttucture for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 2.620.00 which is for .lL,hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $210.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICAN By: By: Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director Date: Billing Address and Telephone Number: Reouired do Gideon Kaufman Kaufman Peterson and DisWer, 315 E. Hyman, #305 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-8166 g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc 6/05/03 . . , " PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT - NEW TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM PROPOSED TO ALLEVIATE NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURES - SECTION 26.312.030.C.3. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p,m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Gideon Kaufinan for a new transferable development rights program to legalize floor area non-conformities on properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House. The amendment proposal is for Section 26.3l2.030.C.3. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jasmine TVl!re. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 21, 2004 City of Aspen Account . , , , , , , , , , , , , ~ , , , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ....'''"' "'""" ,'"",- ......". , ~, --------------- ------------ j t , . I ~Il I ~ ::')1: , , t t . t . t ~ . ~~ i ~~ " I H . t "~ Z t . ~- . . . ~~ ~, ~ - - t ~ t I --1"'- . I~-:: -, ,~- II II ~;:: . . :: -- ~-L-~-~tJ~-L-- ---- --- I,-----~ --,-r------ I . I I tlill I I I I ~~ I II .. II II II " " ___..LL I t t ,,-------------- . < . . r t I ~ ~ ~ t I ~~ I. I Ii I ~ a~ ~ - ~'A < .....-- - ..... ...... - --...... -------------------------------=~----- @ !oG\m41!Lev"'OGII<'-~_ - ..........~ - -----------------_________m__=~___________ @ U6rl!l,.2V"'"""r5ll>l!~~ -----------. - -- '< J ~ --------------------=-~.:~.=.::=---_._---------------- --- =~-----------_._--------------------- @1ICllIlf)01!I,.2V"'TlCIN~~_ - .......-- - \....- /'.... . .,; GIDEON I. KAUFMAN* HAL S. DISHLER" PATRICK D. MCALLISTER LAW OFFICES OF KAUFMAN, PETERSON & DISHLER, P.C. BROOKE A. PETERSON OF COUNSEL . ALSO ADMITTED IN MARYLAND .. ALSO ADMmeo IN TEXAS 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 925-8166 FACSIMILE (970) 925-1090 July 8, 2004 HAND-DELIVERED Mr. Chris Bendon Aspen/pitkin Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Land Use Code Amendment Application Dear Chris: Enclosed please find 20 copies of an Application for ADU Floor Area Amendment, including Pre-Application Conference Summary, Fee Agreement, and our check in the amount of $2,620 payable to pitkin County Treasurer. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Sincerely, ET SON & DISHLER P.C. nal Corporation By Gi Kaufman GK/bw Enclosures